The Difference between Enemies and Combatants
The Quran tells us that even if a person appears to be one’s enemy, one should deal with him in a better way than fighting with him. It may be, it says, that some day he may become one’s friend. Thus, it says:
Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil with what is better; then you will see that one who was once your enemy has become your dearest friend. (41:34)
Elsewhere, the Quran says:
He [God] does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you on account of your faith or driven you out of your homes: God loves the just. God only forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of your faith and driven you out of your homes or helped others to do so. (60:8-9)
A comparative analysis of these two verses indicates that the Quran distinguishes between an enemy, on the one hand, and a combatant, on the other. Even if an individual or a group appears to be one’s enemy, one should still maintain good relations with him or them so that dawah work can continue in a balanced manner. Apparent enmity must not be allowed to become a barrier in the way of interaction, because it is through interaction that dawah work continues—and dawah work has the power to turn even enemies into friends.
However, the issue of combatants is different from this. Combatants are those who, without provocation, have engaged in physical war against the believers. These people should be dealt with on the basis of emergency principles, or the ethics of war, so much so that one can cut off all relations with them until they desist from war.
This is an extremely important difference, which it is necessary to observe in practical life. If the believers do not understand this difference, they might start behaving in the same way with enemies as with combatants. The result of this would be that interests of the Islamic dawah would be hurt and the desirable dawah efforts would stop.
One must adopt stern precautionary measures with regard to individuals or groups who launch aggressive war, even abstaining from normal relations with them. But as far as ordinary people are concerned, one should, without considering their apparent friendship or enmity, maintain the same human relations with all of them so that the work of Islamic dawah may continue uninterruptedly and under no condition comes to a halt.
Islam clearly teaches us that even in a situation of an actual war one should distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. That is to say, a combatant can be fought, but never a non-combatant. In this regard, it may be argued that this principle was perhaps appropriate as far as war in the ancient past was concerned, but that today wars are fought using bombs and other modern weaponry and systems, and that, therefore, in modern wars it is not possible to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.
The answer to this argument is that if such a situation arises that in the course of fighting non-combatants will also be killed, then such a war must not be engaged in at all. To avoid war or to kill non-combatants in war—the first of these is the lesser evil, while the other is the greater evil. And when the choice is between a lesser evil and a greater evil, then definitely one must choose the former and discard the latter. This is what reason demands, and so does the Islamic shariah.
In the present-day context, if one is faced with an unfavourable situation in which if war is waged it is not possible to avoid the killing of non-combatants, then, along with this, and as a result of modern developments themselves, we must remember that a favourable situation has also emerged on a massive scale: and this is the availability of many new constructive possibilities.
These possibilities are so many that the question of winning or losing a war has now become of only secondary importance. A group may win a war but it may fall victim to terrible devastation. Another group may lose a war but yet it may gain access to peaceful avenues, using which it can achieve great success without any conflict.
This is well illustrated by modern Japanese history. Japan had to suffer a heavy defeat in the Second World War. But it did not make any military plans for its recovery. Instead, it accepted its subordinate status as a reality and began efforts for its reconstruction within a peaceful framework. This policy proved to be so successful that in just a few years, Japan’s history was transformed. Japan’s success in this regard was made possible because of modern scientific and technological developments.
An opposite example is provided by Palestinian history. In 1947, the Palestinian Muslims were faced with a situation which they thought justified violent action against Israel. But what was the outcome of all of this? In 1947, the Palestinian Muslims had more than half of the land area of Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem. But the result of choosing the path of violent action was that today the Palestinians have nothing at all. In exactly the same span of time in which the Palestinians met with enormous destruction as a result of violent action Japan became a global super-power in economic terms.
