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.

The message of the Holy Qur’an is believed to be relevant for all Muslims, including those who lived when it was first revealed (between 610 and 632) and those who will come until the end of time. Based on the incidents faced by Muslims over 23 years during the time of revelation and the stories of former nations, the Qur’an provides guidelines in the form of commandments, prohibitions, and good advice, which are simultaneously incident-specific and universally relevant, dynamically forced and firmly static.

The first collocutors of this Divine Address were fortunate to be able to perceive the Divine Intention without any synthetic interpretation and commentary; and whenever they needed any further explanation, they were guided by Prophet Muhammad himself, peace be upon him. Subsequent generations could engage in that endeavor only by accurately settling the association between facts and norms. The Prophet is the Final Messenger and the Holy Qur’an is the Final Divine Message and Scripture; thus Divine Messages that are believed to be “universal,” “comprehensive,” and “meta-historical” could by no other means be discovered and implemented. Intellectual rigor was required.

The Companions, the successors of the Companions, and their immediate successors engaged in an intensive intellectual endeavor, right after the Prophet passed away. While usul sciences set the methodology for their work, disciplines like Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), Islamic theology (kalam), Islamic tradition (hadith), and Islamic exegesis (tafsir) reveal the outcomes of these methodical studies. Studies on the biography of the Prophet (seerah), military chronicles (maghazi), and the history of Islam (tarikh) also provided authentic or inauthentic resources to these disciplines.

These activities lost verve with time. Seeking Divine purpose by preserving the constants as they initially were and developing theoretical interpretations and practical transformations according to the ever-changing and evolving social, political, economic, moral, legal, military, etc. circumstances, have not always been possible. Social changes require dynamism, for dynamism – not inertia – is the nature of things and life. For many Muslim societies, a social life that remained frozen as exactly as it was in the time of the Prophet was one of the problems. Another problem was considering the surface meanings of the Qur’anic verses and the Hadith enough as solutions for real social problems.

This frozen social structure that sustained during the codification (tadwin) period affected Muslim viewpoints of the Qur’an and the Hadith, as well as their methodology of knowledge. Principles such as “the universality of the Qur’an,” or tenets like “Acting on the text is better than abandoning it,” “The particular cause of any Qur’anic revelation (asbab al-nuzul) does not mean its judgment does not have any universal validity,” and “Independent reasoning (ijtihad) cannot be exercised when there is explicit statement,” formed the keystones of knowledge production across many centuries. I believe this is a very important matter that needs to be covered in a separate article.

The verses of the Holy Qur’an are not detached from the social realities experienced between 610 and 632 in Mecca and Medina. In the words of Nasr Hamid, a creative and prolific dialogue existed between the Divine Intention and the first addressees of the Qur’an. Severing this correlative link between God and the community of revelation is the foremost reason for triggering what may be called the alienation from the Qur’an.

The first condition for accurately understanding the Divine Intention is knowing what the first addressees of the Qur’an had understood of and practiced from those verses during the course of revelation. Attempting to understand “what the Qur’an tries to tell” without knowing “what the Qur’an tells” does not lead to accurate results. On the contrary, such an attempt may turn out to be the first step taken toward disastrous results such as making God speak for one’s own pleasure and making the Qur’an say whatever one wants it to say.

Browsing the Qur’an from the perspective of “creative and prolific dialogue,” there are pages of narrations about events of the time. Among these events were, but not limited to, the battles of Badr, Uhud, and Khandaq, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the conquest of Mecca, the Tabuk and Mu’tah campaigns, the codes of conduct toward prisoners of war, how the daily prayers are to be performed in the event of war, etc. There are verses that cover the dispute between Khawla bint Tha’labah and her husband Aws ibn Samit and how God adjudicated that dispute conclusively. Other narrations in the Qur’an include Zayd ibn Harithah’s divorcing his wife Zainab and her subsequent marriage to the Prophet, the impending fate of Abu Lahab and his wife Umm Jamil due to their persecution of the Prophet, the funeral prayer of Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, and tens or hundreds of events such as these. All of these point at the correlative relationship between God and society. Consequently, it may be said that it is impossible to think about the Holy Qur’an as detached from the social incidents experienced during the course of its revelation.

Jihad

The same applies to the Qur’anic verses about concepts like jihad (endeavor), qatl (killing), and qital (warfare) – generally, the verses about military jihad. Each of these verses was revealed independently as related to particular incidents and expressed, in a crystal-clear style, how Muslims should react to incidents; in other words, the Qur’an produced tangible solutions to tangible problems. For instance, when looked at from the perspective which we attempt to illustrate, it is seen that the verses “(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”; and “(But if they persist in causing disorder, continue to) fight against them until there is no longer disorder rooted in rebellion against God, and the religion (the right for worship and the authority to order the way of life is recognized) for God.” (2/191 and 193) are from the roadmap detailed by God for Muslims to solve their problems with the polytheists of Mecca. However, many adopt a universal, atomic, or overgeneralizing approach, and these verses are discriminatorily interpreted as proof that Islam is “a religion of violence.”

These verses, from Surah al-Baqarah, were not revealed separately and at different times, but within a bundle of six verses revealed before the “Compensatory Minor Pilgrimage,” meant to be performed a year after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The cause of revelation was to teach Muslims how to respond should the polytheists of Mecca – who a year earlier had violated the prohibitions for the forbidden months – violate the Treaty once again and wage war against the Muslims. Therefore, an accurate interpretation of these verses is possible by understanding “what God says” before “what God means to say” and handling this bundle of verses while considering the cause of revelation as a whole.

Scholars must jointly deliberate on the cause of revelation, analyze the links within the verse and with other verses, take into consideration the holism of the Qur’an, and social, economic, military, cultural, and religious conditions at the time. All of this is necessary contextual information. When taking these factors into account, it is clear that Islam is not a religion of violence or war, as claimed by some orientalists. This approach would also falsify the argument that considers the warfare as essential and peace as secondary in Islam, as some so-called Muslim scholars purport. These are deeply troubled arguments that are seriously radicalized and ethically flawed.

Yet, it is upsetting that there were and are groups that define themselves as Muslims and reach such conclusions. ISIL, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, etc. are violent groups that have adopted methods exploiting the Holy Qur’an, severing the Qur’anic verses from their contexts and cherry-picking concepts to legitimize their defective approaches. Having been engaged in such violent exploits, they generated a theology, and later laws, from their political ideology. Unfortunately, while they perpetrate heinous crimes, they forget the Qur’anic verses which expound that enmity is to be shown to oppressors only, not to others (2:193); belief is a personal choice and what falls on Muslims is only advice (18:29; 49:14); that there is no coercion in religion (2:256); and that hatred and anger harbored against non-combatant unbelievers should not prevent believers from doing good to them (60:8; 5:2). They disregard the practices of the Prophet and accepted them as overruled, such as the Charter of Medina, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the general amnesty during the Conquest of Mecca, and the prohibition on the killing of women, children, the old and the men of religion even on the battlefield.

