Ethical or Moral Arguments

¶ … jihad with reference to the practices and believes of the Muslims regarding the word "jihad." Further the paper will develop ethical/moral arguments regarding the stoppage of violence by both Ireland and Syria. Although one can name many countries with reference to jihad and practices of Muslims against the violence attacks, but this paper will limit the discussion to the violent attacks of Syria and Ireland.

It is an Arabic word the root of which is Jahada, which means to strive for a better way of life. Jihad is not a war to force the faith on others, as many people think of it. It should never be interpreted as a way of compulsion of the belief on others, since there is an explicit verse in the Qur'an that says: "There is no compulsion in religion" Al-Qur'an: Al-Baqarah (2:256)." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.JIHAD.html

The definition of Jihad states that it is a struggle, a way, a methodology or practice to strive for a better way of life. It is a practical act performed by the Muslims when they are badly pressed and dominated by other people belonging to another religion. As it is stated in the Holy Quran that:"GOD advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed.(16:90)" http://www.submission.org/muhammed/jihad.html

Jihad is not performed to compel or convince anyone to one's own ideology and beliefs, instead it is a way to save the ideologies, teachings and guiding principles of Islam. Jihad is made under those circumstances when the Muslims have no way out to escape from the situation and circumstances. Infact, when there is no one to save the ideologies of Islam then at that point of time it is the duty of a Muslim to raise his voice against the wickedness and against the violent attacks of the dominating parties. Jihad is the only possible solution and a suitable answer for a Muslim when he is deeply disturbed by the dominating parties and when his faith and belief strikes him to take action against the evil acts of the attackers.

Both ethically and morally a Muslim has given the right to perform jihad under stressful circumstances and situations. "The great stations of perfection in the spiritual life can also be seen in the light of the inner jihad" http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/jihad-nasr.htm

There are many Quranic verses in which it is clearly stated that a Muslim should strive and struggle hard to save the Islamic ideologies and teachings. It is therefore, the duty of a true Muslim to obey the teachings of Islam and perform Jihad as and when necessary. It is stated in the Quran:"Fight against them by means Of it (the Quran) a great fight Surah Al-Furqan (Ch. 25, V,53)" http://www.alislam.org/books/study-of-islam/jihad.html

History have shown that aggressive and violent actions against the Muslim have been taken place even in the times of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H), during those times also the true believers stood against the evil acts of the dominating parties and they understood their moral and ethical duties towards their religion as a true believer. Similarly, the conditions of Muslims in Ireland and Syria are under enormous pressure of the non-Muslims. The Musalmans are treated very badly in both these countries and they are not free to practice their own teachings and beliefs instead they have great pressure of the non-Muslims on them. Another example, which can be quoted here, is of Israel and Palestine, which clearly show that violent attacks and evil actions on Muslims have been increased.

The overall scenario and the situation compels us to ponder seriously on the point that whether consequentialist arguments or principled arguments should be made to persuade both parties to stop aggressive and violent actions? Can appropriations be made for both approaches (consequentialist and principled)? Ethical arguments are backed up by universally accepted rules and regulations and there is no question of doubt regarding these arguments. A Consequentialist approach is based on utilitarianism, arguing from principles, however, has little to do with consequences. Now the point here is to decide whether to argue from a consequentialist approach or from a principled approach.

Jihad has been decreed to repel aggression and to remove obstructions impeding the propagation of Islam in non-Islamic countries." As Lt.Col. M.M. Qureshi points out in his "Landmarks of Jihad," "only a war which has an ultimate religious purpose can be termed as jihad." - Shayk Muhammad Abu Zahra, Egyptian member of the Academy of Islamic Research" http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jihad.html#hatisj

As the above statement proves that Jihad has been ordered by the Almighty God to overcome obstructions and hindrances in the path of Islamic teachings therefore, it can be said that a principled approach of arguments can be used because it is based on ethical systems or rules -- either codified from members of society or accepted as revealed in sacred texts-that some members in society consider themselves duty bound to uphold, without exception, such as the Ten Commandments. While on the other hand, consequentialist approach is based on utilitarianism and it seeks the greatest good for the greatest number in society such that the consequences are beneficial. But the arguments are not supported or backed up by ethical systems, beliefs and rules.