This article is written as a rebuttal to Ronald K. Rodebagh's article titled "Islam’s Challenge"[1]. The purpose of the following argument is to give a brief introduction to the Islamic virtue of Jihad and also to explore the various paradoxes that (non-Muslim) world encounter while understanding it. The argument has two parts. The first part briefly discusses the nature of Jihad-bi-Saif i.e. Jihad with sword and conditions under which it is invoked; whereas in the second part of this argument we will examine the nature of Jihad-bi-Saif in the context of present world or 21st century; which is also the basic premise of this argument.

In non-Muslim world it is widely understood that the Jihad has only one meaning i.e. to go on a Holy War against the infidels and either eliminate them or turn them into Muslims. This is a very narrow and self-serving approach, which only creates problems in further understanding of Jihad. It must be understood that Jihad-bi-Saif is not the only Jihad. Muslim scholars have long identified various forms of Jihad. For example, the best of the Jihads is raising the voice of dissension in front of a tyrant, which is called Jihad-bil-Lissan i.e. Jihad with tongue or dissension. Jihad-bil-maal i.e. Jihad with sacrificing one's wealth for the cause of Allah; Jihad-bil-Qalam i.e. using pen to raise the voice of dissension; Jihad-ul-Nafs i.e. fighting against ones carnal and temporal desires and thus elevating his soul to a higher level are some other forms of Jihad. The following discussion, however, is restricted only to Jihad-bil-Saif i.e. Jihad with sword. From now on we will use word Jihad for Jihad with sword only unless otherwise notified.

There are two sources of Islamic injunctions; Quran and Hadith (the traditions of Holy Prophet). The traditions of Holy Prophet (pbuh) are more contextual in nature whereas Quran, although contextual in some instances, is more universal. In order to keep the argument brief we will limit it by defining Jihad in the context of Quranic verses only. After a thorough analysis of all verses

relevant to the subject, Muslim Scholars have identified three basic objectives of Jihad:

1. Protecting the Islamic Ideology and Doctrine.

"Fight them until there is no more fitnah, and all worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease let there be no transgression except

against the wrong-doers." [Soorah al-Baqarah: 193; The Cow: 193]

The word ‘fitnah’ has two meanings; (a) 'Shirk' i.e. introduction of polytheistic concepts into the strictly monotheistic doctrines of Islam; and (b) any malicious act that brings chaos and disorder in Muslim society. Muslim scholars after examining the context of this verse have agreed that the word fitnah is used in the context of ‘Shirk’. In this case Jihad seems to be more of an internalized struggle rather than an aggression on a third party. However, when an external force undertakes an offence to harm the Islamic ideology and doctrine then it may get externalized.

Such a struggle (Jihad) is not unique to an Islamic society only. Any society in the world would do anything to protect its ideology, not only from an internal threat but an external aggression as well. United States and Soviet Union have fought an ideological war i.e. Cold War throughout the last half of the last century. On many occasions the Cold War had turned into hot conflicts. In recent history two world wars and several other wars have been fought on the basis of nationalist ideology. The Vietnam War was fought to uphold ideology of democracy. The present "America's War" which has started after September

11 tragedy is being fought to protect "our way of life" and "freedom and democracy" etc.

2. Helping the Oppressed

Allah, the Most High, asks:

“And what is wrong with you that you do not fight in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors. [Soorah

an-Nisaa: 75; The Women: 75] [2]

The verse is self-explanatory and explains the reason for Jihad in Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo and various other Muslim uprisings in various parts of the world. And it also explains the involvement of Muslim volunteers from all around the world to help oppressed Muslims. Jihad in this case may or may not be ideological e.g. in Kashmir and Chechnya Jihad is being fought for the right of self-determination. In Bosnia and Kosovo it was fought to save helpless Muslims from the scourge of Serbian death camps and holocaust (with a small 'h').

Again this facet of Jihad is not unique to a Muslim society. There are countless examples where non-Muslim societies have fought oppression. The French uprising against Nazis and US's war of independence are just two of the examples. United

States and UK helped various partisans throughout Europe and Asia to fight against Nazis and Japanese. These are the examples from the recent history. US is now helping Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to uproot what it considers 'evil'.

3. Repelling Aggression and Protecting Islam

Allah, the Most High, says:

Whoever transgresses against you, retaliate likewise against him, and fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who fear him. [Soorah al-Baqarah: 194; The Cow: 194]

Although Jihad in this case is retaliatory in nature, the Muslim scholars have argued that it may be pre-emptive and punitive as well to prevent the aggression before it happens.