When trying to understand the true meaning of Qur’anic verses, it is important to delineate the line between the fact and the norm, between realpolitik and idealism. While facts or realpolitik is the context for which the Qur’anic verses bring tangible solutions to the incidents experienced during the course of revelation, idealistic perspective refers to the values and principles that need to be obtained from a holistic look toward the Qur’an, including the jihad verses. “Kill them wherever you find them,” in Baqara 191, (“them” referring to the aggressive polytheists of Mecca) indicates realpolitik circumstances of revelation. “Disorder (i.e. oppressing and torturing people because of their faith) is worse than killing,” indicates idealism and stipulates freedom of belief and conscience.

Concepts introduced by the Qur’an

During its course of revelation, the Qur’an did not only use the established concepts of the contemporary society, but introduced its own concepts as well. The concept of jihad is in the second category. Other concepts such as zihar, nikah, and talaq (concepts about marriage and divorce), which are mentioned in the Qur’an, were already in the lexicon of the society. However, the concept of jihad has gone through sharp semantic shifts and variations over the fifteen centuries since the time of revelation, and especially after the freedom movements in Muslim countries during the nineteenth century for independence from colonialism. This shift moved further from the Qur’anic foundations due to the works of orientalists; media outlets thriving on an anti-Islamic furor; and persecution of Muslim minorities. The weakness of Muslim states, authoritarian regimes, distribution of oil revenue, economic crises, and a large youthful population that cannot be easily brought under control given current circumstances are other major reasons that have led to the misuse of the concept of jihad. The idea has also been exploited by numerous radical-minded Muslim individuals, groups, and organizations. Concepts are like living organisms. The meanings encompassed by them contract, expand, change, and transform according to experienced realities. Nowadays, it is incumbent on Muslims to revert this concept to its original state by placing it back on the Qur’anic foundations in theory and practice.

Consequently, I think neither the battle cry “Islam is a religion of war” nor the slogan – yes, I term it a slogan – “Islam is a religion of peace” are accurate. Indeed, I think such a reductionist and cliché discourse form a massive intellectual block, preventing a complete understanding of Islam as a religion. The jihad verses in the Qur’an seems to have received their share from this minimalism. A literalist approach to the Qur’anic verses addressing realpolitik conditions is an indication of adopting the Qur’an solely as a book of law or policy. Individuals having this viewpoint may exploit the Qur’an to have it speak to their desire. It is compulsory to make a distinction among the Ideal Islam experienced during the lifetime of the Prophet, the Scholarly Islam expressed theoretically in the course of the academic activities of scholars in subsequent years, and the Historical Islam that has been experienced by Muslims in various locations worldwide for the last fifteen centuries. The minimum condition to achieve this distinction is studying the Qur’anic verses vis-à-vis the circumstances and context behind their revelation and understanding what the Qur’anic verses really “say,” before going deeper into analyzing what they “mean to say.” Intra-textuality, inter-textuality, reason for revelation, holistic approach to the Qur’an, and contextual knowledge are key terms for reference in this regard.

Exercising self-control and using willpower and reason to overcome one’s anger and greed is described by Prophet Muhammad as “the major jihad.” The message is clear: overcoming our own feelings of hatred and anger is much more difficult than overcoming our enemies. As Ali ibn Abi Talib said, “Who is the strongest (most powerful) of people? The one who controls his own anger.”

Exactly the same wisdom was expressed by a second century Jewish sage named Ben Zoma: “Who is a hero?” he asked. “One who conquers his own negative impulses.”  

The Jewish celebration of Hanukah is an excellent example of both the minor Jihad of physical warfare and the major Jihad of spiritual self-control and perseverance. Every year in December (starting the evening of December 12th this year), Jewish people throughout the world celebrate the eight-day holiday of Hanukah. If you ask any Jew to tell you how Hanukah began, or why Jews celebrate this festival for eight days, they will relate the following story.

Once a Syrian Greek king polluted the Holy Temple in Jerusalem by erecting a statue of himself in it and telling the Jewish people that he (the king) was the embodiment of God. The Jews rebelled and after more than three years of fighting, Judah the Maccabee and his warriors recaptured the holy Temple in Jerusalem and began to purify its alter. Unfortunately, all the pure olive oil for the lamp that should burn continuously had been polluted except for one little jar of oil that miraculously burned for eight days.

This Hanukah story is about two kinds of battle: the physical struggle (political and sometimes military) against others and the spiritual struggle within ourselves to trust in God and not to despair in times of persecution (as represented by the oil).

All of us need to avoid negativity, especially at times of persecution and oppression. Everyone needs to retain their trust in God and their future.

When the Maccabees recaptured and rededicated the Temple in Jerusalem in 164 BCE, the physical struggle for religious freedom and independence did not end. It went on for another 20+ years until full independence was attained. But the spiritual struggle seemingly lasted only eight days.

Let us look more carefully at the oldest written sources around this story. About four or five decades after the first Hanukah, two books were written about the Maccabean Wars and the rededication of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. The First Book of Maccabees, compiled sometime before 130 BCE, was originally written in Hebrew. Today all we have is an early Greek translation. Its intended audience was the Jewish community in the Land of Israel. It describes the recapture of the Jerusalem Temple, its purification and its rededication (also known as Hanukah).

“They also made new sacred vessels, and they brought the lamp stand … into the Temple. They burned incense on the altar and lit the lights on the lamp stand, and the Temple was filled with light.… For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar. … Then Judah, his brothers and the entire community of Israel decreed that the days of rededication of the altar should be celebrated with a festival of joy and gladness at this same time every year beginning on the 25th of the month of Kislev and lasting for eight days” (First Maccabees 4:49-59).

This first ancient source does not mention the “little jar of oil” miracle. At that time, the miracle was the military victory itself; that God had enabled the Jews in Israel to physically and militarily defeat the far mightier Syrian Greek Empire.

The Second Book of Maccabees was compiled a decade or two after First Maccabees and covers most of the same period. It was written in Greek for the Jewish community outside the land of Israel. That Jewish community, whose primary language was Greek, was concentrated largely in the Egyptian port city of Alexandria.

The purpose of Second Maccabees, clearly stated in the two letters that open the book, is to urge the Jews of Alexandria to adopt this new festival. The author states that his source for the history of the Maccabean war was a (now lost) larger five-volume history by one Jason of Cyrene.

Second Maccabees describes the purification of the Temple, adding significant information that is not found in First Maccabees:

“Judah the Maccabee and his men, under the Lord’s leadership, recaptured the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. … After purifying the Temple, they built a new altar; made a new fire; … offered sacrifices and incense … and lit the lamps. … On the anniversary of the very same day on which the Temple had been defiled, the 25th of Kislev, they purified the Temple.

“They celebrated joyfully for eight days, just as on Hajj Sukkot, knowing that (only two months before) on Hajj Sukkot they had spent the festival (hiding) like wild animals in the mountains and caves. That is why they now came carrying palm fronds and fruit, and singing hymns of praise to God, who had given them the victory that brought about the purification of His Temple. By a vote of the community they decreed that the whole Jewish nation should celebrate these festival days every year” (Second Maccabees 10:1-8).

The story of the small jar of oil that lasted much longer than anyone expected is not mentioned in the early sources because they focus on the physical military battle to liberate the Jerusalem temple from Greek rule and restore Jewish political independence.

