Jihad – The Misperceptions

These are indeed trying times for the Muslims in the west. While their brethren in faith shout Jihad in their shrill and high-pitched voices in the streets of Muslim countries, the faithful in the west are left with a very difficult task to explain the militant aspect of Islam.

There is no reason to be apologetic about it. Jihad is a derivative of ‘Jahud’ or “to struggle” and it is a broad term including many ways one can struggle in the way of Allah(swt). Quran enjoins its followers to do Jihad with both life and property and strive in other manners, not necessarily with arms only. For the specific act of fighting or killing in self-defense or in liberating those who are being oppressed, Quran very clearly uses the word ‘Qital’, meaning slaying or killing. Muslims should explain the meanings of Jihad as being a general term to include struggle of various kinds but then do not shy away from mentioning the reasons why Qital may be necessary in some circumstances.

At many places Quran asked Muslims to defend themselves against those who are attacking the Messenger(saw). For that defense, Jihad and Qital was mandatory. As history tells us, the Messenger(saw) fought many wars against the disbelievers who would not leave him alone and tried every which way to stop him from spreading the message of Allah as elucidated and enshrined in Quran.

Similarly, the claim that Jihad or Qital is done only in self-defense is also inaccurate and apologetic explanation of the concept. Muslims must go on offensive when a community is being oppressed, whether Muslim or non- Muslim. In Al-Quran 4:75 Allah(swt) asks Muslims: “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who being weak are ill treated (and oppressed)? 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; and raise for us from Thee one who will help!``

Non-Muslims sometimes imply that Islam is violent quoting this concept of Jihad, suggesting that Christianity and Judaism are non-violent. Nothing can be farther than truth. Old Testament is full of battles describing Prophets David and Solomon engaging in Jihad in the way of Allah. Christians themselves launched Crusades against Muslims which was nothing but invocation of religion for political and military purposes.

But to further assure them that Jihad was also enjoined upon Jews and the Christians, following verse from Quran will suffice: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their good; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth through the Torah the Injeel and the Qur`an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”

In other words, Allah(swt) says very clearly that this Jihad, or Qital was ordered to all believers, including those reading Torah or Injeel. But instead of referring to Injeel, Christians present the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to justify a passive response to oppression. This, however, is only one self-serving perspective. It was Allah(swt) who had ordained for Jesus to die on the cross and has nothing to do with institutionalize cowardice or apathy through any kind ‘non-violence.’

Referring to Christians’ skewed view of Islam through the glass of crucifixion is best summed up by Edward Gibbon in his book: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He writes: “The greatest crime, the greatest “sin” of Mohammed in the eyes of the Christian West is that he did not allow himself to be slaughtered, to be “crucified” by his enemies. He only defended himself, his family and his followers, and finally vanquished his enemies. Mohammad’s success is the Christians’ gall of disappointment…He did not believe in any vicarious sacrifices for the sins of others.”

well writen akbar.

i would stress even further the need to excel in `creative` skills. it is sad to see third world societies suffer from lack of human resources. an example: a elegant and expansive campus was recenlty opened in Lahore for purposes of teaching management in technical skills near Raiwing. the government gave lots of grants to it, and offered tuition waivers as a means to help students be able to afford it. but the whole exercise may end up failing due to unavailability of knowledgeable faculty. maybe the orgranizers and government put the cart before the horse.
whatever, but it also shows that lack of emphasis on human development cannot be substitued for anything else.


there is simply no excuse to message the destructive potentials in people.

Islam is experincing a conterdiction. It is not understood clearly, as a religion, by its followers and those, who preach Islam as its appointed priests, itself an oxymoron, have no knowledge of it as religion. Islam, in the present context, is often mixed with the intentions of nationalism and politics to the degree that Islam`s message comes across as that of a political philosophy advocating violence.

If the term ``Islam`` means peace, then why is a religion based on peace seen as an intolerant, bigoted and a violence prone religion?

Do the Muslims really realize, what Islam means or do they simply call themselves Muslims and identity with Islam due to an accident of birth? Why are the Muslism practicing those very same sins, which they decry in the decadent west?

Building universities on the pattern of Oxford and Sorbonne will not do anything good, because the ideals of those universities was borrowed from the Muslims themselves in the first place. The problem with Islam is that its followers are not sure as to what their religion preaches and those that do preach the religion, do so for reasons, which have nothing to do with religion. The problem of Islam lies in the cowardice of its followers, who do not question the ill deeds committed in its name and those who remain silent, while oppression and injustice, cloaked within the robes of a religious virtue, are sanctified as the cardinal truths. The problem in Islam and the reason why the scope of evil is increasing in Islam is not that bad people are committing wrongful acts in the name of the religion, but the good people, the honest Muslims, who trully love and respect their religion, are doing nothing to stop the injustices being sanctioned in their names and in the name of their religion - Islam.

