Jih?d

views updated

JIHĀD

JIHĀD is the verbal noun of the Arabic verb jahada, meaning "to endeavor, to strive, to struggle." It is generally used to denote an effort toward a commendable aim. In religious contexts it can mean the struggle against one's evil inclinations or efforts toward the moral uplift of society or toward the spread of Islam. This last undertaking can be peaceful ("jihād of the tongue" or "jihād of the pen"), in accordance with sūrah 16:125 of the Qurʾān ("Call thou to the way of the Lord with wisdom and admonition, and dispute with them in the better way"), or involve the use of force ("jihād of the sword") as mentioned in sūrah 2:193 ("Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers"). In pious and mystical circles spiritual and moral jihād is emphasized. This they call "greater jihād" on the strength of the following tradition (ḥadīth) of the prophet Muḥammad: "Once, having returned from one of his campaigns, the Prophet said: 'We have now returned from the lesser jihād [i.e., fighting] to the greater jihād.'"

In view of the wide semantic spectrum of the word jihād, it is not correct to equate it with the notion of "holy war." And in those instances where the word jihād does refer to armed struggle, it must be borne in mind that Islam does not distinguish between holy and secular wars. All wars between Muslims and unbelievers and even wars between different Muslim groups would be labeled jihād, even if fought—as was mostly the case—for perfectly secular reasons. The religious aspect, then, is reduced to the certainty of the individual warriors that if they are killed they will enter paradise.

JihĀd in the QurʾĀn and the ḤadĪth

In about two-thirds of the instances where the verb jāhada or its derivatives occur in the Qurʾān, it denotes warfare. Its distribution—and that of the verb qātala ("combat," "fight") for that matter—reflects the history of the nascent Islamic community. Both words are hardly used in the Meccan parts of the Qurʾān, revealed during the period when the Muslims were enjoined to bear patiently the aggressive behavior of the unbelievers, but abound in the Medinese chapters, sent down after the fighting between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries had broken out. They are often linked with the phrase "in the way of God" (fī sabīl Allāh ) to underscore the religious character of the struggle. And in order to indicate that warfare against the Meccans ought to be the concern of the whole community and not only of the direct participants in warfare, the words "with their goods and lives" (bi-amwālihim wa-anfusihim ) are frequently added to these verbs.

Traditionally sūrah 22:39 ("Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged—surely God is able to help them—who were expelled from their habitations without right, except that they say 'Our lord is God'"), revealed shortly after Muḥammad's Emigration (Hijrah) from Mecca to Medina in 622 ce, is regarded as marking the turning point in the relations between the Muslims and the unbelievers. Many later verses on jihād order the believers to take part in warfare, promise heavenly reward to those who do, and threaten those who do not with severe punishment in the hereafter. Some verses deal with practical matters such as exemption from military service (9:91, 48:17), fighting during the holy months (2:217) and in the holy territory of Mecca (2:191), the fate of prisoners of war (47:4), safe conduct (9:6), and truce (8:61).

Careful reading of the Qurʾanic passages on jihād suggests that Muḥammad regarded the command to fight the unbelievers not as absolute, but as conditional upon provocation from them, for in many places this command is justified by aggression or perfidy on the part of the non-Muslims: "And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors" (2:190) and "But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief" (9:13). Authoritative Muslim opinion, however, went in a different direction. Noticing that the Qurʾanic verses on the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims give evidence of a clear evolution from peacefulness to enmity and warfare, Muslim scholars have argued that this evolution culminated in an unconditional command to fight the unbelievers, as embodied in verses such as 5:9 ("Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush"). These "sword verses" are considered to have repealed all other verses concerning the intercourse with non-Muslims.

There is an abundant body of ḥadīth on jihād. Owing to their practical importance many of them were already recorded in special collections during the second century ah, before the compilation of the authoritative collections. The ḥadīths deal with the same topics as the Qurʾān but place more emphasis on the excellence of jihād as a pious act, on the rewards of martyrdom, and on practical and ethical matters of warfare. A typical ḥadīth from the last category is: "Whensoever the Prophet sent out a raiding party, he used to say, 'Raid in the name of God and in the way of God. Fight those who do not believe in God. Raid, do not embezzle spoils, do not act treacherously, do not mutilate, and do not kill children.'"

