Even while trying to show how moderate Islam is, the sheikhs of Islam cannot help but prove the opposite—how radical it is.
Much of the Muslim world recently celebrated its prophet Muhammad’s birthday (which fell on August 25 this year per the lunar calendar). During a high-profile celebration in Egypt, which was attended by President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, Sheikh al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al Azhar—arguably the most prestigious Islamic institution in the world—extolled the many virtues of Muhammad.
At one point, however, and according to a Coptic Solidarity Exclusive,
Al-Tayeb contrasted what he described as the ethics governing warfare in the Prophet’s time with the wars of the twenty-first century. Humanity today, he said, is suffering from a continuing succession of wars and bloodshed, the destruction of homes and hospitals, the targeting of children, women and the sick, and the breaking of pledges and agreements. He maintained that there was no comparison between the brutality of contemporary wars and what he described as the justice governing warfare in the Prophet’s era.
Turning specifically to the ethics of war in Islam, the Grand Imam stressed that fighting in Islam is not intended to force people to embrace the religion or compel them to adopt a particular social or economic system. Its purpose, he said, is solely to repel aggression.
He then proceeded to cite the same handful of Koran verses that all apologists for Islam cite, including “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress” (2:190), and “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256).
In short, the entire gist of the Grand Imam’s message was that Islam is a religion of peace, and that it only engages in war when forced to—that is, in self-defense.
So far there is hardly anything remarkable here.
But the imam continued by providing, in detail, the rules of war that govern Muslims once war is upon them. The Coptic Solidarity Exclusive continues:
Citing the Maliki and Hanafi schools of Islamic jurisprudence, he said that Muslims are required to
wait three days after inviting the enemy to embrace Islam and not begin the confrontation before the fourth day, in the hope that the enemy will accept Islam or agree to a peace treaty or reconciliation. He based this on a tradition attributed to Ibn Abbas stating that the Prophet never fought a people without first inviting them to Islam.Al-Tayeb went further still. He said Islamic jurisprudence prohibits fighting people who have not yet received the invitation (
daawa)to Islam, which must be presented in a manner explaining the virtues of the religion. In his own summation, the enemy must not be taken by surprise: they must first be warned andadequately invited to Islam, or invited to conclude a peace treaty.He also cited a tradition in which the Prophet reportedly instructed Muadh ibn Jabal not to fight the enemy before inviting them to Islam. Al-Tayeb presented these rules as an unparalleled example of justice, fairness and respect for the rights of the other—even an enemy engaged in fighting.
So much for “no compulsion in religion.”
After insisting that Islam wages war only in self-defense and never to force its faith on others, the Grand Imam proceeded to sound not unlike ISIS.
Continue reading below.
If you value unflinching, historically grounded analysis that mainstream outlets soften or ignore, consider upgrading. Paid subscribers get:
**Several new, full-length articles every week.**Carefully researched pieces you won’t find elsewhere.
Full access to the complete premium archiveArchive of in-depth writing, research, and commentary — all in one place.
Entry into the subscriber chatA private space for serious readers and thoughtful discussion.
