Jihad

"Jihad" (جهاد) is an Arabic word which comes from the Arabic root word "jahada"; which means "exerting utmost effort" or "to strive." The word connotes a wide range of meanings, from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to an outward material struggle. During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca, jihad meant essentially a nonviolent struggle.

As a general struggle

Muslims often refer to two meanings of jihad by citing a hadith recorded by Imam Baihaqi and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (even though its isnad is categorized as "weak"):

• "lesser (outer) jihad" — a military struggle, i.e. a holy war
• "greater (inner) jihad" — the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires

Other examples of actions that could be considered jihad (on the basis of hadiths with better isnad) include:

• Speaking out against an oppressive ruler (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 37, Number 4330)
• Going to Hajj - for women, this is the best form of jihad, (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 595).
• Taking care of elderly parents, as the prophet Muhammad ordered a youth to do, instead of joining a military campaign (Narrated by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nasa'i).

The more literal meaning of the word Jihad is simply "a struggle," and so it is sometimes dubbed the "inner Jihad." This "inner Jihad" essentially refers to all the struggles that a Muslim could go through, in adhering to the religion. For example, a scholarly study of Islam is an intellectual struggle that some may refer to as "jihad," though it is not common for a scholar of Islam to refer to his studies as "engaging in Jihad."

As Islamic "Holy War"

Defensive Jihad

Militant Islamists identify two types of armed religious warfare, namely the defensive jihad and the offensive jihad. Most Muslims consider armed struggle against foreign occupation or oppression by domestic government to be worthy of defensive jihad. In colonial times, Muslim populations often rose up against the colonial authorities under the banner of jihad (examples include Dagestan, Chechnya, the Indian Mutiny against England, and the Algerian War of Independence against France). In this sense, defensive jihad is no different from the right of armed resistance against occupation that is sanctioned under the UN and International Law.

Islamic tradition holds that when Muslims are attacked, then it becomes obligatory for all Muslims to defend against the attack; to participate in jihad. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the prominent militant Islamist, Dr. Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, issued a fatwa, Defense of the Muslim Lands, the First Obligation after Faith [1], declaring that both the Afghan and Palestinian struggles were jihads in which killing kuffar (unbelievers) was fard ayn (a personal obligation) for all Muslims. The edict was supported by Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti (highest religious scholar), Abd al-Aziz Bin Bazz. In his fatwa, Dr. Azzam explained:

... the Ulama [pious scholars] of the four Mathhabs (Maliki, Hanafi, Shaffie and Hanbali), the Muhadditheen, and the Tafseer commentators [classical Muslim commentators of the Qur'an] , are agreed that in all Islamic ages, Jihad under this condition becomes Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation] upon the Muslims of the land which the Kuffar [infidels] have attacked and upon the Muslims close by, where the children will march forth without the permission of the parents, the wife without the permission of her husband and the debtor without the permission of the creditor. And, if the Muslims of this land cannot expel the Kuffar because of lack of forces, because they slacken, are indolent or simply do not act, then the Fard Ayn obligation spreads in the shape of a circle from the nearest to the next nearest. If they too slacken or there is again a shortage of manpower, then it is upon the people behind them, and on the people behind them, to march forward. This process continues until it becomes Fard Ayn [a personal religious obligation] upon the whole world. [2]

Offensive Jihad

Offensive jihad is the waging of wars of aggression and conquest against non-Muslims in order to bring them and their territories under Islamic rule. According to the Encylopedia of the Orient, "offensive jihad, i.e. attacking, is fully permissible in Sunni Islam." [3]. An Islamic theologian considered the father of the modern Islamist movement, Dr. Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, declared in his fatwa, Defense of the Muslim Lands; the First Obligation after Faith that:

"Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types: Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory) ... [and] Defensive Jihad. This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and it is Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation on Muslim individuals], a compulsory duty upon all ..."

Where the Kuffar [infidels] are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya [religious obligation on Muslim society] with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin. - And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: "Jihad is Daw'ah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam." [4]

Muslims who do not subscribe to this militant interpretation of Jihad dispute the neccessity and obligation of the offensive Jihad in contemporary times. The "land of war" described in Shaikh Azzam's fatwa refers to the hostile regimes and empires surrounding early Islamic communities. This interpretation contends that offensive Jihad was practiced only to preserve Islam from destruction and that the concept is now obsolete because they believe that the Islamic world is not under attack by hostile forces and religious freedom for Muslims to practice Islam exists in most countries.

