|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad, Jiaad, Djihad, or Cihad, (Arabic: جهاد ǧihād) as an Islamic term, literally means "struggle" or "holy war in the way of God" or "striving hard in God's cause" and is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such in Sunni Islam.[1] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad (Holy Struggle) is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
Usage of the termWithin the realms of Islamic jurisprudence, jihad usually refers to military exertion against non-Muslim combatants.[2][3] In broader usage and interpretation, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can refer to striving to live a moral and virtuous life, to spreading and defending Islam, and to fighting injustice and oppression, among other usages.[4] Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defense of Islam.[1] The primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state. In the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, the rules associated with armed warfare are covered at great length.[3] Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas.[5] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[3] Although some Islamic scholars have differered on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[6] Some Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad regarded the inner struggle for faith a greater Jihad than even fighting [by force] in the way of God.[7] Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by early movements like the Kharijites and the contemporary Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization (which assassinated Anwar Al Sadat) as well as Jihad organizations in Lebanon, the Gulf states, and Indonesia.[1] When used to describe warfare between Islamic groups or individuals, such as Al-Qaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq, perpetrators of violence often cite collaboration with non-Islamic powers as a justification.[8] The terrorist attacks like September 11, 2001 planned and executed by radical Islamic fundamentalists have not been sanctioned by more centrist groups of Muslims. [9] Middle East Historian Bernard Lewis points out that while some modern Muslims sources try to portray jihad in a spiritual and moral sense when addressing non-muslims, the unquestionable majority of the early passages in the Qur’an, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad as a military tool. [10].
Classifications of Jihad by MuslimsSunni view of Jihad
Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one's soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting. Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the greater jihad. ("Jihad al-akbar"). Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadeeth, in which Muhammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur'an and other writings.[12][13] On the other hand, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that "internal Jihad" is important [14] but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider "Jihad of the heart/soul" to be more important than "Jihad by the sword".[15] Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[16]
Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the lesser jihad, the fight against desires, with the greater jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.[17] Shi'a view of JihadShi'a Muslims classify Jihad into two; the Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad.[18] The Lesser Jihad refers to Holy War, upon which there are strict regulations. [19] The Greater Jihad refers to the struggle inside oneself to obey God (Arabic: Allah) and reject sin. [20] The Greater Jihad, or the struggle to follow God (Allah) and reject sin, is one of the Twelver (Arabic: Ithna 'Ashariyya) Shia Practices of the Religion. Sufic view of JihadThe Sufic view classifies "Jihad" into two; the "Greater Jihad" and the "Lesser Jihad". It is Muhammed who put the emphasis on the "greater Jihad" by saying that "Holy is the warrior who wrestles ("struggles") with himself". Here Muhammed was inferring Jacob's "wrestling" with the angel by which he gained the name "Israel". In this sense external wars and strife are seen but a satanic counterfeit of the true "jihad" which can only be fought and won within; no other Salvation existing can save man without the efforts of the man himself being added to the work involved of self-refinement. In this sense it is the western view of the Holy Grail which comes closest to the Sufic ideal; for to the Sufis Perfection is the Grail; and the Holy Grail is for those who after they become perfect by giving all they have to the poor then go on to become "Abdal" or "changed ones" like Enoch who was "taken" by God because he "walked with God". (Genesis:5:24) here the "Holy Ones" gain the surname "Hadrat" or "The Presence".
