An examination of Iran’s military restraint during conflict, exploring how Quranic principles and Islamic teachings shape the ethics of warfare and self-defence.
By SHABODIEN ROOMANAY
For years, the Islamic Republic has exercised what its leaders term ‘strategic patience’. This restraint persisted through the assassination of senior military commanders, the killing of nuclear scientists in the streets of Tehran, and now, the slaying of Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei. Each incident represented not merely an attack on individuals but on the sovereignty of a nation. Yet Iran’s response has been consistently measured, calibrated and in remarkable alignment with the ethical principles of warfare enshrined in the Quran.
The Quranic foundation for this approach is unambiguous. In Sura Al Baqarah, verse 190, Allah commands:
‘Fight in the cause of Allah against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression. Indeed, God does not love aggressors.’ (Sura Al Baqarah, 2:190)
This verse establishes the fundamental principle that warfare in Islam is permissible only in self-defence and, even then, strict limits must not be transgressed. The great commentators of the Quran have consistently understood ‘do not commit aggression’ as a prohibition against initiating hostilities and against exceeding the bounds of legitimate defence.
What does this mean in practice? The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) provided clear guidance to his commanders:
‘Depart in the Name of Allah and with His help; following the way of the Messenger of Allah. Do not kill an old man, a child, or a woman. Do not mutilate dead bodies of the enemy. Be gracious and courteous, for Allah loves those who act with grace.’
These instructions established a revolutionary concept in seventh-century Arabia: that even in the heat of battle, the lives of non-combatants are sacrosanct.
The current conflict presents a stark contrast between this Islamic ethos and the military doctrine of Iran’s adversaries. As regional tensions have escalated, reports indicate that Iran’s retaliatory strikes have focused on military targets, including Israeli air defence command facilities, ballistic missile production sites in Israel and specific military installations. This precision stands in marked contrast to the broader bombing campaigns that have characterised modern warfare in the region.
President Masoud Pezeshkian has articulated this approach clearly, affirming Iran’s commitment to maintaining friendly relations with regional countries based on good neighbourliness and mutual respect for sovereignty, while simultaneously asserting Iran’s inherent right to self-defence. This is not merely political rhetoric; it reflects a genuine strategic doctrine that has seen Iran halt attacks on neighbouring states unless directly attacked first, recognising that survival in this conflict depends on limiting the number of adversaries.
The international community often speaks of ‘collateral damage’ as an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of warfare. Islamic jurisprudence approaches this issue with far greater nuance and moral seriousness. Scholars have examined the hadith in which the Prophet was asked about the killing of women and children during a night raid, and he responded: ‘They are from them.’ Critics have seized upon this narration, but classical scholars like Imam Al-Nawawi provide essential context: the incident occurred during a necessary night attack when it was impossible to distinguish combatants from non-combatants in the darkness. The Prophet had explicitly forbidden the deliberate killing of women and children, and this ruling stands as the foundational principle.
The distinguished scholar Ibn Abd Al-Barr, drawing on the authority of early Muslim leaders including Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz and Umar ibn Al-Khattab, affirmed that women, children, the elderly and monks who do not participate in fighting may not be harmed. The only exception, agreed upon by scholars of all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, occurs when non-combatants directly participate in hostilities against Muslim forces. Even then, proportionality must guide the response.
This brings us to a critical understanding in Islamic teachings on warfare: the allowance for self-defence even when civilian casualties may occur on the side of the aggressor. Sura Al Hajj, verse 60, states:
‘And as for him who responds to aggression only to the extent of the attack levelled against him, and is thereupon again treacherously attacked; Allah SWT will most certainly succour him.’ (Sura Al Hajj, 22:60)
Muhammad Asad’s commentary on this verse explains that while self-defence is the only justification for war, and retaliation must not exceed the injury initially suffered, repeated aggression fundamentally changes the equation. When a nation faces unprovoked attack after exercising restraint, it is permitted to take necessary measures to destroy the enemy’s military capacity. This is not a licence for indiscriminate violence against populations, but recognition that states have the right to defend their existence against those who would destroy them.
The Zionist entity and its allies have spent years baiting Iran, assassinating its scientists, sabotaging its nuclear facilities and openly threatening its destruction. They have killed senior military commanders in airstrikes and, most recently, are implicated in the tragic death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Each provocation was met with patience. Each red line crossed was met with diplomatic engagement rather than military escalation.
Now, with the very survival of the state potentially at stake, Iran has finally responded; but note the nature of that response. Despite the ability to strike civilian infrastructure, to create the kind of chaos that causes populations to rise up against their governments, Iran has consistently targeted military installations. Even against US bases and military installations in ‘Sunni’ states supportive of the Zionist regime. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has announced that its operations focus on sensitive military targets, including US bases and Israeli facilities. Even as Iranian fuel depots have been struck – attacks that Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei rightly condemns as ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’ – Iran’s response has remained within the bounds of military necessity.
This is not weakness; it is strength rooted in conviction. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) engaged in only seven major battles during his entire prophetic mission: Battle of Badr (624 CE), Battle of Uhud (625 CE), Battle of the Trench (627 CE), Battle of Khaybar (628 CE), Conquest of Mecca (630 CE), Battle of Hunayn (630 CE), and the Expedition of Tabuk (630 CE). Each lasted no more than half a day. The dozens of other military expeditions recorded in the biographies were, in fact, exercises in avoidance, demonstrating that the Islamic method is fundamentally based on the principle of non-violence, with combat permitted only when totally unavoidable.
The international community would do well to recognise the significance of Iran’s restraint. In a region where collective punishment, disproportionate response and deliberate targeting of civilians – as has been the case in Gaza and now Iran – have become tragically common, a major power adhering to the ethical principles of Islamic warfare, targeting only combatants as best as they are able to, sparing non-combatants, and responding only to the extent of aggression suffered deserves acknowledgement, not condemnation.
When nations abandon the moral high ground, they forfeit the right to lead. Iran, by conducting its defensive operations in accordance with Quranic principles, demonstrates that military power need not corrupt ethical conduct. The blood of our martyrs, from the scientists assassinated in secret operations to the senior commanders killed in airstrikes to the late Ayatollah himself, demands justice. But Islam teaches that justice must never become vengeance. It must remain justice – measured, proportionate and directed only against those who wage war against us.
As the conflict continues, let the world witness which parties adhere to the laws of God and which parties transgress. The Quran is clear:
‘Allah does not like transgressors.’
History’s judgment will be equally unforgiving.
No comments:
Post a Comment