What is Jihad? by Nightrider

Nightrider · Sponsored Links

JIHAD: WHAT IT IS

What is Jihad? That is the topic of this paper. Unfortunately, Jihad has become something more than it was originally intended to be. Since we are living in the age of terrorism, – and since most of these terrorists claim to be waging "jihad" – we will take a look at jihad for what it is (not what it was, or should be). Most American newspapers seem to do this quite well. While most honorable Americans are offended by the term "jihad," most militant Muslims nowadays don’t seem to be. Yes, our president has a lot of critics (most of who don’t understand what jihad really has become). It is important to understand where both sides are coming from. It is especially important nowadays, because our president is right.
Let’s start with a definition: ". . . (jihad) means to strive for a better way of life. . . fighting to defend one’s life, land, and religion. Jihad should not be confused with Holy War; the latter does not exist in Islam. Jihad is not a war to force the faith on others, as many people think of it. Jihad is. . . a war against any unjust regime. . . the leaders, but not. . . the people of that country. . . Not only in peace but also in war Islam prohibits terrorism, kidnapping, and hijacking. . . Whoever commits such violations is considered a murderer in Islam, and is to be punished by the Islamic state. . ."1 That hardly sounds like the jihad of the present day and age. Since we are dealing with what jihad is, it is important to make a distinction right here and now. The fact of the matter is that jihad has actually become terrorism. It is blatantly obvious that these "honorable jihadists" are not "true" jihadists at all but are in fact terrorists of the most hideous nature.
What is even more infuriating is that the Muslim faith doesn’t seem to be condemning these terrorists at all. Islamic leaders are mysteriously keeping silent nowadays, while there is more and more bloodshed in the Middle East.
The only people speaking out against jihad are contemporary Christian leaders like Pope Benedict XVI, who made the following comments on September 12, 2006 at the University of Regensburg: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman. . . Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and reason properly. . . To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons, or any other means of threatening a person with death."2 Yes, comments like that only add fuel to an already rapidly growing fire. However, the Pope was right. Muslim leaders need to be more like the Pope in their attitudes towards jihad. If they were, then a process of healing might just begin.
Critics of the pope need to examine their motives. Only a leftist journalist would say something like this: ". . . The Pope’s essay is. . . exactly what we should expect rom the vicar of St. Peter. . . Any Islamic historian, any historian of religion, could easily (see) that Benedict has his history wrong. . . we might have hoped for more from a learned leader at a time when the Western world is desperately in need or greater knowledge about Islam and its history."3 Ok, so what was the Pope wrong about? Where does he have his history wrong? All throughout the Middle East, for about the last 1500 years, there has been nothing but bloodshed in the name of Islam. It is true that we have also seen bloodshed in the name of Christianity. . . however, Christians do not advocate terrorism. They do not blow up planes and kill innocent civilians. Yes, jihad is supposed to be an honorable term. However, many Muslims don’t interpret it that way.
Lee Harris gives a very thorough and philosophical explanation of a very intricate matter: "If the individual is free to choose between violence and reason, it will become impossible to create a community in which all the members restrict themselves to using reason alone to obtain their objectives. . . those whose subjective choice is for violence do not need to constitute more than a small percentage of the community in order to destroy the very possibility of a community of reasonable men: Brute force and terror quickly extinguish rational dialogue and debate."4 In other words, what the Pope is saying is that the world needs a religion of reason, not of violence. Furthermore, if one small section of the world engages in violence towards the rest, they will only succeed in tearing us all down. Were his comments on the mark? That is for the experts to decide. However, we can’t ignore what the Pope said, for to do that would be denying that reason exists in the first place.
Dr. Timothy Furnish sums it up most eloquently: ". . . now Muslims are burning churches in the Palestinian territories and India because the pope made a reference to Islam’s martial past. . . the rent-a-mobs in Gaza and Kashmir are proving the truth of (the Pope’s) assertion. . . the reality is that they simply can’t handle the truth."5 Those "rent-a-mobs" in Gaza and Kashmir certainly don’t help their "cause" by burning churches and proving the pope right. In other words, if jihad is supposed to be a tool for self-defense, then why has Militant Islam become the aggressor? Why do they torture and kill people who don’t agree with them? Why do they have a desire for world domination? The answer is blatantly obvious: they are terrorists, and terrorism is what jihad has become.
On the other hand, some contemporary Islamic scholars (unlike Dr. Furnish) present a thoroughly and utterly confusing explanation to the non-Muslim about jihad. Take, for example, Douglas E. Streusand, who implies that jihad has two meanings, warfare and non-warfare: "Indeed, jihad cannot imply conversion by force, for the Qur’an (2:256) specifically states ‘there is no compulsion in religion.’ Jihad has an explicitly political aim: the establishment of Muslim rule, which in turn has two benefits: it articulates Islam’s supersession of other faiths and creates the opportunity for Muslims to create a ‘just political and social order."6 Okay, so in plain English, what does that mean? What is his point? That is just it – writers like Streusand don’t seem to have a point. . . much like those who wage jihad. He starts by saying "there is no compulsion in religion," then right after that goes on to say that the Muslim faith wants to achieve and establish Muslim rule, while ‘superseding’ other faiths. He goes on to explain that: "Islam wants to employ all the forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal, all-embracing revolution. It will spare no efforts for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far-reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces and this employment of all possible means are called jihad."7 So much for there being "no compulsion in religion," huh Doug? Our friend continues: "Classical texts speak only to, not for, contemporary Muslims. A non-Muslim cannot assert that jihad always means violence or that all Muslims believe in jihad as warfare."8 We won’t go there. . . however, here is the kicker: "The term jihad should cause little confusion, for context almost always indicates what a speaker intends."9 What’s funny is that he actually believes that what he is saying makes logical sense. It’s easy to see why these different Muslim groups all hate each other, not to mention us Americans. Enough said about that.
In order to try to make some sense of what jihad really means, let’s take a look at what "The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World" has to say about the matter. After all, it is safe to assume that many Muslims (except for the Qur’an) hold this book as their bible: "Today often used without any religious connotation, (jihad’s) meaning is more or less equivalent to the English word ‘crusade.’ If used in a religious context, the ‘Islamic’ or ‘holy’ is currently added to it."10 First of all, English speaking "crusaders" don’t and never will torture and behead people in the name of "crusade." Secondly (speaking in terms of the religious sense of the word ‘jihad’), what they are saying is that jihad in fact does mean Holy War.
The book goes on to say: "It is not clear whether the Qur’an allows fighting the ‘unbelievers’ only as a defense against aggression or under all circumstances."11 Now it is starting to make at least a little bit of sense. In other words, it is now clear why all these different Muslim groups are fighting each other. Let’s hope the ‘self-defense’ school of thought wins out, for the sake of all of us. On the other hand, the book makes it clear that "the ultimate aim (of jihad) is to bring the whole earth under the sway of Islam and to extirpate unbelief. . . those who are killed on the battlefield, called martyrs, will go directly to Paradise."12 Huh? Just when things were starting to make sense, they throw that one in there! To think they were doing so well in explaining things. . . furthermore, the article concludes by saying this: "it is an individual duty of each Muslim to rise in armed rebellion against (the ‘heathen Western regimes). . . in order to replace it with an Islamic one."13
It is now clear that Islam is nothing more or less than a religion of contradictions – and a religion that is anything but peaceful. Why would anybody want to submit to them and live under their sway?
Daniel Pipes writes: "The purpose of jihad. . . is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe. . . Today, jihad is the world’s foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-pro-claimed jihadist groups."14 It just seems that jihad has no honorable nature. It’s hard to understand where many jihadists nowadays are coming from. What do they want? We are in fact in the midst of a World War. It’s just that not too many people - even in America - realize it. But, that’s beside the point. Frankly, there is no use for these militant Islamic extremists to continue with their jihad, because it will only lead to destruction in the end.
One question does remain, however, and it is a question for all of us. Who is to take on the burdensome task of cleaning up Islam, the rest of the world or Islam itself? Rudolph Peters writes: ". . . jihad is a concept with a wide semantic spectrum, and its actual meaning differs from organization to organization. . . The concept and doctrine of jihad, it appears, do not give clear and unambiguous directives; their interpretation and application depend very much on the political and strategical positions taken by the Islamic opposition groups."15
So, it is obviously clear that the Qu’ran gives no clear definition to the doctrine of jihad, based on the behavior of these different groups. It is also clear that Islam itself has to sort out its own mess. In other words, maybe our invasion of Iraq was not a good idea after all. By us getting involved, it only succeeds in complicating an already completely convoluted problem. Now, we have to deal with Islam. Basically, there is no quick and easy solution to this dilemma. We can only hope and pray that Islam will eventually "see the light," and realize that they are only hurting themselves in their "Jihadist" Holy War. After all, they are humans, and humans tend to be reasonable folk. But, we also have to remember that Islam is perhaps an unreasonable religion.
Perhaps we should end with a quote from the Qu’ran, which seems to sum it all up: "Therefore, listen not to the unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness."16 The author summarizes this verse most adequately: "The distribution of God’s signs being universal, the man of God (Muslim) pays no heed to carping critics who reject Faith. He wages the biggest jihad of all, with the weapon of God’s Revelation."17 Speaking of God, may he help us all in these troubled times. After all, it is God who holds the final judgment. It can be argued that jihad is in fact an abomination and rejection of God. Therefore, no one should desire to wage it.

