Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 1998, pages 117-118

Mahjabeen’s Musings: A Muslim-American Traveller Along the American Way

In Islam, Jihad and Terrorism Are Opposites

By Mahjabeen Islam-Husain

That the West has learned to think of jihad and terrorism as synonymous is not entirely the fault of the Western media. Undoubtedly a small fraction of crazed Muslims have helped this concept along.

Webster’s dictionary defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. An objective analysis of the concept of jihad will show that it is almost antithetical to the perpetration of terror. It is also incorrect to translate jihad to mean holy war or crusade since, even as applied to fighting, the senses of these words do not coincide with jihad.

The Arabic word jihad is derived from the verb jahada which means exerting oneself or striving, and thus has a friendlier connotation than the word qital (fighting). In the Qur’an the word jihad is generally followed by the phrase “ fi sabilillah, ” or “in the way of God.” Qital means killing and bloodshed, whereas jihad connotes exerting oneself for some praiseworthy aim.

The Concepts of Greater and Lesser Jihad

Upon a tradition of Prophet Muhammad, whence he was returning from the battlefield and said, “We have now returned from the smaller jihad to the greater jihad,” has evolved the different concepts of the two. When asked what he meant by the greater jihad, he said it is the struggle against oneself, or the jihadal-nafs.

Jihadal-nafs and jihad al-shaytan (struggle against the devil) imply the struggle against one’s bad inclinations and against enticement by the devil. Though battle at the outset may seem more appropriate as the greater jihad, reflecting on the concept will show that jihadal-nafs is undoubtedly the more difficult struggle. Resistance to sedition by the devil and to one’s base desires is a lifelong struggle with little reprieve unless there is continual God-consciousness, or taqwa.

Another and very important notion of jihad is the struggle for the good of Muslim society against corruption and decadence. This is the same concept as “al amr bil maaruf wal nahin anal munkar” (Qur’an 3:104, inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong). It is mandatory upon all Muslims to work with all their intellectual and material abilities for the realization of justice and equality amongst people and the institution of security and understanding. For the attainment of the above a great deal of education is required, and this is termed jihadal-tarbiya, or educational jihad.

Educational jihad can be thought of as spreading Islamic values in a Muslim society, whereas jihadal-da’wa is the spreading of Islam amongst the unbelievers through discussion and civilized argument. This is sometimes termed jihadal-lisan (struggle of the tongue) and jihadal-qalam (struggle of the pen).

It is founded on a verse in the Qur’an, “Invite all to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious” (16:125). Some modern authors hold that in this age of advanced means of communication, this is the most important form of jihad.

Causes for Jihad

The majority of authors list the causes for which war may be waged (the lesser jihad) as falling into two categories: first, the propagation of Islam, and second, defense.

Propagation of Islam—This is in turn divided into two concepts:

1. Strengthening monotheism—“Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression” (2:193, 8:39).
   
   
2. Protecting the Islamic mission against those who stand in the way—in other words protecting the freedom of religion. All people must be free to hear the call of Islam without any persecution or oppression. This is also scripturally based on verses 2:193 and 8:39.

Defense—This is divided into three concepts:

1. Repelling aggression on Muslim lives and property in case of an actual or expected attack by enemy forces. This is founded in “ Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but transgress not for God loves not the transgressors” (2:190).
   
   
2. Preventing oppression and persecution of Muslims outside the Territory of Islam. This is closely linked with the idea of protecting freedom of religion. It is based upon “ And why should you not fight in the cause of God and of those who being weak, are ill treated? Men, women and children whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors and raise for us from Thee one who will protect’” (4:75).
   
   
3. 3. Retaliating for a breach of pledge by the enemy: This is supported by “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your faith, fight the chiefs of the unfaithful; for their oaths are nothing to them that thus they may be restrained” (9:12).

Conversion to Islam

All scholars are unanimous in stating emphatically that fighting must never serve the aim of compelling conversion to Islam. This is based on “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), and also, “ If your Lord had willed they would all have believed—all who are on earth! Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?” (10:99). An associated issue is the Tradition of Prophet Muhammad which forbids the killing of women, children and the aged, even though they are unbelievers. Had jihad served the aim of forcing unbelievers to conversion, it would have allowed the killing of unbelievers as well.

Relations Between Muslims and Non-Muslims

The vilification of Islam at the hands of the West with incidental contribution by Muslims is effectively addressed by the following verse from the Qur’an: “God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just” (60:8). Muslims are admonished by the Qur’an to avoid inappropriate methods of inviting people to Islam by the premise that, had God so willed, all the inhabitants of this earth would be believers. Islam cherishes righteousness, equity and cooperation in its relations with non-Muslims.