The salvation of Islam lies in the person and once that person begins to understand the message of Islam, which is peace, and starts to change for the better, the religion of Islam will emerge out of its dark ages. As this transformation happens and the one becomes many, the revivial of Islam, in its true sense, will occur and for that to happen, the one will have to become many and the many will have to become one in questioning and demanding an accountibility of all that is being perpetuated in the name of their faith.

Like that line from Shakespear, the fault is not with Islam; the fault is with us, who call ourselves Muslims.

Ciao

Mr. Akbar

Although there are some good advices in it, your article lacks balance. At least Muslims are delivering at their end:

http://www.jang.net/editorial/index1.cfm?
ed_fullpath=http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/nov2002-daily/
05-11-0002/editorial/index.html&top_fullpath=http://www.jang.com.pk/
jang/nov2002-daily/05-11-2002/top.htm&cont_fullpath=http://www.jang.com.pk/
jang/nov2002-daily/05-11-2002/cont.htm

AND

on the other hand the Muslims living in West should start worrying that the history does not repeat itself by replacing star with a crescent:

http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/holocaust.html

Excellent! - And also excellent responses. Exactly Ferozk. At stake is Islam, the ideologies used to further or diminsh it, will do neither, as long as the mission of the Quran is to fashion and mould the Muslim.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Happy Ramzan to all.
It is well written article from grammer and vocabulary point of view but hypcritically apologetic on contents.

If 1400 years have failed to define jihad properly, it ain`t gonna work through reinterpretation. There are several good and understandable reason for it. When swords wielding Muslim hordes and invaders were hoisting flags over territory after territory in Asia and Africa using jihad, nobody bothered to challenge or reinterpret the meaning of jihad and other so-called peaceful aspects of Islam. Now that tables are turned against them, losing wars, battles, lives and livelihood left and right, the apologists, hypocrites and folks obsessed with the inherent goodness of Islam are trying to salvage what is left standing. This is nothing but expediency for the sake of Islam. This is an effort to save it from going down the drain. Instead of being honest and accepting the fact that jihad is dead concept because historically it resulted in nothing but misery, plunder, devastation and deprivation for the people who ended up on the losing end. Now that the losing end is reversed, instead of saving themselves, saving Islam still runs supreme in their veins.

If jihad was a concept different than what the history tells us, please denounce in harshest words the jihads of history. Without doing this, hypocrisy and expediency label would remain stuck with such articles, ideologies and philosophies. Please start yout article by clearing identifying jihads from non-jihads, from the last 1400 years history, from Al-Badar war to today. Which of the wars, if any, from MB Qasim attack on Sindh to today were true jihads and which were not? Who are the most honored and cherished heroes of Islamic world for the last 1400 years? If you fail to clearly distinguish between X number of fake jihads and 0 number of real jihads, the sweet sugar coated pill of same ingredients might pass through some mouths but in stomach it would have same effects.

I would really like to know which of the Khalid Bin Walis, Otaiba Bin Muslim, Tariq Bin Zayad, Musa Bin Nasir, Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shahab Uddin Ghauri, Babar, Aurangzeb, Ahmed Shah Abdalis` attacks were jihads before buying this argument for Muslim Ummah to create Oxford, Sorbonne and produce Nobel Laureates. The way to do these things is to disregard and leave Islam and Ummah behind and focus on achieving targets. What is the importance of Islam or Ummah if Nobel prize is to the target?

Come out of the closet of suffocating atmosphere and state clearly that: yes, we are losers but we are infatualted with the model that has been leading us on downhill path for a very long time. And that we are now sugarcoating the thorns we laid out behind us to avoid attack from behind and retreating now on the thorn-laiden path back to oblivion. Change the path is the solution and not clearing and sugarcoating old path. If you like to carry a heap of baggage while retraeting fast, well, it is your choice.

Get rid of the baggage, change coarse and make peace with the world, otherwise losses will keep piling up. Do not interpret the meaning of jihad; delete it from your dictionary, vocabulary and language.

Let me again congratulate you for writing a good article but it ain`t gonna work. It is a recipe that will keep dynamism distancing from the mother of all ailments.