FOOTNOTES
1) "Jihad," USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Tests, paragraphs 1-5
2) David Nirenberg, "Paleologus and Us: What Benedict Really Said," The New Republic (Oct. 9, 2006), p. 21
3) Nirenberg, p. 24
4) Lee Harris, "Socrates or Muhammad? Joseph Ratzinger On The Destiny of Reason," p. 4
5) Timothy R. Furnish, "Was the Pope Wrong?," p. 1-2
6) Douglas E. Streusand, "What Does Jihad Mean?" p. 2 (2nd paragraph)
7) Streusand, p. 5 (3rd paragraph)
8) Streusand, p. 8 (2nd paragraph)
9) Streusand, p. 8 (last paragraph)
10) The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, p. 370 (first paragraph)
11) Oxford Encyclopedia, p. 370 (last paragraph)
12) Oxford Encyclopedia, p. 371
13) Oxford Encyclopedia, p. 373 (last paragraph)
14) Daniel Pipes, "What is Jihad?" p. 1
15) Rudolph Peters, "Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam," p. 169
16) Abdullah Yusuf Ali, "(Translation of) the Qur’an)", p. 938 (s. XXV, 52)
17) Ali, p. 939 (footnote 3110)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) "What Does Jihad Mean?," Douglas Streusand, Middle East Quarterly, September 1997
2) "Jihad," USC-MSA
3) "Jihad," The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World
4) Rudolph Peters, "Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam," Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996
5) Lee Harris, "Socrates or Muhammad? Joseph Ratzinger on the Destiny of Reason,"The Weekly Standard, October 2, 2006
6) David Nirenberg, "Paleologus and Us: What Benedict Really Said," The New Republic, October 9, 2006
7) "The Qur’an," Text, Translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., 4th US Edition, 2002
8) "What is Jihad," Daniel Pipes, New York Post, December 31, 2002
9) "Was the Pope Wrong?," Timothy R. Furnish, History News Network, September 18, 2006

Article Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode