Jihad versus Terrorism

In the perspective of Kashmir issue

By

DR. Muhammad Farooq Khan

Jihad versus Terrorism Jihad versus Terrorism

Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan

Foreward
Today Jihad is generally considered to be the only solution to the problems facing the Muslim world. Most religious scholars urge the new generation to prepare themselves for an armed struggle against the forces of evil. Because of the prevailing standpoint, the armed struggle going in Kashmir, Afghanistan, Palestine and some other regions of the world is also given the name of Jihad and regarded to be the foremost obligation upon Muslins today. On the other hand, other nations and polities of the world regard all this activity as terrorism. These circumstances have given rise to many questions in the mind of a common Muslim. Some of them are: What is the true concept of Jihad in Islam? Is Jihad obligatory upon every Muslim in his individual capacity? Can various groups conduct Jihad in their independent capacity? Is the armed struggle going on in Kashmir, Afghanistan, and some other regions of the world in accordance with the Quranic injunctions of Jihad?

The author, Dr. Farooq Khan has discussed all these questions in a very simple and lucid manner. Dr. Farooq takes pride in presenting his mind on solid arguments and is always willing to accept any criticism on his views on the same grounds.

We hope that the book will do away with the various misconceptions that prevail today about the doctrine of Jihad.

Jihad versus Terrorism In the perspective of Kashmir issue Summary

Jihad means to make an utmost effort to achieve some objective. Most this word, in the Quran has been used in sense of struggle and strife while the term Qital has been used for war. However, both Jihad and Qital are being used, these days as synonymous terms. Hence, Jihad is used in the sense of armed battle in this article as well. The first principle that we establish about Jihad is that it is only the prerogative of the state. It is solely the responsibility of the state to announce, manage and control Jihad. Islam rules out any concept of private army. The whole force has to be under the same command undertaking its duties in a disciplined and united way. The second principle is that Jihad is deemed valid only when its purpose is to avert oppression. The third principle is that war is disallowed against the country which has a peace accord with the state. Such a country can not be attacked without a prior declaration about the annulment of the accord even if it is found guilty of oppressing its Muslim resident. The fourth principle is that Jihad should be declared only when all material resources are available in order to materialize the strategy and there are bright prospects of winning the war and sustaining it too. The events taken place in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya have been analyzed in the light of the above four mentioned principles. Afterwards, the issue of Kashmir has been analyzed in the light of the same principles and some useful suggestions have been made for its solution.

The Meaning of Jihad:

Jihad means to make an utmost effort to achieve an objective; it is not just a synonym for war. The real word for war is Qital whereas every kind of struggle is taken in the sense of Jihad. When the whole struggle is meant for the pleasure of God it is called Jihad Fi-Sabeelillah. This word has been used, mostly in the Quran in the connotation of struggle. However, it has also been used, on certain occasions for an armed battle (Qital). In fact, the context of this word determines the true sense everywhere. The Quran has the specific word Qital for an armed battle.

The Importance of this discussion:

It is widely discussed, these days among Muslims and non Muslims both what is the true concept of Jihad and where a line of demarcation can be drawn between Jihad and terrorism. It is a very important and serious discussion. During the last two decades several fatal battles have been fought in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Philippines, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo and many other places spanned on years which claimed more death toll among Muslims which was not less than millions in number. Out of all these ventures, just one struggle met with success in Bosnia. Kosovo is heading towards success. The Chechen government was abolished by Russia. The war has not yet reached its logical end in Afghanistan though it has claimed the lives of two million Afghans. The movement in Kashmir has been in progress for the last twelve years. During this period, some secret militant organizations engaged themselves in bloody activities in some Muslim and some no Muslim countries. These activities where termed as Jihad by one side whereas they were labeled as terrorism by the other side. It is, therefore essential for us to see what, according to Islam is Jihad and which militant activities are forbidden. Through this article, we shall discuss some basic principles about Jihad and will try to apply those principles in the perspective of the issue of Kashmir. The first principle in the context of Jihad is that no group or organization other than state has a right to undertake some armed activity. It is essential that Jihad is declared by the government and it should be the sole responsible authority to manage and control Jihad. There is no concept of a private army in Islam. It has the logic that the Holy Prophet was granted the permission of Jihad during his Madinite period when he had acquired power. Jihad and Qital had been forbidden during the thirteen year period of the Prophets stay at Makkah when he did not possess power. Mufti Muhammad Shafi says: There is a consensus among the whole Ummah that Jihad and Qital were disallowed before the migration to Madina. All Quranic verses at that time instructed the Muslims to be patient at the oppression by the pagans. (Maaraf-al-Quran, Vol. 1 page: 469) The initial Quranic verses that allowed war against oppression are included in Surah Al-Hajj. The Quran Says. Permission (to take up arms) is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged. Allah has power to grant them victory: those who have been unjustly driven from their homes only because they said: Our lord is Allah. (Al-Hajj 22:39-40) The words Permission is hereby given indicate that permission for war had not been granted before. The words Those who have been unjustly driven from their homes

prove that first they migrated, assumed power and then they were allowed to undertake war. The words, they have been wronged prove that Islam allows Jihad only against oppression. The other verses in the context of Jihad were revealed in Al-Baqarah as 190---193, 216 and 224. The Quran says, Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not be aggressive. Allah does not love the aggressors. (Al-Baqara 2:190) The whole history of prophets reveal that even prophets, the chief torch bearers of the faith of God were not allowed to take up Jihad without having assumed power. This is why no prophet declared Jihad unless he had control of some state. They were wronged and oppressed but neither they took up arms nor avenged themselves upon aggressors even they and their companions were dislodged from their habitations. But they never became intolerant because they were directed the same by the Almighty. The whole lives of prophets like Noah, Loot, Saleh, Shoaib, Ibrahim, Musa, Younis and Christ are devoid of even the mention of Jihad. The prophet, Musa did not take a step towards Jihad or Qital unless the Bani-Israil had been evacuated from Egypt and organized in the free territory of the desert of Sina. Holy Christ has no reference to Jihad throughout his life because he was not granted rule though he followed and practiced Torat, which had clear instructions about Jihad. The Holy Prophet had not been granted rule during the Makkan period therefore he never took up arms despite every kind of aggression done against him. He directed his companions during the Makkan period to show tolerance. For example when Sumayya and her husband, Yasir were martyred, he told their relatives not to take revenge rather said, I assure you of paradise in return to this oppression. The Prophet explained the concept of ruler and Jihad through one of his orders: A Muslim ruler is a shield for Muslims. Qital is just possible under his leadership and this is why people seek his shelter. (It mean that he has to take the final decision in all matters including war and peace) (Bokhari, 2957) The Quran instructions regarding making peace with the enemy can only be implemented by a government. The detailed discussion, in this context would come on a later stage. Islam clearly instructs Muslims not to be divided into several factions and sects rather they should remain united. It is only possible when they remain loyal to their state and government, try to rectify every mistake of the government peacefully and follow the rule in every matter of collective nature. The Quan says:

Cling one and all to the faith of Allah and let nothing divide you. Remember the favors He has bestowed upon you: how He united your hearts when you were enemies, so that you are now brothers through His grace; and how He delivered you from the abyss of fire when you were on the very brink of it. (Al-Imran 3:103) Obey Allah and His Apostle and do not dispute with one another, lest you should lose courage and your resolve weaken. Have patience: Allah is with those that are patient. (Al-Anfal 8:46) The most opportune moment for unity is in the event of war the lack of which increases the prospects for the enemys dominace. Hence, the decision of war or peace taken at the government level if followed by the subjects, ascertains the security of the Muslim state. The study of the history reveals that the scholars had such a consensus on the principle of restricting the prerogative of the declaration of Jihad with the state only that it had never been differed except two or three people throughout last several centuries. Al-Syed-al-Sabiq writes in Fiqah-al-Sunnah: The third kind of Kafaya Faraiz is conditioned with the inclusion of the ruler like Jihad and the determination of limits because the sole right in all these matters rests with the ruler. No one else has the right to fix limits for any one. (Fiqah-al-Sunnah, Vol 3. Page: 10) Maulana Zafar Ahmed Thanvi expressed the same opinion while throwing light on the issue in Aalaa-al-Sunnah Vol 12, page: 3-6.

