Jihad: interpretation vs. meaning

Submitted by Henry (United States), Nov 23, 2005 at 16:01

Purpose: to understand how extremists justify jihad, why the majority of Muslims do not agree with them, what the Qur'an and the sunna (or life of) the Prophet show us, why we must not confuse interpretation versus meaning, and why it is important to view Islam in it's historical context in which it emerged in.

Who I am: junior in college. I'm not a religioius scholar and most likely, neither is anyone else posting on this website. However, I have taken several courses on world religions and islamic theology. I've also extensively researched jihad for my paper, which i felt obligated to post after reading the original post.

The view of jihad in militant Islam and Muslim radicalism diverges from the Sunni Muslim understanding of jihad in two elementary ways: the definition of the believer and the believer's duty to Allah.

Central to Islam is the infallibility of the Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet Mohammad, both held as the two unequivocal authorities. In Islam, the Qur'an contains the actual words of Allah, which Muhammad began to receive in 610 C.E.. Thus, the Qur'an is unadulterated in its message and is in fact the true will of Allah. Prophet Muhammad is considered to have lived a sinless life and is the quintessential exemplar of a Muslim (Rippin 50). Although Muhammad is not divine, like the figure of Christ, he is the "expounder par excellence and model of the revelation (Tayob 89)." The position of Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet are, according to all Muslims, the two supreme sources used to guide and model their life. Militant Muslims and Sunni Muslims both agree on the transcendent nature of the Qur'an and both believe to be following the way of Allah. Where both diverge is not in the position of the Qur'an, but rather, in how they view their interpretations of the Qur'an relative to the position of the Qur'an. Militant Muslims are fundamentalist in the sense they firmly hold an intransigent view that rejects all other interpretations as those of non-Muslims, or unbelievers (Cahoone 182). Thus the question emerges: who is a believer? The significance of the question is essential in understanding how militant and Sunni Muslims differ in how each view jihad, because jihad, according to the radical Muslims, must be waged against all unbelievers (Rippin 70).

The earliest emergence of radical fringe groups in Islam began with the Kharijites. The Kharijites were obdurate in their understanding of a literal and strict adherence to the Qur'an. Merely profession of faith was inadequate, for those who did not follow the Qur'an in its entirety were deemed unbelievers (Rippin 70). The Kharijites felt it was their duty to "command the good and forbid the evil…without qualification or exception (Esposito 42)." Muslims were considered non-Muslim if they did not accept the Kharijites's unyielding view and were therefore enemies of Allah. The Kharijites reasoned that all enemies of Allah, or unbelievers, were subject to "holy war." Thus, the distinction between varying viewpoints were forbidden and Muslims were either Kharijites or unbelievers. Today extremists follow the limited definition to which the Kharijites adhered to: "the Islamic Jihad, the assassins of Egypt's president Anwar Sadat, Osama bin Laden, and other extremists" call for an "overthrow of ‘un-Islamic' Muslim rulers and for jihad against the West (Esposito 42)." Muslim radicalisms have emerged throughout history in response for a "holy war" against the "unbelievers." However, one must understand that these wars are not characteristic of what jihad means within the general consensus of the Islamic community.

The majority of Muslims today evolved from the Murji'ites, who emphasized the notions of inclusivity and tolerance. Like the Murji'a, Sunni Muslims acknowledge there will be differing opinions and feel Allah is the only one who can ultimately tell if one is a believer or unbeliever. Furthermore, the notion of inclusivity and the believer extends to other religions as well:
For every group we have [God] made law and a way. And if God wished, he would have made you single community, but he wants to test you with what he has given you. So compete with each other in doing good. To God is your return, all of you, when he will inform you about that which you differed with each other (Qur'an 6:48).

Hence, Muslims (excluding militant and radical Muslims) extend the idea of the believer to not only Muslims, but other peoples, such as Jews and Christians (Tayob 11). Ergo, militant Muslims diverge with the majority of Muslims, because they interpret the unbeliever differently than most Muslims. How both groups understand whom is a believer is the first difference in opinion between the vast Muslim community and few militant Muslims.

The crux of the problem is not in the differing views of whom is the believer and unbeliever, but rather the preceding question that is elementary in understanding why militant Muslims view jihad differently from the majority of the Muslim community: what are the duties of the believers to God? For Muslims, it means following the Qur'an, the five pillars of faith and trying to emulate the sunna of the Prophet. Like all matters, one must look at the Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet to understand what jihad means and how both the militant and Sunni Muslims differ in interpretation.

