Robots continue to advance and develop every year, and these consistent improvements continue to amaze us with how much they physically resemble humans. Even though these robots lack spiritual qualities and function way below the human brain, we still admire these developments, for they lead to even more discoveries and help us understand the miraculous human body even more.

Notwithstanding our medical knowledge that continues to build upon nearly 3,000 years of shared human experience and research, new discoveries about the human body, the magnificent work of God Almighty, continue to increase our admiration.

The discovery of the “Interstitium” and the “Subcapsular Proliferative Foci” in 2018 allow us to develop an even greater appreciation for the complexity of our bodies. They are called the “macro organ” and “micro organ” according to the amount of space that they occupy in our bodies, along with the nicknames “buffer organ” and “control center organ” according to their function. These newly discovered biological structures did not attract much attention earlier because, in accordance with our current understanding, organs are more easily visible structures such as the hands, arms, eyes, nose, kidneys, and lungs that have a certain shape and a set of clearly-defined functions. It is interesting that although these complex structures are so widespread in our bodies, they were not known until recently; they are now considered as organs [1].

The Macro Organ: Interstitium

According to an article published in Scientific Reports on March 27, 2018, the “interstitium” was discovered rather serendipitously by David Corr-Loce and Petros Benias of Mount Sinai Beth Medical Center along with Neil Theise, a pathologist from New York University. The discovery came when these physicians were analyzing a cancer patient’s bile duct. Although they had been conducting the same routine over the years, it was the first time they had the sight of slots between examined tissues. They realized that the interstitium was unnoticed earlier due to the disappearance of interstitial fluid after they had examined the tissue with their usual histological methods. Subsequently, the researchers found that this structure was found not only in the bile duct but also in many other organs.

Specifically located under our skin, these micro-compartments were also found in almost all organ membranes except the intestines, lungs, veins, and muscles in order to form a network around the organs with malleable but sturdy proteins. The interstitium, the entirety of the intercellular spaces filled with liquid, has been defined as the largest organ in the body. Actually, examining cells and tissues has been the subject of histology and cytology science for the last 150 years, and the fluid that fills the tissues and forms a basis for supporting these cells was not new to the medical world. However, its definition as a new organ was a first.

The researchers froze the biopsy tissues obtained from the bile ducts of 12 patients in order to preserve and examine the anatomy of the discovered structure. One of the reasons that this organ exists is because it protects the surrounding organs by acting as a shock-absorber and has an effect similar to that of a car’s bumper. Damage to tissues and internal organs remains minimal when one falls, hits something or is impacted Using a micro-endoscopic camera, the volume of this whole organ was revealed to be about ten liters in an adult human [2].

It was later discovered that the interstitium is also present in the structure of lymph nodes, the most important part of the body’s immune system, and that cancer cells enter the lymphatic system through the interstitium. In this case, the interstitium play a significant role as a passageway, or conduction interface, for spreading cancer cells across the body. In an analogy, this organ is akin to the water in which fish swim, the air that surrounds us, and the soil that borders the roots of trees. In this liquid that rotates the cells and spans on the base where they are positioned, any exchange of substances of body biochemistry is regulated within the required amount and size to provide a good setting to the cells, and the hard mechanical effects that may impact the cells are alleviated and absorbed by this liquid pad.

Each discovery of the interstitium’s features, including its significant contributions in the fight against cancer, reveals more and more about how this great organ aids in intercellular communication.

The Micro Organ: Subcapsular Proliferative Foci

One of the most important features of the immune system is that it has its own “memory.” The cells of the immune system can remember the infections a person has contracted before, and can fight infections before they spread. How quickly the immune system reacts based on memory may vary, for instance depending on the type of infection, but is usually quite rapid. Considering how many bacteria multiply in a matter of seconds, a quick response must be launched to prevent infections from spreading across the body.

Professor Tri Phan of the Garvan Medical Research Institute led the team of researchers that discovered the subcapsular proliferative foci (SPF), a “micro-organ” that appeared in the lymph nodes during an infection. Lymph nodes and lymphoid organs such as tonsils, thymus, and spleen are surrounded by a protective capsule made of connective tissue. This capsule was considered to serve the purpose of a mechanical support only to enclose and protect the lymph nodes. However, recent research has shown that in some areas under this capsule, cells that had been alerted to previous encounters with harmful invasive organisms are gathered. These main subcapsular cells are memory B cells that carry information on how to counter the invasive organisms. Memory B cells also proliferate into plasma cells, which are highly important for producing antibodies. Therefore, when an infection reoccurs in our body the subcapsular proliferative foci act quickly to form the first defensive front to prevent the possible spread of infection.

The purpose of vaccines is to activate the attenuated form of a harmful organism to be stored in the body’s memory as an immune response. If the body comes back into contact with similar bacteria in the future, the immune system will remember how to fight it. The discovery of the sub-capsule foci also revealed that these centers are the home for the memory B cells. If they can unveil the development and training processes of the memory B cells in these slots, scientists can produce vaccines that enhance the memory of the immune system even more quickly and efficiently.

The reason why these structures have not been noticed earlier is due to their emaciation, brief emergence, and disappearance. The sub-capsule proliferation centers presented in the article “Memory B Cells Are Reactivated in Subcapsular Proliferative Foci of Lymph Nodes” published in Nature Communications on August 22, 2018 are defined by some authoritative scientists as the “micro-organ.” According to the findings about this new organ, if our infection-fighting immune system would have activated longer than it currently does, we would easily die. Every minute is very crucial in this struggle. These excellent centers that produce memory cells under the lymph node [3] capsules fight bacteria which can replicate in multitudes every 20–30 minutes during an infection.

Although the world of science has been working with the microscope for about 400 years, these centers that have been embedded in our body since its creation could only be noticed today when the microscope design has reached its technological peak.

There are trillions of bacteria living in the intestinal cavity, skin, and orifices of our body. Some of these are already protective and beneficial, yet others are pathogenic. But they do not make us sick because of B cell production centers. When our immune system is weakened for any reason (such as stress, insomnia, or malnutrition) these bacteria can cause illnesses and meet little resistance. These sub-capsular micro-organisms surrounding the lymph nodes were placed in the most strategic places across the human body to fight infections in the fastest way, while the lymph nodes were placed at locations that are most vulnerable to microbial attack.

Consequently, these discoveries increase our admiration for the palace and magnificent realm called our body. It is likely in the light of this information that the anatomy and histology books may be rewritten and the definitions of organs and tissues may be redefined.

References

• Claire Maldarelli, “Scientists found a new organ, but it might not be what you’re expecting,” Popular Science, 3 April 2018.
• iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/newly-discovered-microorgan-helps-explain-how-vaccine.
• nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23062-6

Politicians and anti-Muslim activists frequently take to audiences and websites to criticize the term jihad as a form of Islamic supremacism, oppression, and violence. Muslim extremists, on the other hand, argue that jihad refers to a “holy war” against non-Muslims. Viewing the term jihad through these frameworks alone, however, would be playing into the hands of extremists who forego the other elements encompassed by the term jihad.