Urstruly (#6),
More Muslims have been slaughtered at the hands of fellow-Muslims than by non-Muslims. The slaughter has taken genocidal proportions, examples of which are:

1) a whole village of 30,000 being slaughtered by Syrian strongman Assad because some of the villagers opposed his rule.
2) Jordan massacring thousands of Palestinians.
3) Pakistan slaughtering millions of Bangladeshis in 1971
4) Iraqis and Iranians slaughtering each other by the 10s of thousands in their war
5) A whole country, Afghanistan laid waste after 1989 by Muslims, including opportunistic Pakistanis.

I could go on but it seems to me that if Muslims should worry about genocidal tendencies, it should be from their own compatriots than from outsiders. Remember that these are all Muslim countries with control of their own destinies. And comparing this to a killing of a Muslim taxi driver here or bombing of a Mosque in the West (which are all despicable crimes) is specious at best.

The fact is that there are no Muslim leaders brave enough to come forward and say that there is something fundamentally wrong with Muslim societies which has very little to do with non-Muslims.

A PICTURE IS WORTH 1000 WORDS

Tavard:

You are missing the point. I was not referring to genocide but the root causes that lead to genocide. On the other hand what you are saying is that Muslims should not complain about genocides, because they have themselves engaged in such acts. Allow me to elaborate my point with pictures.

It all starts with the following. Currently, as a matter of fact, Muslim children living in West are already being subjected to what is shown in this picture, just replace star with the crescent:

http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/classrm.html

and pretty soon it turns into following. And it has already happened in various European countries, US and Australia


http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/poljew2.html



It doesn`t then take long to pack trains and get here:

http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/krema3.html



Then the children who are just taunted and humiliated are subject to this:

http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/krema3.html



And men and women end up here:

http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/belsen01.html

=======================

Now you will say that how could this be possible in this day and age. I regret to inform you my friend that it is already happening in this day and age as we speak. And BTW it is not happening to Muslims because they engaged in atrocities themselves:

For example in India, the secular and biggest democracy in the world, the government of India did the following just six months ago, and it is still happening right now as we speak:

http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/india/index.htm



And in another ``integral`` part of India, Government of India is doing this to Muslims/ Human beings:

http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/kashmir/index.htm



CHECHNEYA: just as we speak

http://members.lycos.co.uk/islamonrise/chechenya/chechenya1.html



BOSNIA: Just 5 years ago. In Europe, the cradle of civilization and enlightenment:


http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/bosnia/index.html



KOSOVO: Only 3 years ago

http://members.lycos.co.uk/islamonrise/kosovo/kosova2.htm



PALESTINE: Just as we speak

http://members.lycos.co.uk/islamonrise/genocide/page1.htm



And here is what is happening in ``Muslim`` Uzbekistan and Indonesia to Muslims but by whom:

http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/indonesia/index.html



Oh, BTW the Ramadan is here. Here is a Ramadan gift for SameerJB

http://www.robert-fisk.com/with_love_from_america.htm



And here is Eid Milan Party

http://www.robert-fisk.com/pictures_murder_arabs.htm

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

sameerjb:

it aint gonna happen. you or i might not see the connection between organized religion and spirituality, but to most people in pak, these are one and the same. you will do your cause great damage if you try to bring reform by attacking the core beliefs of a society that is slowly coming to terms with modernity. asking people to completely reject everything they have been taught will only send them into the arms of people on the dark side (i.e. the mma).

also muslims have nothing to be ashamed off because their history is no different from the history of any other group/nation. were the actions of people like bin qasim any different from the actions of european invaders in places like congo or the americas? havent you heard of a good injun is dead injun. why do you think in the face of all the evidence, people like blair and bush continue to flaunt their christian beliefs? dont forget that only about thirty years ago, americans killed a million people in vietnam.

part of the solution in my opinion lies in developing a group of clergy that begins to emphasize the positive aspects of society found in islamic history. even the father of binyamin netanyahu (no less) acknowledged that all muslim societies were not evil. ``Turkey was a haven not only for Spain`s Marranos [Jews who converted to Christianity under duress], but also for the Marranos of Portugal . . . an asylum for many of the Neophytes [another group of forced converts to Christianity].``. By Ben-Zion Netanyahu , father of the better-known Binyamin. ( published in wsj, 10/28, letters to editors). seems to me that part of the iranian clergy has already seen the light. we can only hope for such developments. million dollar question is whether we can get there without the turmoil.