However, two and a half centuries later, the Holy Temple and Jerusalem itself were in ruins. In the generations following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, the Jewish people could have despaired. They might even have lost faith in God when the Romans built a new pagan city on Jerusalem’s ruins, with a Roman Temple filled with statues of Roman Gods in its center.

So the rabbis started emphasizing the spiritual internal battle needed for Jewish survival. Everyone, even small children, need to believe in a better future. All of us need to avoid negativity, especially at times of governmental persecution and oppression. Everyone needs to retain their trust in God and their future.

The rabbis now taught that when the Maccabee soldiers realized it would take a week or more to produce the ritually pure olive oil needed for the lamp that must burn continually before the (Sakina) Holy Ark, most of them wanted to delay the Hanukah celebration, because they feared disappointing and dismaying their supporters if the light went out and spoiled the eight day celebration.

Only a minority led by a young child favored using the little jar of oil that they found, and trusting that somehow it would be enough. As the rabbis expressed it in the Talmud (Shabbat 21b): “Why Hanukkah? Our rabbis taught: ‘On the 25th day of Kislev begin the eight days of Hanukkah on which mourning and fasting are forbidden.

“For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oil; and when the Maccabees prevailed and defeated them, they searched and found only one jar of oil with the official seal of the High Priest, but which was only enough for one day’s lighting. Yet a miracle occurred, and they lit the lamp with it for eight days. The following year these days were decreed a festival with the recital of Psalms and thanksgiving.”

Notice that the miracle is two fold. That the oil lasted is a physical miracle. That they still lit it, thinking that it couldn’t last, is the spiritual miracle. To this day Jews still use one candle to ignite all the other Hanukah candles.

The oppression of Judaism by Antiochus IV, the Syrian Greek king, was the first known attempt at suppressing a minority religion, but unfortunately not the last. Other well known attempts were the three century long Roman persecution of Christianity and the terrible persecution of Muhammad and his followers by the majority of pagan Arabs in Mecca.

All three religions emerged from their varying periods of persecution stronger than ever, and this is the ongoing spiritual lesson of the Hanukah lamp that long ago filled believers with hope and trust in God and lasted longer than anyone thought possible.

People who are oppressed by political powers and governments today, as Jews and Muslims were by the Inquisition in Spain, and who are forced to go underground, need to remind themselves of the lessons of Hanukah and to trust that the greater spiritual Jihad is more important than the lesser Jihad of power and police force.

The proof? Jews and Muslims are still here, long after the physical attempts to snuff them out – just like that candlelight on Hanukah.

The Qur’anic “come to know each other” can serve as an instructive interpretation of the deeper meaning of education. The main ambition of this essay is to show the beautiful synergy between this verse and the concept of education by referencing further, largely Qur’anic-inspired interpretations. Understanding education as “coming to know each other” is important because, although it is a noble goal, it is also an elusive one, as evidenced by the continuous strife and violence between different groups of people. Reflecting upon the deeper meaning of education may serve as a small, but crucial step towards a new understanding of difference that fosters peace and avoids strife.

This essay will proceed by describing the deeper meaning of ‘education’. Then, in the sections “Divine Differences” and “Human Manifestations,” I submit that many of our differences are God-given, yet we misappropriate them too often towards conflict. The section “Our Minds and Our Souls” describes how our own mind or soul can condition us towards this conflict. In “Jihad and Transcendence,” I show how the often misunderstood Islamic concept of jihad is to overcome these inclinations and transcend human differences.

Education

Most of us understand education the way a Merriam Webster dictionary does: as “the knowledge, skill, and understanding that you get from attending a school, college, or university.” This accepted definition demonstrates a collective mentality of instrumentalism and goal orientations; at the same time, it perpetuates instrumental (and superficial) mentalities. The result is an increased alienation from our ideational and spiritual mentalities – and from each other.

True education is about something much different. The origin of the word ‘education’ is Latin, composed of the prefix ‘ex’ (in words like ‘exit’, meaning ‘out’) and the verb ‘ducrere’ (in words like ‘conducting’, meaning to lead). Put together, ‘ex-ducere’ translates into “leading oneself out of oneself.” While for many this journey of leading oneself out of oneself may suffice as an aspiration in itself, as it enables perspective-taking, others may ask: “Where shall one lead oneself to?” There can be various answers, but one worthwhile one is: To Aime Cesaire’s “rendezvous of victory” which the Martinique writer describes in his Notebook of a Return to My Native Land:

[T]he work of Man is only just beginning, and it remains to man to conquer all the violence entrenched in the recesses of his passion. And no race possesses the monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of force. And there is a place for all at the rendezvous of victory.

Cesaire was writing about colonialism and limited himself to referencing “race,” but we may feel at liberty to agree that also no nation, ethnicity, tribe, nor any other grouping has “a monopoly of beauty, intelligence and force,” and that there is “a place for all humans at the rendezvous of victory,” regardless of their particular identity.

Cesaire’s poetry is simple, yet shattering. With one stroke he defeats our want for being better and more deserving than others. With the same stroke he introduces us to a new humanity and dismisses our instincts to indulge in the false boundaries that have given a sense of belonging, but pitted humans against each other throughout history. The rendezvous of victory is not a locale of limited resources for which a particular race, nation, or tribe ‘wins’ at the expense of others. It is a place for all.

True education is not about something instrumental, but about something ideational and spiritual. It is about a journey in which, as the Qur’an says, we shall “come to know each other” with the purpose of transcending how we understand differences. It is this new understanding that will help us reach Cesaire’s rendezvous of victory. Yet, education can be still more. The purpose may also be a journey towards the Islamic realization of al-Tahwid, which beyond its meaning of the oneness of God, also induces the consciousness of a spiritual kinship among all of humanity.

Divine diversity

The destinations of ex-ducere are good, but the paths are arduous. Transcending our understandings of difference is not easy, as the world is host to a plethora of differences among people – and many of them have divine purpose. The Qur’an states, “And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the variations in your language and your colors” (30:22). It states further, “and so amongst men … are they of various colors,” which contributes to the different nations and tribes (35: 28). And as humanity came to inhabit different areas across the globe, it developed different customs, traditions, and cultures. In a religious reading of the world, these differences are divinely sanctioned.

In interpretations of the Qur’an, we read about God’s intentions in creating a world with differences: It is our distinctiveness that gives vitality to society, making us interesting and attractive to each other. It makes our interactions mutually enriching, and thereby compels compassionate competition towards the (divine) good. Yet, although the Islamic faith rejects all national, racial, ethnic, tribal, and other segregations, these seem to be the reality we live every day. Too often, people of difference do not come to know each other through respect and love. Instead of racing each other for the good, they are committed to ugliness or violence against each other. The noble destinations of ex-ducere are too often too far away.

Human manifestations

How can one understand the divinity in the creation of differences and their apparently associated conflicts? One answer lies in what various social sciences teach: While there is divinity in the origins of many of our differences, their manifestations are often void of divinity. God has created distinct nations, races, and tribes, but nationalism, racism, and tribalism are man-made. The same applies to many other exclusionary “isms” and ideas. We are socialized into these.