In the Islamic tradition, jihad has several different components, including personal struggles, such as the fight against an addiction; social struggles, such as the struggle to become tolerant of others; and occasionally a military struggle, if and when necessary, but only in self-defense. When asked, “What is the major jihad?” Muhammad replied: “The jihad of the self (or the struggle against the personal self).” Contrary to the rhetoric and misinformation about jihad in anti-Islam networks, Muhammad did not say that the violent struggle was the most important form of jihad.

The hysteria in the United States and abroad over jihad has brought me to consider the term through a Christian perspective. In this article, I hope to explore how forms of jihad are presented in Islam and Christianity. This exercise can help to find common characteristics of jihad so that Muslims and Christians can build bridges of mutual understanding and tolerance.

Although the term jihad is not literally used in Christian scripture, the idea of struggling is at the very heart of Christianity. There are a number of instances in the New Testament which provide guidance for Christians who are struggling with different problems or dilemmas in their lives.

One major aspect of the Christian jihad is the practice of non-violence. When the Roman soldiers arrested Jesus and brought him to Pontius Pilate, the man who contributed to Jesus’s crucifixion, Christ said: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my [disciples] would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18: 35-36). Violence is antithetical to Jesus’s teachings. He did not require his followers to take up arms to show commitment to his teachings. Indeed, it was quite the opposite. In Matthew (26:53), Jesus told his followers that “… for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Jesus, as you can see, encouraged his disciples to struggle against the desire to use force when frustrated or antagonized. 

Similarly, Islamic scripture also encourages Muslims to struggle against the use of violence. The Qur’an (5:32), for example, notes that “…. If anyone slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole humanity.” In another Qur’anic passage (2:190), Muslims are told to “Fight in the case of God those who start fighting you, but do not transgress limits (or start the attack); for God loveth not transgressors.” It is clear that these two passages echo the Christian jihad of struggling in the name of non-violence.

Another element of the Christian jihad is to show love to those around you. Jesus wants Christians to “love your neighbor” and even beyond that, “love your enemies,” a point which arises in Luke (6:27). In Matthew (5:9), it is written that peacemakers are blessed, “for they will be called sons of God.” The New Testament demands that Christians struggle in the fight for peace, even if it means embracing your sworn enemies and those who wish to harm you.

The Qur’an also requires that Muslims search for ways of making peace instead of war. Muslims, for example, are required to speak well of others even if they are not believers of Islam. In the Qur’an (17:53-54), it is written that Muslims must “speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share [your] beliefs).” There is also no way a Muslim can force others to believe in Islam, as the Qur’an (2:256) mentions that “there is no compulsion in religion.” The jihad in these contexts is one in which Muslims have to work on treating non-Muslims with respect and dignity.

The Christian jihad also requires that Christians do not retaliate “evil for evil.” Romans (12:17) demands that Christians “live at peace with everyone.” People who call themselves Christians, yet call for the demise of Islam and anything related to Muslims, should heed the demand of this verse and search for ways to build bridges for peace instead of fanning the flames of hatred and bigotry. In a similar way, Muslims who call for violent jihad should remember that the Qur’an (4:9) asks Muslims to leave others alone if they leave Muslims alone: “refrain from fighting… and offer [them] peace, then God gives you no way to go against them.”

The Christian jihad can be explored further in the wisdom left by Jesus’ disciples. Peter, for example, is considered “the rock” of Jesus’ church because he spoke about the struggle to maintain the Christian faith at all costs. In 2 Peter (3:14), he stated “… make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with [Jesus].” In this verse, Peter is highlighting one of the ultimate aims of Christianity — avoid wrongdoing and sin. A true Christian, such as Peter, cared more for fixing his own transgressions rather than attacking others for their sins. He encouraged Christians to struggle with overcoming their personal dilemmas first before bickering and complaining over the errors of others. In essence, he believed progress is rooted in individuals’s ability to change their attitude and behavior in struggling to adhere to the teachings of Jesus.

In addition to Peter, Paul of Tarsus also embraced the Christian jihad. Paul made “every effort to do what leads to peace” (Romans 14:19). In Timothy (6:12), he encouraged Christians to “fight the good fight of the faith,” which can be interpreted as spreading peace and love in the spirit of Jesus. In addition, in 2 Timothy (4:7), Paul stated, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.” There is an underlying non-violent tone in these statements. Never did Paul ask Christians to take up the sword or use violence as a means of showing faith in Jesus.

Moreover, in 2 Peter (1:5-7), Peter stated that a Christian must “make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance; godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.” Peter’s emphasis on doing good and searching for knowledge mirrors the Qur’an’s frequent emphasis on ilm, which means “knowledge” in Arabic. Indeed, few religions in the world place so much emphasis on knowledge as Islam. “Knowledge” is mentioned more than 700 times in the Qur’an.

In the Qur’an (58:11), God raises in rank “… those who have been given knowledge.” Muhammad also emphasized knowledge in a Hadith in which he said that “seeking knowledge is a must for every Muslim, male or female, from cradle to grave in any part of the world.” Muhammad also stated in another Hadith that “the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.” Christians and Muslims, therefore, share a similar jihad in terms of their obligation to seek out knowledge and apply that knowledge in good faith for the betterment of humanity. 

Jesus, like Muhammad, taught his disciples and future believers that struggling is a fundamental element of the Christian faith. He told his disciples to “strive to enter in at the narrow gate…,” which mirrors the popular Muslim notion of staying on the “straight path” or practicing Islam to the best of one’s ability. Ultimately, Christians and Muslims are guided by their scripture to persevere in the face of their struggles. They are encouraged to struggle in this life, to maintain belief in God, in exchange for a higher reward when this life inevitably ends.

In essence, Christians and Muslims share a similar jihad. This jihad is one of non-violence, the love of humanity, the perfection of the soul, and the search for knowledge.

Undoubtedly, throughout history these states engaged in war with other states. A crucial point to understand is that war has always been a form of engagement between states caused by political, economic, or militaristic reasons. Therefore, in a hostile relationship where long-term dominance and its benefits play a major role, it would be wrong to call such conflicts religious wars solely because the opponents have differing religious identities. Such conflicts are embarked not for religious dominance but for political dominance. Additionally, it is possible for Muslims to be attacked solely for religious differences (this still happens today). In this case, it is natural to react to the attack by defending oneself and one’s religion, for, in fact, it actually becomes an obligation for Muslims to defend their religious freedom (22:39-41), themselves (2:190), and those being oppressed (Haleem 65).

Jihad, a crucially controversial concept in Islam, is often misunderstood by many Westerners, and even some Muslims. Whenever the word comes up, what comes to mind is an armed struggle by Muslims against non-Muslims, such as fights, clashes, and holy war. Jihad is a very comprehensive and dynamic term that can take on different forms, depending on historical circumstances and the needs of Muslims (Heck 95).

The word jihad comes from the Arabic root “j-h-d” and its dictionary meaning denotes doing one’s best, struggling against every kind of difficulty. In a religious context, it refers to the struggles one faces for the sake of God. In the words of Gülen “Jihad is … the inner struggle of a believer against all that stands between the believer and God” (Gülen 191). As Campanini clarifies through al-Ghazali’s teachings, there are two meanings for jihad. “The ‘great’ jihad is the struggle for self-purification, in order to conquer the evil inclinations of character and behavior, while the ‘small’ jihad corresponds to war” (Campanini 54). Delving deeper into the former category for purposes of clarification, the great jihad refers to a person’s struggle to overcome destructive obstacles within the carnal self such as feelings of resentment, hatred, envy, arrogance, and haughtiness – feelings that Islam orders followers not to harbor.

The following explanation for why jihad is confused with terrorism can be made: for the Muslim world, the 20^th century was one that was full of oppression and colonialism. Dating back further, to the 19^th century, a majority of Muslim lands were struggling for independence. In these battles and wars, Islam was conceived as a means to unite and mobilize people. During these wars, jihad was naturally the most frequently used concept. The war was against these invaders and colonizers, and the people were fighting to protect their country, their people, and their religion. Religious concepts – Qur’anic verses and the sayings and practices of the Prophet – were the main motivational factors driving Muslims during their hard struggle. Muslims called these wars, which were carried out in legitimate self-defense, jihad; however, there is a barrier between war and jihad in Islam that needs to be clarified.

The primary source of information in Islam must be the Qur’an; thus, I will refer to the Qur’an and its usage of the word jihad. Jihad is used in three verses in the Qur’an in the imperative form, as “jahid” and “jahidu,” to mean fighting against non-Muslims.

The other verses that contain jihad refer to its greater meaning, the personal struggle against feelings raised by the carnal self. Actually, the Qur’anic verses concerning war are mostly expressed by the word qital (fighting) rather than jihad (Haleem 64). In terms of the etymological meaning of qital, the relative context of the verses in which it is used and the events on which these were revealed support the fact that this word was mostly used in expressing war in the Qur’an. To give a few examples[1]:

Fight in God’s cause against those who fight against you, but do not exceed the bounds (set by God), for surely God loves not those who exceed the bounds (Baqara 2:190). But if they break their pledges after their treaty (with you) and assail your religion, then fight with those leaders of unbelief – surely they have no trustworthy pledges – so that they may desist (from aggression) (Tawba 9:12-13).

Reading these verses raises an important question: would it be wrong to identify jihad with war, or to give an emphasis to the aspect of war? The simple answer is no, for almost all of the verses related to jihad and qital were revealed in a situation of warfare. Furthermore, it would not be possible to interpret other verses in the Qur’an referring to the great jihad, such as striving with wealth (4:95, 8:72), without these terms’ relation to the aspect of war. This is the very point where the concepts of jihad and qital intersect.

When people devoid of the necessary knowledge of history and Qur’anic commentary methods interpret Qur’anic verses concerning war, they often take it out of context, ignoring the previous verse and subsequent ones, thereby presenting Islam as a religion that gives no value to non-Muslims. This is absolutely wrong. I shall support my argument with a few Qur’anic verses that are commonly misinterpreted:

… kill them wherever you come upon them, and drive them out from where they drove you out. Disorder (rooted in rebellion against God and recognizing no laws) is worse than killing. Do not fight against them in the vicinities of the Sacred Mosque unless they fight against you there; but if they fight against you (there), kill them – such is the recompense of the (rebellious) unbelievers. (Baqara 2:191)

To understand a Qur’anic verse correctly, two essential things need to be kept in mind. First, the verse needs to be considered both independently and within its context. Second, the event for which the verse was revealed needs to be considered. If we consider the above verse with its previous and subsequent verses, we understand that there is an armed group that does not want to let the Muslims live. Thus, God allows the Muslims to put up a legitimate defense, and particularly commands them not be on the side that starts the fight. Furthermore, God reminds them that they should accept any possible offers of peace from the other side, no matter the stage of war.

This verse refers to the idolaters of Mecca, who tortured every Muslim they could, declared a boycott on all relations with Muslims, sent them into exile, drove them out of their homes, tried to force them back to paganism, and when Muslims began to gain power after settling in Medina, the idolaters constantly violated their peace treaties. When the verse is considered in this light, one may even ask the question: why did the Muslims even wait for a revelation to defend themselves – isn’t it common sense to strive to survive?

Let’s take a look at another commonly misinterpreted verse: “…seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and do not take to yourselves any of them as confident, nor as helper” (Nisa 4:88). This verse is often known to be quoted separately to detach it from its context. When one reads this verse as I have presented it, one sees the image of a ruthless and aggressive Muslim, sword in hand, ready to fight. However, as we experienced with the previous verse, reading the context (Nisa 4:88-91) alone will suffice in giving us a better idea behind this verse. After reading the context of the verse, we see that the people mentioned here are the hypocrites of Mecca and Medina. They pretended to be on the sides of the Muslims, but they were not sincere in their faith. Moreover, these hypocrites took every opportunity to act against the Muslims. An additional point to emphasize with this passage is not the command to kill, but the command by God to accept peace if it is offered. Thus, Muslims are not to be on the side that starts a war, but if they are attacked by an enemy, they are allowed to defend themselves.

These were just two examples of verses that are often misinterpreted when stripped from their contexts. These misinterpretations lead to the misinterpretation of Islam and obfuscate the true meaning of jihad. We can also give examples that clarify the meaning of jihad from secondary sources, such as the Prophet’s sayings, or hadiths. God’s Messenger was the conveyor of the Qur’an; therefore it is impossible for his words or practices to contradict the Qur’an in any way. When we look at the Prophet’s sayings on the topic of jihad, we see the same truth behind it.

One example that often comes up when jihad is mentioned is as follows: on returning to Medina after a battle, God’s Messenger told his companions: “We are returning from the lesser jihad to the greater one.” After having fought a battle in which many Muslims had lost their lives, the Companions were surprised to hear this statement from God’s Messenger. When they asked what the greater jihad was, he explained that it was fighting the carnal self (Ajluni, Kashf al-Khafa, 1:424).

An additional example is what the Prophet told a Companion who asked for permission if he could join a military campaign. The Prophet asked the man whether his parents were alive, upon which the man replied affirmatively. The Prophet said in return: “You perform jihad by serving them” (Bukhari, Jihad, 138). God’s Messenger had a plethora of other cases in which he used the word jihad in a wider non-militaristic sense. Two more of these sayings are: “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for truth in the face of injustice,” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, 13) and, “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for the truth before an unjust and cruel ruler” Abu Dawud, Malahim, 17). More importantly, the gravity of this form of jihad is strengthened when looking at one of the statements of the Prophet: “Whoever dies trying to protect his property from a usurper dies a martyr” (Abou El Fadl, 123).

Hitherto, we have looked at jihad in a theoretical sense, using definitions interpreted from the Qur’an and the Prophet’s sayings to reveal its true nature. It is not unreasonable for the reader to wonder how the Prophet acted in times of warfare to further dispel notions of jihad being considered a “holy war”; after all, there were wars and battles in which the Prophet was present. To give a brief account of the Prophet’s example in this light, let’s consider the Battle of Badr. The enemies of the Muslims in the Battle of Badr were the Meccan pagans, who were afraid that the Prophet was amassing enough supporters to pose a strong threat to the Meccans. Consequently, the Meccans sent a letter of ultimatum to their allies in Medina, appealing for the exile and the execution of the Prophet and his followers.[2] These harsh letters caused great upheaval in Medina; however, the actions that the Prophet took quickly eliminated the anxiety of the people of Medina.

