Jihad: historical contexts and theological meanings

Jihad

The term jihad had gained incredible personal and political potency in the past decade. It is now a concept that is almost inextricable from thoughts about the Muslim people and religion to many people in the West, and continues to make many people wary of future terrorist attacks carried out by religious extremists. Yet even as the furor over the term jihad seems to be on the increase -- indeed, because such furor over an old and misunderstood term is on the increase -- many Muslim leaders and individuals are coming forward to denounce violence and religious fanaticism as antithetical to the basic tenets of their religion and even of the term jihad itself. Others insists that the terrorist acts that took place in the first few years of this millennium are merely a continuation of Muslim practices of violence and intimidation throughout the ages, and that this is indeed the standard and approved mode of operation for the scattered members of Islam. With such diametrically opposed view being so heavily propagated, it becomes necessary to ask what the true history and intent of the Muslim people is and has been throughout the centuries of their existence, and what the true meaning of jihad is.

Even the basic definition of this term is not something that is easily agreed on in the Muslim world. Some suggest that in modern times the word jihad simply applies to any quest to please Allah, perhaps specifically to a pilgrimage made to one of Islam's holy cities. In Arabic, the word literally translates as "struggle." In the Koran, it most commonly appears in the phrase "striving [or struggling] in the name of Allah." None of these meanings have anything to do with the violence with which the term jihad is associated by many today, and yet the connection between the idea of a holy war and struggling in the name of God is fairy easy to observe. The question is when the idea of jihad began to morph into something violent, and if that represents true Islamic feelings.

One passage of the Koran that might be used by modern day jihadists -- that is, the Muslim fanatics who believe it is incumbent upon them to wage a violent Holy War -- comes from Surah 9: Al-Tawbah (Repentance). This surah, like the others, covers many different topics, and is not concerned solely with ideas of repentance and forgiveness. It also proscribes certain methods of disassociating from non-believers, and how to bring messages of Allah's will and frustration to them. Specifically, one passage translates: "If you repent, it shall be for your own good; but if you turn away, then know well that you will not be able to frustrate Allah. So give glad tidings of a painful chastisement to those who disbelieve" (Koran, 9:3).

It is a common technique of scholars in any religion to parse the individual words of a given passage of a holy text in order to extract the "true" meaning of God's or a prophet's words. In this instance, some of the individual words certainly seem to suggest that a violent jihad against non-believers is called for. "painful" is one of the key words that would be used in such an interpretation of this passage; if it is taken in its most literal and physical sense, then this passage suggests that Muslim believers should happily go off (with "glad tidings") to cause physical harm to all non-believers. It also suggests the infallibility of such a design, as anyone who turns away from Allah (i.e. anyone who does not adhere to the Muslim religion) will be unable "to frustrate Allah." Interpreting the passage as an exhortation to violence, the jihadists would become even firmer in their violent goals with the knowledge of sure success behind them.

A more careful reading that includes the full passage reveals how inappropriate this interpretation is, however. First, the admonition to repent is given to the reader in the second person, demonstrating that the Koran is speaking directly to the believers -- it is not addressed to those who would not be reading it in the first place. In essence, this passage contains no commands for the non-believers, which would be fruitless anyway. Those who interpret this passage to mean they must convert non-believers by forcing them to repent through any mean -- even violence -- are making an argument similar to those Christians who hold up the Bible as "proof" of God's existence. It is circular logic; the argument depends upon its result to remain "true."

There is a more direct and less philosophically rigorous way to disprove the idea that this passage advocates violence on the part of Muslims against any non-believers. The second sentence tells the followers of Islam to "give glad tidings of painful chastisement," not to bring about this painful chastisement themselves. It is Allah's right -- and no one else's -- to bring about retribution when it is due, and in whatever form He sees fit. As the earlier part of the passage asserts, Allah will not be frustrated. The non-believers cannot actually bring any harm to the corporeal world or the divine beliefs of Islam; this would be contrary to Allah's will any by definition impossible. As such, there is no rational reason for violence to be visited upon them.

Of course, it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that such a simplistic interpretation of this passage -- either the one detailed immediately above or prior to that and attributed to jihadists. As with any text, multiple interpretations and shades of meaning are always possible. These passages, like the word jihd, have been interpreted in many different ways over the millennia or so of Islam's existence, and few of these interpretations are as black-and-white as those here.