Can Armed Conflict Against Kuffar Non-Believers in Islam be Ethically or Morally Justified?

Armed conflict against kuffar (non-believers) in Islam has been a complex and controversial topic, with proponents and critics often embroiled in heated discussions. While some argue that such conflicts can be ethically or morally justified under certain circumstances, others challenge these justifications from a moral standpoint.

Historical Context and Justification for Armed Conflict

At the very roots of early Islamic history, the foundation of armed conflict can be traced back to the necessity of self-defense. In Quranic verses like Quran 85:1, the call for self-defense is explicitly mentioned, indicating that the permission to take up arms for Muslims in and around Madinah was initially granted as a measure of protection. This was demonstrated through the early wars of defense against the Makkans, such as the Battle of Badr, which took place when the Makkan army had knocked on the door of Muslim territory with aggressive intentions.

Justification Against MKKAN:

The first capital or territory of Muslims was Madinah, which faced constant threats from the kuffar (disbelievers) of Mecca. This historical context confirms that the Islamic permission to take up arms was a response to the compel ing necessity to defend against aggression, and that such conflicts were justified when they served to preserve territorial and communal safety.

Evolution of Islamic Governance and War Motivations:

As Islamic governance transitioned from being centered on the Quran to more autocratic forms, the motivations for waging war also changed. Once the Islamic governance gave way to monarchy or dictatorship, the primary goal of waging war often shifted from defense to territorial expansion. This transition led to armed conflicts not only against people of different faiths but also against Muslims themselves, as political leaders and scholars aligned themselves with ruling elites to provide legal justifications for such actions.

Pragmatic and Ethical Considerations:

Islam is a pragmatic faith that recognizes the complexities of human nature, including the propensity for conflict and the need for governance. While the Quran advocates for forgiveness and peace, it also recognizes that armaments and conflict are sometimes necessary for self-defense and the protection of the community. The Quran further emphasizes the importance of enforcing ceasefires and supporting the aggrieved party in cases of intra-Muslim disputes, as seen in cases like Quran 49:9-10.

Early Islamic Conflicts and Expansion

The early Islamic community in Medina faced constant persecution from Meccan kuffar, leading to unavoidable and often harmful conflicts for the Meccan community. After conquering Mecca, expansion followed, driven by the need to secure trade routes vital to the flourishing of the Islamic Empire. These trade routes, particularly the ones running through Asia and Europe by land, were extremely lucrative and provided economic sustenance to the empire.

Economic Motivations Over Religious Zeal:

While it is common to believe that early Islamic expansion was driven by religious zeal, further examination reveals that secular and economic factors played a more significant role. Many of the early Islamic leaders sent diplomatic letters to neighboring kingdoms, hoping to establish peace and secure trade routes. If diplomacy failed, then war became a necessary option. The text also notes the schism between Sunni and Shia factions, which further complicated the motivations for warring states during that period.

The Crusades: A Misconceived Perception of Religious Warfare

The Crusades, a significant conflict in the late Middle Ages, is often misconstrued as a war between Christianity and Islam. In reality, the Crusades were not initiated with the primary intention of combating religious differences. The Muslim response to the Crusades was slow and strategic, mainly aimed at restoring vital trade routes that were crucial for the Islamic Empire. The motivation for Muslims was primarily economic, driven by the desire to maintain and expand trade routes that had been disrupted by the advance of Crusader states.

Economic Imperatives:

The restoration of trade routes from Asia through Europe was considered essential for the economic health and expansion of the Islamic Empire. This economic imperative often outweighed religious considerations, as demonstrated by the reluctance of early Islamic leaders to engage in full-scale religious warfare. Islamic leaders were more likely to seek peaceful resolutions through diplomacy, albeit with the ultimate goal of regaining trade advantage.

Ethical Considerations and the Cost of War:

Armed conflict, especially when motivated purely by religious zeal, is costly and unsustainable in the long term. Any war, whether by Muslims against Muslims, Muslims against kuffar, or kuffar against kuffar, should not be initiated without a careful evaluation of the potential costs, especially economic costs, that may not be offset by gains in territories or loots.

Conclusion

Armed conflict against kuffar in Islam, while often ethically or morally justifiable in the context of self-defense and protecting trade interests, should not be initiated without a comprehensive understanding of the ethical and economic implications. Historical context and the pragmatic nature of the Islamic faith must be considered in evaluating the legitimacy of such conflicts.