The first of the Prophet’s actions was to sign a pact of truce with nearby tribes. The essential elements that he signed with the neighboring tribes were aimed at preventing the neighbors from assisting the Meccans against the Muslims. The Meccans proved to be determined, and despite all of the Prophet’s actions aimed at holding peace, the Meccans wanted to fight. When everyone knew that the battle was inevitable, the Prophet made a last attempt by sending Umar with an offer of peace[3], which was refused and provided the spark for the Battle of Badr. Similarly, when looking at accounts of the other battles of the Prophet – Uhud, Khandaq, and Khaybar – one sees that God’s Messenger always strived to maintain peace and worked to avoid engaging in the Western, ill-defined “jihad” – the spread of Islam, the taking of lives of non-Muslims, and the acquisition of new lands.

Now that the true definition of jihad has been clarified using the Qur’an and accurate interpretations as a primary source and the Prophet’s sayings and actions during warfare as a second source, we have to consider some broader questions. When is jihad complete? How can we accept one interpretation as the proper one? Why is jihad so misunderstood by some Muslims? Does it play to their advantage to intentionally misrepresent it? Lastly, does violent jihad justify terrorism?

Jihad, as mentioned earlier, has two meanings: the “great” jihad – corresponding to self-purification in the path of God, comparable to the Christians’ miles Christi (Peters 206) – and the “small” jihad – corresponding to war. The former type of jihad is essentially never complete; it is everlasting throughout one’s life, for situations that necessitate “great” jihad emerge everyday in a Muslim’s life. In example, if we look at the citizens of Syria today who are opposed to the ruthless oppression of their dictatorial leader, we see that they experience jihad everyday, for the Prophet has stated that, “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for the truth before an unjust and cruel ruler.”[4] And the tens of thousands of Syrians who have already lost their lives in the face of injustice in Syria’s conflict have died martyrs, for the Prophet has stated that “whoever dies trying to protect his property from a usurper dies a martyr” (Abou El Fadl, 123). If we consider the “small” jihad in this question, we can say that it is intermittent, experienced by Muslims whenever they need to engage in warfare for self-defense to protect their country and their religious freedom.

When faced with the question of the accuracy of interpretations, one cannot bluntly state that one interpretation is more accurate than the other. When presented with a similar question, John Esposito, a Professor of Religion at Georgetown, pointed to a Surah from the Qur’an, which recalls how “God made humankind into nations and tribes for you to get to know one another not that you may despise one another.”[5] These words support a language of religious plurality, a concept that is contrary to religious extremism. Esposito further argued that there is no central authority in Islam or Christianity who can speak for all Muslims or for all Christians. Although the Pope is the central authority for Roman Catholicism, he does not speak for the Orthodoxy or for Protestantism. Every denomination has its own individual religious authority. Islam, similarly, supports the idea of ijtihad, the individual interpretation of the Qur’an. The important point in this question behind interpretations is the broadening of the base of religious authorities. Esposito argues that although this diversification may lead to more chaotic situations, it also serves as a check for religious authorities who legitimize illegitimate wars. Therefore, this system of checking can prove beneficial in stopping wars, though it may pose more problems in other aspects of interpretation.

Earlier in the paper, I gave an example as to why Westerners might misunderstand jihad; this poses the inevitable question: why is it misunderstood by Muslims? More specifically, does it play to their advantage to intentionally misunderstand it? Rahman describes the true meaning behind the propaganda slogan “Islam was spread by the sword” in his book Major Themes of the Qur’an. He writes: “What was spread by the sword was not the religion of Islam, but the political domain of Islam, so that Islam could work to produce the order on the earth that the Qur’an seeks” (Rahman 63). However, Rahman also points out that armed jihad was often used by later Muslims whose primary aim was territorial expansion and not the worldview they were asked to establish by God. This, unfortunately, answers the question posed above with a yes; it does play to some Muslims’ advantage to intentionally misinterpret jihad for selfish reasons: territorial expansion, political power, and economic benefits, all under the pretext of “religious duty.” These kinds of interpretations of Qur’anic verses and hadiths outside of their more important contexts render the practice of religion astray, allowing selfish extremists to justify their illegal behaviors. However, it is important to note that their justifications behind their actions are largely unaccepted by the greater Muslim community around the world, those who know the distinction between the two jihads and how to apply them in their lives.[6] This brings us to the final question: does violent jihad justify terrorism?

In the Muslim world, there is and always have been radical thoughts and political ideologies; the same is true in Christianity, Judaism, and other religions. However, it is wrong to identify the thoughts and the beliefs of radical groups with religion. One of the focuses of this paper was to emphasize the importance of using the Qur’an and the statements of the Prophet to seek answers in Islam, and the aforementioned radical thoughts are not found in either. Nonetheless, there are still those who commit terrorist acts “for God” or “in the name of religion.” These terrorists also believe in Islam. This leads to a paradox: on one hand, we have Muslims who commit terrorist acts, and on the other hand, we have a religion that forbids these acts. If we view this paradox from the lens of Muslims, we do not see a paradox at all; it is merely a situation that is generated by a wrong perspective. If we take a look at all perspectives – the political, economic, historic, cultural, moral, and humanistic – we see that there is a perceptible dichotomy between religion and terrorism, and are able to consequently establish that terrorism does not stem from religion, but that it has other political, economic, and cultural roots. Therefore, jihad does not justify terrorism; nothing in Islam does, for terrorism is essentially forbidden in Islam.

In conclusion, jihad is a crucial concept in Islam due to the wide misunderstanding it causes amongst people around the world and the concept’s import in Islam on a global scale. While the term Islamic Terrorism – an oxymoron within itself – is inaccurate in all aspects, its existence is not the issue; its degradingly common usage, especially in the media, advertises a negative Muslim image to non-Muslims, imbuing a subconscious belief that all Muslims are terrorists. The reverse of this scenario often happens in the Muslim world as well, especially after the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. These wrongful representations of both sides do nothing but aggravate tensions between the two sides, which leads to further conflict and a discordant world. Instead, if books or news reports that clarify the true meaning of jihad and other misunderstood concepts of various religions and their applications were broadcasted for the world to hear, we would not witness as much religious conflict around the world as we witness today. What a beauty that sight would be: a harmonious society of people living with a plurality of religious beliefs.

References

• Abdel Haleem, Muhammad. 2011. Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style. I.B. Tauris.
• Abou El Fadl, Khaled. 2001. Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Campanini, Massimo. 2011. The Qur’an: Modern Muslim Interpretations. London: Routledge.
• Gülen. M. Fethullah. 2012. Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance, NJ: Tughra Books, p. 191.
• Hamidullah, Muhammed. 2011. Islam Peygamberi. Beyan Yayinlari.
• Heck, Paul L. 2013. “Jihad Revisited.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 32.1 (2004): 95-128. JSTOR. Web. 22 February.
• Peters, F. E. 2003. Islam: A Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rahman, Fazlur. 2009. Major Themes of the Qurʼan. University of Chicago Press.
• Ünal, Ali. 2006. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. NJ: Tughra Books.