The hazards of a war without state declaration:

War is just the prerogative of the state. It is a real injunction. Besides this it is reality that an armed struggle led by an army headed by its chief who possessed some territory or had a state openly at his back has met with success in history. The reason is clear. If the people go on forming their own armed factions, different political parties erect their private armies, do not respect the state treaties and declare war at their own end, the country would be stricken with chaos and anarchy. It would affect the country negatively both internally. There is a possibility that such militant groups get entangle with one another. It is therefore, necessary that war or peace is declared just by the government.

The analysis of objections on this stance:

Since the outset of the Afghan war in 1979 has generated several private armed Jihadi organizations within the Muslim Ummah, they have laid several objections on the above stance. It seems better to analyse them all.

The first objection is that Jihad is the order of God. The Holy Prophet did not announce it during the Makkan period because he was not strong enough to do so. Had he gained sufficient strength, he would certainly have declared it there as well. The answer to this allegation is that at one time during the Makkan period, Muslims were in such a large number that Jihad could have been declared. The code of assistance for the companions of the Prophet declared by God through Al-Anfal 65-66 says that the war would have resulted in their favour even if they had been ten against a hundred. Apart from a few years in the beginning the ratio of the Muslim population in Makkah has always been more than 10%. The second aspect in this context is that God could have helped Muslims during the Makkan period but the war remained forbidden for them despite worst forms of cruelties against Muslims. The gravity of the oppression has lessened during the Madinite period as Muslims had left Makkah but God issued the following instruction at this moment: Permission (to take up arms) is hereby to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged. Allah has power to grant them victory. Mufti Muhammad Shafi writes in explanation to the above Quranic verse:

The first order of Jihad against the pagans:

The pagans were so cruel against Muslims of Makkah that everyday some new victim fell to their hands. The Muslims during the last period before migration to Madinah had grown to a sizeable strength. They complained against the brutalities of the pagans and asked for the permission of Qital. The Prophet used to teach them of tolerance, as he had not yet been allowed Qital. The situation persisted for ten years (Qartabi Un Ibn-e-Arabi).Inn-e- Abbas says that it was the first Quranic Verse revealed about the Qital of the pagans whereas more than seventy verses revealed before disallowed it. (Maaraf-al-Quran) Vol. 6, page 269-270) Hence, the above objection becomes baseless in the light of these facts. Second is the objection that Quran had issued instructions on several issues during the Madinite period, would all such instructions be applicable after an independent Muslim state is established. The simple reply is that the orders addressed to an individual are to be followed by the individual while those related with state and society are to be implemented just by a state. For example, fasting during the month of Tamadhan was made obligatory upon Muslims during the Madinite period but every individual has to follow it. On the contrary punishing a criminal is solely the states responsibility. No individual can claim to so at

his own end under the pretext that such orders have been issued by God. If the i8ndividuals claim is accepted as true, several people, on account of their fanatic attitudes might try to do the same. This certainly might ensue in disorder and lawlessness. Therefore, all matters relating the collective welfare like fixation of limits, announcement of Jihad and the similar can only be decided and enforced by the state. It is proved through the Quran and Sunnah, Ummah has always a consensus on it and the same appeals common sense. The third objection is that the validity of a war without state is proved through the historical event of Abu Baseers attacks on the trade caravans of Quraish in an individual capacity. The above statement is not true. In fact several Muslims had their dwellings outside Madinah too at the time when a peace accord had been signed between the Prophet and Quraish. The Quran, through Al-Anfal: 72 laid the clear principle that all such people would not be declared as the citizens of Madinah unless they migrate to the city and hence responsibility of any of their actions or speech does not lie on the Prophets shoulders. The translation of the relevant portion of this Quranic Verse is as under: And those that have embraced the faith but have not migrated from their homes share in no way become your responsibility until they do that. But if they seek your help in the cause of your religion, it is your duty to aid them, except against a people you have a treaty with. (Al-Anfal 8:72) Maulana Moudoodi explains this Quranic Verse as under: This verse affects foreign policy of an Islamic state as well. As per this order responsibility of a Muslim state is restricted to the Muslims living within its territories and not to this who live outside them.. Similarly the Islamic state has uprooted the very dispute that generally causes complications at international level as whenever a government shares the responsibilities of the minorities outside its jurisdiction, it causes such complexities which cannot be set aright despite the repeated battles. (Tafheem-ulQuran Vol 2, Page: 161-162) Abu Baseer and several other Muslims like him lived outside Madinah and were not a responsibility of the Holy Prophet. This is why the Prophet said, I am not responsible for the safety of a Muslim who lives among infidels. So far as the Prophets opinion regarding Abu Baseers individual actions is concerned, it becomes clear through the narrative no 2734 of the Bokhari: His mother be in misery. He will certainly wage a war if he finds some companions. This is why when Quraish urged upon the Prophet to check the activities of Abu Baseer, he called him alongwith his companions to the city of Madinah and made him a

citizen of the city. He never took any step individually after that. (Please see Tafseer Ibn Kaseer Vol 5, Page 166-167 and Tafheem-ul-Quran Vol. 5, Page 34-42) The fourth objection is that Hazrat Hussain Bin Ali fought against Yazeed thought he had no state to rule over. The above statement is also historically incorrect. In fact Hazrat Hussain had been invited to visit Iraq through hundreds of letters from Iraqis who had promised their submission to him. Obviously, the letters were not self explicit to reveal the ground realities. Hence, Hazrat Hussain set off towards Iraq alongwith his family to know the real situation. He was not accompanied by an army nor he intended to fight. It is clear that those who intend to fight do not take their family along including the infants nor take just army of seventy two persons to fight against an enemy having an army comprising of thousands of soldiers. When his caravan had been checked by the army of Ibn-e-Ziyad he proposed three possibilities to resolve the matter. First that Hazrat Hussain should return to Madinah. Second that he should meet Yazeed and accept his rule. Third that he should leave the country. All the three proposals were reasonsable and they indicated that Hussain wanted to avert confrontation in a graceful manner. But Ibne-Ziyad tried to insult him to submit first to Yazeed and put down his weapons if he wanted to have a dialogue. Eventually his army besieged the caravan of Hussain, attacked it and consequently the tragic event took place. It is clear through the above narration that Hussain tried his best to avert war in every possible and graceful manner till the last moment. He did not attack anyone rather he had been attacked. He had not yet sought submission from anyone till that moment. It is also a fact that all nobles of Madinah had tried to stop Hussain from going to Iraq as they could smell the danger. All these details can be studiedx in the book Waqia-iKarbala Aur Us Ka Pasmanzer by Ibn Maulana Manzoor Nomani Maulana Atteeq-urRehman Sunbehli. The fifth object is that the rulers of the present Muslim world are cowards. They dont have the courage to fight with the enemy and so they dont declare Jihad. For the same reason, well have to announce Jihad by ourselves instead of sitting idle waiting for the state declaration. All Muslims busy in their armed struggle today without any state declaration equip themselves with the same logic. Hence, it requires a deeper insight. We have already discussed that even the prophets had not been authorized by God to declare Jihad unless they gained a state to rule over. It is also clear that the people in the government at the time of the proclamation of their prophethood were their worst enemies. Despite this fact noprophet had been allowed to declare Jihad. No Muslim can claim firmness of his faith more than a prophet and no of the enemies of Islam today can show more enmity towards Muslims than the worst hostility proven by the enemies of the prophets. Therefore how can ordinary Muslims claim to have a right which had been denied even to prophets. Our faith and our struggle stand nowhere in comparison with the

