Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Episode 6: Jihad is neither “Holy War” nor only about War - Coggle Diagram
Episode 6: Jihad is neither “Holy War” nor only about War
Q1: Does Jihad have anything to do with, or is in any way similar to Holy War?
• “Jihad” is sometimes translated as “Holy War”, but this is a misnomer and an incorrect translation that has been very misleading. Though there were “many varying theories and forms of holy war, a defining feature of its dominant expression was that it legitimized war as a means of coercing conversion to Christianity.”
• In contrast, “Holy War” does not exist in the Islamic tradition, nor can the term jihad “be reduced to a military matter.”
• “Holy war” (al-harb al-muqaddasah, in Arabic) is not an expression used by the Qur’anic text, the Sunnah, or Muslim theologians and jurists.
• Indeed, a close scrutiny of all relevant texts and the reasons for each of the actual battles fought during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (p) and…
• ….his companions reveal that in Islamic theology and jurisprudence, “war is never holy, it is either justified or not,” and if it is a “just war”, then those killed in battle are considered martyrs.
• As stated earlier, a simple study of the areas of consensus of classical Muslim scholars regarding when warfare or fighting others is permissible, who and what is a legitimate target (i.e. when it is just to resort to war - jus ad bellum, in Latin), and…
• …the conduct of warfare in Islamic law (i.e. how to fight justly - jus in bello), is sufficient to make clear the “Just War” concept of the military form of jihad, and
• (Dawoody) …why unprovoked aggression, terrorism, and insurgency are actually regarded as punishable offences in Islamic Law
Q2: Beside the explanation about Jihad having nothing to do with concept of Holy War, what textual evidence is there that shows that Jihad is only against unacceptable hostility and aggression, and not against religious diversity?
Jihad is against Aggression, not Religious Diversity
• The proof that the military form of jihad is only directed against aggression and oppression, and not against religious diversity is the fact that the Qur’an in numerous places very categorically states that when the enemy stops fighting or inclines to peace, Muslims are required to cease fighting and also incline to peace, and place their trust in Allah (Qur’an 2:192 and 8:61), and that “Allah does not love aggressors” (Qur’an 2:190).
• The following verses of the Qur’an are relevant in this regard:
o Fight (qātilū) in the cause of Allah those who fight (yuqātilū) you, but do not commit aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressor. (Qur’an 2:190)
o But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur’an 2:192)
o And fight them back (qātilū hum) until there is no more fitnah, and religion is (acknowledged to be) for Allah, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (Qur’an 2:193)
o And if they (your enemy) incline to peace, incline you also to it, and trust in Allah. (Qur’an 8:61)
o (Fight them) except those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty, or those who come to you because their hearts restrain them from fighting you or their own people. If Allah had willed, He would have given the unbelievers power over you, and they would have fought you….
o “…Therefore, if they withdraw from you and fight you not, and instead send you guarantees of peace, know that Allah has not given you a license (to fight them). (Qur’an 4:90)
o If one amongst the (combatant) polytheists asks you for asylum grant it to him so that he may hear the word of Allah and then escort him to where he can be secure: that is because they are men
o without knowledge. …As long as they stand true to you, stand you true to them: For Allah does love the righteous. (Qur’an 9:6-7)
• If fighting in Islamic law were directed against a people just because they are not Muslims, then Muslims would not be instructed to stop fighting them even if the non-Muslims concerned stopped, since their stopping does not mean they have become Muslims.
• (Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’an) Muhammad Asad notes that "all Islamic jurists, without any exception, hold that forcible conversion is under all circumstances null and void, and that any attempt at coercing a non-believer to accept the faith of Islam is a grievous sin.
Q3: You have cited some very convincing texts from the Qur’an showing that warfare in the Qur’an is only against hostile others. Is there any further support for this from the Hadith sources?
Non-Combatants are not Legitimate Military Targets
• Additional evidence that fighting in Islamic law is only against injustice and not due to religious difference is the clear prohibition in Islamic Law, based on the Qur’an, Sunnah, and practice of the companions, of killing non
• Muslims who were non-combatants - such as women, children, etc. – which is recognized and respected by all Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence.
• (Mufannaf Abdulrazak) For example, the Prophet (p)said, “Never kill women and children” (Imam At-Tahawy, Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar), “Do not kill hermits” (Musnad Ahmad) “Do not slay the old and frail…” (Sunan al-Sugrah) and “Leave them (monks) and that to which they devote themselves.”
• To this list, scholars add other non-combatants such as the blind, chronically ill, clergy, traders, craftsmen, farmers, the insane, peasants, serfs, etc.
• (al-Bukhari)
• (al-Bukhari) Others who are included are those with amnesty or peace treaties (mu’ahid and dhimmis), emissaries and diplomats, etc.
• If all these categories of non-Muslims are not to be killed, then fighting any non-Muslim is not because they belong to other faiths, but because they have committed acts of aggression against Muslims. In other words, if the military form (qital) of jihad was a form of “holy war” and against non-Muslims simply because they had not accepted Islam, then the fact that they were women, elderly, non-combatants, etc. would have made no difference to their being legitimate military targets.
Q4: If Jihad is against hostility and not against other religious communities, would it then be possible for Jihad to also be fought against hostile Muslims? And did this ever happen?
Jihad can also be against Muslims
• Moreover, the companions demonstrated after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), and the jurists stipulated in their works, that fighting (qital) is also permitted against Muslims should they perpetrate aggression, insurgency, or injustice against fellow believers.
• Allah says in the Qur’an: “If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel, make peace between them; but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight (qātilū) against the one that transgresses until it (the transgressing party) complies with the command of Allah…” (Qur’an 49:9)
• This is most evident in the early battles against the Khawarij and other militant Muslim factions in the past and present.
• As has been noted earlier, the pact of protection (dhimma) with citizens of a Muslim society but who belong to other faiths, guarantees their safety.
• In fact, Muslims are obliged, if necessary, to take arms and fight against whoever aggresses against them: “If the enemy of a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state) comes with his forces to take him, it is our obligation (as Muslims) to fight this enemy with soldiers and weapons and to give our lives for him, thus honouring the guarantee of Allah and His Messenger (p).
• (Imam Al-Qarafi, Anwar al-Buruq fi anwa’ al-Furuq) To hand him over to the enemy would mean to dishonour this guarantee.”
• In conclusion, jihad in Islam has nothing to do with “Holy War” and Islam prohibits fighting others simply due to their difference in faith. Fighting, if absolutely necessary, is only permissible against those who are hostile and violently aggressive against others irrespective of their faith and religious affiliation.
Q5: What would you say in response to the very disturbing image or impression given by popular media that religion is a cause or major source of violence, and Islam is particularly prone to violence?
“Fundamentalists” and Newsmakers in the Media
• The media frequently uses sensational imagery in ways that subtly but strongly reinforce the association of Muslims with violence.
• It is common to view the carnage caused by a group whose members are Muslim alongside images of Muslim worshippers or the sounds of a Muslim call to prayer.
• Through regular media constructions such as these, the average viewer develops a mental connection between Muslim piety and violence.
• This has led to widespread fear of “Islamic fundamentalists” and their alleged religious zeal for intolerance.
• Another cause of the fear of Islam is a double standard in the popular media’s terminology about perpetrators of violence.
• Muslims who commit acts of violence are often labelled “Muslim fundamentalists”, “Islamists”, or “Islamic extremists” (as opposed to “moderates”).
• On the other hand, acts of violence committed by other (or non-Muslim) faith groups, such as bombings of innocent people by Christian members of the IRA are portrayed simply as “IRA bombings” without the Christian tag.
• Other groups of Christian militants such as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda and the National Liberation Front of Tripura in India have committed numerous massacres without media attention on their faith.
• A notable case of Christian terrorism is even celebrated as a public holiday in some countries.
• In 1605, Guy Fawkes and other Catholic revolutionaries attempted to overthrow the Protestant aristocracy of England by blowing up the British Parliament.
• None of these acts is characterized as “Christian fundamentalism” because newsmakers usually consider the fact that Christianity does not condone terrorism. However, the same consideration is not usually applied to Islam.
• Similarly, the race-based and faith-driven policies of Israel are never identified as stemming from a “Jewish fundamentalist state,” nor are the inflammatory remarks made by some Hindu Indian politicians identified as propagating “Hindu fundamentalism.”
• The frequent occurrence of violence against minorities in countries with predominantly Buddhist populations such as Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand are likewise not labelled as relating to “Buddhist fundamentalism” or “Buddhist extremism.”
• In recent history, we have witnessed an American-led “War on Terror”, initiated by the administration of George W. Bush.
• The influence of the Christian evangelical movement on the Bush administration’s imperialist foreign policies is given little coverage by the mainstream media.
• Conversely, this is not the case when it comes to media commentaries about Iran’s foreign relations.
• Iran is portrayed as a nation whose antagonism towards others is derived primarily from its “Islamic fundamentalist agenda”.