[1] The reader may also refer to (Tawba 9:36) and (Tawba 9:5) for additional examples on the usage of qital that were omitted due to their length.

[2] Hamidullah, Muhammad, Islam Peygamberi, I, p. 217.

[3] Hamidullah, Hz. Peygamber’in Savaslari (Wars of the Prophet), p. 55–92.

[4] Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi 13.

[5] “Who Speaks for Islam and for Christianity?” Voice of America News, 2008.

[6] This is also true in other non-religious cases. When Timothy McVeigh caused the Oklahoma City Bombing and resulted in the death of 168 people, he thought he had legitimate reasons to do so; however, a majority of the people did not accept his thoughts as sound justification behind his actions.

Like law in the United States, historically Islamic jurisprudence is based on precedence. Each ruling or reform was based on the decisions and interpretations of previous jurists and scholars. But many movements that emerged in the last century disregarded this practice, and invented brand-new interpretations and rulings that were at odds with centuries of accumulated knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and theology. Moreover, they refute all other interpretations. The most controversial among these questionable views concerns the meaning of jihad. The soundest method of discerning the meaning of this much-debated word is to refer back to the original text that is the source of all Islamic jurisprudence and theology.

What is jihad, according to the Qur’an? What does the Qur’an say about war? According to the consensus of classical and contemporary exegetes, the following Qur’anic verses indicate that there is no “holy war” but there is only “just war” or “unjust war” in Islam. The verses also clarify that jihad does not mean war or fighting; rather it means “to strive hard in the righteous cause.”

Some Qur’anic principles

The science of hermeneutics requires that the interpretation of any text should take into account the writer, the intent of the writer, the addressee, and the context. This is the method to understand the message of the Qur’an. Taking a single verse out of context, and interpreting it without taking into consideration the entire text, would inevitably distort the meaning of the verse. The following are some general Qur’anic principles that should underlie the interpretation of individual verses.

“There shall be no coercion faith.” (2:256)

“And had your Lord so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them: do you then think that you could compel people to believe…” (10:99)

“And say: ‘The truth [has now come] from your Lord: Then, whoever wills (to believe), let him believe; and whoever wills (to disbelieve), let him disbelieve. …” (18:29)

“Goodness and evil can never be equal. Repel evil with what is better (or best). Then see: the one between whom and you there was enmity has become a bosom friend.” (41:34)

“…and [they who] repel the evil with good. Such are those for whom there is the ultimate (everlasting) abode.” (13:22)

“…for peace is best…” (4:128)

“… He who kills a soul unless it be (in legal punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind.” (5:32)

“Do not kill any soul, which God has made sacred, except in just cause. If anyone has been killed wrongfully and intentionally, We have given his heir the authority (to claim retaliation or damages or to forgive outright). But let him (the heir) not exceed the legitimate bounds in (retaliatory) killing. Indeed he has been helped (already and sufficiently by the provisions and procedures of the Law).” (17:33)

“Just War” in the Qur’an

Here are some verses dealing with fighting (qital) on the battlefield. All these verses should be read and understood only when there is a Just War already in progress.

“And fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression—for, verily, God does not love aggressors.” (2:190)

This verse makes war permissible only in self-defense and even then, aggression is not permitted during the fight.

“Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and, verily, God has indeed the power to succor them.” (22:39)

Again, fighting is declared permissible against a wrongfully waged war.

“God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your homes, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable.” (60:8)

Believers are asked here to be kind to any people who do not fight against them regardless of their faith.

“God only forbids you, as regards those who make war against you on account of your Religion and drive you away from your homes, or support others to drive you away, to take them for friends and guardians. Whoever takes them for friends and guardians, those are the wrongdoers.” (60:9)

As clearly listed in the verse, fighting is permitted only when a) a war is waged against the believers because of their faith, b) the believers are driven away from their homelands, c) aid is given to those who drive the believers away from their homelands.

“Fight (therefore, O Messenger) in God’s cause—for (in the same way that every individual is responsible for himself) you are (first of all) responsible for none except yourself. (Even left by yourself alone, fulfill your responsibility)—and urge on the believers (to take their responsibility). It may be that God will (thereby) restrain the force of those who disbelieve. Indeed God is strongest in might, and strongest in repressing and punishing.” (4:84)

Urging on the believers to take their responsibility is valid only during a war already in progress to deter the oppressors, not as an incitement to war.

“When (whether traveling or at home, or in war or at peace) you are greeted with a greeting (of peace and goodwill), answer with one better, or (at least) with the same. Surely God keeps account of all things.” (4:86)

The aim of war must be to prevent the oppression, not to be triumphant. When peace is offered, it is to be accepted with no reserve.

“Except those who seek refuge in a people between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace or alliance), or (those who) come to you with hearts shrinking from fighting against you, as well as fighting against their own people. Had God willed, He would certainly have given them power over you and they would have fought against you. If they withdraw from you and do not fight against you, and offer you peace, then God allows you no way (to war) against them.” (4:90)

Fighting is allowed only when a war is waged against the believers. Otherwise, there is no permission to declare a war unilaterally.

“…You will find others who wish to be secure from you (by signing a treaty with you) and to be secure from their people (by breaking their treaty with you and joining them): every time they are called back to conspiracy and hostility against you, they plunge into it headlong. Hence, if they do not withdraw from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands (from hurting you), then seize them and kill them wherever you come upon them. It is against such that We have given you a clear sanction.” (4:91)

During a war already in progress, if the aggressors do not stop attacking the believers and do not offer them peace, then the believers are given permission to seize and slay those who insist upon attacking them.

“If you meet them in war, deal with them in such a manner as to deter those behind them (who follow them, and those who will come after them), so that they may reflect and be mindful.” (8:57)

The aim is again not to be triumphant in war, but to prevent the continuation of war.

“(Believers:) make ready against them whatever you can of force and horses assigned (for war), that thereby you may dismay the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides them, of whom (and the nature of whose enmity) you may be unaware. God is aware of them (and of the nature of their enmity). Whatever you spend in God’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged” (8:60)

The purpose of these preparations is to avoid potential future wars.

“And if they (the enemies) incline to peace, incline to it also, and put your trust in God. Surely He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. And if they seek (thereby only) to deceive you (O Messenger), surely God is sufficient for you. He it is Who has strengthened you with His help and with the believers” (8:61–62)

According to the well-known Qur’anic exegete Fahruddin Razi (1149–1209), this means that even if they offer you peace to deceive you, this offer of peace must be accepted, because all judgment of their intentions must be based on outward evidence alone. In other words, mere suspicion cannot be an excuse for rejecting an offer of peace.

(While at war) kill them wherever you come upon them, and drive them out from where they drove you out (thus recovering your lands from their usurpation). (Though killing is something you feel aversion to,) disorder (rooted in rebellion against God and recognizing no laws) is worse than killing. Do not fight against them in the vicinities of the Sacred Mosque unless they fight against you there; but if they fight against you (there), kill them—such is the recompense of the (rebellious) unbelievers. (2:191)

The prerequisite for the permission to slay the oppressors is their persistence to fight against the believers and not incline toward peace. Fahruddin Razi states that the injunction in this verse is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress, not when there is no physical hostility between the believers and the non-believers. A more recent commentator, Said Nursi (1877–1960), interprets such verses that give permission to “drive them away from wherever they drove you away” as crushing the idea of the denial of God or materialism in the field where it originated by bringing the evidences for the existence of its Creator from the matter itself.

“But if they desist—behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.” (Qur’an 2:192)

“Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong.” (2:193)

Fighting is allowed again until God can be worshipped without fear of persecution and no one is compelled to bow down in awe before another human being. If persecution stops then all hostility shall cease.

“…Those who have been driven from their homeland against all right, for no other reason than that they say, “Our Lord is God. ” Were it not for God’s repelling some people by means of others, monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques, where God is regularly worshipped and His Name is much mentioned, would surely have been pulled down (with the result that God is no longer worshipped and the earth becomes uninhabitable). God most certainly helps whoever helps His cause. Surely, God is All-Strong, All-Glorious with irresistible might.” (22:40)

Fighting against oppression is not confined to defending the mosques only, all the places where God’s name is extolled—monasteries, churches, synagogues—are to be protected.

“And if any of those who associate partners with God seeks asylum of you (O Messenger), grant him asylum, so that he may hear the Word of God, and then convey him to his place of security. That (is how you should act) because they are a people who have no knowledge. (9:6)

This verse emphasizes granting protection to mushrikun (those associating partners with God)—not only the People of Book—when they seek protection from the believers. They can be accepted as “neighbors” of the believing community. Should they want to leave the community of the believers, it is the responsibility of the believers to convey them to a place where they can feel secure.

In conclusion

The contextual analysis of the above Qur’anic verses elucidates that the utmost priority in all circumstances is achieving permanent peace. Believers are enjoined to accept peace, even when doing so would harm their interests, and must consent to all peace offers. It is not permissible to wage war against any people unilaterally. Fighting is not desirable and should be avoided whenever possible. Permission to fight is given only in self-defense. When a believer has been attacked and is fighting in self-defense, his aim must be to stop the oppression, not to be triumphant. Fighting is permitted only against people who have:

a) waged war against the community of believers because of their faith,

b) driven the community of believers out of their homelands,

c) aided others in driving the community of believers out of their homelands,

d) threatened the security of the community of believers. This judgment about the “threat” must be based on outward evidence alone, not on suspicion, which is subjective.

Fighting is permitted in the Qur’an only for the sake of defending the truth and its followers (including defending the monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques where God’s name is extolled). The believers can only engage in war against oppressors who are clearly marked and designated as a military force. This military force must not be mixed in with a civilian population. A prohibited method of fighting is the use of weapons of mass destruction which indiscriminately kill civilians along with the intended target. Even then, fighting can only be declared by a leader (caliph), who is elected by the community of believers from among themselves, not self-appointed kings, rulers, or authorities. Individuals cannot declare war or try to bring about justice by their own means. This is vigilantism, which is prohibited by Islamic law. Only the state has the authority in such issues.

Roaming in our shining civilization.

They breathed life into lost souls,

We called them heroes of compassion.

How we have missed you, waiting,

O heroes of compassion, alight.

Our darkened souls been longing.

In your return we will delight.

Heroes of compassion speak

Without words. They convey

An eternal message of love.

Their destiny became this way.

They did not come to hate,

Nor did they come to fight.

Their work was only for love

To erect the statue of the heart.

They absorb the fragrance of love

As the rain of grace descends.

Heroes of compassion radiate

Without a haze of pretence.

Deep in a fight of spiritual struggle

Until their mind and heart merge,

Their trademark is their anguish

Felt for those lost in cerebral surge.

A hero embellished our dreams

Since the days he roamed our shores.

On the coastline of our spirit

We still hear echoes of his chores.

Accentuate my heart O Lord!

Helping needy souls is my passion.

Elevate my soul up high

Like a hero of compassion.

Haven’t we waited long enough

In infinite yearned expression?

When will you roam our shores?

We need you now, O heroes of compassion!

One action in particular which has drawn much attention to the Muslim faith is jihad. The original meaning of jihad and the way it is still practiced today by the vast majority of Muslims is admirable, emphasizing perseverance towards a just, ever-lasting and rewarding goal-spiritual enlightenment (Gulen 208-227). However, jihad has recently been misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misused by many non-Muslims and by a few Muslim extremists. This has resulted in many great mistakes, made both by the extremists and non-Muslims alike. The extremists have taken jihad and manipulated its meaning to suit their own beliefs and dogmas. The end result of all this has been and will continue to be heavy criticism and scrutiny of Muslims for performing an action that in actuality is very peaceful and responsible in its meaning. The true meaning of jihad is to struggle, to persevere and the meaning of the word does not include implicit or explicit approval of the radical acts of terrorism that have been committed by extremists; such people have simply misinterpreted its meaning.

To strive or struggle is the most suitable translation of the word jihad (Gulen 208-227). Jihad is carried out (or at least is prescribed to be carried out) by Muslims both collectively and individually. There are two parts of jihad: the lesser and the greater. The greater jihad is the inner struggle that an individual Muslim goes through in order to fight against superstition, wrong belief, carnal desire, and evil inclinations while striving to obtain intellectual and spiritual enlightenment. The lesser jihad is encouraging others to strive for and reach the same goal of enlightenment. Both aspects are carried out in the name of God and both aspects are interdependent on each other, since one cannot work without the other.

If Muslims want to be successful in the greater jihad they must make their focus in life striving for the sake of God. This includes all aspects of their lives, from sleeping to coming home from work at the end of the day. Every thought and every action Muslims take up must be directed towards God so that they can overcome their primitive carnal impulses. The goal of this, as mentioned before, is to obtain spiritual and intellectual enlightenment (Gulen 208-227). The caliph Umar exemplified his jihad through some of his actions. An example is a story related about this caliph in which he was giving a sermon and interrupted his own sermon, saying: “O Umar, you were a shepherd taking care of your father’s sheep!” Later, he was asked why he had said this, and he replied: “I remembered that I was the caliph, and was afraid of feeling proud.” Another story which exemplifies his jihad is when Umar was asked why he was carrying a sack on his back, to which he replied “I felt some pride, and wanted to get rid of it” (Gulen 18-31). Through these two examples we can see how Muslims in the past strove to achieve spiritual enlightenment.