Iran Pardons Cleric Who Was Jailed for Insulting Islam, NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/06/international/middleeast/06IRAN.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

Former Hostage Taker Now Likes To Take On The Mullah, NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/05/international/middleeast/05TEHR.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

The cry of Jehad is heard again and again and from many different quarters. But what was the Jehad to which God and His Prophet invited Muslims? And what is the Jehad to which we are invited today? The Jehad to which God invites us in the Holy Quran is described in the verse:

`So obey not the disbelievers and strive by means of it [i.e., the Quran] a great striving.` (Al-Furqan, 53)

The highest Jehad, therefore, is Jehad with the help of the Quran. Is it such a Jehad to which Muslims are invited today? How many are there who turn out to strive against disbelievers with only the Quran in their hands? Are Islam and the Quran so utterly devoid of inherent merit and attractiveness? If Islam and the Quran cannot attract people today by their intrinsic beauty, what evidence have we for the truth of Islam? Human speech can change hearts. Can the speech of God change no hearts? Can it bring about no change in the world except with the help of the sword? Long human experience shows that the sword cannot effect a change of heart, and, according to Islam, it is a sin to try and convert a people through fear or favor. Has not God clearly said in the Holy Quran:

`When the hypocrites come to thee, they say: ``We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah.`` And Allah knows that thou art indeed His Messenger, but Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are most surely liars.` (Al-Munafiqun, 2)

Here is a description of the hypocritical believers. If it were correct to spread Islam by the sword, then would it be meet or necessary to describe in this way those who had accepted Islam outwardly but were inwardly unbelievers still? If it were correct to convert people to Islam by force, then even such converts as did not believe in their hearts would have been true converts, according to the Holy Quran. Nobody can hope to win sincere converts by the sword. It is wrong, therefore, to think that Islam teaches the use of the sword for the conversion of non-Muslims. On the other hand, Islam is the first religion which lays down the principle of freedom in religious matters in clear and unambiguous terms. The teaching of Islam is:

`There shall be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become distinct from wrong.` (Al-Baqarah, 257)

According to Islam, every human individual is free to believe or not to believe. He is free to follow reason. Islam also teaches:

`And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.` (Al-Baqarah, 191)

Here the law of religious wars is laid down clearly. A religious war is to be waged against those who make war on Muslims because of religion; who seek by force to convert Muslims. Even in such a war Islam forbids the transgression of limits. If non-Muslims seeking to convert Muslims by force withdraw from such an attempt, then Muslims must stop fighting. In the face of such a teaching, nobody can say that Islam teaches the waging of war for its expansion. If Islam sanctions war, it is not in order to destroy or harm any religion. It is to promote religious freedom, to protect places of religious worship. It is clearly laid down in the Holy Quran:

`Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged. And Allah indeed has power to help those who have been driven out of their homes unjustly only for saying ``Our Lord is Allah.`` And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques would have been pulled down wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered. And Allah will surely help him who helps Allah. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.` (Al-Hajj 40-1)