faith and struggle of the prophets who even had the favor of God. No one else could practice Islam better than the prophets. Despite all that they were not allowed to declare Jihad without having a state to command. It is obvious that even a faction comprising of extremely pious Muslims is not allowed any armed activity without having assumed power. It is necessary to bring the other aspect of the matter to light as well. That aspect says that according to an established principle the enforcement of Jihad and the penal laws is solely the responsibility of the state. For example no individual can punish any person himself by declaring him guilty of some crime or enforce some other penal law. Same is the case of Jihad rather Jihad has superiority over penal laws. The just point of view in this context should be to attract the attention of the ruler of the time and to convince him in the best possible manner but no step should be taken without his orders. The third aspect of the matter is that all orders issued by Islam in the context of Jihad are related to a government and not to any private organization. For example the law for making an accord with the enemy is also applicable upon a government and not on an independent group. If private Jihad had been allowed in Islam, instructions essentially would have been issued regarding its other aspects as well while it is not so. The fourth aspect of this matter is that such permission for Jihad on individual basis would give birth to anarchy and disorder in the whole world. People everywhere would start making decisions at their own discretion and hundreds of militant organizations would come into existence. Sectarianism would become rampant in society and official orders and agreements would become a mockery. Under the pretext of this permission several militant organizations with evil purposes would also be formed and the end result would be the disintegration of the Ummah which would be stricken with Klasinkov culture. It is the same situation which has been termed by the Quran as standing by the ditch of fire. Such a situation enables the enemy to crush the Muslim power. Thus the stance that common people can also launch med struggle forming their own factions if the government of the country does not follow Islam completely is absolutely wrong and might prove disastrous. It must be borne in mind that there has been consensus among the whole Ummah over it. Out of thousands of theologians throughout the last several centuries, just Abu Hafs Balqeeni is in favor of granting some relaxations in this context. All the four theological schools of thought in the Ummah agree on the issue that the existence of a valid government and a legal ruler is a prerequisite before the declaration of Jihad. No one other than a ruler has the right to announce Jihad. There is no room for any relaxation in this principle. The sixth objection is that Jihad is of two kinds; attempt and defence. The Jihad in attempt is conditional with the declaration and the management by the state. Jihad in defense is a duty and it just has the condition of open announcement. The reply to this objection is that every kind of Jihad is related with an Islamic state. When a Muslim state

attacks its enemy, it is called attempt while whit an Islamic state is attacked by its enemy, the action taken by the Islamic state is called defense. Since a state is bound to safeguard its geographical boundaries it must be taken for granted that it would certainly reply any attack against it. Hence it is considered an established principle on such occasions that the government has declared war against the enemy rather has ordered all people to face the enemy. This is called gereral announcement. This kind of Jihad is a duty. This kind of war is fought for the defense of a pre-established state. Thus it is also related with the state. There can be some cases of exceptions in this context. One situation could be that the head of the Islamic state is unable a general announcement for Jihad due to some foreign trip or because of his serious illness. What should be done in such a state? It should be kept in mind that these situations could only occur centuries ago when the modes of communication were very slow and there used to be impossible to inform the head in the capital hundreds of miles away and seek guidance from him in the event of war. Thus it was an established policy rather than order that the border commanders would offer resistance to the enemy with immediate effect in case of attack so that the information, in the meanwhile be communicated to the capital and the regular forces be moved. Obviously it seems suitable in such a situation that the resistance is offered immediately. Therefore our theologians in the past had distinguished between the Jihad in attempt and Jihad in defense according to the circumstances that occurred hundreds of years ago and it was also related with an Islamic state already in existence. This distinction is generated through common sense and the Quran and Sunnah dont mention any such thing. Today when circumstances are altogether changed, we can get latest information due to fast modes of communication, the forces have their regular patrolling on the borders and the countries have regular armies for their protection, the distinction between Jihad in attempt and Jihad in defense has become null and void. The first two verses of Quran revealed in the context of Jihad deal in fact with Jihad in defence. Surah Hajj allows Muslims to fight when their state is attacked. This instruction assumes the status of an order in Al-Baqara 2:190 urging upon Muslims to fight with those who attack them. Obviously it is the state which is addressed in both the Quranic verses. The seventh objection is that all orders issued by the Quran in the context of Jihad are meant just for the ones who had newly embraced Islam. Those who are already Muslims and live in non-Muslim states are exempted from these orders and hence are free to devise any strategy for themselves. This is also an invalid objection that there is no difference between the new Muslims and the born Muslims in Islam. However, apart from this fact, Quran has discussed two such incidents in detail. Which deal with the born Muslims. One such nation was Bani Israel. They were generally Muslims and were great in number while pharaoh was the ruler. Therefore Hazrat Musa, during his stay in Egypt never talked of Jihad. He first took his nation out of the country, organized them in the form of a state and a government and then launched Jihad.

In the same way the incidents about Holy Christ are narrated in detail in the Holy Quran. We come to know that the Romans ruled Bani Israel at the time of Christ. BaniIsrael were, in fact spoiled Muslims. Christ as a prophet was sent to them. If allowed by God, Christ would have liberated Bani Israel by organizing them into an army but the Quran proves that whole of his mission excludes any such mention. On the contrary, his words registered in Bible are, If you are slapped on one cheek, offer the other one too and, Give Qaiser what belongs to him and give to God what belongs to Him. The above quoted examples prove that the Muslims living under the rule of nonMuslim government may safeguard their rights through a peaceful strategy within the local laws but they cant take up arms. If the Muslims living under a non-Muslim government are persecuted religiously, it is obligatory upon independent Muslim states to help them but such help can only be accorded under international treaties. The eighth objection is that some private Jihadi organizations claim the secret official hand at their back and insist that their activities are in progress by the consent of the government. This plea for sin in, in fact worse than the sin itself. Religion instructs not to violate any treaty and any war initiated by a Muslim government disregarding an existing treaty would not be considered as Jihad Fi-Sabeelillah. It is therefore necessary to urge upon the government that every step is taken by an army working under the same discipline and answerable to the government. The government must be reminded that telling a like is a grave sin and a nation telling lies on state level loses its honor among the world community. Above all, if a government itself violates its own laws, there would be no one else to uphold the respect of law. In fact, the matter does not merely concern with the permission. The real thing is announcement of Jihad, its management, taking its whole responsibility, entering into international treaties and tackling with the results of Jihad. All this would be in accordance with Islam on the state level under one organization which would be answerable to God, masses, law and state in all matters. The Quran clearly directs not to co-operate with anyone in the matters of sin and oppression.

Supplementary objections:
Besides the above objections and questions, there are certain objections of historical and technical nature. These are all contextual objections. Therefore all such objections and their answers have been included in the supplement at the end of this article.

The purpose of Jihad:

The purpose of Jihad is to end oppression. It means that war should be declared against any kind of oppression launched by a group or some government and the oppressed ones should be helped. The Quran says: And why should you not fight for the cause of Allah, and for the helpless old men, women and children who say: Deliver us, Lord, from this city of Wrongdoers; send forth to us a guardian from your presence; send to us one that will help us? (Al-Nisa 4:75) The above Quranic verse makes it clear that the justification of Jihad in Islam is just against oppression.