The lesser jihad a Muslim will strive for includes all outward actions towards others that are done for the cause of God. In other words, this means conveying God’s message to others through all aspects of a Muslim’s daily life. Given this idea, the lesser jihad will be practiced while going to war with others, but let us not forget that it will also be practiced in other more prosaic actions, such as shaking hands with someone. If the outwardly action will help one person or many people and it is carried out in the name of God then it is considered to be jihad. Forceful jihad is resorted to and permitted only when a person or many people seek to maintain a society or group that has been built on corruption, self-interest, oppression, and the degradation of the rights of others. This means that forceful jihad is only permitted when a society or group seeks to contain or even deflate the basic principles of Islam and in essence, Islam itself (Gulen 208-227). This point is clearly illustrated in the history of the persecution that the first converts to Islam faced while living in Mecca. Moustapha Akkad outlines this point successfully in his film, The Message: Muslims who were living in Mecca were facing extreme persecution from the pagans. It was upon God’s command that Muhammad, who was with his some of his followers in Medina, led his followers into battle against the persecuting Meccans. The Muslims in Medina took arms against the Meccans only because numerous Muslims in Mecca were facing severe persecution for their beliefs and practices. Thus jihad was necessary in order to save those who were victims of persecution. In his commentary on the revelation associated with this event, Abdullah Ali states how jihad was used justifiably,

Even from the human point of view, the cause of God is the cause of justice, the cause of the oppressed. In the great persecution, before Mecca was won again, what sorrows, threats, tortures, and oppressions were suffered by those whose faith was unshaken? Muhammad’s life and that of his adherents was threatened: they were mocked, assaulted, insulted, and beaten; those within the power of the enemy were put into chains and cast into prison … they could not even buy the food they wanted or perform their religious duties. (208)

Thus, there was need and justification for Muhammad and his followers to fight the persecuting Meccans. It is easy to see from this example that forceful jihad is used only as a method of last resort and it is only a small aspect of the lesser jihad. Hence, lesser jihad incorporates all aspects of Muslims’ outwardly actions, which unless otherwise directed by God, will be peaceful, since they will strive to share the message of God with others.

Lesser and greater jihad are interdependent of each other; Muslims must first be struggling and striving within their self before they can strive outwardly in the name of God. Fethullah Gulen explains this idea exceptionally well by saying, “the deeper [the believers’] belief in and submission to God, the deeper their concern for all creatures” (208-227). Gulen’s quote reflects the idea of individual inwardly action (deep belief in God), being interdependent of outwardly action (deep concern for all creatures). Thus he emphasizes the point that the lesser and greater jihad are dependent on each other.

It is important for Muslims to constantly be striving for God; if Muslims abandon this goal, they will become without an aim and this will be the cause of their own failure in the quest for intellectual and spiritual enlightenment (Gulen 208-227).

To further emphasize devotion to jihad I will examine some passages from the Qur’an. The first is found in chapter 9, verses 38 to 39. This passage focuses solely on the individual Muslim, his/her jihad and the implications of the jihad. The verse stresses the actions of the individual both inwardly and outwardly,

O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when you are asked to go forth in the Cause of God, you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless you go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; But Him you would not harm in the least. For God has power over all things. (449-450)

In this passage, God challenges the individual to go forth in God’s cause and to abandon clinging to worldly ideals. Focusing on the hereafter is an action that leads to perseverance and devotion for Muslims. In challenging the individual to go forth, God is commanding them to strive within themselves to win the inner struggle. That struggle is acting justly in the name of God in day to day life (the greater jihad). In giving the command to go forth, God also challenges the individual to go out into the world and spread the message of God to everyone; this is the second part of jihad. Nowhere in this passage is harming, fighting, or killing others in the name of God spoken of. The message here is that through peaceful, inner struggle the individual will not be punished, but will rather be unharmed and able to live in the hereafter.

The next section of the Qur’an to be looked at comes from chapter 8, verses 72 to 74. These lines focus on the lesser jihad of a group of Muslims rather than just one individual Muslim. It emphasizes the promotion of Islam by a group of Muslims to others through jihad (fighting for God and also through hospitality to others),

Those who believed, And adopted exile, And fought for the Faith, With their prosperity and their persons, in the cause of God, as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid-these are (all) friends and protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but come into exile; You owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile, but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God sees all that you do. The unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless you do this, (protect each other), there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief. Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith, in the cause of God, as well as those who give (them) asylum and aid-these are (all) in very truth Believers: For them is the forgiveness of sins and provision most generous. (433-434)

The line which reads “if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them” is God’s command to Muslims to promote Islam to others only if they ask for aid. This can be seen as the lesser jihad and though it is a very daunting task for any one Muslim, it is still a very tranquil, peaceful, and patient act as God says that religious aid should be provided only if they (friends and protectors) seek it. The gentleness of this passage is further extended when God says if the unbelievers and the Muslims do no protect each other then there will be tumult and oppression in the world. The exact opposite of violence and radical acts of terrorism is emphasized here (the people who it is implied to be protected here are Jews and Christians). So it is obvious that this passage shows that the lesser jihad Muslims should practice has peaceful aspects and has very little to do with violence.

The Qur’an does however contain passages that speak of fighting, going into battle, and taking prisoners. But as we will see, these actions are not associated in any way with the mass murders that Islamic extremists commit, claiming (obviously incorrectly) that such actions are performed in the name of God. Verses 74 to 75 of Chapter 4 read as follows:

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God-whether he is slain or gets victory-soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). And why should you not fight in the cause of God 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 You one who will protect; and raise for us from You one who will help!” (207-208)

Emphasis in this passage falls upon fighting in the cause of God; fighting for the oppressed and the maltreated. However the reader must be aware of the context of the passage before drawing conclusions about what is being commanded. First of all, this revelation came to the Prophet when he and some of his followers were in Medina. It was around this time that the Muslims still living in Mecca were facing severe persecution from the pagans. Muslims in Medina had wanted to retaliate and fight back, but Muhammad only allowed for fighting back after God had commanded him to do so. Therefore, this passage is likely to be one of the revelations the Prophet received from God directing him and the other Muslims to fight the persecutors of their religion. It is important to note that only after the Muslims in Mecca came under direct attack did God command the Muslims in Medina to fight the persecutors. In this passage God does not give permission for random mass murders, but rather only to fight the oppressors. As Abdullah Ali says in his commentary of this passage, “… the cause of God is the cause of justice, the cause of the oppressed” (434). The idea of defending Islam by means of fighting is a part of jihad, but it is vital to understand that such fighting is only necessary after Islam and the followers of Islam have come under direct attack from oppressors. And even in that fighting, as Ali mentions, there should be justice, and justification for fighting. The justification is that Islam is coming under attack. Given these ideas about jihad, it becomes clear that Islam does not promote radical acts of terrorism committed by extremists today. The extremists are wrong in claiming that their killing of innocent people is for the cause of God.

