S. K. Malik Quotes

With the invention of the atomic weapons, there appeared, between 1945 and 1955, a class of strategists who looked upon the nuclear bomb as the 'absolute' weapon of war. Accordingly, they formulated the theory of the strategy of , best described by the similitude of 'two scorpions in a bottle', a metaphor coined by J. Robert Oppenheimer. With further developments in nuclear bombs and greater knowledge of their effects came Dulles' theory of massive nuclear retaliation enunciated in 1954 and Mcnamara's flexible response. This was followed by other schools of thought hovering round graduated deterrence, second strike capability and the oceanic system. In 1959, denounced the theory of the 'balance of terror'. His thesis was that a deterrent force existed only if it was capable of inflicting reprisals. He laid down a set of six conditions for a second strike capability and came to conclude that the United States possessed none of them at that time. Dr. Henry Kissinger, in his famous book, 'Necessity for Choice' embraced the new gospel of s and introduced the element of 'credibility' to 'deterrence'. "Deterrence," he wrote, "requires a combination of power, the will to use it, and the assessment of these by the potential aggressor." Since 1960, deterrence has dominated the realm of strategy in one from or the other; it has been variously described as active and passive; offensive and defensive; direct and indirect; relative and total or absolute; positive and negative; limited and general; counter-force and counter-city, and so on.

In Islam, a war is fought for the cause of Allah. A Muslim's cause of war is just, noble, righteous and humanitarian. A victory of Islam is a victory for the cause of Islam. So noble and humanitarian a cause cannot be allowed to be attained through inhuman undignified ways. Humanitarianism thus lies at the very heart of the Islamic approach to war.

Islam views the world as though it were bipolarized in two opposing camps—Darul-Salam (Islam) facing Darul-Harb—the first one is submissive to the Lord in co-operating with God's purpose to establish peace, order, and such other pre-conditions of human development, but the second one, on the other hand, is engaged in perpetuating defiance of the same Lord. Such a state of affairs which engages any one in rebellion against God's will is termed as “Fitna”—which word literally means test or trial. The term “Fitna” refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms and expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God's authority—who alone is sovereign. In Sura Infa'al Chapter 8, Verse 39, it is said “And fight on until there remains no more tumult or oppression and they remain submissive only to God.” To the same effect are the words used in Sura Taubah Chapter 9, Verse 29, “Fight those who believe not in the Lord, nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by the Lord and His Apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” Many Western scholars have pointed their accusing fingers at some of the above verses in the Quran to be able to contend that the world of Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle against the non-Muslims. As to them it is a sufficient answer to make, if one were to point out, that the defiance of God's authority by one who is His slave exposes that slave to the risk of being held guilty of treason and such a one, in the perspective of Islamic law, is indeed treated as a sort of cancerous growth on that organism of humanity, which has been created “Kanafsin Wahidatin” that is, like one, single, indivisible self. It thus becomes necessary to remove the cancerous malformation even if it be by surgical means (if it would not respond to other treatment), in order to save the rest of Humanity…. Islam, in my understanding, does not subscribe to the concept of the territorial state and it would be recalled that even [Sir Muhammad] Iqbal in his lectures on “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” went so far as to suggest that, Muslim states, to begin with, he treated as territorial states and that too only as an interim measure since these states are later to be incorporated into a commonwealth of Muslim states. Each one of these states must first acquire strength and stability before it is able to prepare the ground on which a unified state of Islam can appear on the historical scene.

What then is the Quranic concept of military strategy? instructions pertaining to the divine theory on military strategy are found in the revelations pertaining to the battles of Badr, Ohad, Khandaq, Tabuk and Hodaibiyya. Recalling the situation at Badr, the Holy Quran reminded the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him), "Remember, ye implored the assistance of your Lord and He answered you, 'I will assist you with a thousand of the angels, ranks on ranks'. Allah made it but a message of hope and assurance to your hears: (in any case) there is no help except from Allah, and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." The Book went further to add, "Remember, he covered you with a sort of drowsiness to give you calm as from Himself,...to strengthen your hears, and to plant your feet firmly therewith."

In his penetrating war, 'Strategy: The Indirect Approach,' Liddell Hart Made an attempt to epitomize, from the history of war, a few truths of experience which seemed to him so universal and fundamental as to be termed 'axioms.' According to him, the maxims applied to tactics as well as strategy alike. The great military think came to the general conclusion that all the principles of war could be concentrated into one single principle, that is, concentration of strength against weakness. To apply this principle, he put forward eight rules, six positive and two negative. The positive rules were: the maintenance of the aim; the adjustment of the means to the end; the adoption of the line of least expectation and resistance; the undertaking of a line of operation that threatened multiple objectives; and ensuring that plans and dispositions were flexible and adaptable to the circumstances. In the negative rules, he advocated that all the weight should not be thrown in one stroke while the enemy was on guard, and that an attack, once failed, should not be resumed along the same lines or in the same form.

The Holy Quran spelt out the object of the against Paganism soon after it commanded the muslims to take recourse to fighting. "And fight them on," ruled the Book, "until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah." Similar instructions were repeated after the termination of the , about a year later. "And fight them on," the Holy Quran directed on that occasion, "until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere." These injunctions laid down the ultimate an absolute divine purpose behind this war which was 'to obtain conditions of peace, justice and faith.' The creation of such conditions demanded the eradication of tyranny and persecution. In turn, the eradication of tumult and oppression had several facets, but in essence, it meant the restoration of Muslims right to worship in the Sacred Mosque. In the initial stages of the attainment of this object the Holy Quran made liberal allowance and concessions to the Pagans to co-operate and contribute towards creating just and peaceful conditions. During this period, a number of checks and controls were imposed on the Believers to force them to seize the first opportunity to terminate the state of war. They were commanded to reciprocate every move made by their adversaries towards ceasing hostilities or entering into peace with them. "But if they cease," the Book directed them, "let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression." It went further to emphasise, "But if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your protector—the Best to protect and the Best to help." The Holy Quran also decreed, "but if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." This implied that, in such a situation, there was to be no rancour against the enemy. The Muslims were to follow the 'oft forgiving and most-merciful' nature of their Lord and forgive their foes. Likewise, the Book commanded the Believers, "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hearth and knoweth (all things). Should they intend to deceive thee, verily Allah sufficed thee."

This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force within the context of the totality that is Jihād. The professional soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, cannot become “professional” if in all his activities he does not take the “colour of Allah.” The nonmilitary citizen of a Muslin state must, likewise, be aware of the kind of soldier that his country must produce and the only pattern of war that his country’s armed forces may wage.

"National interest," concedes Bernard Brodie, "are not fixed by nature nor are identifiable by any generally acceptable standard of objective criteria. They are, instead, the product of fallible human judgement on matters on which agreement within the nation is unusually less than universal." Nor is the formulation of national interests, as is well-know to us today, necessarily or essentially governed by the consideration of peace. That being so, the logical outcome of the concept of national interests in the international system of today is tension and war, and not peace, harmony, justice and understanding. Indeed, national interest is: in train a vicious and never.ending cycle, the common denominator of which is 'war', not 'peace'.

When Clausewitz, the founder-father of modern military thought, defined war as a 'continuation of policy by other means', he did, in fact, throw a challenge to the students of Political Science and International Relations to develop a theory around 'policy'. Clasewitz thus put the cart before the horse and forced the policy-makers to conduct deeper research into the science of politics. It was not 'policy' that took the initiative to define the meaning, sphere, limites and extents of 'war'. On the contrary, 'war' forced 'policy' to define and determine its own parameters. It took the human mind hundreds of years to establish, if at all, the relationship between national aims and objectives, national interests, national policy and war; and even longer to realise that war was subservient to policy. Nonetheless, the political scientists did rise to the occasion to theorise; they opined that, in brief, policy was the pursuit of national interests and that war became an instrument of policy when vital but incompatible national interests were at stake. What they failed to establish, however, was concerning the rationale behind the determination of national interests.

A victory in Islam is a victory for the cause of Islam.

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent's Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation can be produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the spiritual dislocation. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, it is essential, in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his faith. An invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Quran has the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable us to strike terror into the enemy, it must, in order to be effective be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence must be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy.

Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of spiritual dislocation. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, it is essential, in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Quran has the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable us to strike terror into the enemy.

The that concluded the Second World War and formulated the Allied post-war strategy also came under heavy criticism for its inadequacy and short-sightedness. Like several other students of politics and war, General Fueller was also its vehement critic. His contention was that the Allied leaders had sacrificed the vital necessity of obtaining a durable peace at the altar of securing the unconditional surrender of Germany. The great military thinker had, however, no alternative of his own to suggest to them. As the Second World War came to a close, the Allied war effort also began to give way to their respective national interests. Each side, however, had its own interpretation of what constituted its interpretation of what constituted its enlightened national interests. Russia saw her interests in conquering the heart of Europe, the Allies, in the destruction of the German military might. The consideration of peace did weigh heavy on the minds of the nations of Europe whenever they developed the means to destroy one-another. Such an atmosphere prevailed after the conclusion of each devastating war and after the atomic explosion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, it did not last long. The Europeans soon came to realise that there did exist means of protection against weapons that were once looked upon as total and absolute. Once that happened, their baser and destructive elements again overtook the saner ones. Similar motives underline the present age of 'detente' and 'deterrence'. The considerations of peace come to human mind only when the choice is between 'suicide' and 'co-existence'. They are the by-products of exigency, not of a recognised or consistent policy or philosophy. They failed to stand the test of time in the past, nor are they resulting in durable global peace at present. Indeed, they have no worth while role to play in the future.

The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the heart of the enemies, know or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy. In this strategy, guarding ourselves against terror is the 'Base'; preparation for war to the utmost the 'Cause'; while the striking terror into the hearts of the enemies is the 'Effect'. The whole philosophy revolves round the human heart, his soul, spirit and Faith. In war, our main objective is the opponent's heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts. The Quranic strategy comes into play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy. Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause an our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the 'war of muscles' having already won the 'war of will'. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart's dream into a reality.

The Quranic philosophy of war is immensely rich in its moral and humanitarian contents. The Book prohibits the Muslims from transgressing the divine limits during the conduct of war. It forbids them from practising the stage and inhuman ways and methods of warfare practised during the Days of Ignorance. Though permitted to follow the Law of Equality and Reciprocity in their dealings with their enemies, the Faithfull are always counselled to prefer restraint and tolerance. Within its permissible purpose and limits, the book does not visualise war being waged with 'kid gloves'. It hives us a distinctive concept of . It wants both, the nation and the individual, to be at war 'in toto', that is, with all their spiritual, moral and physical resources. The Holy Quran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost. The test of utmost preparation lies in our capability to instill terror into the hearts of the enemies. The ability to strike terror into the enemy or to withstand the enemy attempts to terrorise us are ultimately linked with the strength of our Faith. Practised in their totality, the Quranic dimensions of war provide complete protection to the Muslim armies against any psychological breakdown. On the contrary, weaknesses in our Faith offer inroads to the enemy to launch successful psychological attacks against us. It is on the strength of our Faith, and the weakness of that of our adversary, that we can initiate plans and actions calculated to strike terror into the hearts of our adversaries.