Jihad and commitment of International treaties:

Islam has emphasized on this fact a lot that honoring the accords made with other nations is even more important than Jihad. It is essential that all such treaties are honored according to their true spirit. The offer of peace from an enemy must be accepted without doubting his sincerity. Not only is this it also not permissible to fight against a nation which has a treaty with you even if it is found guilty of doing wrong with its Muslim residents. The Quran says: If they (your enemies) keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, Allah bids you not to harm them. (Al-Nisa 4:90) It further says: If they (your enemies) incline to peace, make peace with them, and put your trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearing, the knowing. Should they seek to deceive you, Allah is all-sufficient for you. (Al-Anfal 8:61-62) The commitment to an agreement is so important to God that even the help to the oppressed Muslims is not allowed in its presence. The Quran says: But if they (the Muslims outside your state) seek your help in the cause of your religion, it is your duty to aid them, except against a people you have a treaty with. (AlAnfal 8:72) If the Muslims fear that their enemy might break the treaty and attack them in secret, they must openly declare the cancellation of the treaty first and then think of any action of war. The Quran says: If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Allah does not love the treacherous. (Thus you Muslims) must also dislike the treacherous). (Al-Anfal 8:58) Mufti Muhammad Shafi says in its explanation:

The Prophet, through this verse has been told about an important section of the law for war and peace which, along with the importance of commitment to an accord also tells that in case of any danger of deceit from the enemy, the Muslims are not bound to continue the agreement. But it is also not just to take any action without having cancelled it openly rather the enemy must be properly informed that their deceitfulness has been dawned upon you and that you are no more bound to honor the treaty and they are also free to take any action against you. The wording of the verse is as under: If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you make throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Allah does not love the treacherous. It means that it is dishonesty to fight against any of your allies as Allah does not love the treacherous though it favors your enemy. However, if treachery is feared from the enemy they must be informed openly about the cancellation of the treaty but in such a way that it makes both the parties equal to each other. This declaration should not be made after having prepared yourself for war rather the enemy must be given ample time to get prepared and any preparation for war must be made after the cancellation of the treaty. (Maaraf-al-Quran Vol 4, Page 269). Maulana Maudoodi, after a detailed discussion in explanation to this verse says: According to this verse, it is not at all valid for us to consider the annulment of treaty by ourselves and adopt a resultant attitude if we have some complaint of noncommitment from any of our allies. On the contrary, we are made bound to inform the other part, before taking any action of war that the treaty has been cancelled so that the enemy must not have any confusion. According to this instruction of God, the Holy Prophet had devised a permanent principle for the international policy of Islam, We are not to dishonor the treaty wit any of our allies before the time limit is expired or bringing the other party in equality, their treaty must be thrown back to them. Then enlarging the canvas under the same principle applied it on all matters, Do not show treachery to the one who shows treachery to you. (..) Moreover if we fall in dispute with any of our allies and find the other party not inclined to settle it through negotiations or any international mediation, it is just for us to use force but the above quoted Quranic verse binds us morally to use such force after an open declaration. It is immoral and against the teachings of Islam to launch secretive activities of offence which we are not ready to acknowledge openly. (Tafheem-UlQuran vol 2, Page: 153-155) Means for a successful was strategy: It is essential before undertaking Jihad that means such a successful war strategy are devised that show clear prospects for the victory of Muslims and the absolute destruction of oppression. These means include required manpower, necessary armament and other equipment, favorable circumstances, all required resources and a strategy for the safe evacuation of Muslim army in case of emergency. Hence Jihad is not a suicidal attempt.

It is also not merely an adventure rather ir is an extremely serious activity that requires befitting application of best possible mental, political and military potentials. The Quran has pointed out on various occasions and the whole life of the Holy Prophet reflects this strategy. As we have discussed earlier that there was no concept of Jihad during the thirteen year period of Makkah rather there was just the lesson of tolerance for Muslims. Even during the early days of Madinite period when the state of Madinah was not yet stable, the Muslims were ordered not to indulge themselves in a war to every possible extent. Afterwards what it was needed that Muslims be persuaded against their enemy, Quran expressed it as under: Consider those to whom it has been said (before): Lay down your arms; recite your prayers and pay the alms tax ; when they were ordered to fight, some of them feared men (pagan) as much as they fear Allah or even more. (Al-Nisa 4:77) The Quran says about the war equipment:Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal, so that you may strike terror into the enemies of Allah and your enemy, and besides them whom you do not know but Allah does.(Al-Anfal 8:60) In the same way it is also essential that Muslims must have such a proportion of manpower as compared to their enemy that they have bright prospects of success. During the early period of Islam when the moral level of the Prophets companions was the highest in the whole human history, God promised that they would dominate their enemy even with the ratio of one to ten. Later when there was decline in faith, God reduced the ratio upto one to two. It meant that the Muslims could fight their enemies even if they were double in number. The Quran says: Prophet ; rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, you shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. Allah has now lightened your burden, for He knows that you are weak. If there are a hundred steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a thousand, they shall, by Allahs will, defeat two thousand. Allah is with those that are steadfast.(Al-Anfal 8:66) Today, when the situation of Muslims faith is very weak, the ratio of compatibility with the enemy may be hardly one to one. However this ratio cannot be more than one to two because it was the ratio for the faith of the Prophets companions whereas we stand nowhere in comparison to them. If there is no possibility of success in war, it is also necessary to devise a strategy so as to save the lives of Muslim army. The same happened in the war of Mautah when Muslims were, unexpectedly surrounded by a big army of the unbelievers and three of their chiefs of staff were martyred. When Khalid bin Waleed took the charge, he had just two options;either to continue war bravely which might harm the enemy but Muslims in a large number were likely to be martyred or to evacuate Muslims from the siege of unbelievers wisely. Khalid went for the second option and he did the right thing.

The Prophet did the same in the war of Ahzab. The number of the enemy was far greater than Muslims. Therefore dug a moat and save themselves. The Quran says: And do not put yourselves to destruction. (Al-Baqara 2:275) Although the original context of this verse conveys the sense that iit would be fatal for Muslims in this would and the world hereafter if they do not spend their money for the cause of their faith. But as these are the general words, the reference indicated through them has been discussed by Mufti Muhammad Shafi as under: Some people say that taking steps towards Qital amounts to killing oneself If the defeat is imminent. Qital, in such a sitaion is disallowed through this Quranic verse. (Maaraf-al-Quran, Vol 1, page:474) Thus Jihad does not mean suicide, passion and purposeless bloodshed. It means that Qital itself serves no purpose if the termination of oppression is not expected through it. Suitability of the circumstances is also necessary before Jihad. This is why Holy Prophet entered into agreements with several pagan tribes and Jewish groups. No attack was launched against a tribe or a group until it had been deserted absolutely. Muslims were grieved at the time of treaty of Hudaibya as they considered the terms of the treaty equal to humiliation. But the Prophet knew that the treaty would seclude Quraish absolutely. The same happened, when the Prophet attacked Makkah, Quraish had become aloof from rest of the Arabia and Muslims had grown far more than their size and power. The above instructions regarding Jihad are full of wisdom. They also indicate that Gods orders are so proven and unchangeable that there can be no better instructions possible for the good of humanity. For example the principle that Jihad is not allowed without the order, management and decision of the government is unparalleled. In fact, only a government can organize an army, safeguard their families and run the institution of army In a disciplined way. Every decision would be taken on time, law would be enforced, the criminals would be punished, the court cases would be decided and hence a shole system would be taken into effect. Once army has defeated the oppressors, their soil would be subjugated to law which would result in the rule of justice. On the contrary, if a few people declare Jihad by forming their own respective groups it would formation of several more such organizations. All such groups, owing to no binding of any rule or law upon them would exercise absolute liberty of action. They get indulged into mutual conflicts and may face victims to sectarianism. Hence the whole purpose would end in smoke. Every organization would come up with its own political agenda. They would, at times unite while disunite on other occasions too. Such organizations oppress local settlements and become tools to other power in order to meet their requirements of food, arms and money. If the struggle of these organization with heterogeneous ideology meets with success, they might start getting entangled in disputes

with one another by occupying their own respective territories. Hence, they impose greater oppression and terror on making than the one they had been fighting against. Obviously, this leads to disorder and anarchy on the sacred earth of God. When Islam emphasizes on the commitment to treaties because it always nurtures the values which are for the collective welfare of mankind. This is why Holy Quran attaches great importance to the highest moral values even in the matters of war and Holy Prophet always acted upon these principles. All other Quranic instructions about Jihad are of similar nature.

Terrorism:
The truth about terrorism is self-explicit the above discussion. It also in indicates that reduction in the components of Jihad would result into terrorism. The absence of even a single component of Jihad in real sense would make an act as perfect terrorism. The so far discussion concludes that: The announcement and management of Jihad can only be done by a recognized regular government. No Jihad is possible outside the international treaties. Jihad can only be launched against oppression. Jihad can only be undertaken after having acquired all worldly sources necessary for a successful war strategy. If the above conditions would not be fulfilled, the element of terror in this war would be included with the same rate.