After taking into account all these misinterpretations, acts of terrorism, and acts of striving for justice in the name of God (as individuals and as groups), where do we go from here? Robert Jewet and John Lawrence claim that today it is inappropriate to focus on a crusade against Islamic terrorists attacking the West. Rather, they say it is far more appropriate for the West, while seeking forms of international law enforcement, to examine their own religious traditions and through research find resources that transform zeal and jihad into dimensions that match the political values of the West (165). While I agree with the first part of this solution, I strongly disagree with the second part. It is true that when dealing with jihad and the way it is used by extremists, we should not persecute and scrutinize Islam. However, when dealing with this issue, we must not retreat back to Christianity, afraid to take a leap ahead. Christian doctrine is not the key to the solution, contrary to what Jewet and Lawrence suggest. The solution does not lie within books of scripture; why look away from a problem and into a book when instead we can literally face the problem head on? The solution rests on the shoulders of each and every person who has a brain and a heart and who knows how to effectively use both. We must use our brains to realize that this issue will never completely go away but that we can minimize it. We must also use our brains in a way that allows us to learn and understand Islam and its key doctrines, beliefs, and practices, because if we willingly adhere to ignorance then we do not deserve to be described in a way that is different from how Bin Laden has described the West. Bernard Lewis cites a letter from Bin Laden in his book, The Crisis of Islam, published in November 2002. Bin Laden says in this letter “[we want you] to stop your oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery” (157). He claims America is “without principles or manners” (158). We must use our hearts to allow us the patience and tranquility to understand the doctrines, beliefs, and practices of Islam, because if we cannot learn to accept Islam then we might as well deport all of the immigrants currently living in the West. The same must be done by Muslims who seek to deal with this issue, so that everyone will be working together to minimize the situation we find ourselves in. If we in the West do not seek to understand Islam and live peacefully with Muslims, then we will slowly lose our reputation as a multi-cultural society and we will slowly gain a reputation that is similar to that of the United States.

References

• Akkad, Moustapha. The Message. Released 1976.
• ‘Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. 10th ed. Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1999.
• Gulen, M. Fethullah. The Messenger of God: Muhammad, The Light, Inc., New Jersey.
• Gulen, M. Fethullah. Questions and Answes about Faith I, The Light, Inc., New Jersey.
• Jewett, Robert and John Shelton Lawrence. Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil. The Dilemma of Zealous Nationalism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans, 2003.
• Lawrence, Bruce B., Shattering the Myth. Islam Beyond Violence. New Jersey: Princeton, 1998.
• Lewis, Bernard. The Crisis of Islam. Holy War and Unholy Terror. New York: Modern Library, 2003.
• Lincoln, Bruce. Holy Terrors. Thinking About Religion after September 11, University of Chicago, 2003.

Much later, the 1990s generation was on everybody’s tongue. A generation that developed a relationship with a computer joystick, that can assume any identity from James Bond to the Queen of England in a virtual that expanded from kick-boxing to strategy games that can think and act in very limit ed areas, Internet geeks whose connection to life is united by the interactive means offered, and that is indifferent to social and even familial problems.

However, there is another generational in between, a generation that inherited the elders’ knowledge. This generation more or less knows equality, social justice, freedom of ideas and speech. Although it does not believe that “we are no more a hunting society,” its members are so cowed that they can be labeled at most a small gear of the System.

This generation is surrounded by new needs and modern solutions put to them, is being mechanized and is aware of what this means. Hence, a generation in deep suffering… It is contaminated, but aware of how it happened. It is living in a house full of furniture, yet aware of the “humiliation” this represents. It is working, yet aware of how “success” becomes an idol that enslaves people. It believes in heaven, is aware of its expulsion, and has not yet lost the hope of heaven, yet it is scared to confront hell and trapped in a dilemma. Again a generation in deep suffering.

What can stop this suffering? Who is the other thief in “set a thief to catch a thief,” that famous proverb? Love, or else an enormous experience that makes you feel alive? How about a fist that reminds you of your veins and the blood they contain? But please you first!

Fight Club starts with scenes from the life of a yuppie. From this introduction we understand the extent of his boredom. He makes “profitable” inspections for an automotive company and suffers insomnia due to statistics, numbers, and routines. The truth is that Norton, our protagonist whom we see with a gun pointed to his mouth, flashbacks the story for us.

The narrator, while seeking a cure for his long-lasting insomnia finds himself in a solidarity organization for the fatally ill. Marla, who attends every therapy session just as he does, disturbs him like him, she also is actually not “dying.” This irritates the narrator, who bad been the only healthy man present. Thus, even though he feels good, his problems recur.

We now begin to observe his metamorphosis, which starts with a chance encounter with the imposing, charismatic, and intelligent Tyler Durden on a plane that led to the start of the Fight Club. But what a club! A club with two rules: 1) You don’t talk about the Fight Club, and 2) You don’t talk about the Fight Club.

Tyler says that self-destruction, rather than self-improvement, might be the answer. Hence, every meeting is full of bloodshed, the fighting people are actually friends, and every punch means happiness for them!

The club’s very name, the close fighting scenes, and the phenomenon of ‘relief/purification” based on mutual consent seemingly gives the impression that Fight Club sanctifies violence. On the contrary, as in Seven and Game, David Fincher presents us with an ironic and hence indirect criticism of the System.

Tyler Durden, a sort of externalized inner soul of the narrator, utters things that are hard to disagree with, such as “You’ll get used to consuming more than you need. Then your belongings will eventually own you,`”, “You are not a beautiful and unique snow-flake” ,“If you have nothing to lose, you won’t be scared to lose,” and “You are not your job. You are not how much you have in the bank. You are not the contents of your wallet. You are not your khakis.”

Durden is asking for the television generation’s rage, and hence is trapped by the surmise of being a rock star or a CEO. But he is not offering a solution; be is merely promising a few hours of liberation from the “cowshed.”

The docile, quiet, and harmonious members of the lower class behave as they wish and discharge on the only property where the right of imposition is left to them, at least for a few hours. However, it does not stay there.

The action spreads to the streets, and deliberately harms the temples of consumption and the System’s key points. The goal is liberating individuals who spend their days under supervision and store unhappiness at night while “watching” other people’s lives, making them feel alive by peculiar experiences up to and including death! Yet it is only after you have lost everything that you are free to do anything. Fight Club represents that kind of freedom.

These relief scenes that are easily transformed into purification ceremonies, as well as the “liberating actions” thesis, evolved into a hegemony that even refuses the identities of its members. The fact that Tyler’s tyranny is a bad replica of the “great corrupt System” is accentuated by Fincher’s ingenious irony.

Let me tell you about Tyler. He had a plan. They trusted him. Tyler said that whatever they own end up owning them. The difference between the goals of the director and the characters becomes apparent. Moreover, Fincher fictionalizes group therapy and the modern psychiatry behind it as a “world of escapism.” The plump man in a group therapy session, a method peculiar to modern society, symbolizes modern times, which advises chemicals for every happiness and ideal.

Fight Club is an inexplicable movie… According to one reviewer: “Even if it was not such an effective satire, it is worth seeing just for its astonishing visual style.”1 It is a dark movie that can be viewed from many angles: revolutionary violence to social personality disorders, the relation between men who see themselves as the “waste of the world” and women who “raise them,” and individual-group identification.

However, I assume it probably will reach the generation that grew up at the “wrong time.” It will occupy a bright place in cinema’s scale, and will be talked about just like Seven, with its cast, story, surprises, and astounding camera. Fight Club is one of 1999’s best films. However, remember the warning: “Restricted: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.”

Footnotes

1. Michael Skeet, “Fight Club: An effective, incisive movie.” See: http://infoculture. cbc.ca/archives/filmtv/filmtv_10191999_ fightclub.phtml

References

• Aksiyon, 263 (December 1999).
• http://www.foxmovies.com/fightclub/
• http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hV&id=1800018964&cf=info
• http://infoculture.cbc.ca/archives/filmtv/filmtv_10191999_fightclub.phtml