Answering Jihad
Page 3
For these reasons, no one can claim that “Islam is a religion of peace” in the sense that the religion has been historically devoid of violence, neither in its origins nor in the history of the global Muslim community. Apart from the first thirteen years of Islamic history, when there were not enough Muslims to fight, Islam has always had an elaborate practice or doctrine of war.
In What Way Might Islam Be a Religion of Peace?
In my experience, most Muslims who repeat this slogan have not critically considered the history of Islam. Those who have and continue to say it mean it in one of two senses: a spiritual sense or an idealized sense. In the spiritual sense it is understood that Islam brings peace to a person through personal discipline, a right relationship with other Muslims, and submission toward the Creator. This sense of the slogan is irrelevant as a response to violent jihad.
In the idealized sense, it is generally meant that Islam brings peace to this world. Though battles have been fought, they were fought out of necessity. Ideally, the goal that Islam strives for is peace throughout the world. According to this sense, Islam can be a religion of peace despite the presence of war, so this sense of the slogan is also irrelevant as a response to violent jihad. (Some who espouse this view argue that the wars in the foundation of Islam were defensive endeavors, an argument that I will consider in Question 4.)
The West and the Religion of Peace
Unfortunately, neither of these more viable and nuanced approaches appears to be in mind when Western media and Western leaders proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace. Rather, such proclamations appear to be little more than attempts to change public perception of Islam, albeit for a noble cause such as precluding retaliation against innocent Muslims. We often hear the loudest proclamations of Islam’s peacefulness in the wake of the most heinous jihadist violence. President George W. Bush called Islam peaceful after September 11, Prime Minister Tony Blair after the July 7 London bombings, and President François Hollande after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. This regular juxtaposition of extreme Islamist violence with a strong insistence that Islam is a religion of peace is obviously jarring, and not just to Westerners.
The Syrian Sheikh Ramadan al-Buti, considered one of the most influential traditionalist Sunni scholars in the world, saw an insistence on Islam’s peacefulness as an effort by the West to emasculate Islam. If Western leaders and Western media repeat it enough, perhaps Muslims will begin to believe it. He asserted in The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography that the West was seeking to “erase the notion of jihad from the minds of all Muslims.” In asserting this position, the sheikh showed characteristic Middle Eastern candor in his assessment of peace and violence in Islam. Tragically, he was himself killed by a suicide bomber in 2013.
Conclusion
Instead of seeking to redefine Islam, we should consider more thoughtful and honest approaches. The question of whether Islam can be a religion of peace in spiritual or idealized senses ought to be considered, but the implication that Islam is a religion devoid of violence is simply false. The frequent proclamations by leaders and media members of Islam’s peacefulness may be intended well, but more is needed than good intentions.
Instead, we must open our eyes and not allow ourselves to remain blind to evident facts in our attempts to either protect or sway Muslims. Though violence is writ large throughout the pages of Islamic history, including in its foundations, that does not mean our Muslim neighbors are violent. Muslims deserve to be treated with the kindness and respect due to all people.
In fact, their journeys may be leading many of them to confront Islam’s violence for the first time, as my journey once did, and they, too, may be approaching a critical three-pronged fork in the road. May our eyes and our arms both be open to them.
Question 3
Question 3, What is Jihad?
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM defines jihad in this way: “In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the djihad consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defence.” This is a fairly standard definition of jihad among scholars of Islam in the West.
In broader Muslim literature there appears to be no such widely accepted definition, but that makes sense given the various kinds of jihad and the myriad applications of the term found in classical and modern Islamic literature. The primary meaning of jihad as used by pre-modern Muslim jurists is “warfare with spiritual significance.” This definition appeals more to me than the standard scholarly definition, because it reflects the reality of a less than rigid use of the term.
The popular definition of jihad as “Islamic holy war” is misleading. The words holy war are charged with connotations of the Christian Crusades, but the impetus and theological justification of the crusades were markedly different from jihad, as I will explore in Question 17.
The Developing Doctrine of Jihad
Part of the reason why jihad is so difficult to define is that the Arabic word itself means “strife” or “struggle,” and it is not always used in a doctrinal sense. The Quran appears to use the term to mean a “struggle for spiritual purposes,” at times remaining ambiguous about whether a violent or non-violent struggle is in view. In fact, some verses do use the word jihad as a purely spiritual struggle, such as 22:78.
That said, the Quran frequently uses the word in reference to a violent struggle for spiritual purposes. A clear example of this is a discussion of warfare in 2:216–18 which culminates in Allah’s approval of those who undertake this jihad: “Warfare is prescribed for you, though you dislike it…. Behold, those who believe, emigrate, and undertake jihad, these have hope of the mercy of Allah.” It is incorrect to argue, as do some apologists for Islam in the West, that the word can only refer to a spiritual struggle. Even in the Quran that is demonstrably false, let alone in the traditions of Muhammad’s life.
In fact, when it comes to the hadith, far and away the most frequent context of jihad is violent physical struggle. I will explore this further in Question 4, but for now I want to merely note that this meaning makes sense when we consider the time during which the canonical hadith collections were compiled, which was at the pinnacle of Islamic conquests. The Muslim community then preserved those traditions that were most relevant to them. In so doing, they solidified the term jihad in the direction of a violent spiritual struggle.
By the time of the great Muslim jurists, the generations that founded various schools of Islamic thought and enumerated codes of sharia, jihad had developed into a fairly systematized doctrine of warfare. Conditions and rules of jihad conduct had been developed based on the relevant verses of the Quran and hadith traditions of Muhammad.
For example, jihad could not be the endeavor of a rogue Muslim, but had to be formally declared by a legitimate authority among the Muslim people, most likely the caliph, the leader of the Muslims (see appendix C). The impetus for jihad must be of critical importance for the religion of Islam itself, or at least for a great number of Muslims. The causes ought to be specified prior to engaging in warfare, as well as the terms for resolution. These rules of conduct explain why al-Qaida regularly broadcasted proclamations of jihad with Osama bin Laden prominently displayed as an authority, airing lists of grievances against the West and demands for the cessation of hostilities. The endeavor was not simply for dramatic purposes, but also to fulfill the classical conditions for appropriately launching jihad.
There are other requirements of jihad that classical jurists upheld, conditions that were grounded in Muhammad’s teachings for the sake of humane warfare. These included refraining from killing non-combatants or looting their property, restraint from disfiguring the corpses of fallen enemies, prohibitions against scorched-earth policies, and more. Depending on the jurist, treatments of jihad differed in exact rules and emphases. Although many jurists appeared concerned with combatant conduct for legalistic purposes, by the classical era of Islam there was a definite concern for moral warfare and attempts
to limit collateral damage by some jurists.
Of course, the mere enumeration of rules of jihad did not necessitate their enforcement, and it is clear that Muslims did not always follow them. For example, non-combatants were frequently slaughtered in eighth- and ninth-century Islamic conquests. In addition, Muslim-on-Muslim jihad was proclaimed at times during the classical era, even though these pronouncements should have been categorized as non-jihad hostilities. To be clear, examples of Muslim-on-Muslim violence in the past were not the same as contemporary Muslim-on-Muslim jihad, which is often rationalized by accusing enemies of being apostates. This is a modern development, though with ancient roots, as I will demonstrate in Question 7.
Although the concept of jihad continues to develop to this day, one theme remains consistent. Because jihad is a struggle for spiritual purposes, a mujahid enjoys the benefit of Allah’s blessing. This promise is in the Quran itself, and it partially explains the prevalence of jihad throughout Islamic history, especially among those most zealous for Allah’s approval.
The Use of Terror
Although the Quran probably does not envision something similar to twenty-first century terrorism, it does command Muslims to use terror and spread fear: “Prepare against them all the strength and war horses that you can to strike terror into the enemies of Allah and your enemies.”
This teaching of the Quran is corroborated through the hadith, as Muhammad said, “I have been made victorious with terror” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4.52.220). Casting fear into the heart of Allah’s enemies is thus enjoined in the Quran and has a precedent in Muhammad’s life.
The Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad
A regular feature in Western scholarly discussions about jihad is the distinction between the greater jihad and the lesser jihad. The account reads: “A number of fighters came to the Messenger of Allah, and he said: ‘You have done well in coming from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.’ They said: ‘What is the greater jihad?’ He said: ‘For the servant [of God] to fight his passions’” (Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Zuhd al-Kabir). From this tradition, a number of scholars and apologists defend the notion that jihad ought to be primarily understood as a spiritual struggle and secondarily understood as a physical one.
Although Sufi Muslims did develop the notion of “greater jihad” beginning in the twelfth century, there are significant problems with using the quotation above as a proof text for the primacy of peaceful jihad. Perhaps the most significant problem is that the Quran teaches the exact opposite. In 4:95, the Quran says, “Not equal are those believers who are sedentary, other than the disabled, and those who undertake jihad in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive with their wealth and lives than to those who sit.” The exemption for the disabled makes the verse particularly clear. Physical fighting is more virtuous than not, according to the Quran.
This may be why none of the canonical collections of hadith include the tradition of the greater jihad; those compilers either did not know the hadith or considered it too dubious for inclusion in their collections.
As Muslim scholars assert, and as Western scholars ought to agree, it is inappropriate to look at an entire doctrine through the lens of a single hadith, especially if that tradition is not in any of the canonical collections. The fact that the tradition directly contravenes a Quranic teaching should put the matter out of dispute: The notion that spiritual jihad is greater than physical jihad has no place in the foundations of Islam.
The “Sixth Pillar” of Islam
On the contrary, physical jihad was given such a place of prominence in the foundations of Islam that it has been honorifically referred to by some Muslim scholars as “the sixth pillar.” The Five Pillars of Islam are the minimum practices incumbent on all Muslims: proclaiming the shahada, reciting daily prayers, paying alms, fasting during Ramadan, and performing the pilgrimage to Mecca. However, in the canonical hadith collections, a great emphasis is also placed on the Muslim’s duty to participate in jihad. Perhaps this is why, even in the earliest categorized hadith collections, the sections on jihad usually followed immediately after the sections on the Five Pillars. These traditions, as we shall see ahead, seem to imply that fighting is a requisite duty of all who are able.
Conclusion
Though the word jihad literally means “struggle,” and the Quran at times uses it in a spiritual context, the primary use of the word has always implied a physical struggle for spiritual purposes. The doctrine of jihad has been developing from the time of the Quran until today, in the classical era being expounded to include a code of conduct with injunctions designed to preserve innocent lives and lessen collateral damage. These rules, however, have not always been enforced.
The portrayal of jihad as primarily a spiritual endeavor, often by referring to the tradition of the “greater jihad,” is inconsistent with the Quran, the canonical hadith collections, Islamic history, and classical Islamic hermeneutics. It is an argument that has little grounding in reality. On the contrary, the foundations of Islam consistently portray jihad as primarily a physical struggle, as we will now explore.
Question 4
Question 4, Is Jihad in the Quran and the Life of Muhammad?
IT IS HELPFUL to provide some context about the average Muslim’s encounter with the Quran and hadith before diving into this question. Even though the Quran and the hadith are the foundations of Islam, Muslims do not usually engage in systematically studying their teachings. This is true even of those Muslims who have memorized the entire Quran; though they may have memorized the Arabic recitation of the text, they often do not know how to exegete its meaning.
This begins to make more sense when we remember that most Muslims are not Arabs, and they do not natively speak Arabic. In fact, nobody natively speaks the Arabic of the Quran, as classical Arabic has given way to colloquial forms of Arabic that differ significantly throughout the Arab world, and the only people who speak a form of Arabic that approximates the Quran are those who have studied it in schools.
It is for this reason that, even though I had recited the entire Quran in Arabic by the age of five and memorized the last fifteen chapters by my teen years, my understanding of the Quran was limited to what I had been taught by the elders in my community.
Similarly, though I had memorized the Arabic of shorter hadith traditions, I never even touched the canonical collections of hadith. The hadith I knew were those that had been selected by my elders. Often, during Friday sermons, weekend religious classes, or the like, hadith were recounted without any reference whatsoever. I do not doubt now that some of them were probably fabricated, but I also do not doubt the good intentions of our teachers.
None of this is to point the finger at Muslims, because only a small percentage of people in any religious community endeavor to critically engage their canonical texts. The time, education, and financial resources required for such efforts are luxuries not afforded to many.
Yet the net effect of all this is that the vast majority of Muslims inherit their understanding of Islam and have not investigated the foundations of Islam for themselves. If they were raised in the West and taught that Islam is a religion of peace, as I was, then their first foray into the foundations might be somewhat of a shock, and they will probably soon find themselves either in a defensive position or grappling with significant cognitive dissonance.
Muhammad’s Life and Its Reflection in the Quran
Let’s first consider the life of Muhammad as recounted in Islamic tradition and as reflected in the Quran, with a focus on peace and violence. Although there are many intractable problems that arise when studying Muhammad’s life, including questions about the historical reliability of the sources, discrepant archaeological findings, the ages of Quranic manuscripts, inconsistencies in geographic reports, foreign accounts of early Islam, and problematic merchant records, none of these detract from my present aim which is to simply understand Muhammad according to Muslim
tradition.
Muhammad was born in 570 AD and experienced a very difficult childhood. His father died before he was born, his mother died shortly thereafter, and then his next caretaker, his grandfather, also died. In his young adulthood he became a merchant and was known for his integrity, wisdom, and skill.
At the age of forty, Muhammad received his call to become the prophet of Islam while meditating in a cave near Mecca. It came in the form of a revelation given to him by the angel Gabriel. These revelations were ultimately called Quran, and they gradually increased in frequency. His first thirteen years as the prophet of Islam were spent proclaiming these Quranic revelations to the polytheists of Mecca, primarily proclamations of monotheism. The mercantile economy of Mecca was bolstered by the pilgrimage of other polytheists to their city, which was home to 360 idols, so the polytheists of Mecca did not take kindly to Muhammad’s insistence that there was only one God.
During that time, Quranic proclamations also focused on welfare for orphans and widows and fellowship with other monotheists, such as Jews and Christians. Over the course of some years, many of the humble and weak became Muslims despite the threat of persecution. Some Muslims were indeed persecuted, and a few were even martyred before Muhammad escaped Mecca on the night of an assassination attempt.