Initiation of Jihad

It is educational to note that jihad is not the passionate sway of the sword based on anger and impulse. There are prerequisites of jihad, which must be satisfied before the initiation of battle.

1. Just Cause: These have been enumerated above.

2. Right Authority:

It is generally believed that no jihad may be waged unless it is directed by the right authority. In Islam there is to be a synthesis between political and religious leadership, and after the time of the Prophet the first four Caliphs wielded this authority. Subsequently the ulama, or religious scholars of the time, are to decide on the necessity or otherwise of jihad.

3. Right intention:

Again there is unanimity of opinion in regard to the right intention ( niyyah), in that this is a fundamental condition for engaging in jihad. There are numerous traditions from Prophet Muhammad that fighting for the sake of conquest, booty or honor in the eyes of one’s fellows will earn one no reward. If one is to engage in jihad one is to do so for the sole purpose of drawing near to God.

4. Proportionality:

Jihad should be engaged in only if the good obtained by means of war will outweigh the evil of warfare. Muslim jurists agree that fighting of itself is evil but becomes necessary when it is directed toward the extermination of a greater evil. In the verse “tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” (2:191, 2:217) the Qur’an recognizes the great evil of killing but regards oppression more grievously.

5. Last Resort:

Jihad may only be initiated if the enemy has been offered the triple alternative: accept Islam, pay jizya or the poll tax, or fight.

6. Purpose to achieve peace:

Practically all Muslim theorists saw the aim of jihad as the establishment of peace. Fighting is never advocated for its own sake, but only to rid the world of fitnah or oppression, and for establishment of the Islamic way of life.

Wars of Defense

Ibn Taymiyyah, a well-known scholar in the year 1328, interpreted jihad as exclusively defensive. Another Indian-Muslim scholar was Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who in 1871 argued that jihad was purely for the defense of the faith, and thus the colonial rule of England could not be repelled, as there was no obstruction for the Muslims in the exercise of their faith.

By the end of the 19th century the idea that jihad is defensive warfare became current in the Middle East, especially in Egypt, through the works of Muhammad Abduh and Muhammad Rashid Rida. Most Muslim authors of the colonial period, however, took a more militant stance against European imperialism than the apologists of the Indian subcontinent. Most notably Jamal al Din Asadabadi (1839-1897) and later the Muslim Brethren (Ikhwan al Muslimin) called for jihad against British imperialism. In colonial India the British regarded the Muslims as being the main instigators of the 1857 revolt.

Muslims were therefore distrusted and passed over in favor of Hindus, thus leading to Sayyid Ahmed Khan altering the scope of jihad and redefining oppression. This led to a temporary pseudo-calm and, of course, his knighthood! Currently most authors on jihad follow the defensive tendency.

BIN-LADEN

Osama bin Laden’s launch to fame is as miserable as that of our Tomahawk missiles in Afghanistan and Sudan. Certainly the one-sided policies of the United States in Palestine and the oppression of the Palestinian people is beyond reprehensible. His other issue is what he alleges was the desecration of Islam’s holy sites due to the presence of Western troops in the Arab states of the Gulf, all around Kuwait’s borders, during the Gulf war.

Regardless of the intensity of these grievances, if indeed bin Laden is responsible for the bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, his modus operandi cannot enter the sphere of jihad. Islam is very specific about the rights of individuals. Islam proposes capital punishment in this world and threatens Hell in the next for murder.

The rhetoric and the mindlessness that emanates from people such as bin Laden is a real disservice to the cause of God, for instead of liberating the Palestinians or delivering Muslims from oppression; it only serves to alienate the world from true Islam. This alienation is obviously antithetical to the cause of jihad, which aims to establish God’s word rather than creating deep antipathy for it.

Antipathy for America

Our response to Osama bin Laden is certainly as shocking as his alleged masterminding of the bombings. The antipathy for America emanates from its weird foreign policies, which are difficult enough for justice-loving people to handle.

We strengthened this hatred by the launching of missiles, violating international law as well as the sense of decency of all peace-loving people. It is as though 95 percent of American neurons are devoted to Starr and Lewinsky, and a depressed, disoriented 5 percent absentmindedly order a missile attack on a far-away land which fails to achieve even the aim of distracting the American people. Bin Laden lives, his zeal and psychosis probably working furiously to thwart the Great Satan again.

Overall I think Bill Clinton is a good president. His morals are of little concern to me except when the news describes his sexual straying in detail too vivid to stomach in the presence of children. His morality may not differ significantly from that of those compatriots who still give him his approval ratings, or even some of the political opponents who assiduously hound him.

What is difficult to overlook is the specter of uncalled-for and probably long-term endangering of American life that “Monica’s missiles” have unleashed.