JihĀd in Islamic Law

The prescriptions found in the Qurʾān and ḥadīth, together with the practice of the early caliphs and army commanders, were, from the latter half of the second century ah on, cast in the mold of a legal doctrine to which a separate chapter in the handbooks on Islamic law was devoted. The central part of this doctrine is that the Muslim community as a whole has the duty to expand the territory and rule of Islam. Consequently, jihād is a collective duty of all Muslims, which means that if a sufficient number take part in it, the whole community has fulfilled its obligation. If, on the other hand, the number of participants is inadequate, the sin rests on all Muslims. After the period of conquests the jurists stipulated that the Muslim ruler, in order to keep the idea of jihād alive, ought to organize an expedition into enemy territory once per year. If the enemy attacks Muslim territory, jihād becomes an individual duty for all able-bodied inhabitants of the region under attack. Those killed in jihād are called martyrs (shuhadāʾ ; sg., shahīd ). Their sins are forgiven and they go straight to paradise.

Shīʿī legal theory on jihād is very similar to Sunnī doctrine, with one important exception, however: the existence of the jihād duty depends on the manifest presence of a Shīʿī imam. Because the last of these went into concealment (ghaybah ) in ah 260 (874 ce), the jihād doctrine should have lost its practical importance for the Shīʿah. However, in an attempt to strengthen their position vis-à-vis the state, Shīʿī scholars have claimed to represent collectively the Hidden Imam and, therefore, to be entitled to proclaim jihād. This explains why, during the last centuries, many wars between Iran and its neighbors have been waged under the banner of jihād.

The ultimate aim of jihād is "the subjection of the unbelievers" and "the extirpation of unbelief." This is understood, however, in a purely political way as the extension of Islamic rule over the remaining parts of the earth. The peoples thus conquered are not forced to embrace Islam: With payment of a special poll tax (jizyah ) they can acquire the status of protected minorities and become non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state (dhimmī s). In theory certain categories of non-Muslims are barred from this privilege: Some scholars exclude Arab idolaters—a class of mere academic interest after the Islamization of the Arabian Peninsula; others hold that only Christians, Jews, and fire worshipers (majū s) qualify. In practice, however, the definition of fire worshiper could be stretched to include all kinds of pagan tribes.

Before the final aim—Muslim domination of the whole world—has been achieved, the situation of war prevails between the Islamic state and the surrounding regions. This situation can be temporarily suspended by a truce, to be concluded by the head of state whenever he deems it in the interest of the Muslims. Most scholars stipulate that a truce may not last longer than ten years, the duration of the Treaty of al-Ḥudaybīyah, concluded in ah 6 (628 ce) between Muḥammad and his Meccan adversaries.

The jihād chapters in the legal handbooks contain many practical rules. Warfare must start with the summons in which the enemies are asked to embrace Islam or accept the status of non-Muslim subjects. Only if they refuse may they be attacked. Other prescriptions concern, for example, the protection of the lives of noncombatants, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the division of the spoils.

JihĀd in History

Throughout Islamic history the doctrine of jihād has been invoked to justify wars between Muslim and non-Muslim states and even to legitimate wars between Muslims themselves. In the latter case the adversaries would be branded as heretics or rebels to warrant the application of the jihād doctrine. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there arose movements all over the Muslim world for whom jihād was so central to their teachings and actions that they are often referred to as jihād movements. Despite their wide geographical range—from West Africa to Southeast Asia—and the different social, economic, and political causes from which they sprang, they employed the same notions from the Islamic repertoire. Jihād for them meant the struggle within an only nominally Islamic society for the purification of religion and the establishment of a genuine Islamic community.

In combination with the jihād doctrine the obligation of hijrah, the duty of Muslims to emigrate from areas controlled by non-Muslims, was frequently appealed to. Often the notion of a Mahdi played a role, either because the leader proclaimed himself as such, or because he was regarded as a minister appointed to prepare the Mahdi's advent. The organizational framework of these movements was usually that of a Ṣūfī order. Although their main struggle was within their own society, many of these movements developed into formidable adversaries of the colonial powers once they collided with their expansionist policies.

Examples of jihād movements are the Wahhābīyah in Arabia, founded by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (1703–1792), the Fulbe jihād in northern Nigeria led by Usuman dan Fodio (1754–1817), the Padri movement in Sumatra (1803–1832), the West African jihād movement of ʿUmar Tāl (1794–1864), the ṭarīqah-i muḥammadī ("Muḥammadan way") in northern India founded by Aḥmad Barēlī (1786–1831), the Algerian resistance against French colonization, headed by ʿAbd al-Qādir (1808–1883), the Sanūsīyah in Libya and the Sahara, founded by Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Sanūsi, and the Mahdist movement of Muḥammad Aḥmad in the Sudan (1881–1898). In the twentieth century the jihād doctrine lost much of its importance as a mobilizing ideology in the struggle against colonialism; its place was taken by secular nationalism.