Jihad, contrary to popular belief, does not mean "holy war." Jihad means "struggle." Foremost, it means the moral struggle within one's self. There are four main types of jihad: heart, hand, tongue, and sword. That is, "one's internal struggle, expressed in works and speech and lastly the willingness to risk one's life in combat (Cahoone 185)." There is a hadith in which the Prophet returns from battle and states they must turn from the "lesser" jihad to the "greater" jihad (Cahoone 185). Thus, the emphasis on striving to be a good Muslim is indeed the "greater" jihad, as suggested by Muhammad. The last understanding of jihad, the jihad of the sword, is one of the most controversial and misunderstood ideas in Islam. While jihad can mean an obligation of war, it is not a relentless war against unbelievers as extremists deem it.

It is important to note that like Judaism and Christianity, Islam extols peace, but permits the right to fight under certain prescriptions. To understand the jihad of the "sword," Muslims go back to the Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet. Muhammad's call to Islam and his subsequent wars fought reflect "the history of the nascent Islamic community (Eliade 4918)." Beset by flurries of chaotic tribal raids and in midst of the Byzantine and Sasanian empires competing for world dominion, Muhammad's message came at a time when Arabia was in a state of discord and chaos (Esposito 29). Muhammad saw both political and social turmoil and "denounced the status quo (Esposito 29)." The Prophet's call was an exhortation and very much a challenge to tribal leaders and the political establishment at the time, pleading the people of that society to align one's self not to tribal lines, but to the way of Allah (Esposito 29-33). In addition, Muhammad's war did not force religion upon the enemies, as supported in the Quranic mandate "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith (Qur'an 2:256)." People of the books were allowed to live peacefully within the territories governed by the Islamic community and the practice of their religions and rituals were permissible, so long as they paid a jizyah, or tax, which was a common practice during the time (Cahoone 184).The Prophet's defensive war was "to establish a territory of peace, justice and moral order (Cahoone 186)." Regardless, the Prophet's message was unwelcome and controversial. To preserve the message and avoid persecution and death, Muhammad would have to fight (Esposito 30).

Defensive jihad in the sunna of the Prophet must be seen in its historical context. The Prophet, under the guidance of Allah, had to uphold a message and was met with violent opposition. The Prophet's jihad can be seen as a defensive jihad, because war was not sought, but forced upon the Prophet. The Qur'an concurs with the Prophet's defensive and ineluctable war: "And fight in the way of God with those who fight you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (Qur'an 2:190)." The Qur'an also states "if your enemy inclines toward peace then you should seek peace and put your trust in God (Qur'an8:61)." The Qur'an does not mandate offensive jihads and implores the believer not to be the aggressor and to incline toward peace. In the Prophet's sunna and in the context of the Qur'an, jihad of the sword, as Sunni Muslims believe, is only in self-defense.

Shamseddin al-Sarakhsi, recognized as a prominent jurist in the classical age, interprets Muhammad's jihad in four sequential stages: the Prophet's peaceful propagation of the message of Islam, the Prophet's confrontation and exhortation of the "straight path," the Prophet's permission to fight those who wage war against the Prophet, and then the unconditional war against the unbelievers. However al- Sarakhsi emphasizes the Quranic text "Fight you all in the path of Allah, and be aware that Allah is all-knowing (Qur'an 2:244)." Thus, al-Sarakhsi illustrates the progression of jihad to a defensive jihad, and the idea of a war being fought only if it is thrust upon the believer. Additionally, al-Sarakhsi reiterates that Allah is omniscient and the believer is only justified if he or she is truly fighting in the path of Allah (Bonney 25-26). The majority of Muslims align themselves in this view of a jihad constituting war only if it is imperative and defensive.

The Muslim view of jihad, as previously mentioned, pertains to an internal struggle within the heart. However, the duty of defensive jihad is understood and is specifically defined with a holistic understanding of its prescriptions. The majority of Muslims, specifically the Sunni Muslims, fall under four schools of law, each with its own common positions held within the schools: the Hanafi, Shafi, HanbalI, and Malki school. Contrary to the extremists, each school did not demand adherence (Rippin 85). However, each had their own legal deductions regarding jihad by which the majority of Muslims follow today.

The Hanafi, Shafi and Hanbali schools all view jihad of the sword purely in defense. The Hanafi school emphasizes that though there may be unbelief within the community, war is not prescribed if it is not inherently defensive. The Shafi school understands jihad in a stricter sense, arguing that it is the believers duty to wage war on the unbelievers, but accepted the idea of peaceful coexistence of non-Muslim states (Cahoone 186). The Hanbali school, as stated by the hanbali theologian and jurisconsult Ibn Taymiyya views jihad of the sword "as a binding duty only in defense, denying that war on unbelievers merely because of their unbelief was legitimate (Cahoone 187)." All three of the four schools of law emphasize that a legitimate jihad is to be defined to be defensive, in accord with the Qur'an and the sunna of the prophet.

The Maliki school offers another understanding of the jihad of the sword. While jihad should be non-aggressive, it is at times necessary. In the work Muwatta', written by the founder of the school Malik b. Anas , Malik cites Abu Bakr as viewing defensive jihad in as offering a "pragmatic" understanding to jihad (Brockopp 198). Malik b. Anas cites:
I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly (Malik 448).

The Maliki school, offers yet another understanding to the nature of defensive jihad. While defensive jihad is preached in all four schools, defensive jihad should in itself be inherently defensive. One should maintain the status of defensive jihad during war. The reasons for defensive jihad are equally as important as maintaining a non-aggressive stance in defensive jihad.

While Sunni Muslims recognize their duty of defensive jihad, extremists falter in their views because they erroneously abrogate the Qur'an and misinterpret the sunna of the prophet. Extremists justify their radical understandings of the Qur'an and jihad through selected verses and argue them as the final points, despite other Quranic commands. As Bonney cites from the modern theologian Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali, " ‘Islam is a tolerant and accommodating religion', which when it comes to matters of religious conviction and belief ‘specifically forbids coercion and compulsion' (Bonney 29)." Furthermore, extremists such as Shaykh Abdullah Azzam, an ideological supporter of Osama bin Laden, as cited by Bonney states that "jihad…would be won by jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, and no dialogues (Bonney 356)." Azzam also argues "jihad means fighting (Bonney 357)." This explicity goes against the Quranic commands mentioned above to the inclination toward peace and non-aggression. Secondly, jihad does not mean "fighting." While many references to jihad might be oriented to understanding the jihad of the sword, the sunna of the prophet makes it clear that the "greater" jihad is being a good Muslim and following the Qur'an. However, the most apparent flaw in militant and extremist interpretation lies in the fact that terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, kill innocent people. As cited Dr. John Kelsay, a professor of religion, refers to the Qur'an 5:32 and states "if anyone kills another unjustly, it is as though he or she killed the entire world (Bonney 362)." In the mandates of the Qur'an, in the sunna of the prophet and in the vast majority of the Islamic community, the idea of defensive jihad must be non-aggressive. The killing of innocent people is indisputably wrong, because jihad thus becomes aggressive. And a defensive jihad is not defensive if the people they are attacking are innocent.

The problem of interpretation is at the heart of the debate. Militant and radical Muslims believe all who do not believe in their understanding of the Qur'an are unbelievers and are subject to a defensive jihad. However, militant and radical Muslims first assume that their view is right. Muslim radicalisms within the Islamic community wage wars not as the Qur'an states and not in accord with the sunna of the prophet. Sunni Muslims view the belief of the believer in the light that it can only be judged by Allah. And, as stated in the Qur'an, Sunni Muslims take to war only if it is in defense. Hence, while Muslims try to live a life in accord with the Qur'an, extremists diverge from the majority of Muslims in that they view jihad as a duty against "unbelievers." Radical groups in Islam, like other extremists in other religions, do not reflect the precepts of their religion, but rather, an interpretation of it. Sunni Muslims also have interpretations of the Qur'an, but develop a more holistic understanding of the Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet. Thus, it is crucial to understand jihad in two lights: the view of the jihad of the Muslim and the view of jihad as stated in the Qur'an and as exemplified by the Prophet. If a Muslim declares a "just war" it does not mean it is necessarily a jihad as understood in Islam. The association can not be Islam was the cause of 9/11. It is the extremists that are to blame and their radial views of the Muslims. Sunni Muslims, in contrast to extremists, best reflect the principles of the Qur'an. Sunni Muslims use both the sunna of the prophet and interpret the Qur'an in its entirety. To understand what jihad truly mean and what Islam represents, one must again go back to the Qur'an and the sunna of the prophet, for only there is the true meaning discovered. It is in the Qur'an, the words of Allah, that we must go back to find meaning: "Compete with each other in doing good. To God is your return, all of you, when he will inform you about that which you differed with each other (Qur'an 6:48)."





Works Cited
Anas, Malik b.. Al-Muwatta'. Cairo:Dar Ihya' al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyya, 1951.

Bonney, Richard. Jihad: From Qur'an to bin Laden. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Brockopp, Jonathan E.. "Terrorism and World Crisis: Jihad and Islamic History." The Journal of
the Faculty of Religious Studies (2002): 198.

Cahoone, Lawrence. Cultural Revolutions: reason versus culture in philosophy, politics, and jihad. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005.

Eliade, Mircea, et al. The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York : Macmillan, 1986.

Esposito, John. Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2002

Qur'an.

Rippin, Andrew. Muslims Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge, 2001.

Tayob, Abdulkader. Islam A Short Introduction. England: Oneworld Publications, 1999.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".