The term ‘jihad’ has numerous meanings and connotations.
It cannot be restricted just to one meaning although this is how some
people erroneously understand it. In its general sense, the term
encompasses all efforts, at both the individual and the collective level,
for the reformation of the self and society, for general human welfare and
for acquiring the pleasure of god. In its particular sense, the term also
includes efforts that involve the use of power, if need be, to combat
opponents and enemies. Jihad in this particular sense is referred to in
the Koran by the term qital. Islam allows for jihad in the sense of
qital only in defence. In all other senses, jihad is a peaceful
struggle that aims at following god’s path and conveying the message of
god to others. It is in this sense that the noted classical Islamic
scholar Syed Sharif Jurjani interprets jihad as “inviting [others] to the
True Religion (huwa ad-duao ila din al-haq)”.
Jihad does not only mean fighting against the enemy. In
his Zad ul-Maad, the noted classical scholar Allama Ibn Qayyim
mentions 13 different types or forms of jihad, of which six relate to
struggling against one’s baser self (nafs) and the devil; three
relate to struggling against those who promote wrongful innovations and
evil; and four relate to struggling against evildoers and hypocrites. Thus
a total of nine forms of jihad, he explains, relate to struggles conducted
within, or that are internal to, the Muslims. The other four forms of
jihad relate to struggle on the external front, including jihad by one’s
heart, by one’s tongue, by one’s wealth and by sacrificing one’s life.
Although it is a principal form of jihad, lamentably few
Muslims pay attention to the jihad against one’s baser self. In
particular, radical self-styled Islamists, who never tire of raising
slogans calling for Islamic global domination, wholly ignore this
imperative. For them, or so it appears from their actions, jihad is
limited simply to qital.
In the Koran, god says: “And those who strive in Our
[Cause] – We will certainly guide them to our Paths: for verily Allah is
with those who do right” (29:69).
Elsewhere in the Koran, god says: “Therefore listen not to
the unbelievers but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness,
with the [Koran]” (25:52).
According to Abdullah Ibn Zubayr, a noted companion of the
prophet, the first-mentioned Koranic verse, which deals with god’s reward
for those who engage in jihad, refers to acting in the best way on the
basis of knowledge. The second-mentioned Koranic verse clearly instructs
the prophet to engage in jihad with the deniers of the truth using the
Koran as a weapon. This is obviously a peaceful form of jihad, a
non-violent effort to convey the message of Islam to others.
Prophet Muhammad is quoted as having said: “The mujahid
[one who engages in jihad] is he who, in obedience to God, wages jihad
against his baser self and the true emigrant (muhajir) is he who abandons
mistakes and sins (al-mujahidu man jahada nafsahu fi taat Allah wa al-muhajiru
manhajara al-khataya wa al-zunub).” Similarly, according to another
Hadith report, the prophet is said to have referred to the jihad against
one’s own baser self as the ‘greater jihad’ (jihad al-akbar).
Elaborating on this, Allama Ibn Qayyim writes: “Engaging
in jihad externally with the enemies of God is a minor branch (furu)
of jihad against the baser self (jihad bin nafs) […] This is why
jihad against the baser self is superior to jihad conducted against the
external enemy.”
Islam does not consider armed jihad, in the sense of
qital, to be a permanent or continuous phenomenon. It can be engaged
in only in certain contexts and must be conducted according to certain
rules and under certain conditions. On the other hand, the other, that is
non-violent, forms of jihad are forms of struggle that one must constantly
engage in. The former type of jihad is considered a collective duty (farz
ul-kifaya). If engaged in when needed by some people, the entire
community is absolved of responsibility for engaging in it. On the other
hand, most of the latter forms of jihad are a duty binding on all
believers (farz al-ayn).
A crucial issue, and one that radical self-styled Islamist
groups generally ignore, is the stringent conditions under which jihad, in
the sense of qital, can be engaged in if the need so arises and the
rules of conducting such jihad. If the requisite conditions are not met
and the appropriate rules are not followed, even if the aims of an armed
struggle are met, it cannot be considered to be a jihad or an Islamic
action. Such an action cannot receive the blessings and assistance of god
even if it might seem to be a successful venture in the eyes of those who
engage in it.
I do not intend to discuss here the various terms and
conditions governing jihad, which are dealt with in considerable detail in
the books of fiqh. My focus here is on those conditions ignoring
which most recent and contemporary Islamic movements that claim to be
engaged in jihad have met with utter failure.
One of these basic conditions is proper preparation which
the Koran refers to using the term idad. Obviously, no jihad can be
successful without proper preparation in terms of planning, manpower,
weapons and so on. The prophet and his companions did not believe that
they could, or should, fight without proper planning, manpower and
weapons. In Mecca, when Muslims were cruelly persecuted but lacked the
appropriate means to take on the oppressive Quraish pagans, god instructed
them to “hold back their hands [from fighting]” and to “establish regular
prayers” (4:77). When the companions of the prophet, tired of the
persecution that they had to endure, approached the prophet and sought
permission to engage in armed jihad, he declined and answered, “We are
less in number.” On several occasions the companions of the prophet chose
to withdraw when they were heavily outnumbered by the enemy. Instead of
condemning them for this, the prophet supported their decision, saying
that they were not those who flee (furrar) but rather those who
return to attack (kurrar). The prophet thus did not advocate any
short-cut method when the need for jihad arose, realising the importance
of numbers, weapons and proper training and planning, without which, he
knew, a jihad could not be successful.