This passage from the Holy Quran leaves no doubt whatever that a religious war is not permitted by Islam unless it is against a people who force another people to abjure their religion; unless, for instance, Muslims are forced to abjure Islam. A religious war may be justified when there is interference in religion. But even when permitted, a religious war is not intended to force a people to give up their faith, nor is its purpose to desecrate or destroy places of worship, or to kill. The purpose of religious wars is to protect religion, to protect every religion, and to save from disgrace and destruction all places of worship, irrespective of the denomination to which they belong. Only such a religious war is permitted by Islam. Islam is a witness of other religions and their protector. Islam is no party to violence or cruelty or un freedom. In short, the Jehad sanctioned by Islam is to make war against a people who prevent others by force from accepting Islam, or who wish to force people to deny Islam. It may be made against a people who kill others because of Islam. Only against such a people is the making of war permissible in Islam. Against any other people, Jehad is wrong and contrary to Islam. War not sanctioned by these conditions may be a political war, a war between country and country or people and people. It may be a war between two Muslim peoples. But it will not be a religious war. The current view of Jehad, which is nothing but violence and lawlessness, has been borrowed by Muslims from others. There is no sanction for it in Islam. It is not even known in Islam. Strange as it may seem, the responsibility for the spread of this view among Muslims lies with Christians, who are loudest in their condemnation of Islam for its supposed teaching of Jehad. In the Middle Ages, religious wars were the order of the day. The whole of Europe took part in them. Christian warriors and crusaders attacked the borders of Muslim countries in the same way as semi-independent trans-border tribesmen attack the border of India. At the same time they attacked those European peoples who were holding back from Christianity. Christians who took part in these wars did so to earn the pleasure of God. It seems that, under the violent and unprovoked attacks of Christians, Muslims lost their balance. Following the example of Christians, they too started attacking the borders of other peoples and countries. They forgot the teaching of their own religion. So completely do they seem to have assimilated the Christian example that Christians themselves have started raising objections. In spite of the fact that objections now come from Christians Muslims fail to see through the Christian game. All over the world today this objection is directed against Islam. Everywhere it is used as a weapon against Islam; but Muslims do not realize it. Unwittingly they continue to supply the enemies of Islam with texts and arguments to use against Islam. The enemy is able to attack Islam with weapons forged by Muslims. The wars which they call Jehad have not helped Islam. They have only done it harm. Muslims have lost sight of the moral conditions of victory. Victory comes not from weapons or numbers, but from skill, organization, education, equipment, morale and the goodwill of other nations. A very small nation can sometimes score a victory over a big nation, because the smaller nation happens to have the moral conditions of victory on its side. Without these conditions the largest armies may prove useless. It would have been infinitely better had Muslims sought their prosperity not in misconceived Jehad, but in the virtues and skills which make for the success of nations. By subscribing to a misconceived Jehad they defame Islam and harm their interests. If a nation indulges in political warfare in the guise of religion, it only drives other nations into united hostility against it. The other nations begin to feel insecure. When international conflicts arrest imulated by religious differences, the state with the largest amount of goodwill for others is not immune from attack by an external enemy. When states are divided over religion, each is afraid of the others. Good behavior and goodwill are then of no avail. These virtues may avert a political war but not religious war. In short, we do not deny but affirm, the importance of Jehad. We deny only a wrong interpretation of it, which has done incalculable harm to Islam. The future of Muslims, in our view, depends on how far they succeed in understanding the true meaning of Jehad. If they are able to realize that the best form of Jehad is Jehad with the Quran (25:53), and not Jehad with the sword, if they recognize that difference of religion provides no sanction for violence against the lives or property or honor of others (Quran, 4:91, 2:191, 60:90), their minds and outlook will undergo a wholesome change, a change which will take them nearer to the right path. Then they will be acting on a verse of the Holy Quran which says: `And it is not righteousness that you come into houses by the backs thereof; but truly righteous is he who fears Allah. And you should come into houses by the doors thereof and fear Allah that you may prosper.` (Al-Baqarah, 190)

Then will they go from success to success.

From Invitation to Ahmadiyyat

``It would be unfair to mistrust the dedication and valour of the jihadis but the lack of peripheral vision renders them incapable of anticipating the unfavourable consequences or unintended effects of their misperceived jihad. As a result, the self-appointed “defenders of Islam” are wreaking formidably more damage to Islam than serving its cause, with their do-first-think-later attitude and insular approach.


The bottom line is that to live gracefully is far more difficult than to die gallantly. To deliver a fearsome punishment to an aggressor is one thing, but to invite an armed conflict is sheer insanity. ``

This is a disgusting set of statements in which the author is issuing certificates for religious/ethical authenticity of every jihadi killing to date.

He is stating that Muslims who take up arms are always dedicated and valorous when they kill, esp when they are killing nonMuslims (given the jihadi movements the author endorses in this regard). But Muslims killing others is `insanity` and `damaging to Islam` only because it doesnot work.

Dear chowk staff, if you are so committed to discussing armed jihad so rationally, let us also have equal opportunity articles discussing armed dharm yudhs and armed crusades and tribal wars with the same rationality and earnestness. You will be doing a great service to the universal fight against oppression because there are a considerable number of oppressed in the world. Unlike some, most of us have no oil to fund our grievances and have to make do with only ideology.

Seriously, doesn`t it strike you as wrong that articles like this propagate the assumption that Muslims come into this world divinely justified in using violence, when the rest of us who adopt a similar ideology are simply called genocidal murderers?

tvarad #10

I wouldn`t waste my time on Urstruly. He suffers from a disease called islamitis. People with this affliction can only see the suffering of muslims, everybody else turns invisible.

SO for example, killing of hindu pilgrims and minority in J&K is OK, but killing of muslim indians in Gujarat is to be condemmed. As you can imagine, in the more advanced stages of the disease, the paitent focusses only on his grievances and paranioa and becomes completely estranged from reality.

In the final stages of islamitis, we have the bizarre phenomenon of people begging for US visas who at the same time say things like ``U.S.A is the worlds biggest terrorist`` or ``USA wants to attack all muslims``.

There is currently no known cure, though treatment with shock-therapy and tough-love boot camps might have promise :)

mr urstruly:

what present did the afghan mujahideen give to the people after the fall of communist government?