The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani's Siyar Paperback – January 1, 2002

thanks

This book's author Majid Khadduri is the translator of the Shafi'ite Risala. Here he shifts from Shafi'ite fiqh to the Hanafis. This is the chapter of Shaybani's Kitab al-Asl called "siyar", plural of "sira". The topic of the Siyar is international relations, under the 'Abbasids.One Philip Jessup, at the time holding himself out as a "judge" in an "international court", has contributed a foreword, in addition to Shaybani's preface. Despite that two forewords to an introduction is overkill, and that I personally bear no tolerance for Jessup's transnational pretensions, Jessup does offer some valuable Western analogues to Shaybani's text.On to the main part of the book: the Siyar is mainly a *primary* source for classical Islamic political thought. In places it behaves like a secondary source to the preclassical era, quoting predecessors; but the bulk of the Siyar is taken up with conversations between other 'Abbasid-era jurists, namely Abu Yusuf interrogating his teacher Abu Hanifa. If you are a novice to Islamic thought, this book will prove incomprehensible. Khadduri's introduction is good (if a little repetitive in places), and at least 7/9 of my reviews' readers will agree that its 74 pages suffice for a book in itself. That aside, I still doubt that 74 pages have done justice to *this* topic, for *beginners*. Personally I had failed to understand this book when I bought it here three years ago. So I recommend, first, reading Bernard Lewis's 1987 "Political Language of Islam".During Shaybani's time the 'Abbasid regime was still an empire of all the Muslims, in theory; but the cracks were already becoming apparent. The Muslims had not yet concocted a theory on the just war. For the 'Abbasids wars against non-Muslims were jihad; if with other Muslims, war was the restoration of order after fitna. (If we are to believe Lewis and Khadduri, there is *still* no Islamic just-war; I'll get to that.)Shaybani's historical role was as a missionary of sorts. The 'Abbasids and their Barmakid viziers in Iraq at the time supported the Hanafi madhhab (legal-theory), and promoted it westward starting at Raqqa. This they did when they installed our man there as judge. Later Harun al-Rashid installed Shaybani upon Rayy in Iran, where he died.Shaybani's main legal opponents were the Awza'iya madhhab, which does not survive, and the Malikiya, which does. Maliki law was Madinese so - at the time - had little bearing on nonMuslims and warfare (Khadduri, 23). Shaybani's direct counter to Malik's fiqh can be had in "the Muwatta of Muhammad".Awza'ism was another matter. This was the fiqh of the Umayyads and it was still holding strong in the borders with Christendom from Spain to Syria. I note here that Shaybani's first chapter cites fiqh from the families of 'Umar and of 'Abbas, studiously avoiding 'Uthman and the other Umayyads. Elsewhere 'Ali is cited (p. 196 VII#992). Umayyad courtiers like Muhammad Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri are cited where they relate nonUmayyad rulings (e.g. pp. 78 I#5, 92 I#49).In Islam the term for booty taken by force from the infidel is ghanima. For Awza'i, the Muslim is forever at war with the infidel and does not require any official marque to seize ghanima. The Hanafis disagree and have ruled that Muslims who rob outsiders outside the law are simple bandits, thus unentitled to what they have stolen (Khadduri, 48). Shaybani's Siyar starts with a collection of traditions to demonstrate that the Prophet himself had instructed his Muslims on proper conduct in warfare. It follows that the Awza'ite Imam (= the Umayyad caliph) has no control over his own border Muslims and that, for a start, Byzantines and Franks cannot take seriously any treaty the Imam signs. The Hanafi Imam (= the 'Abbasid caliph) by contrast may enforce such a treaty.Shaybani was therefore doing his part to amass the legal infrastructure for a lasting peace along the 'Abbasid frontier, including something that might underpin a just-war theory in future. Any opinion on why this has not happened is not in Khadduri's scope.I regret that Khadduri's index is incomplete. It does not include Zuhri, mentioned not only as part of asanid but even in the text (pp. 23, 295, 297). I also wonder why Khadduri claims Zuhri had no interest in the law of war given that I do see him cited as authority on exactly that topic. I further believe that the page headers should tell us which part of the book we're on, given that some chapters were likely not part of the original text, especially XI which is attributed to Dawud bin Rushayd.Overall I recommend this book to specialists on the early 'Abbasid law of war. It should also be of use to historians of Islamic legal theory.