Socialization is a necessary experience, but it also bears aspects of indoctrination. Our families and friends, the schools we attend, the media we consume: all socialize us into particular beliefs and perspectives. We find ourselves embedded in a certain cultural environment, a certain socio-economic environment: an environment that emphasizes certain truths and dogmas and ignores others. Socialization is often about categorizing and particularism, and not about universalizing and holism. Here we can see hurdles to the Qur’anic mandate of “coming to know each other” and obstacles to the aspirations of ex-ducere.

Our minds and our souls

Yet, the socializing of human association lies at the foundation of the Qur’an’s positive vision of human diversity. Moreover, our particularism is cognitively conditioned and its workings are also divinely sanctioned. The cognitive sciences teach us that the process of particularizing is fundamental to cognition. It serves a basic function – the organizing and the structuring of our knowledge about the world. Humans have a need for cognitive parsimony, and without a process of categorization, the world and its vast array of people, objects, and events would present itself too complex and cognitively overwhelming.

Our particularized world becomes meaningful through our practice of labeling and the connotations that labels bring. To assume readily retrievable meaning, categorizations need to be labeled and these create content and value-laden identities for whoever is categorized. It is through the process of labelling that we come to “grasp” others. Categorizing and labeling are cognitive necessities. Categories order the environment, labels make it meaningful. These traits are imbued in us by God because of His infinite wisdom. They have many functional benefits, including the facilitation of our general orientations, as well as our daily decision-making.

Yet, our particularism is also the fertile ground for aforementioned isms and exclusionary ideas, and for the human desire to be better than the other. As individuals we want to be better than other individuals; as groups, we want our group to be better than other groups, whether we understand these to be tribes, races, nations, or other associations. In Islamic theology, the first instance of arrogance was committed by Iblis. He refused to grant his respect to Adam, reasoning that he was better than him. As the Qur’an accounts the scene, after God finished his human creation, He “bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who bowed down.” God asked, “What prevented thee from bowing down when I commanded thee?” He said, “I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire and him from clay” (7:11-12).

The traits of envy and arrogance did not remain reserved for the devil only. Subsumed by the Arabic term kibir, they became a human temptation and they are anchored in our inner self: our soul, our nafs as it is referred to in the Qur’an. After God condemned Iblis, the latter pleaded, “Give me respite till the day they are raised up” (7: 14). God responded, “You are of those allowed respite,” and since this day Iblis is engaged in tempting the lower wants in our nafs.

To be sure, the nafs has a fundamental duality to it: it can incline towards the good and towards the bad. “And [by] the soul and the One who proportioned it; then He inspired it [to discern between] its iniquity and its righteousness” (91: 7-10).

It is our experiences of socialization, and the necessary but also compromising functioning of our minds, that condition us away from the ideal of ex-ducere and dispose us to exclusionary thinking. However, the ultimate culprit is the intangible nafs and its defilements. It is these that dispose us towards envy and arrogance. The outcome is, all too often, not only exclusionist thinking, but also the establishment of apparently irreconcilable racial, cultural, ethnic, political, ideological, or other barriers.

Jihad and human transcendence

Yet, given the ongoing strife in the world it remains a divine duty to educate ourselves; to lead ourselves out of ourselves so as “to come to know each other” as the Qur’an prescribes. This journey of ex-ducere is enabled through a purification of the nafs and, for Muslims, this is the challenge of jihad, the highest form of which is the struggle to cleanse oneself from the vices of the soul. This particular jihad is known as jihad-al-nafs. Accordingly, the Qur’an states, “By the Soul, and the proportion and order given to it; and its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right – Truly he succeeds [who] purifies it” (91: 7).

Conventionally understood, jihad-al-nafs is concerned with the suppression of the ‘bad’ in one’s self. What is not recognized as often about jihad-al-nafs is that it is also a cultivation of the ‘good’ in one’s self. While we have been imbued with a temptation for envy and arrogance, we have also been imbued with the capacities for self-reflection and deliberate intention, which, in turn, lend us a unique capacity for freedom of action. Through these capacities we are able to control, we call upon the good in ourselves while suppressing the bad.

In Islamic exegesis there are many reasons why those who purify their souls will succeed. One reason becomes evident when equating the process of purification with a process of emancipation, which is essentially a process of ex-ducere. In this process of leading ourselves out of ourselves, we are emancipated from the boundaries that we’ve been socialized into; they start to crumble and are eventually erased. Hurdles to “coming to know each other” are being overcome and the fertile grounds for the temptations of the nafs are withdrawn.

As true education leads us out of ourselves and as we come to know each other, we are venturing towards Cesaire’s rendezvous of victory, which is a state of mind more than a locale. We start to understand difference in a more nuanced, rich way than we are intuitively inclined to. As the famous Persian poet of the 14th century, Shabistari, put it: Zuhur-i jumla-yi shya bi diddast – “The manifestation of all things is through their opposite.” Whatever our identities are, they become meaningful only through the existence of otherness. Otherness is not something to be feared or shunned; it is something to be embraced. Whether these realizations can be attained through mere intellectual understanding or whether it requires something more, like love, is a question that must be answered.

Yet, the journey of ex-ducere can go further. It can lead us towards the Islamic realization of al-tahwid. Although al-tahwid in its ordinary sense refers to the theological conviction that there is only one God, it is its metaphysical or ontological meaning that is of relevance here. In these understandings the term denotes meanings such as “the act of making one or integration,” or “union”; it helps us to understand God’s creation as emanating from a single source—from the Divine. The Qur’an states, “O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women” (4:1).

It is with such verses that the Qur’an engages in a narrative of an inherently interconnected humanity. Implicit is that every single human being has a shared spiritual origin and existence. The acclaimed Muslim mystic Rumi takes this realization to a beautiful conclusion in the following poem:

Beyond our ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field.
I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase ‘each other’
doesn’t make sense any more.

This realization seemingly does require love. It is grounded in a further realization, namely that all of us originate from the same Source. While each person remains an autonomous and accountable individual, we nevertheless realize our spiritual oneness. And this is what love is – the disappearance of boundaries that distinguish “self” from “other.”

Towards peace

The task of education, when we understand it as leading ourselves out of ourselves and “coming to know each other” as the Qur’an dictates, is to embark on a journey of emancipation where we transcend how difference is understood, reach the rendezvous of victory – and perhaps journey further, towards seeing our inherent kinship with other humans. These new understandings of each other will enable us to compete not against each other, but compassionately with each other for the good, as the Qur’an asks us to do. This is the path towards peace.

In the early years of Islam, the faith was taught with a focus on common sense with spiritual counsels, arguments in the belief of God’s existence, and the Afterlife. When some Muslims who faced insults and persecution tended to react against adversaries, the Prophet calmed them down and asked them to show patience. When pressures increased, the Prophet recommended a group of Muslims immigrate to Abyssinia to evade persecution, but the Meccan chieftains made the issue into an international scandal and sent envoys so the Muslim refugees could be handed over to them.

Unable to prevent the spread of Islam, they increased their violence. The leaders of the Quraysh tribe, except for the Hashimi clan which the Prophet belonged to, decided to implement a severe embargo. They forced Muslims to live in a field known as Shib al-Abu Talib and cut off all relations with them. Even selling something to them was banned. This embargo meant a wholesale condemnation to famine, meaning even women, children, and the elderly suffered. One memory from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas can give us an idea about how horrible their situation was: one night, after he relieved himself in a remote corner, he found a piece of animal skin on the ground. He first cleaned it, then held it out to fire, and then tried to appease his feeling of hunger by gnawing at it.