The analysis of the present Era BOSNIA:

Yugoslavia started its journey towards decline with the death of Martial Teeto. The mutual differences started emerging out of all states with the pace of time and the states of Slovenia and Croatia became independent. The parliament of Bosnia passed the resolution of its freedom with absolute majority and elected Alijah Izzat begovich as the president of Bosnia. Almost 99% people voted in favor of freedom through a referendum conducted in February 1992 for this purpose. Bosnia announced its independence in March 1992 and the European Community and the United Nations accepted it as its member in April 1992. The Bosnian Muslims started suffering from intense oppression but the nation remained united under the leadership of its President. The Bosnian army or public did not use the tool of oppression in retaliation to any sort of cruelty. They cold have killed Serbs at several places if that desired so but they restricted themselves to their self-defense. They kept the world well informed of the Serb oppression and their tolerance on all

occasions. As a result they succeeded in winning the favor of the whole world (including the non-Muslim world). All this resulted in the Datten Peace Accord which brought peace for the Bosnian Muslims. The whole of this movement was in accordance with the Islamic teachings. The Bosnian people launched their struggle against the oppression of the enemy but never turned to be oppresser themselves. They followed the path of law and justice from the very first day and the result of their struggle is open to the whole world today.

Chechenia:
Chechenia is a state with one million Muslim population (after the previous two wars the figure has come down to a bit above .85 million). The love for Islam runs in the viens of these people like blood. This area has been a part of the Russian Federation after the dismemberment of Soviet Union. Unfortunately this area is surrounded by Russia on all the four sides which is obviously the biggest hurdle in the way of their independence. We never find an independent state on the world map which has its borders on all the four sides common with a big country. Hence it was more proper for Chechenia to make practical demand; total autonomy within Russian Federation. It was easy for Russia to accept this demand and Chechans could have formed a real Muslim society as such. This step could have opened the way for several independent Muslim regions in Russia (it must be kept in mind that there are several regions in Russia with Muslim population in majority). If this demand had been tendered in a peaceful way repeatedly on the different international forums, possibly Chechenia and several other areas of Muslim majority within Russia could have sought local autonomy and this dream could have come true without having magnified Russians superiority feeling. Afterwards, depending on the suitability of the circumstances around a demand for absolute freedom could also have presented. However, the things went otherwise. Chechens just thought of their own freedom and without having considered other Muslims of Russia announced their independence. Their announcement cannot be criticized from the religious point of view as the whole nation was united under the leadership of Johar Daud. The announcement was made in very peaceful manner by those who had practical control of the whole country. Russias own condition was miserable. Russia launched a half-hearted military action which could not meet success. However, there was a basic flaw in the freedom of Chechenia. The Chechens could not contact anyone nor could seek any foreign assistance without the consent of Russia. Obviously this state was absolutely dependent upon Russians and thus this action of Chechens brought misery upon rest of the Muslims in Russia. Ultimately the same happened which was feared. A nation bent upon taking emotional decisions is likely to commit blunders. Chechenia attacket the neighbouring state of Daghistan and captured five villages. This attack was entirely contrary to Islamic teachings and wisdom. Russia availed this opportunity and accused Chechens for having

the designs for its disintegration. Russia had become stable to a great extent by that time and had no real challenge from within or outside. It had an army three times bigger than that of total population of Chechnia. Therefore Russia conquered Chechenia through an attack, devastated Grozne and killed almost 80,000 Muslims in the second war. Another important aspect of this war is that the whole Russian nation was at the back of its government and they considered Chechans as aggressors. Chechens proved themselves to be extra-ordinarily bold, courageous and determined. The wrongs done to Chechens by Russia must be condemned but the steps of Chechens were contrary to the teachings of Islam and averse to wisdom. The Muslims suffered a serious set back and the period hereafter brought utmost for them. If guidance had been sought from faith and wisdom, the result would have been different.

Afghanistan:
Pakistans decision to resist the Russian aggression in Afghanistan in 1979 was just as it was against oppression. It was the decision of a Muslim country. Although Russia was a big country, it was impossible for her to deploy her army in Afghanistan beyond a certain limit. The whole Afghan population was against Russian troops. It was not possible for Russia to take a military action against Pakistan. Thus it was the right decision according to Islamic and strategic point of view. However, according to Islamic point of view a blunder had been committed after this right decision. It was essential for Pakistan to form an interim government of Afghanistan and the whole process of Jihad should have been carried out under the supervision of that government or the Pakistani government itself should have managed it directly formed all fighting groups, trained them, elected their leadership and controlled every action. Each of the two steps would have been religiously and strategically just. On the contrary, the government of Pakistan adopted a policy against all such standards and encouraged Afghans to form several militant groups and allocated a quota in arms and money for each group. Obviously when a private group gets excess money and armament, it is liable to indulge it in numerous vices. These were eight groups in total and each of these groups formed a government of its own. Their mutual differences in ideology and practice grew stronger. On one side they were fighting against Russians while on the other side their mutual skirmishes were also in progress. These mutual battles claimed thousands of lives. Pakistans strategy of forming more than one group was under the fear that a single group might be so powerful as to come out of its influence. It was not a principled policy. The government of Pakistan had neglected the fact that the formation of eight militant groups would mean eight parts of Afghanistan. One Kalashinkov does not tolerate the presence of another Kalashinkov. Their civil war was dangerous for Pakistan and one day they had to come out of the influence of Pakistan. Above all any sincere assistance should have been above any desire for influence.

It was a blunder from the religious point of view as all these private militant organizations should have been emerged as just one organization if they were being controlled by the government of Pakistan. If they were not controlled by the government of Pakistan they had no right for an armed struggle because they had no government of their own in Afghanistan. In fact each of their bullets and each of their pennies were being supplied by Pakistan rather by U.S.A. The whole truth is revealed through this. Someone may say that these groups had their headquarters within Afghanistan and hence they could be called, technically as government. If we accept this logic, we should accept the fact too that the government of Pakistan had acknowledged Afghanistan as a state divided into eight separate governments. This unIslamic act resulted into severe mutual hatred among all these groups after Russians had left Afghanistan. They came at war with one another. The country had been stricken to a state of anarchy and disorder. Every commander at a distance of almost ten miles became independent and started levying takes of various kinds. Thus his desire was the law in practice. This situation had been practically when the government of Pakistan became fed up of all this, stopped the aid to different groups and started according military and financial assistance to just one group (Taliban). It restored peace in most of the parts of Afghanistan within the period of a year. (Talibans concept of Islam and its seclusion from the whole world as a result brought several problems for Pakistan and Afghanistan; this issue will be discussed later). If this struggle had been purely in accordance with Islamic teachings, there would have been an organized government to replace the Russian control. These groups would not have indulged themselves in mutual strifes rather their separate entities would not have been there at all. The Afghan nation would not have been divided and disordered. The reconstruction of Afghanistan would have begun from the very first day and it would have emerged as a responsible and honorable country on the map of the world. This status of Afghanistan would have benefited Pakistan as well. Unfortunately, the then Pakistani government and some religious cum political organizations remained negligent towards Islamic teachings and the loss is being sustained by all of us today. Here it may be pleaded by some quarter that the Afghan nation was already divided into eight groups. It is historically wrong because there was just one organization named Jamiyet-e-Islami in the beginning with professor Rabbani as its president and engineer Hekmatyar as its secretary general. The process of disintegration started later. It is practically wrong too as all these organizations would have been dissolved in a few days providing a sound basis from the worldly and religious point of view, if Pakistan had told them to grant aid only in case of their merger.

Kashmir:
Every nation has an undeniable right of self desired existence. It is a fact established and accepted by the world conscience. Hence the Kashmiris have the right of self determination to about their own being. It is a debt of Kashmir upon the world community which has to be discharged sooner or later. It is a challenge to the world conscience and it is awaited when the world takes practical steps towards the resolution of Kashmir issue.