Jihad as warfare
The Qur’an asserts that if the use of force would not have been allowed in curbing the evils by nations, the disruption and disorder caused by insurgent nations could have reached the extent that the places of worship would have become deserted and forsaken. As it states:
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi divides warfare into two types:[6]
The first type of Jihad is generally considered eternal, but Ghamidi holds that the second is specific to people who were selected by God for delivering the truth as an obligation. They are called witnesses of the truth (Arabic:شهادة, see also Itmam al-hujjah); the implication being that they bear witness to the truth before other people in such a complete and ultimate manner that no one is left with an excuse to deny the truth.[6] There is a dispute among Islamic jurists that whether the act of being "witness" was only for the Companions of Muhammad or this responsibility is still being hold by modern Muslims, which may entitle them to take actions to subdue other Non-Muslim nations. Proponents of Companions of Muhammad as being "the witness" translate the following verse only for the Companions[6] while others translate it for the whole Muslim nation.[21] As in Qur'an:
Similarly, proponents of Companions of Muhammad as being "the witness" present following verse to argue that Companions of Muhammad were chosen people as witnesses just as God chooses Messengers from mankind. As in Qur'an:[6]
Following is the first verse of the Qur’an in which the Companions of Muhammad, who had migrated from Mecca were given permission to fight back if they were attacked:[6]
The reason for this directive in Medina instead of Mecca considered by most Muslim scholars is that without political authority armed offensives become tantamount to spreading disorder and anarchy in the society. As one of Islamic jurist writes:
Directive of warfareThe directive of the Jihad given to Muslims in Qur'an is:[6]
These verses told Muslims that they should not merely fight the Banu Quraish if they resist them in offering Hajj, but the Qur’an goes on to say that they should continue to fight the Banu Quraish until the persecution perpetrated by them is uprooted and Islam prevails in the whole of Arabia. Initially Muslims were required to fulfill this responsibility even if the enemy was ten times their might. Afterwards, the Qur'an reduced the burden of this responsibility.[6] As in Qur'an:
Some interpret above verses that Jihad never becomes obligatory unless the military might of the Muslims is up to a certain level. In the times of Muhammad, when large scale conversions took place in the later phase, the Qur'an reduced the Muslim to enemy ratio to 1:2. It seems that Muslims should not only consolidate their moral character, but it is also imperative for them to build their military might if they want to wage Jihad when the need arises. The Qur’an gave a similar directive to Muslims of Muhammad times in the following words:[6]
While other scholars consider the later command of ratio 1:2 only for a particular time.[23] A policy was adopted regarding the extent of requirement that arose in wars that the Muslims had to fight. In the battles of Badr, Uhud and Tabuk, the responsibility was much more and each Muslim was required to present his services as a combatant.[6] As in Qur'an:
Qur'an also states that turning backs in the battle field, except for tactical purposes, is a big sin and will bring wrath of God.[24] As in Qur'an:
The driving forceIslamic scholars agree that Jihad should not be undertaken to gratify one’s whims nor to obtain wealth and riches. Many also consider that it must also not be undertaken to conquer territories and rule them or to acquire fame or to appease the emotions of communal support, partisanship and animosity. On the contrary, it should be undertaken only and only for the cause of Allah as is evident from the words.[6] As in Qur'an:
Muhammad, at various instances, also explained very forcefully this purport of the Qur’an:
Similarly as a reward for participation in such a strive, the Qur'an states:
Ethical limitsIslamic Law, based upon the Quran and practices of Muhammad has set down a set of laws to be observed during the lesser Jihad. Qur'an forbids fighting in sacred month and similarly within the boundaries of Haram. But if non-Muslims disregard these sanctities, Muslims are asked to retaliate in equal measure.[25] It is stated in Qur'an:
Observance of treaties and pacts is stressed in Qur'an. When some Muslims were still in Mecca, and they couldn't migrate to Medina, the Qur'an stated:
Similar reports are attributed to Muhammad:
Objectives of warfareAccording to verses 2:190-194, the Qur'an implies two objectives:[6]
Against persecutionDirectives for action against persecution and unbelief:
Also:
Most Muslim scholars consider it an eternal directive and believe that all types of oppression should be considered under this directive.[6][26] Similarly, if a group of Muslims commit unwarranted aggression against some of their brothers and does not desist from it even after all attempts of reconciliation, such a group according to the Qur’an should be fought with:
If Muslims do not have a state, then in such a situation, Muhammad while answering a question raised by one of his followers, directed Muslims to dissociate themselves from such anarchy and disorder:
Supremacy of Islam in Arabian peninsulaIt is stated in Qur'an:
After Itmam al-hujjah (clarification of religion to the addressees in its ultimate form), Jews were the ones who were subdued first. They had been granted amnesty because of various pacts. Those among them who violated these pacts were given the punishment of denying a Messenger of God.[6] Muhammad exiled the tribe of Banu Qaynuqa to Khyber and that of Banu Nadir to Syria.[27] The power they wielded at Khyber was crushed by an attack at their strongholds.[28] Prior to this, Abu al-Rafi and Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf were put to death in their houses.[29] The tribe of Banu Qurayza was guilty of treachery and disloyalty in the battle of the Ahzab.[30] When the clouds of war dispersed and the chances of an external attack no longer remained, Muhammad laid siege around them. When no hope remained, they asked Muhammad to appoint Sa'd ibn Mua'dh as an arbitrator to decide their fate. Their request was accepted. Since, at that time, no specific punishment had been revealed in the Qur’an about the fate of the Jews, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh announced his verdict in accordance with the Torah. As per the Torah, the punishment in such situations was that all men should be put to death; the women and children should be made slaves and the wealth of the whole nation should be distributed among the conquerors.[31][32] In accordance with this verdict pronounced, all men were executed.[33] John Esposito writes that Muhammad's use of warfare in general was alien neither to Arab custom nor to that of the Hebrew prophets, as both believed that God had sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord.[34] No other incident of note took place regarding the Jews until the revelation of At-Tawba, the final judgement, was declared against them:[6]
This directive related to both the Jews and the Christians. The punishment mentioned in these verses was in fact a show of lenience to them because they were originally adherents to monotheism. However, they did not benefit from this lenience because after the death of Muhammad they once again resorted to fraud and treachery.[35][36][37][38] Consequently, the Jews of Khyber and the Christians of Najran were exiled once and for all from the Arabian peninsula by Umar. This exile actually fulfilled the following declaration of the Qur’an about them:[6]
When the Idolaters of Arabia had been similarly subdued, it was proclaimed in At-Tawba that in future no pact would be made with them. They would be given a final respite of four months and then they would be humiliated in retribution of their deeds and would in no way be able to escape from this punishment. After this time limit, This declaration was made in the Qur’an in the following words:[6]
After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Muhammad himself singled out nations by writing letters to them. In all, they were written to the heads of eight countries.[39] Consequently, after consolidating their rule in the Arabian peninsula, the Companions launched attacks against these countries giving them two options if they wanted to remain alive: to accept faith or to accept a life of subjugation by paying Jizya. None of these nations were adherents to polytheism in the real sense, otherwise they would have been treated in the same way as the Idolaters of Arabia.[6]. Warfare in Muslim societiesHistory records instances of the "call for jihad" being invoked by Islamic leaders to 'legitimate' wars of conquest. The major imperial Muslim dynasties of Ottoman Turkey (Sunni) and Persia (Shia) each established systems of authority around traditional Islamic institutions. Part of this incorporation involved various interpretations of jihad.[citation needed] For example, in the Ottoman empire the concept of ghaza was promulgated as a sister obligation to jihad. The Ottoman ruler Mehmed II is said to have insisted on the conquest of Constantinople (Christian Byzantium) by justifying ghaza as a basic duty. Later Ottoman rulers would apply ghaza to justify military campaigns against the Persian Safavid dynasty. Thus both rival empires established a tradition that a ruler was only considered truly in charge when his armies has been sent into the field in the name of the true faith, usually against giaurs or heretics -often meaning each other-, often invoking some Sufi or other theological dispute, but rather driven by the universal craving for power, prestige, and if possible booty or territory.[citation needed]. The 'missionary' vocation of the Muslim dynasties was prestigious enough to be officially reflected in a formal title as part of a full ruler style- the Ottoman (many also had Ghazi as part of their name) Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, 6th Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421 - 1451), literally used Sultan ul-Mujahidin[citation needed]. The so-called Fulbe jihad states and a few other jihad states in western Africa were established by a series of offensive wars.[citation needed] The commands inculcated in the Quran (in five suras from the period after Muhammad had established his power) on Muslims to put to the sword those who will neither embrace Islam nor pay a poll-tax (Jizya) were not interpreted as a general injunction on all Muslims constantly to make war on the infidels (originally only polytheists who claimed to be monotheists, not "People of the Book", Jesus is seen as the last of the precursors of the Prophet Muhammed; the word infidel had different historical uses, notably used by the Crusaders to refer to the Muslims they were fighting against). It was generally supposed that the order for a general war can only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which is vacant), such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states, always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad; there has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate. Some proclaimed Jihad by claiming themselves as mahdi, e.g. the Sudanese Mahommed Ahmad in 1882.
Non-Muslim opinionsThe United States Department of Justice has used its own ad hoc definitions of jihad in indictments of individuals involved in terrorist activities:
Karen Armstrong in her book "Muhammed", writes:
The noted specialist of Islam, Maxime Rodinson, wrote that "Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements." (Maxime Rodinson. Muhammad. Random House, Inc., New York, 2002. p. 351.) The neologism jihadist is sometimes used to describe militant Islamic groups, including but not restricted to Islamist terrorism (see for example Jihadist organizations). The term is deemed offensive by many Muslims who see it as vilifying the more complex ideology of jihad. The Islamic religious legitimacy of the goals or methods of various Islamist movements who adopt the terminology of jihad is often brought into question by other Muslims for its failure to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. The Arabic word hirabah has been suggested as a more fitting alternate in reference to terrorism. References
See also
Political and military aspectsSimilar concepts in other religions and in secularism
Philosophers of Jihad doctrine | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