Meanwhile, a growing number of people in Medina were accepting Islam. In the end, 73 people who came to pledge allegiance to the Prophet invited the Muslims to Medina. The Prophet encouraged Muslims to immigrate there in small numbers. When the Prophet was one of the few Muslims who remained in Mecca, the chieftains assembled and decided to assassinate him, but he set forth in the night and the would-be killers returned empty handed.

Although some Muslims were inclined to retaliate against the Meccan enmity, the Prophet did not seek revenge but set about putting things right in Medina. The noble Prophet was a mild person with a distinguished compassion and a magnanimous character. Many different verses of the Qur’an refer to this quality of his, such as the following two:

“There has come to you (O people) a Messenger from among yourselves; extremely grievous to him is your suffering, full of concern for you is he, and for the believers full of pity and compassion” (Tawbah 9:128); and, “Had you been harsh and hard-hearted, they would surely have scattered away from about you. Then pardon them, pray for their forgiveness, and take counsel with them in the affairs (of public concern)…” (Al Imran 3:159).

We know that the Meccan chieftains were not indifferent to this migration; they threatened the Medinans and prepared to take vengeance.¹ On the other hand, although almost all Muslims had left, the previously sowed seeds of faith began to germinate and people kept embracing Islam in Mecca. The following verse refers to those new believers and those who remained oppressed:

“Why, then, should you not fight in the cause of God and of the oppressed, helpless men, women, and children, who cry out: ‘O Lord! Bring us out of this land whose people are oppressors, and appoint for us from Your Presence a protector, and appoint for us from Your Presence a helper!'” (Nisa 4:75).

The Muslims who emigrated from Mecca had left behind their homes, businesses, trade, relatives, and everything else. Since the polytheists usurped their properties, it was perfectly lawful for the Muslims who emigrated from Mecca to reclaim their rights from them. After a long period of patience that lasted some fifteen years, God gave them permission to fight back:

“The believers against whom war is waged are given permission to fight in response, for they have been wronged. Surely God has full power to help them to victory – those who have been driven from their homeland against all rights, for no other reason than that they say, ‘Our Lord is God'” (Hajj 22:39-40).

The prevalent opinion in the West is that, Muslims have the right to use weapons to make others accept their religion or to destroy those who do not accept it – and are even obliged to do so. Accordingly, this notion is known as the “Holy War,” and some have tried to present the word “jihad” as the Qur’anic term for it. In reality, this word – which literally means “striving” – does not mean fighting, and there is no concept of “Holy War” in the Qur’an.² “Guerre sainte” or “holy war” belongs to European terminology.

The concept of jihad is very extensive. Certain Qur’anic verses state that jihad can sometimes be in the form of war, such as the following example:

“Those who were left behind in opposition to God’s Messenger rejoiced at staying at home, and abhorred striving with their wealth and persons in God’s cause. And they said: ‘Do not go forth to war in this heat'” (Tawbah 81).³

According to a classification by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya,⁴ the levels of jihad can be categorized as follows:

1) Jihad against the carnal soul:

1. Through learning about Islam.
2. Conveying the Divine message to others.
3. Putting up with troubles while conveying the message.

2) Jihad against Satan:

1. Eliminating the doubts he casts.
2. Resisting his temptations.

3) Jihad against adversaries of Islam:

1. In the heart – having an aversion to their attacks, if you cannot do anything else.
2. Through the tongue – speak up against their attacks.
3. By spending from one’s wealth
4. By physical struggle (when no other option is left for defense).

4) Jihad against hypocrites:

1. In the heart.
2. Through the tongue.
3. By persuasion.

The Qur’anic chapters revealed in Mecca either use the word jihad in the sense of making efforts to be of guidance to others or bringing reasonable arguments for belief from the Qur’an, but in a peaceful fashion:

“(So pay no heed to (the desires of) the unbelievers, but engage in a mighty striving against them by means of it [the Qur’an]” Furqan 25:52).

It also means making a personal spiritual struggle:

“Those (on the other hand) who strive hard for Our sake, We will most certainly guide them to Our ways (that We have established to lead them to salvation). Most assuredly, God is with those devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing them” (Ankabut 29:69).⁵

When referring to war, the Qur’an uses the word “qital” in multiple different verses. The following verses establish under which conditions it is to be done:

“Fight in God’s cause (in order to exalt His Name) 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” (Baqarah 2:190).

“Then if they desist (from fighting), surely God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate” (Baqarah 2:192).

“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” (Nisa 4:90).

Another verse makes the same distinction:

“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. 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” (Mumtahanah 60:8-9).

Even in chapter Tawbah, which begins with a severe ultimatum against unbelievers, hypocrites, and believers who elude fighting, and which informs Muslims that all relations with polytheists are to be cut, the Qur’an holds the polytheists who do not break their treaties with Muslims as exceptions. The following is stated in the 4th verse of this chapter:

“Excepting those among the people who associate partners with God with whom you made a treaty, and who have not thereafter failed to fulfill their obligations towards you (required by the treaty), nor have backed anyone against you. Observe, then, your treaty with them until the end of the term (that you agreed with them). Surely God loves the God-revering, pious (who keep their duties to Him).”

No text in the Qur’an justifies practicing undue violence. The issue can be summarized as resisting the enemy in a proper fashion and acting justly. The Qur’an even commands granting asylum to polytheists who have no treaty with Muslims but make such a demand:

“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” (Tawbah 9:6).

In another verse of the same chapter, the purpose of the war the believers are asking for is stated as follows:

“Will you not fight against the people who have broken their pledges and have done all they could to drive the Messenger (from where he chooses to dwell), and initiated hostilities against you?” (Tawbah 9:13).

From these verses, we understand that those who first initiate hostilities will be responsible for the war. And only those who personally fight are to be punished. Within this frame, people like women, children, the elderly and disabled, workers in their fields, and especially people of religion in their places of worship, will be safe from any kind of violence. The last group mentioned is particularly noteworthy: had Islam endorsed religious bigotry, it would command practicing violence to people of religion first.

The noble Prophet, who practiced the command of forgiving those enemies that give up fighting, even banned chasing any escaping enemies. The purpose of this regulation is eliminating danger. War is not made for the sake of coercing people to accept Islam, but for preventing coercion and torments about people’s religious preferences. War in Islam is made for the sake of letting people be free in choosing their faith. Eliminating any obstacles to religious freedom has been the sole motive for those who properly fought in the cause of Islam.⁶

A remaining question is what the word fitnah means, as in the following verse:

“And (if they still persist in unbelief and hostilities), fight against them until there is no fitnah, and the whole of religion for God exclusively…” (Anfal 8:39).