The Koran discusses in some detail the necessary
prerequisites that a would-be mujahid group must fulfil in terms of
manpower if it can be permitted to engage in armed jihad, failing which
such jihad is not permissible, as it would inevitably result in defeat. To
begin with, the Koran mentioned that one believer could take on 10 enemy
soldiers (8:65) but in the following verse this was abrogated and one
believer was said to be able to take on two enemy soldiers (8:66). In
other words, for armed jihad to be considered permissible, it is essential
that the balance of power, in terms of manpower, between the Muslim army
and the enemy army be at least 1:2. If this is not the case then armed
jihad is not permissible, as it is likely that the battle will end in the
defeat of the Muslims. In such a situation, Muslims are to desist from
fighting and instead are expected to exercise restraint and steadfastness
and refrain from hurtling themselves into destruction by fighting.
The above-mentioned two Koranic verses speak of the
minimum balance of power, in terms of numbers of combatants, between the
Muslim and enemy forces that might make armed jihad permissible. However,
the noted Islamic scholar Imam Malik, quoted in Ibn Rushd’s Bidayat al-Mujtahid,
views the question of balance of power in terms of the quality of the
fighters rather than their numbers. He argues that although the Koran lays
down that a single Muslim soldier can take on two enemy soldiers, if the
former lacks weapons while the enemy forces are all well armed, it is
permissible for the former to withdraw from the battlefield even if he is
faced with just one enemy soldier.
In today’s context, where numbers of soldiers count for
little and where wars are decided essentially by sophisticated weaponry
and communications systems, the appropriate balance of power between
Muslims and their opponents, without which armed jihad is impermissible,
must be viewed in this qualitative sense that Imam Malik discusses. The
Koran very clearly lays down that without a basic minimum balance of power
and appropriate strength on the part of the Muslims, armed jihad is bound
to result in defeat which it warns Muslims against when it says: “[A]nd
make not your own hands contribute to [your] destruction” (2:195).
Certain other aspects of jihad are still not properly
understood even by those who claim to be engaged in jihad, giving rise to
enormous confusion. One such issue is internal jihad, that is jihad which
is directed within the Muslim community itself rather than against others
– in other words, efforts to promote internal reform. Referring to this
work of internal reform, Prophet Muhammad is quoted as having said: “He
among you who sees any evil should try to change it with his hand, but if
he is incapable of that then with his tongue, and if he is incapable of
even that then with his heart.”
In his famous book Alam al-Muwaqain, Allama Ibn
Qayyim discusses this work of internal reform and attacking social evils.
He argues that if by attacking a certain social evil an even bigger evil
is produced, it is impermissible to do so. This point seems to be totally
lost on contemporary so-called jihadist movements active in different
Muslim countries today, which, raising slogans of jihad, ‘Islamic
Revolution’ and seeking to extirpate social evils through violence, have
generated untold strife and misery.
Another deviation in contemporary understandings of jihad
is reflected in the fact that armed struggles for national liberation or
for the defence of Muslim nations have been termed by their proponents as
jihads. This is a completely wrong use of the term ‘Islamic jihad’ which
applies only to those struggles that are fought in the path of god (jihad
fi sabilillah), not for worldly or communal gains but to gain the
pleasure of god. According to a Hadith report, contained in the Sahih
al-Bukhari, the aim of Islamic jihad is to proclaim the word of god (ailao
kalimatillah). This clearly indicates that wars fought for fame,
power, land and wealth or out of feelings of revenge have nothing
whatsoever to do with jihad in the true sense of the term.
A basic condition of jihad, in the sense of qital,
when the need to engage in it arises, is that it should be declared and
led by an established leader. There is a near unanimity among the ulema
that jihad cannot be declared by an individual other than the leader. To
argue, as some radical self-styled Islamists do, that because present-day
Muslim governments are corrupt ‘rebels against god’ and because their
countries are not ruled in accordance with the Shariah, there is no need
to secure permission from them for jihad is a result and a reflection of
ideological deviation and corruption. Numerous Hadith reports refer to the
prophet clearly forbidding revolt (khuruj) against established
rulers. After the prophet’s demise, the majority of his companions and
their successors strictly abided by this rule even in the face of
oppressive rulers because they knew that armed rebellion against them
would create unwanted destruction, bloodshed and strife. Obviously, given
the enormous powers of modern states today, such rebellion will lead to
destruction on a much more deadly scale than before and hence its being
forbidden needs no explanation. For Muslim groups to attempt to do so can
only lead to massive, irreparable damage to themselves and to Muslims in
general.
Yet another issue about which confusion abounds is that of
‘offensive jihad’. Some radical self-styled Islamists claim that offensive
armed jihad is permissible against non-Muslim governments even if these
regimes permit their Muslim citizens to freely practise and propagate
their faith, in order, as they put it, “to extirpate infidelity or to
destroy its glory”. This is completely erroneous, indeed totally
preposterous. The fact of the matter is that Islam permits only one form
of jihad, in the sense of qital, and that is defensive jihad. The
deviant and un-Islamic concept of ‘offensive jihad’ has become a source of
great concern the world over, because of which non-Muslims increasingly
look upon Muslims as a dangerous threat. The sooner this concept of
‘offensive jihad’ is debunked the better.