However, it is essential for us to keep certain things in mind fulfilling the requirement of religion and morality. (1) In the wake of this struggle for self determination, it is important for Pakistan to abide by the terms of every treaty she has made with other countries. We have been instructed the same through Al-Anfal: 72. Since Pakistan has vowed through similar agreement that it would settle all affairs with India in a peaceful manner and both the countries would not take action against each other open or secret, religion disallows Pakistan to take any armed step till the treaty is intact. Here it cannot be taken as a plea that Pakistan had accepted similar agreement under pressure because every accord takes place as a result of some pressure. If a Muslim government consider a treaty as wrong and unjust, it is religiously bound upon it to declare its annulment openly. It has been instructed through verse 58 of Al-Anfal. It is not possible to keep the treaty intact and violate it as well under different pretexts. It is worth mentioning here that Maulana Maudoodi said it clearly on one such occasion in 1948: You can not remain in treaty with a country and take war actions against it at the same time. This duality is contrary to Islamic ethics, law of jihad and rules for international relations. Government of Pakistan must remove the hurdles that are upon us through religion and morality by serving its contracts with India, as these are the impediments in the way of the applications of our force. I consider Kashmir as an integral part of Pakistan. In my opinion a lot more efforts are required in this context than those done so far. But we have just two options: either we get the right of kashmiris acknowledged in a peaceful way or enter our forces openly in Kashmir in the same way as Indian Union did so in Junagarh. No other option could be called just and true. (Roodad-i-Jammat-I-Islami vol 8) It is also unjust to justify a non-violation under the plea that a similar sort of violation is being done from the other side. It is against the established principles of religion and morality. When Quraish violated the Treaty of Hundaibya, the holy Prophet declared its announcement. When Abu sufian, the chief of Quraish came to the Prophet with the request for revival, the Prophet refused to do so. Some people hold the opinion that since the treaties are signed by the governments, masses have no concern with it. These people say it openly that they neither accept Simla Agreement nor admit any control line. Such a stance is contrary to the teachings of Islam. Maulana maudoodi writes while explaining verse 72 of Al-Anfal: The words used in this Quranic verse are, people you have a treaty with. It makes the fact clear that an agreement signed by a government of Darul-Islam with a non-muslim government are not merely a binding upon the two governments rather they bind the masses of the two countries as well and they equally share the responsibilities of their Muslim government in this dimension. Islamic Shariah does not validity the evasion

of Muslim masses from the moral obligations they have due to the treatiesmade by their government with other government and people. )Tafheem-ul-Quran, vol2, page:162). Hence , Pakistan, in accordance with its treaties with India is religiously bound to adopt purely means in the matter of Kashimir. Any other action is against the religion and would render it unreliable in the world community. (2)We have proved it earlier through the discussion on previous pages that Jihad can only be declared by an independent government which must control it as well. Since the government of AJK is under the control of the government of Pakistan in the matters of defenses, finance foreign policy and other important decisions like the provinces of Pakistan, it is also bound to accept the agreements made by Pakistan. Hence, it is wrong to consider AJK as a base camp for Jihad. (3)Since no group outside government has the right to undertake any armed step, it is absolutely wrong and against the religious ethics to form private militant organizations that get themselves indulged in violent activities in Kashmir. All citizens of Pakistan are bound to abide by the treaties signed by their government. Any such militant action is disallowed by Islam and amounts to violation of treaty on behalf of Pakistan as well. (4)Pakistan may take a military action against India but after having declared all mutual accords cancelled. No private group would have the right to undertake Jihad even in that case rather it could still be possible under the auspices of the government which would control all practical and strategic steps. (5)According to Islam, it is not obligatory upon Pakistan to declare Jihad for the assistance to Kashmiri Muslims as India is five times bigger than Pakistan. If we have our commitment to Islam even equal to that of the companions of Holy Prophet, Jihad can only be admissible for Muslims if the number of the enemy is not more than two times to them. The above points make it clear that Pakistan can help kashmiris through a peaceful way only. Therefore Pakistan should try to attain this objective purely through non violence. How is such a peaceful struggle possible? What are its requirements? It is not a question of religion rather it pertains with a timely and practical strategy. We shall discuss it separately lest faith and strategy should be intermixed. It is essential that our discussion on religion is based on ideology and principles while the discussion related to strategy deals with the ground realities. Hence, we shall restrict ourselves to the discussion on strategy only on the forthcoming pages.

Kashmir Issue- A few Requirements of Strategy:

(a)It is an important question whether Pakistan can get Kashmir liberated from the subjugation of India. The answer is obviously in negative. Pakistan and India both are big countries. Such big countries normally occupy a few hundred square miles of each

others territories after a few weeks traditional warfare. Since both are poor countries, both lack in weaponry, ammunition and spare parts for a war that lasts more than one and a half month. It is obvious that both the countries cant fight with each other for more than this duration. U.N. would intervene, there would be a cease-fire, treaties would be signed for the with drawl of forces and both the countries would keep licking their respective wounds for years but the Kashmir issue would remain unsettled as such. The situation painted above is conditional with equality on both sides. We know that India is three times stronger than Pakistan in terms of weaponry and other equipment. It more self- sufficient in the production of arms as compared to Pakistan. Its foreign exchange reserves are twenty times more than Pakistan. Pakistan on the other side is dependent on West to an extent for arms and economy. We must keep in mind too that now India has made Kashmir as an issue of its prestige. The Indian nation stood united in June 1999 on Kargil issue while Pakistan could not display any enthusiasm on massive level. The presence of an atomic bomb is also of no use in an open war. In the same way this hypothesis has no basis that India would not be able to retaliate with full force in case of war owing to the fact that its seven laces troopers are engaged in Kashmir. It must be borne in mind that world would change Pakistan into Iraq if Pakistan goes for either of these two options for a consequential victory. Is it profitable to put a country with a population of fifteen crores at stake for the liberation of 6 million Kashmiris? (b) It is said that seven laces Indian troopers are being engaged by the militant groups in Kashmir and thus India getting tired of this all would agree to some solution for Kashmir issue within few years. The theory of exhausting the enemy has lost its value nowadays. At this time, so many movements for separation are being launched by different groups. All such movements rear feelings against themselves in that country and the conflict becomes a battle of honor for that country. If a small country like Sri Lanka is not yet exhausted against Tamil Separatists, if a poor country like Sudan is still countering the separatists and if Turkey is still sustaining the struggle for separation in its territories, how can we expect India to get tired. The facts may go contrary. What would happen in that case? (c) We admire the sincerity and passion of all organizations busy in armed activities. Certainly they are doing their best to help the oppressed Kashmiris with a religious spirit. However, this struggle has caused some negative results as well which are too grave to be neglected. Hence it is essential that they are also analyzed. At the moment almost forty organizations are engaged in armed struggle. Four or five out of these are stronger than the rest. It is important to note that all main groups are formed on the basis of their sectarian beliefs and they are very rigid in this regard. In other words their primary motive is not Islam rather their respective creeds. Each of these groups rears hatred and prejudice against other groups. They have all such controversial