Here, fitnah is mostly interpreted as “associating partners with God.” On the other hand, scholars⁷ of Qur’anic exegesis explain “fitnah” in the 191th verse of chapter Baqarah as “torture with the aim of making one forsake his or her faith.” It is stated that while explaining “fitnah” in this verse, and its similar use in Baqarah 193, scholars of Qur’anic exegesis⁸ relate in their books that prominent scholars⁹ of the early period understood the word fitnah in Baqarah 193 to mean torments, and namely persecution. By also taking into consideration the comments in more recent works by M. Abduh, Qasimi, Muhammad Draz, and Maraghi for this verse, we can say that this sense of fitnah refers to pressure and torture in the hopes of making somebody forsake their faith. On this front, the Qur’an explicitly states that there is no place for coercion in religion:

“There is no compulsion in the Religion. The right way stands there clearly distinguished from the false. Hence, he who rejects the false deities and believes in God has indeed taken hold of the firm, unbreakable handle; and God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing” (Baqarah 2:256).

“If your Lord had so willed (and, denying them free will, compelled mankind to believe), all who are on the earth would surely have believed, all of them. Would you, then, force people until they become believers?” (Yunus 10:99).

Like these verses state, different beliefs will exist since God allows it:

“If your Lord had so willed (and withheld from humankind free will), He would have made all humankind one single community (with the same faith, worldview, and life-pattern). But (having free choice) they never cease to differ (and follow diverse paths, diverging from the Straight Path), save those on whom your Lord has mercy (and guides to the Straight Path because of the merits they have)” (Hud 11:118-119).

Such a question may arise in one’s mind at this point: “Does the Qur’an not assign Muslims with the duty of conveying the truth they believe to other people? Is it not the point of Islam to bless people with happiness in both worlds? Is it not necessary to convey this message to those unaware of this guidance?” The answer is surely yes, and many verses of the Qur’an make it clear.¹⁰ Muslims are supposed to convey the message to those who are uninformed about it. The Qur’an clearly expresses that this should be done with wisdom and fairness:

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and argue with them in the best way possible. Your Lord surely knows best who has gone astray from His way, and He knows best who are the rightly guided” (Nahl 16:125).

This verse reveals the essential method of conveying the message. From a perspective of Qur’anic exegesis, it is understood that the verse alludes to three general groups of addressees: the first group is those who have a good sense of reasoning and the message is to be conveyed to them with erudite proofs and wisdom. The second group is the wider mass who will not quite understand erudite explanations but need to be addressed with “fair exhortation” – namely, by giving them sound advice in more easily understandable formats. It is necessary to elucidate for them what they will gain by following good guidance or the loss they will suffer otherwise. As for the unbelievers with an adversarial stance who are not likely to be addressed in these two ways, it is necessary to argue them in the best way possible.

Here, the person addressed and invited to religion is completely free at accepting the Islamic message or not. However, as the Islamic teaching gives people freedom to accept the message or not, it requires the same freedom to convey the message. Every human, including Muslims, has the birthright of practicing and instructing their faith, and when this right is forsaken, they should claim it by pursuing legitimate means of struggle to ensure freedom of conscience for everyone.

Notes

1 Muhammed Hamidullah, Islam’a Giris (introduction to Islam), translated into Turkish by Cemal Aydin, Ankara: 2005, p.19

2 Muhammad Draz, Toward Understanding the Qur’an, p. 60.

3 Likewise, the 41th and 86th verses of the same chapter also use the word jihad in this sense.

4 Zadu’l-Mead, Beyrut, 1985, 3/9-11, Terc. 3/1011-1012, Cantas yayinlari

5 For example, see Baqarah 190, 192, 193, 216; Nisa 75, 90; Anfal 39; Tawbah 29; Hajj 39; Saf 4; Muzzammil 20.

6 Muhammad Draz, Toward Understanding the Qur’an, p. 64.

7 Zamakhshari, Ibn Atiyya, Fakhruddin Razi, Baydawi, Ibn Juzay, Sealibi, Hatib Shirbini, Abu’s Suud, Shawkani, Qasimi, M. Rashid Rida, and Maraghi are among them.

8 Ibn Atiyya, Razi, Hazin, Shirbini, M.S. Hasan Han

9 e.g. Ibn Ishaq, Urwah ibn Zubayr, Ibn Abbas (according to one report), Ar-Rabi, and Hasan Basri.

10 For particular examples, see: Al Imran 3:110; Asr 103:1-4; Zukhruf 43:5; Nahl 16:125.

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.

Therefore, holy war can be an element of jihad, but is restrained by strict rules. Many modern interpretations of jihad are not congruent with classical jihad and many physical aggressions by Muslims today cannot be classified as the specific kind of holy war that is legitimized by the Qur’an.

The Prophet Muhammad described jihad as the “apex of lofty Islam.” Jihad literally translates to struggle or striving in English and it is derived from the root Arabic word jahada—to strive, strain, or exert oneself to the utmost. Jihad is a very important duty of Islam; some even consider it the sixth pillar of Islamic faith. Jihad encompasses many types of struggles that Muslims are meant to overcome throughout their daily life in different forms. In the Qur’an, jihad is striving in the name of Allah through four stages: jihad against the soul, jihad against Satan, jihad against disbelievers, and jihad against dissemblers. Jihad against the soul is meant to solidify firm belief within a person while jihad against Satan will create tenacity. For jihad against disbelievers, Muslims are meant to strive by pen, tongue, hand, media, and only if inevitable, with arms. Jihad against disbelievers is not purely peaceful and at times, the use of arms is inevitable in this stage, described in the Qur’an as qital, or fighting.

Contrarily, jihad against dissemblers is by the tongue, through educated arguments and persuasion. Therefore jihad is much more than physical aggression, and far greater emphasis is placed on striving by all other means before war. The most important struggles for Muslims will come from inside themselves, which will be a lifelong jihad of following Allah and living by his way. Jihad should then be described as the striving journey of Muslims to become aware and learn the injunctions of Islam, teach them to others, and make constant practice of them in their life while encouraging others to do the same. It is also the act of calling others to Islam and dealing with any obstacles that may arise from fulfilling this journey. This journey will encompass many obstacles that do not relate to physical violence and emphasize the importance of striving by other means throughout one’s life. Jihad with the tongue is viewed as very important because Muslims are meant to be peaceful in their struggle if possible and it is important to be expressive verbally rather than resorting to violence immediately. However, when words are not sufficient and qital, physical fighting, is necessary within jihad, there are strict guidelines that must be followed in the aggression. Not every war fought by Muslims can be defined as jihad; not every jihad can be generalized as holy war. In order for physical jihad to be legitimate, the opposing side receiving the aggression must be in a state of war against Islam, or a large group of Muslims, or non-Muslims who have had their personal freedoms and civil rights violated. A classical interpretation of jihad from the Qur’an clearly outlines that any physical jihad must be conventional warfare, with ambush fighting and the killing of civilians prohibited. There have been many examples of physical jihad in history that were legitimate in the eyes of the Qur’an, and exemplify the rules that limit aggression, as well as the circumstances necessary for a holy war to be considered jihad.