The Contemporary Significance of the JihĀd Doctrine

Since the nineteenth century attempts have been made to reinterpret the prevailing doctrine of jihād. One of the first thinkers to do so was the Indian reformer Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817–1898). Believing that the interests of the Indian Muslims would be served best by close cooperation with the British colonizers, he sought to improve relations between both groups. Especially after the 1857 revolt (the so-called Mutiny), the British, who had laid the blame solely on the Muslims despite massive Hindu participation, had favored the latter on the grounds that collaboration with Muslims would pose a security risk because of their allegiance to the doctrine of jihād. By offering a new interpretation of the jihād duty, Sayyid Ahmad Khan wanted to refute these views and prove that Muslims could be loyal subjects of the British Crown. He rejected the theory that the "sword verses" had repealed all other verses concerning the relations with non-Muslims. On the basis of a new reading of the Qurʾān he asserted that jihād was obligatory only in the case of "positive oppression or obstruction in the exercise of their faith, impairing the foundation of some of the pillars of Islam." Because the British, in his view, did not interfere with the Islamic cult, jihād against them was not allowed.

In India this extremely limited interpretation of the jihād doctrine found some support. In the Middle East, however, reformers such as Muḥammad ʿAbduh (1849–1905) and Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā (1865–1935) did not go so far. Yet their opinions differed considerably from the classical doctrine. They contended that peaceful coexistence is the normal relationship beween Islamic and non-Islamic territory and that jihād must be understood as defensive warfare, regardless, however, of whether the aggression on the part of the non-Muslims is directed against religion or not. In their view, then, jihād could indeed be proclaimed against Western colonial rule in the Islamic world. A recent development in modernist jihād literature is the presentation of an adapted and reinterpreted version of the jihād doctrine as Islamic international law, equating the notion of jihād with bellum justum.

Although modernist opinion is nowadays widespread, one ought not forget that there are also other schools of thought with regard to jihād. Apart from the conservative trend that contents itself with repeating the classical legal texts, there is the fundamentalist or revivalist tendency, whose adherents want to change the world according to Islamic principles. They view their struggle for the Islamization of state and society as jihād, explained by them as "the permanent revolution of Islam." They follow the classical doctrine and reject the modernist interpretation of jihād as defensive warfare. The most radical groups among them advocate the use of violence against their fellow Muslims, who, in their opinion, are so corrupt that they must be regarded as heathens. To this trend belonged the Tanẓīm al-Jihād ("jihād organization"), which was responsible for the assassination of the Egyptian president Sadat in 1981.

Bibliography

The most extensive and reliable survey of the classical doctrine of jihād is Majid Khadduri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, 1955). The same author has translated the oldest legal handbook on jihād, written by Muḥammad al-Shaybānī (749–805) and published under the title The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani's Siyar (Baltimore, 1966). Muḥammad Hamidullah's Muslim Conduct of State, 6th rev. ed. (Lahore, 1973), is based on an extensive reading of the classical sources but is somewhat marred by the author's apologetic approach. In my Jihad in Mediaeval and Modern Islam (Leiden, 1977), I have translated and annotated a classical legal text and a modernist text on jihād ; also included is a comprehensive bibliography of translations into Western languages of primary sources on jihād. Albrecht Noth's Heiliger Krieg und heiliger Kampf in Islam und Christentum (Bonn, 1966) and Emmanuel Sivan's L'Islam et la Croisade: Idéologie et propagande dans les réactions musulmanes aux Croisades (Paris, 1968) both deal with the jihād doctrine in the historical setting of the Crusades. In addition, Noth compares jihād with similar notions in Christianity. Hilmar Krüger's study Fetwa und Siyar: Zur international rechtlichen Gutachtenpraxis der osmanischen Seyh ül-Islâm vom 17. bis 19. Jahrhundert unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des "Behcet ül-Fetâvâ "(Wiesbaden, 1978) examines the role of the jihād doctrine in Ottoman international relations from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. Mohammad Talaat Al Ghunaimi's The Muslim Conception of International Law and the Western Approach (The Hague, 1968) attempts to apply the notions of modern international law to the jihād doctrine and asserts that Islamic law, thus recast, could nowadays be applied in international relations. The political role and the interpretation of the jihād doctrine in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are the main themes of my Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihād in Modern History (The Hague, 1979). On the Egyptian jihād organization see Johannes J. G. Jansen's The Neglected Duty (New York, 1986).