[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Jihad (3)

Khaled Fahmy

Jihad (3)

Observance of Jihad

The sacred injunction concerning religious war “jihad” is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of Muslims, and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. The observance in the degree above mentioned suffices, because war is not a positive injunction, as it is in its nature murderous and destructive, and is enjoined only for the purpose of repelling aggression or persecution started by non-believers against the due advancement of Islam or for crushing its message; and when this end of defending the cause is answered by any single tribe or party of Muslims making war, the obligation is no longer binding upon the rest, in the same manner as the prayers for the dead, when answered by some Muslims, they are no longer binding on the rest. If, however, no Muslims were to make war in defence of actual oppression against the cause of God, the whole of the Muslim community would incur the criminality of neglecting it.
Misconception of the Duty of Jihad
A very great misconception prevails in the West with regard to the Islamic injunction of jihad. In a statement by Dr. A.B. Macdonald in the “Encyclopaedia of Islam” on the article of jihad, we find that the writer goes even as far as to begin his article thus:
“The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general”; as if Jihad meant not only war but was undertaken for the propagation of Islam.
Another eminent Christian writer makes a similar statement. “Jihad” -he writes - “means the fighting against unbelievers with the ****** of either winning them over to Islam, or subduing and exterminating them in case they refuse to become Muslims; and the causing of Islam to spread and triumph over all religions is considered a sacred duty of the Muslim nation[1]
It is really a great pity that such learned scholars had not taken the trouble to consult an ordinary dictionary of the Arabic ********, so that they could have avoided such glaring misrepresentation. “Jihad” in Arabic means the exerting of one’s utmost power in repelling an enemy. It is of three kinds, viz. the carrying on of struggle:
1) against a visible enemy
2) against the temptation of the devil
3) against one’s own passions.
In ******** “Jihad” is far from being synonymous with war, while the meaning of war undertaken for the propagation of Islam which is supposed by Western writers to be the significance of Jihad, is unknown equally to the Arabic ******** and to the teachings of the Glorious Qu’ran. There is prevalent conception that “At Makkah the Glorious Qu’ran enjoined patience, but when at Medina [when the Muslims became somewhat in power] Jihad were two contradictory attitudes. The error of this view is clearly shown by verse 110 of Chapter 16 which was revealed at Makkah; it enjoins patience and Jihad in the same breath: “God the all-Merciful and Forgiving shall bless those who emigrate [from Makkah] after they are persecuted, then struggle hard [adopt Jihad] and are patient” It should be noted that the Jihad spoken of here is certainly not in connection with the fighting, for the verse was revealed at Makkah, when the believers began to emigrate to Al-Medina, so that they may not again be afflicted by the Makkahn idolaters.
Islam was not spread by Force
The propagation of Islam is no doubt a religious duty incumbent upon every true Muslim who must follow the example of the Prophet, but the spread of Islam by force is a thing of which no trace can be found either in the Glorious Qu’ran or in the traditions of the Prophet. Islam is against aggression, sanction is given for war only in self-defence: “Fight in defence of the cause of God against those who attack you begin ye no hostilities. Verily God loveth not the aggressors. And if they [the enemies of Islam] incline towards peace incline thou [the Prophet] also to peace, and have trust in God” [8:61]. There is not the least ground for the oft-repeated allegation that Islam is intolerant and was propagates by the sword. The Qu’ran states clearly: “There is no compulsion in religion,” and the reason is added: “the right course is clearly distinct from the wrong one [2:256]. It was only when the Muslims' liberty and particularly their freedom of worship was threatened and actually attacked that Islam seized the sword in self-defence as it will ever do. But Islam never interfered with the dogmas of any moral faith. It never invented the rack or the stake for stifling difference of opinion, or strangling human conscience, or exterminating heresy.

[1] Dr. Klein’s article on “Jihad” in the “Review of the Religion of Islam”