In Islamic history there are many instances when jihad was a holy war. This can partially be explained by the era. Arabia was engulfed in constant warfare throughout the Prophet Muhammad’s time, and for the centuries of empire rule that followed. Muslim tribes were often provoked by aggression and forced into numerous defensive jihads with their surrounding neighbors. The original physical jihad originated from Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to the city of Yathrib, modern day Medina, in 622. The Prophet and his Muslim followers were met with violent pilfering by the Meccans and Muhammad delivered verses from the Qur’an authorizing the Muslims to fight against the Meccans. The Muslim war with the Meccans began Muhammad’s career as military commander, a title that he had to carry in the remaining years of his life. This jihad follows the rules outlined by the Qur’an because it was in defense of Muslim land that was being physically threatened; it also follows the rules of jihad by keeping the warfare traditional and targeting only those directly involved in the aggression. Muhammad had decided physical jihad was necessary and fought in the name of Islam. But upon returning from battle he said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad,” underlining the importance of a believer’s internal struggle against his or her carnal self. While the time demanded physical jihad from the Muslims for their very survival, the significance was placed on the other forms of jihad, most importantly those within the hearts of each Muslim. In addition to Prophet Muhammad’s own view of physical jihad, Muslim scholar Said Nursi supported physical jihad in response to physical aggression but also believed in continuing jihad through the written and spoken word. When he was required to fight, his jihad was with his pen. Nursi highlighted the shift between pre-modern civilization and modern civilization and believes jihad should follow this shift. Pre-modern civilization was plagued by violence and conquests from Islam’s neighbors and required defensive war in response. Modern civilization has seen the rise in science and reason, secularism and materialism, and therefore the most appropriate jihad is one that persuades hearts and minds. Muslims are called to fight a cultural and economic war through ideas and thoughts, not arms.

The battles fought by Muhammad and Nursi are historical examples of jihad as holy war used to protect Islam and guarantee its growth within the world. There is a physical aspect in battle, but the focus on Islamic law as derived from the Qur’an is never ignored in jihad. Jihad includes, but is not encompassed by, legitimate, defensive warfare against aggressive enemies, which contrasts with the modern usage of jihad among a minority of Muslim laymen and mainstream society. Most conflicts engaged in by some Muslims today are a crime under Islamic law, and jihad is defined solely as war, with its other aspects ignored. Today in Muslim-majority countries, and in non-Muslim media and discussion around the world, jihad means war. The usage in Muslim countries can be interpreted as rationalization, that all wars their governments involve themselves in are just, similar to the justification most countries do that any war they are involved in is just.

Though it is debatable whether a war is just and follows Islamic law, the more troubling factor is the shift of the entire meaning of the word jihad. Jihad has evolved from meaning struggle, usually internal, sometimes external by the written or spoken word, to simply being a synonym for war. This semantic evolution has perpetuated misunderstandings of Islam as a violent religion, with war and physical aggression central to its tenets. Jihad has evolved from struggle in classical Islam, with the occasional legitimate war, to representing necessary, continuous physical aggression within modern Islam. This linguistic shift has created a grave misunderstanding of jihad around the world, and its sole definition as holy war in popular culture.

Jihad has come to hold a new meaning with the general population because of the differing interpretations of jihad by classical and modern Muslim scholars. Without background knowledge of jihad’s origins in the Qur’an, most people would believe that jihad is a holy war without rules or guidelines, based on modern scholars and media portrayal. Most laymen are not aware that classical jihad explicitly prohibits aggression towards civilians, and must be limited to conventional war tactics. This misconception of jihad is a result of the rise in world terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims who claim their actions as jihad in the name of Allah and the Qur’an. The misinterpretation of jihad by a small group of Muslims has spread around the world because of globalization and effective media coverage. This misinterpretation has resulted in the current perception. Some modern Muslim scholars and popular figures within Islam who have catalyzed this new definition, refer to jihad as, “war against oppressors, particularly those who oppress Muslims.” Osama bin Laden said in many of his speeches that Americans resemble the medieval Crusaders, with the desire to subjugate the Muslim world in a colonial war. Therefore, bin Laden believed that Muslims are currently fighting a defensive jihad against the West in response to their actions. The West as an enemy is described as similar to the Christian knights of the Crusades who also attacked Muslim civilization. Egyptian Islamist Adb al Salam Faraj called for a new jihad against the subjugation of the Muslim world, and Osama bin Laden has expanded on the ideas of a new jihad to legitimize terrorist attacks against the West that result in the death of civilians. In addition to Faraj, the Muslim scholar Maududi’s thesis on the change in Muslim society has also been viewed as spawning the modern interpretation of jihad. Maududi believed that because not all Muslim societies were ruling based on Sharia law, there was a decline in the society as a whole, and the only viable response was to wage a jihad against this dark age. In order to confront the decline of Muslim society and loss of Muslim lands, Sharia law and the doctrine of jihad had to be reinterpreted and applied both internally within Muslim societies as well as externally to the West for its role in seeking Muslim land and fighting against Muslim civilization. Muslim countries have witnessed an internal “jihad” through the removal of leaders classified as un-Islamic based on an unwillingness to impose Sharia law within their nations. This internal “jihad” has taken place historically with the Iranian Revolution’s removal of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat, and the overthrow of Sudanese President Jaafar Nimeiry. External “jihad” against foreign occupiers of Muslim lands has taken place many times throughout history, recently in the Afghan fight for independence against Soviet occupation and Palestinian and Lebanese liberation movements against Israeli-occupied territories. Modern “jihad” has become a war with the goals of reshaping Islamic society by ridding it of Western influence and presence, economically and politically.

What has been described as jihad, and then reported by worldwide media, is far removed from classical jihad described in the Qur’an. Terrorist attacks that aim at killing large numbers of civilians, including women and children, are unilaterally condemned under Sharia law. Their fights do not comply with the rules outlining when physical jihad can take place and how it may be fought. It is not wrong for people to believe jihad can be violent, but it is wrong to only hold this belief without an understanding of the other aspects of jihad. Some modern Muslims have provided this misinterpretation and perpetuated the fear that Islam as a violent religion able to wage wars at any time, on any grounds.

Jihad is popularly misunderstood in today’s world as a synonym for holy war. This misunderstanding has been prevalent for decades but has become more widespread because of a handful of terrorist attacks being labeled as jihad against America and Europe by radical Islamists. By examining jihad, as defined by the Qur’an, and analyzing historical accounts of jihad, it becomes clear that jihad can involve physical violence if all the rules outlined by the Qur’an are followed, including only the use of conventional warfare and killing of combatants. The modern interpretation of jihad does not consider the context of the Qur’an or classical Islamic law, and it ignores the other aspects of jihad. Jihad is the internal struggle Muslims face to fight off evil, the striving effort to become a better person, a more pious follower of Islam. Jihad focuses primarily on internal struggles, with external struggles such as warfare being secondary, and only if physical force is necessary and legitimate. It is very unfortunate that the true meaning of jihad has become lost in today’s society. Jihad is one of most admirable and good-natured duties within Islam, from which many could learn from to better themselves and their lives.