matters well settled in their minds and all things otherwise trivial in Islam have assumed great importance for them. It is said that they have fought several battles mutually which had claimed several lives. The proposals of unification keep floating among them but all proves to be just an illusion as their mutual differences increase with the passage of time. People from the same sect have been divided into several groups. A large number of these trained mujahidin belongs to Pakistan and hence the possible impact they cast on Pakistani society and its future are not concealed from the people having insight. (d) The issue if Kashmir and its complexity is mainly due to the wickedness of some Hindus and some Britons hostility towards Muslims. This is also an undeniable fact that Pakistans strategy on Kashmir has also been not up to the mark and its present policies have annoyed the whole world including the Muslim countries. It seems proper that some facts are glanced at for self-accountability. There were almost 600 states in the undivided India. At the time of partition, the question of their annexation to either Pakistan or India arose. Congress leaders were of the opinion that the choice of annexation should rest with the masses of every state while the Muslim leadership, on the contrary wanted this right to be allocated to the Nawab or Raja of every state. The Muslims gave this proposal as the expected the Muslim chieftains of some states with non Muslim majority to declare their annexation with Pakistan. These states were like Junagarh, Manawdar, Kathiawar and Hyderabad. It was an unjust and impracticable stance. It was quite an undemocratic proposal. It was as fact the all army and arms had to be retained by India after Partition. All these states were far from Pakistan and were surrounded by the Indian Territory. Their masses were against Pakistan and Pakistan could not reach for their assistance. In such a situation Indian occupation of these states was quite natural. However, the British government decided that the real power would lie with the chiefs of these states but that would take decisions keeping before the wishes of their people and their geographical situation. The last sentence was just a formality and hence Pakistan did not take it into account in the cases of Junagarh, Hyderabad manawder etc wile India did the same in the matter of Kashmir. If the principled policy of referendum in very state had been decided at that time, Kashmir issue would not have any existence and there would have been a plebiscite here too like NWFP and Silhet. The Muslim leaders committed the second blunder by granting the unconditional attorney to Redcliff Award and showed their inclination to accept its decisions as such. It was a fatal mistake. It could have easily asserted that there would be a separate agreement on every disputed territory and hence it would have become impossible for Redcliff to include Guardaspur in India. There was a golden opportunity to win Kashmir by force during China- India war of 1962 but the then Pakistani military rulers got trapped by India. On the contrary, when the circumstances, were quite unfavorable in 1965, Pakistan imported its gorillas in

Indian held Kashmir and launched a ground attack later. The stock of ammunition and spare parts with Pakistan exhausted just in fifteen days and thus this fruitless war reached its end. India benefited itself a lot politically through the Tashkent Declaration. At the time of Indian occupation of Siachin in 1985, Pakistan could have accused India of violating Simla Accord and hence could have taken the matter to U.N. But this opportunity also went unutilized. The principled stand of some of Pakistani circles is also weak. Pakistan has no right over several Hind majority areas of Kashmir. If Pakistan had accepted the partition of Punjab and Bengal, there should be no justification for rejecting a plan for the partition of Kashmir. Claiming Kashmir to be the integral part of Pakistan is surely a smart emotional dialogue but it is not a strong stance. It is impossible for India to construct a dam on river Indus so as to accord irrevocable loss to Pakistan. Furthermore all such matters can be referred to International bodies for an agreement rather both the countries have already entered into many such agreements. (e) Pakistan is a great blessing for us. We are breathing a free air. Pakistan is today an important country in the world. The Muslim world is incomplete without Pakistan. However, all good steps have certainly supplementary impacts. Almost thirty core Muslims of the sub-continent are leading independent lives in Pakistan and Bangladesh but about 18 core Muslims in India are living as a weak and helpless minority. We must be thankful to Allah for our freedom. One way of showing such gratitude is to devise such policies which help Indian Muslims get more comports in life in a peaceful environment. The gulf between Hindus and them should be lessened. We should help them in leading the maximum Islamic way of life. It is an undeniable fact that the rift between the two countries aggravates the situation against Indian Muslims. The militant activities in Kashmir are in progress for the last ten to twelve years. The Hindu extremists gained power during the same period. It is impossible for 18 core Indian Muslims to leave the Indian soil. Hence they blame Pakistan for all their miseries and find their redress through being vocal against Pakistan more than Hindus. On the other side, the normalization of situation between the two countries brings peace and comfort for Indian Muslims. We should accord ease to them rather than to create more problems. We must remember that a greater number of Muslims in India are paying the cost of our freedom constantly. Hence they can only find peace if we formulate a peaceful policy about Kashmir. (f) If Pakistan had not faced the issue of Kashmir or had settled it properly, it would have been a country five times better than the present status. We planned to get Kashmir by force. Consequently we had to spend several times more money than other

countries. We had to borrow loans from foreign countries in this connection. Resultantly 75% of our budget is being consumed under these towheads. The reason for the successive military rule in Pakistan is the same. Obviously, the Kashmir issue has made us beg before the West, undemocratic governments and backwardness. For the same reason we could not promote true Islamic values in our society. It is essential to pay attention towards Kashmir issue but to get accessories at the cost of the main body can not be called wisdom. If we had decided from the very beginning to adopt a wise and peaceful strategy on Kashmir, we would have been far more developed country. We would not have been dependent on the West, democracy would have been well established and we would have made remarkable progress towards the establishment of a true Islamic society. (g) the real motive behind the establishment of Pakistan was to safeguard the rights of the maximum number of the Muslims of sub-continent and to secure an environment for them so as to establish an Islamic society. The Muslim league accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 for the same reason as it ensured the fulfillment of these two purposes even without the establishment of an independent state. The Cabinet Mission Plan guaranteed three groups of the provinces within a united India. Out of these three groups, two would comprise of northern and eastern provinces of Muslim majority. The federal government had to retain just the departments of foreign affairs, defense, communications and revenue. Rest of all powers had to rest with these three groups. Since this plan ensured security for Muslims against Hindu majority, Muslim League accepted it. Congress accepted the Plan in the beginning but Nehru rejected its true spirit later on. Hence this plan could not be materialized(Abu-ul-Kalam Azads posthumous publication India Wins Freedom throws light on the whole affair. This book came into print from thirty years after his death. He had laid down very clearly in the book that Pakistan came into being due to Nehru). Thus if the Kashmiri Muslims cannot get absolute freedom from the tyranny of India under the prevalent circumstances, we should try to adopt all other peaceful alternatives such as lobbing in the U.N.O. and winning the favor of big. However, we should not divert out attention form the inward strategy which may secure maximum rights for the Kashmiri Muslims through solid steps and which may promote the Islamic values in the society. It is quite possible and costs nothing. (h) In order to achieve the above two objectives the Muslims of Indian held Kashmir must assemble themselves under the banner of one political party that works on the real democratic patterns. This party should works for the right of self-determination. There can be two wings of the party strategically. One wing should purely struggle for the right of self-determination and should not participate in the elections while the other wing should contest elections. The second wing should have certain short term motives like granting a special status to Kashmir, acquisition of maximum autonomy for Kashmir and the establishment of an Islamic democratic society in Kashmir. If this party acts wisely through non-violence and does not give any opportunity to India for any aggression, it can possibly come into power very soon in Indian held Kashmir. This way an obvious change may take place on political and social level, the miseries of the

Kashmiris may be lessened; they may rebuild their homeland and hence may get both of their objectives without having merged themselves into Pakistan. During this political struggle, India, at any stage might become forced to grant right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Pakistan certainly would continue its political and moral support. At times, a sudden turn in the internal circumstances of a country or the international situation gives way to the oppressed nations. However, till the attainment of the real destination through peaceful ways, Kashmiri Muslims can lead their lives according to the Islamic values in their province with the special status of semi-independence and the situation of terror and oppression would, anyhow not continue.