The militant interpretation of Jihad suggests that hostile anti-Islamic forces are currently preventing Islam from realizing its full potential for peaceful global expansion. Islam will eventually be adopted by all mankind if these hostile forces are confronted.

Political military authority

Shaikh Azzam's militant interpretation of Jihad describes "Offensive Jihad" as one a campaign that can only be declared by a lawful and legal Muslim authority, traditionally the Caliph. According to this interpretation, no authority is required for initiation of "Defensive Jihad" because when Muslims are attacked, it automatically becomes obligatory for all Muslim men of military age, within a certain radius of the attack, to defend against the attack.

The question of which Muslim authority, if any, may carry out duties such as declaring Jihad has been problematic since March 3, 1924 CE, when Kemal Atatürk abolished the Caliphate, which the Ottoman sultans had held since 1517. Due to the divide and conquer strategies of the colonial and post-colonial world order, there is currently no single established political authority governing most of the Muslim world. Due to this lack of clerical organization amongst the vast majority of Muslims, any adherent may proclaim himself an "ulama" (Islamic scholar) and proclaim a defensive jihad by way of fatwa. Recognition is at the discretion of the listener.

In the absence of a Caliph, the only remaining "de facto" Islamic leaders would be the governments of the modern nation-states in the Muslim world which emerged out of the turmoil of the early 20th century. However, due to the allegiance and subservience of the secular and pseudo-democratic or monarchic Middle East nation-states to the world's non-Islamic military and economic superpowers (U.S., Europe, and Russia), militant Islamists believe that the modern democratic or monarchic nation-states which emerged in the mid-20th century are un-Islamic and unrepresentative of Islamic societies. Secularism is widely perceived by militant Islamists to represent U.S. and European political interests hostile to Islam. As a result, Islamist movements (such as Al Qaida and Hamas) have taken the initiative to declare jihad bypassing the authority of the nation-state. Some Muslims, (particularly takfirists), have declared jihad against their own governments that they perceive as corrupt, oppressive, and anti-Islamic.

Militant Islamist martyrdom operations

To non-Muslims, militant attacks under the rubric of jihad may be perceived as acts of terrorism. Two Islamist groups call themselves "Islamic Jihad": Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Supporters of these groups perceive a strong religious justification for a militant interpretation of the term jihad as an appropriate response to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

To Muslims, a person who dies as a part of struggle against oppression is a shahid (martyr) and is assured a place in Janna (Paradise) where they will be attended by 72 "pure spirits" known as the Houris, and where rivers of wine flow and fresh fruit is abundant. Even if the death of a martyr in a military operation is certain, militant Islamists consider the act martyrdom rather than suicide. Suicide is a sin in Islam.

If non-combatant Muslims perish in such military operations, they are also considered shahid and have also secured a place in paradise. Under this conception, only the enemy kaffir, or unbelievers, are harmed by martyrdom operations. Muslims who disagree with the militant interpretation believe that martyrdom operations are equivalent to the sin of suicide and that killing civilians is also a sin. To them, neither suicide nor attacks against civilians are considered legitimate outcomes of jihad.

The basis of shahid can be traced back to the words of Muhammad prior to the battle of Badr where he stated:

"I swear by the One in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, any man who fights them today and is killed while he is patient in the ordeal and seeks the pleasure of Allah, going forward and not backing off, Allah will enter him into Paradise."

There are Muslim clerics who authorize martyrdom operations as a valid form of jihad, especially against Israel, her allies, and her supporters, believing that such attacks are legitimate responses to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza [5].

Other Muslims reject suicide bombing that target civilians by citing the following hadith:

"Whoever purposely throws himself from a mountain and kills himself, will be in the (Hell) Fire falling down into it and abiding therein perpetually forever; and whoever drinks poison and kills himself with it, he will be carrying his poison in his hand and drinking it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever; and whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, will be carrying that weapon in his hand and stabbing his abdomen with it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever." (Bukhari 7:670)

Many Islamic legal rulings view any killing of civilians (whether through combat or any other militant activity) as against the ethics of Islam. Moreover, since militant Islamist organizations do not constitute an autonomous state or de facto authority, and because targets of jihad can only be recognized military targets, most Muslims do not consider militant Islamist attacks on civilians to be a legitimate extension of jihad. Militant Islamists note that economic targets can be military targets, as evidenced in Muhammad's numerous caravan raids (see Battle of Badr for a description of one such caravan raid and the war that it led to). The Qur'an specifically forbids attacking women, children, elderly people, and civilian buildings during a military campaign. The Qur'an, the unquestionable source of authority in Islam, vehemently denounces the killing of any person who has not committed at least one of two acts:

"Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the earth - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)

According to this verse of the Qur'an, if one human being has not

1) murdered another person

2) created conflict and disorder in the world

Then that human being is innocent. To kill one of such an innocent human being would be the equivalent to the massacre of the entire human race, which is an inconceivably barbaric crime, and a monumental sin. This verse is clear and unequivocal as to who should be regarded as an innocent human being. Moreoever, there is no declaration in the history of all religions that can match the gravity of this condemnation.

Islamic rules regarding Prisoners of War

Execution of Prisoners of War

The Qur'an has very clear verses on how to deal with prisoners of war

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates." (Qur'an 47:4)

and

"Lo, the righteous shall ... [go to Paradise] ... (because) they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading, and feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him, (saying): we feed you, for the sake of God only, we wish for no reward not thanks from you." (Qur'an 76:4-8)

In recent years, the world has observed the spectacle of the U.S. military's 2003 invasion of Iraq and violent retaliation by militant Islamists who have captured and executed suspected enemy agents. The beheading of civilians, even those involved with the United States military, has been unanimously denounced by even militant Islamist groups. For example, in the Muslim world, the killing of Nick Berg was strongly condemned. Scholars at Al-Azhar University in Cairo issued a declaration of condemnation [6], as did numerous Muslim groups in the West including the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Shiite Islamist group Hezbollah and Palestinian nationalist group Hamas denounced the murder. Hezbollah issued a statement calling it a "horrible act that does an immense wrong to Islam and Muslims by a group which falsely pretends to follow the precepts of the religion of pardon."

Iraqi conservative and fundamentalist religious leaders also denounced the killing. Muthanna al-Dhari, a member of the Board of Muslim Clergy, said the act "does disservice to our religion and our cause. Even if he was military personnel he should be treated as a prisoner who, according to Shari'ah, must not be killed." Iyaad Samarrai of the Islamic Party commented "This is absolutely wrong. Islam does prohibit the killing or the maltreatment of prisoners." [7]

Capture and exchange of Prisoners of War

As was the common practice in medieval times, Islam actually categorizes prisoners of war as booty. When Muhammad and his armies were victorious in a battle, the captured male POWs would either be returned to their tribes for a hefty ransom, exchanged for Muslim prisoners of war, or they would be sold into slavery, as was the custom of the time. Women and children who were captured and made prisoners of war were also enslaved; as conservative columnist Amir Taheri writes, "non-Muslim women and children captured in war would become the property of their Muslim captors. Female captives could be taken as concubines or given as gifts to Muslims. The children, brought up as Muslims, would enjoy Islamic rights." [8]

Conversion to Islam by Prisoners of War

POWs who converted to Islam would be freed; "seized in combat, a non-Muslim would be treated as a war prisoner, and could win freedom by converting to Islam." [9]

The claim above by Amir Taheri, however, is contradicted by examining the treatment of prisoners after the battle of Badr. Even though some prisoners were executed for their earlier crimes in Mecca, the rest were given many options, (1) convert to Islam, (2) pay ransom, (3) teach 10 Muslims to read and write. Even the hostile orientalist William Muir wrote:

"In pursuance of Mahomet's commands the citizens of Medina and such of the refugees as possessed houses received the prisoners and treated them with much consideration. 'Blessings be on the men of Medina', said one of these prisoners in later days, 'they made us ride while they themselves walked; they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates." [10]

See also

• Islamism
• Muhammad
• Ibn Taymiyah
• Terrorism
• List of terrorist incidents
• Prisoner of War
• Geneva Conventions
• Just war
• International Humanitarian Law
• The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear

External links

• Jihad: Its True Meaning and Purpose (IslamOnline)
• Islam, Muslims and Violence (IslamOnline)
• War and Islam (IslamOnline)
• Jihad: Not Only Fighting (IslamOnline)
• Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Condemns Attacks Against Civilians: Forbidden in Islam (IslamOnline)
• War Ethics in Islam (IslamOnline)
• Jihad Explained (TheTrueReligion.org)
• The Peace Encyclopedia: Jihad (Yahoodi.com)
• MEMRI: Jihad and Terrorism Study Project (MEMRI.org)