References

• Ali, Afroz. Overcoming Misunderstandings: Understanding Jihad http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/jihad.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010.
• Bonner, Michael. Jihad in Islamic History, Princeton, 2006, p. 39.
• Bonney, Richard. Jihad: From Qur’an to Bin Laden, New York, 2005, p. 27.
• Chittick, William and Murata, Sachiko. The Vision of Islam, St. Paul, 1994, p. 21.
• Esposito, John L. “VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM.” In What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/article/book/islam-9780195157130/islam-9780195157130-chapter-5 accessed 25 May 2010.
• Gerges, Fawaz. The Far Enemy, New York, 2009, p. 43.
• Greenberg, Karen. Al Qaeda Now, New York, 2005, p. 213.
• Kelsay, John. Arguing the Just War in Islam, Boston, 2007, p. 41.
• Muhammad, Noor. “The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction,” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 3, no.2, 1985, p. 395
• Napoleoni, Loretta. “Modern Jihad: The Islamist Crusade,” SAIS Review, vol. 23, no. 2, 2003, p. 53.
• Tibi, Bassam. Political Islam, World Politics, and Europe. New York, 2008, pp. 41-42.
• Vahide, Sukran. Jihad in the Modern Age: Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Interpretation of Jihad, at http://www.nur.org/en/nurcenter/nurlibrary/Bediuzzaman_Said_Nursi_s_Interpretation_of_Jihad_168, accessed 22 May 2010.

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.

At this point, it is important to note that the motives for Muslims to engage in dialogue with non-Muslims have their roots embedded not in the recent past, but date back to the seventh century. Dialogue is not a civilized virtue of modern times, but rather a duty upon every Muslim, who is following the footsteps of the Prophet of Islam. Dialogue is not a temporary activity, but a way of living that spans a lifetime. In the very first days of his mission, the Prophet sought every possible means of communication with his fellow townsmen; despite fierce opposition and in the face of all kinds of dangers and threats, he was the one who took the first step and initiated “dialogue.” This attitude was not only limited to the Mecca period when Muslims were few in number and powerless to defend themselves. The Blessed Prophet sent aid to Mecca when his hometown was suffering a deadly famine; this happened when Muslims had won battles against Meccan pagans and the city state of Islam was laying its foundations more strongly than any other establishment in the Arabian Peninsula. It is also well known that the Prophet’s shield was in the custody of a Jew when he passed away; he never stopped making peaceful contacts with non Muslims.

Some of the articles in this issue focus on some significant concepts like tolerance, jihad, and dialogue between Muslims and Christians. The lead article shows believers how to respond to “. . . the coarsest thoughts and the crudest ideas, without losing our temper.” “Mildness is reminded in such situations we cannot tolerate, a kind of mildness presented in the Qur’an as “gentle words” which “is the result of a tender heart, a gentle approach, and mild behavior.”

Galymzhan Kirbassov analyzes Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory.

Studying interstate disputes during the post-Cold War period, his analysis proposes a qualitative result that conflicts occur more because of other reasons than civilizational differences. Evan Radford’s piece explores the Islamic concept of “jihad” that is highly unpopular in the West. Radford thinks this unpopularity is a result of misinformation; Westerners and some extremists have misinterpreted jihad and use this concept as a veil and as a means to legitimatize their politically motivated violent activities.

The three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, come from the same source, flowing out of the Divine like rivers flowing out of the same ocean. Historically, Judaism came first and then was followed by Christianity, which later was followed by Islam. Prophet Abraham is the ancestor of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, as attested to in each religion’s holy book. In all of them we read that Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Hajar was Ishmael’s mother, while Sarah was Isaac’s mother. Isaac had a son named Jacob (Ya˜qub in the Qur’an), from whom all Jews trace their descent, whereas Arabs trace their descent from Ishmael.

Islam and Christianity

Muslims are required to observe six articles of faith, for if they have no faith and no trust in God, they cannot move forward in spiritual development. These are faith in God, angels, previously revealed scriptures (in their uncorrupted form), all Prophets (e.g., Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad), destiny, and the Resurrection and Day of Judgment.

Judaism and Christianity have many beliefs in common, but differ in the way they are implemented. In the case of Islam, these beliefs are displayed by:

– Proclaiming there is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger, which means that one has entered the fold of Islam. This is similar to such Christian practices as baptism and confirmation.

– Praying five times a day. Christians also pray, although the manner and time is left up to them.

– Pilgrimage. The pilgrimage to Makka is one of the most important ritual practices that a Muslim can undertake. Historically, pilgrimage also was an important feature of the Catholic church.

– Charity. This is central to both Islam and Christianity.

– Fasting. Muslims fast during the month of Ramadan both to obey God and to experience what it feels like to be hungry and thirsty. It is still present in Judaism and, to a much smaller degree, in Christianity.

Muslims believe that God has sent 124,000 Prophets to guide humanity. Their messages were similar: Be good to others, starting with your own family, do not kill each other, help poor people, and many more. Moses was given the Ten Commandments to lead the Jewish people back to the right path. Jesus was sent to guide the Jews yet again to the right path. Finally, Muhammad was sent to guide all of humanity with the final revelation: Islam.

Judaism and Christianity were revealed to meet the needs of the people living at that time. As magic was important during Moses’ time, God gave him a heavenly stick to swallow the magic sticks of the court magicians during a contest, and also allowed him to perform other miracles that the magicians could not duplicate. Medicine was uppermost during Jesus’ time, and so his miracles were related to healing and raising the dead. Jesus tried to revive his people’s dead spiritual life and make them see that life’s real enjoyment lay in praying, leading a spiritual life, purifying oneself from materialistic things, and living honorably.

During the Prophet’s time, eloquence was the highest value. Thus his most important miracle is the Qur’an, the eloquence and beauty of which has never been surpassed. Some people converted to Islam due to its eloquence alone. He taught his people to stop murdering their infant daughters, killing each other, engaging in polytheistic practices, and drinking wine. Out of his followers emerged the leaders of what would become the most advanced civilization of its time.

The role of believers today

At present, believes need to concentrate on the common ground between these three monotheistic religions, for greater understanding will increase our ability to live together in peace and harmony. As they all come from the same source, no threat will face them in the future.

Following the Prophet’s example, we should reach out to the unbelievers among us and inform them of God’s Existence and their ultimate accountability on the Day of Judgment. This will cause them to think before they act.

Moreover, believers are told to raise a new generation that will not repeat the mistakes of the past. Future generations should believe in God and be friends with everyone. They should soar to new heights on the wings of science/education and religion.

Our generation faces many challenges. One of the hardest is proving that jihad does not mean holy war. During the Prophet’s time, war was part of jihad because the Muslims had to defend themselves. But they did this only after God revealed that they could do so, and only after the Prophet had tried for years to bring his enemies to Islam through peaceful preaching and personal example. When the Prophet reached out to the Persian and the Byzantine rulers, the same pattern was followed.

Today, the most appropriate form of jihad is setting a good personal example and helping others. In other words, believers must practice what they preach. Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad did this, and thereby won the hearts of their people and others without violence or coercion.

For example, when a recently deceased Jewish man was borne to his grave, the Prophet stood up in respect and the mourners passed by where he was sitting. When the Companions asked why he was standing for a Jew, he replied: Because he was a human being. This is part of the real teaching of all religions: sincere respect for others regardless of race, color, religion, or any other temporary distinction.

Conclusion

We should honor the Prophets who brought Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by following their calls for us to unite and work for world peace and understanding. This is another facet of this generation’s jihad, for it is becoming ever more obvious that we must find a way to sincerely love and respect each other if humanity is to survive.