"So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson." [al-Anfal 8:57]

Again this virtue is not unique to a Muslim society, any polity in the world, whether atheist, secular, or theist, would repel aggression against itself. Almost all wars in the world are fought either to repel an aggression or to prevent a perceived aggression. US is getting ready for ‘America’s War’ as a punitive and pre-emptive measure.

Jihad is mandatory to all capable Muslims. This virtue is again not unique to Muslim society. There is an overwhelming majority of countries throughout the world, which have compulsory military training and the trained civilians are kept as reservists. A Muslim society is no different. However, it seems paradoxical when people analyze and view a Muslim society through

(Euro-Christian-pre-Renaissance) secular paradigm. People must accept the fact that Islam is not only a religion, it is a political ideology as well. The political facet of Islam is as rational and as un-canonical (in a restricted sense) as any secular polity in the world. The paradox exists because like other religions Islam is also hoped to be just another pacifist religion, which it is not.

Before we close the introduction to the first part of the argument let me say that in Islam the rules of engagement, the definition of an enemy, treatment of POWs, and the treatment of the surrendered and unarmed non-combatants are very clear. Such details are easily available in any elementary level Islamic book on Jihad. Even the most rabid anti-Islamists grudgingly admit that Islam had already introduced the Geneva Convention in 6th century. I will let reader explore this contention on his own.

Now we will examine Jihad in the context of 21st century. Especially, we will examine the causes why Western society is so "baffled" with the concept of Jihad. There are two notions, which should be kept in mind before we further this argument.

The first thing that should be kept in mind is that Jihad can only be invoked by an entity, which has legislative powers in a Muslim society. It could be a parliament; an elected President; an Amir or a monarch in whom a majority of Muslims show their trust; a Caliph (traditionally, throughout Muslim history, Caliphs have been seeking formal support from the representatives of

different factions, tribes, and families. The process is called 'bait'; which means, that the Caliphs were elected, in a restricted sense). There are, however, possible exceptions.

The other thing that should be kept in mind is that most of the Muslim World has won its freedom from the colonial oppression of the West, only in the later half of the last century. In almost every Muslim country in the world there is a struggle between different factions of the society where one faction wants to maintain and strengthen the values of their former colonial masters.

They think that it is the modern thing to do whereas completely ignoring the fact that those values have no bases (origin) in their own society. The other faction, of course wants to re-establish the system of values and the ethical, moral and legal code based on those values which have their bases in the society, always have been, and they are not foreign to the society. They want to

reconnect the disconnect that was caused by the colonial oppression. And it is a logical thing to do. Any social scientist and anthropologist will attest to this fact that imported ideologies almost always are doomed to fail. The demise of communist ideology throughout the world and pathetic condition of (Secular) Democracy throughout the third world attest to this fact. An adopted ideology only becomes imbedded in a society if it is already harmonious with its cultural norms or when it is modified as such. The foundation of any ideology always lies within the society and not without. And that explains the reason for the

worldwide Islamic movements and also that of grafting the Islamic principles with the Democratic system of government.

In this scenario where most of the governments in Muslim world are despotic, tyrannical, and dictatorial, both governments and people find themselves at odds when they face a predicament where Jihad should be invoked. The despots and dictators have left no institutions where common Muslims try to reach to an Ijma’a (Referendum & Consensus), a necessary part of Ijtehad (Logical reasoning to formulate a legislation). Even if such institutions exist, the despots and powerful factions of the society have corrupted them to such extent that they are, practically, rendered useless for a common Muslim. Take for example,

Pakistan, where rulers and people are standing on opposite ends of a spectrum as far as issue of supporting Americans in their alleged war against terrorism is concerned. The predicament calls for a formal Referendum and Consensus (Ijma’a) whereas there is no institution left to carry out such endeavor. These are the reasons why a Westerner or an outsider (non-Muslim) finds different interpretations of the same thing (Jihad). People and government find themselves at odds while explaining it to other people.

So the question that comes to one’s mind, naturally, is: Should Muslims stop Jihad until and unless an institution is set up (in individual Muslim polities as well as one across the board) where Muslims reach to an Ijma’a (Referendum & Consensus)?

Keeping the fact in mind that Jihad is compulsory to all capable Muslims according to the word of God and His beloved Prophet (pbuh) we are faced with another paradox. What should Muslims do when they see other Muslims being hauled into (Serbian style) death camps and when it becomes a state policy to suppress (Muslim) dissent by using rape as an instrument of war, as in Indian Occupied Kashmir? Should Muslims wait until their governments straighten up their acts and take bold steps to prevent such atrocities to happen or should they just lay low and rely on the goodness of the heart of genocidal maniacs?

This explains the reason for various Jihad movements throughout the globe with or without the involvement or formal approval of "Muslim" governments in the world. And the paradox exists when it shouldn’t.

As the time progresses it brings new challenges and we are faced with new paradoxes. Sometimes ago Chowk.com published an article in which author discussed in detail a paradox that exists in or within the concept of Democracy. The idea or paradox is not new but has been in discussion throughout the circles of ethicists and political scientists for quite sometime. The paradox

can be summarized in the following words: In an ideal democracy the government can be described as ‘a government of the people, by the people, for the people’. Under this scenario the majority acts as the decision-making force. Would it be

reasonable to assign responsibility of the actions of a democratic government to the people it represents? What if that government is engaged in a popular war, committing atrocities, plundering natural resources belonging to other people and colonizing them etc. Will it be morally correct to commit acts of retribution against the people of that democratic polity?[3]

The Muslims, the Jehadists, the freedom fighters, the nationalists, and the ultra-nationalists all over the Muslim world were facing this paradox for quite sometime. The lunatic fringe, which also exists in Muslim society as in any other society, has exploited this paradox and committed acts of ‘retribution’ against unsuspecting, unarmed, innocent, non-combatant civilians in the name of Jihad. They have used Jihad as the motivating ideology to commit their acts of retribution, which are below human dignity. This paradox has caused 100’s if not thousands of deaths of innocent civilians when ‘delusional-Jihadis’ have exploded themselves in public places.

The defining moment finally came on September 11, 2001 at 9:45 am Eastern Standard Time, when two of the four hijacked planes crashed into World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one onto the ground killing all aboard. The extent of the mayhem shocked the world. It is still not clear whether it was an act committed by an Islamic group in the name of Jihad or not.

But it doesn’t matter. The Muslim world has unequivocally and unanimously condemned this inhuman act without any reservations. Muslim scholars all over the world belonging to all schools of thought have decreed it as non-Islamic and an act, which is a disgrace to the notion of Jihad. That was also the demise of the paradox, if it ever existed in the minds of common Muslims. If a formal Ijma’a were to take place at this moment an overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout the world would have declared it un-Islamic and inhuman. The Muslim world has come clean as far as the value of human life, especially,

those of innocent civilians is concerned. The paradox is no more. The Muslim world has unanimously defined the word “terrorism” and distinguished it from Jihad.

Does this mean that such acts will stop happening in the future? I don’t believe so. There will always be a lunatic fringe in the Muslim society who will keep on justifying such acts as Jihad. It is same as Ku Klux Klan and White Power who will keep on justifying their hate as Christian Values. A political and just solution to the problems that exist in Muslim world will, however, considerably diminish the influence of such lunatics on the society.

Unfortunately, that was only one part of the paradox, the other part of the paradox still exists. The questions in the collective conscience of Muslim World still remain unanswered. Now it is time that the PEOPLE (not governments) of United States, in particular, and the Western World, in general, come clean, as to:

1. If they hold virtue of Democracy above everything so much so that they have declared this attack on US as an ‘attack on Democracy’ then why their government supports tyrants and despots throughout the world. Historically, US government has supported even those who have committed crimes against humanity and their own people. So the question is whether people of United State also support the actions of their government in this regard or not; since their government is Democratically elected?

2. If they believe in freedom and justice then do they also support their government’s acts of plundering of the natural resources belonging to other people; as oil belongs to Arabs only? Are they a part of this plunder since they are a Democracy?

3. If they believe in human rights and freedom of speech, thought, and opinion so much then why their government supports those tyrants who suppress the dissent with full force of law. Are people of West not an accomplice to the atrocities committed by these tyrants to their own people; since governments in West are democratically elected?

4. If they believe in equality of human beings then why their governments support apartheid and racist states such as former South Africa and state of Israel which discriminates on the basis of religion and race? Do people of West silently approve this discrimination?

5. If people of West believe so much in freedom and liberty then why they support their governments’ mandate on Globalization, which is actually neo-colonialism in any sense of the word. Are people of West an accomplice to this colonization of world by supporting their democratically elected governments?

6. The political assassinations are protected by US constitution. Where do people of United States stand on this moral issue?

References:

[1] Islam’s Challenge by Ronald K. Rodebagh

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?rodebaugh_sep2 301

[2] Islam, Jihad: The council on American Islamic Relations

http://www.islaam.com/jihad/

[3] The Flip Side of Democracy by Osman Niazi

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?oniazi_jul1100 )

[4] Khutbaat-e-Bahawalpur by Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah

[5] The Muslim Conduct of State by Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah

[6] The Holy Quran

http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/quran_browser/pqeasy.sh tml