Don't be put off by these one-star reviews. These reviewers cannot distinguish between the importance and interest of a book from the implications upon modern reality. Yes, Islam does contain some supremacist doctrines that bode ill for Muslim and non-Muslim harmony, but this book is indispensable for understanding that. Khadduri not only explicates the classical doctrine of jihad in this book with clarity and concision, he also provides invaluable commentary on the historically important treatise of Shaybani, the first Islamic work on the "Law of Nations", i.e. foreign relations. As the eminent scholar of Islam Rudolph Peters said of this work, it is the first major Muslim work "devoted exclusively to Islamic law dealing with relations with non-Muslims." The global jihad that we are witnessing today is based firmly on the precepts explained in this book. The crucial concepts of the dar al-Islam and dar al-harb are explained and their significance could not be more important than they are today.

I began investigating Islam years ago. I read only the Koran and books written by devout Muslims and more particularly legal treatises. As part of my study I read this book. What I found in this book is completely disgusting and abhorrent; a complete farce of the principles of justice and equality which Islam claims to espouse. The legal conclusions of this book follow the pattern of other Islamic legal texts (most of which are written by revered Islamic scholars). Namely that non-Muslims should be subjugated as second class citizens, forced to pay a religious poll-tax (simply for being non-Muslim), that they should be banned from erecting churches etc., that they are banned from displaying religious insignia or playing religious music, that they should have no part whatsoever in governance (which is reserved strictly for Muslims), and moreover no voice in the affairs of the state, and so forth. These laws have a remarkable resemblance to the "Jim Crow" laws formerly instituted in the United States! The "Jim Crow" laws were instituted as a matter of racial intolerance while these Islamic laws are a matter of religious obligation. Furthermore, Shaybani discusses at length how it is Islamically obligatory for Muslims to maintain a perpetual hostile state with non-Muslim governments and if possible to acquire their lands and people through warfare (jihad). He explains how it is permissible to take non-Muslims captured in warfare (jihad) as slaves and how the wives of these poor men then become the property of the Muslim conquers to be female slaves or wives against their will. Thus, their marriages to their former husbands (who were taken as slaves) are utterly dissolved against their will. And do not forget or fail to understand that many other Islamic legal texts make the argument that it is permissible for the slave master to have sex with his female slaves even though they may be slaves against their will. The principles contained in this book if instituted would represent a gross violation of basic and fundamental human rights. The principles of this book and many others like it are a complete affront to freedom, liberty, equal protection under the law, freedom from religious harassment and persecution under the law, and the right to equal citizenship regardless of political or religious affiliation. This book and others like it make me want to vomit; their multitude of intolerant principles makes me sick! But the ideas outlined in this book are not unique to Shaybani. Indeed, they can be found in almost every classic Islamic legal text. What is more terrifying is that everything in this book (and other legal texts) follows naturally from rules stipulated in the Koran, Hadith, and in the actions of the so-called "rightly guided companions" of Muhammad (the prophet of the Islamic religion). After years of studying these texts by renowned Muslim jurists, legal theorists, and scholars I can only come to the conclusion that Islam is simply not compatible with the idea of religious freedom held the west or those freedoms advocated by the enlightenment philosophers (the same religious and social freedoms which many men and women gave their lives to secure for us). I went searching for the religion of peace in Islam, hoping that I would find it there and that in it I would find a friend in it. However, after years of investigation, all I have found in Islam is a religion of darkness, intolerance, and oppression. For Muslims it might be a religion of peace, but that peace comes at the expense of the second-class citizenship and oppression of non-Muslims as outlined and compiled in Sharia Law.