Supplement:
Some historical and technical arguments are tendered in favor of a private Jihad. Although they are merely of supplementary nature, it seems proper to discuss them briefly. The first argument in this context is that Abdullah Bin Zubair fought against the ruler of his time. It is historically wrong. Ibn Zubair established his rule first and then suffered defeat while defending it. In fact, after the death of Yazeed in 64 Hijrah (683 A.D.) there erupted a civil war in the whole country and any centralized government was nonexistent. Ibn Zubair (the grandson of Abu Bakar) availed this opportunity and proclaimed himself to be the ruler in Hijaz. All people accepted his rule and he introduced his own coin as well. His rule continued for nine years. In the meanwhile an Ummayad ruler, Abdul Malik established his rule in Iraq and Syria. After that he launched an attack against Abdullah Bin Zubair and remained successful. We are not concerned with the logical justification of the rule of Ibn Zubair at the moment. However, from the religious point of view his step was above board because he had established his independent rule in a peaceful manner with the support of the Muslims. He did not attack anyone rather just defended himself. The complete detail of this incident can be suited in Urdu Daira Maarif Islamia: vol 12, page 781-784. The second argument tendered in this regard is that Ibrahim and his brother Nafs Zakia launched a militant struggle against the abbasid ruler, Mansur which was also supported by Imam Azam Abu Hanifa. The above statement is untrue as well. In fact, Nafs Zakia (Muhammad Bin Abdullah) was the grandson of Hasan Bin Ali. The alavi family, on accountr of their relation with the Holy Prophet considered themselves the most deserving for the caliphate from the very beginning. Therefore, this family kept inviting all Muslims peacefully to accept their caliphate even during the regimes of abbasid and Ummayyads. Muhammad Bin Abdullah (Nafs Zakia) also did the same. When he found his followers in sufficient

number, he declared himself as the caliph in a peaceful manner. The polace was Madinah and the year was 145 Hifrah (762 A.D). Abu Jaffar, an Abbasid was the caliph at that time whose seat was Baghdad. He offered absolute remission to Nafs Zakia repeatedly. He even tried to avoid any bloodshed by instructing so to his army. In the meanwhiule, Nafs Zakia started losing his companions. It was generally realized that this civil war was a futile exercise. Hence Nafs Zakia was killed during a brief battle and his rebellion was thus subside. The total period of his rule was not more than one and a half month. The struggle of Nafs Zakia has no religions ground as Islam does not allow caliphate on account of relationship. The most appropriate way for him was to avail the offer of abu Jaffar and annexed his areas to the larger Muslim state. This way, he could launce his peaceful struggle to rectify the shortcomings of the government. Imam Abu Hanifa considered Nafs Zakia better than Abu Jaffar and hence accorded even financial assistance to him. But he did not take paty in this struggle actively because he realized that this struggle was fruitless. If he had considered it a conflict between right and wrong or had thought it a religious requirement, he would certainly have participated actively. Some narratives are referred in this context like this. Abu Hanifa said that taking part in this battle amounts to the reward of 50 pilgrimages. These seem to be concocted narratives rather it is, in a way the character assassination of the Imam. If we believe in the narrative, it means that the Imam abstained from taking active part in this religious duty just for the fear of death which is never possible. In fact, the Imam always kept himself away from all kinds of political disputes during his time. It was certainly his commendable strategy. During his time, several governments had changed even the Kharijis captured the territory at a stage but he always restricted himself to his work. Neither he opposed any government nor accepted any office for himself. Consequently, no student of religious studies today can even think of neglecting his work. We had to discuss some supplementary issues too so as to put the things on record. We simply wanted to say that Nafs Zakia established his rule in a peaceful way and then fought a war in his defence but failed. The full detail of the avobe incident can be studied in Urdu Daira Maarif Islamai vol 19: pages 328-331. Third argument is tendered about the Jihad Launched by Syed Ahmad Shaheed and Shah Ismaeel. Ahmad was such a staunch believer of the condition for a leadership in Jihad that he covered a distance of hundreds of miles and made the area of independent border tribes as his base camp. He invited people to accept his leadership, established his rule and then started war against cruel Sikhs. All these facts are so common at even a beginner of the Islamic history knows them. A valuable works done on the life of Syed Ahmad Shaheed can be studied on several places like Urdu Maarif Islamia, vol 2: pages 137-143.

The fourth argument given in this context is about the participation by the religious scholars of India in the 1857 War of Independence. In fact the scholars of that time accepted Bahader Shah Zafar as their ruler, established a joint organization at thana Bhavan with his permission and then started Jihad through a declaration made by the king in this context. The whole detail can be studied in Ulama-i-Hind Ka Shandar Mazi vol 4: pages 265-282 by Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian. The fifth argument is related to a narrative about the Battle of Mautah laid down in the Bokhari. The Bokhari discusses the issue of the leadership in a war in case the commanders and their successors die one after another. The book gives the provision of appointing a leader on the emergent basis if the battle is in full wake and the Khalifa is too far to grant any advice in time. One such incident took place during the Battle of Mautah when Khalid Bin Waleed assumed the charge of the commander after the martyrdom of all the three successive commanders appointed by the Holy Prophet. The war was ultimately won. Since Mautah (in Syria) was thousands of miles away from Madinha and it was impossible for a messenger to seek advice of the Prophet during war, it was a just decision and hence the provision given in the Bokhari is quite proper. The above incident, however in no way proves that the formation of several militant groups is valid even without an emergency and outside a state patronage particularly when they launch their violent activities according to their own priorities and even fight mutually. Obviously it is no admissible at all. By the way, we must realize that the eminent leaders of the Ummah were so particular about the state patronage of Jihad that they always used to look for any exception even during acute emergency though they were common sense exceptions. The detail about the Battle of Mautah can be seen in Al-Raheeq-al-Makhtoom Pages 617 to 625 and Translation of the Bokhari by Maulana Waheed-Uz-Zaman vol: 5 Pages 446-449. The sixth argument is about the opinion of Ibn-al-Khas, a theologian. As we have already mentioned that just one theologian Abu Hafs Balqeeni has differed with the viewpoint of all other theologians in the whole history of the Ummah and we have already discussed this stance. Ibn-al-Khas has also mentioned about a relief. He believes Jihad, without the Khalifa or his assistant is undesirable but is not disallowed because a Jihad without permission is, in any case, not a severer guilty than treachery though treachery to the pagans during Jihad is permissible. The above argument of Ibn-al-Khas is very weak rather wrong. Treachery accords a loss, great or small to an individual or a group. On the contrary, a battle causes bloodshed of people on both sides at a far larger scale. The undue bloodshed of even a single person amount, in fact to the assassination of the whole mankind in the eye of God. How could the two be equal? Moreover a Jihad without the permission of the Ameer is

not a treachery with the enemy rather it is a deceit against Muslims and amount to endangering their lives. The seventh argument is granted with reference to the opinion of Ibn Qadamah. He believes that the Jihad would not be delayed if such situation arises at some place and the advice from the Khalifa can not be awaited in that state of emergency. This opinion is true and is about the similar situation as it arose diring the war of Mautah. It is also a common sense exception. The eighth argument given in this regard is that the British had tried to sabotage the Jihad of Haji Sahib Tarangzai as well by confusing it with the permission of Khalifa. It was so that the Brithish said that the Jihad against them was invalid as long as it was not declared by Wali-e-Afghanistan who was the king of the Muslims of Afghanistan and the frontier areas. As we study other religions and try to take the benefit of certain points, some noMuslims do the same by their study of Islam and get their motive by missing up 99% of falsehood with just 1% of truth. The British point of view about the affair of Haji Sahib Tarangzai was totally misleading. In fact, the independent tribes of Frontier were not under the control of Wali-e-Afghanista. Haji Sahib, on reaching the tribal area, established his rule. He used to take all decisions and punished the criminals. He sued to fight against the British in collaboration with the chieftains of suburban independent tribes. He also tried to convince Ameer Habib Ullah Khan, the Wali-e-Afghanistan to attack the British but the Ameer did not agree. The Ameer took the stance that he was not well prepared to fight against the British but answered Haji Sahib of all kinds of moral and financial support. After that Haji Sahib sent a delegation to Sultan Abdul Hameed, the ruler of Turkey who was the Khalifa of the Muslims at that time. Obviously Haji Sahib considered himself to be the representative of the Muslim caliphate. The Khalifa accepted it and advised Haji-Sahib to launch Jihad against the Brithis in black and white. A similar type of written order was issed by Ghalib Pahsa, the governor of Hijaz. Hence, Haji Sahib first established his rule in the territories of Mahmand, annexed it to the Muslim caliphate and launched Jihad with the written orders of the caliph. Later, the British acknowledged his status at the time of the treaty of Ghalnai in 1935. (all these details and the copies of all treaties and orders are still in record a work is being done on them at the Pakistan study centre Peshawar University).