48,466
edits
Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Scholars on Jihad: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Scholars on Jihad (view source)
Revision as of 08:06, 15 June 2013
, 15 June 2013→Bassam Tibi
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
m (→Bassam Tibi) |
|||
| Line 480: | Line 480: | ||
{{Quote||'''THE GROUNDS FOR WAR'''<BR> | {{Quote||'''THE GROUNDS FOR WAR'''<BR> | ||
The Western distinction between just and unjust wars linked to specific grounds for war is unknown in Islam. Any war against unbelievers, whatever its immediate ground, is morally justified. Only in this sense can one distinguish just and unjust wars in Islamic tradition. When Muslims wage war for the dissemination of Islam, it is a just war (''futuhat'', literally "opening," in the sense of opening the world, through the use of force, to the call to Islam); when non-Muslims attack Muslims, it is an unjust war ('''idwan''). | The Western distinction between just and unjust wars linked to specific grounds for war is unknown in Islam. Any war against unbelievers, whatever its immediate ground, is morally justified. Only in this sense can one distinguish just and unjust wars in Islamic tradition. When Muslims wage war for the dissemination of Islam, it is a just war (''futuhat'', literally "opening," in the sense of opening the world, through the use of force, to the call to Islam); when non-Muslims attack Muslims, it is an unjust war ('''idwan''). | ||
The usual Western interpretation of jihad as a "just war" in the Western sense is, therefore, a misreading of this Islamic concept. I disagree, for example, with Khadduri's interpretation of jihad as ''bellum justum''. As Khadduri himself observes:<BR> | The usual Western interpretation of jihad as a "just war" in the Western sense is, therefore, a misreading of this Islamic concept. I disagree, for example, with Khadduri's interpretation of jihad as ''bellum justum''. As Khadduri himself observes:<BR> | ||
<blockquote>The universality of Islam provided a unifying element for all believers, within the world of Islam, and its defensive-offensive character produced a state of warfare permanently declared against the outside world, the world of war. Thus jihad may be regarded as Islam's instument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers.</blockquote> | <blockquote>The universality of Islam provided a unifying element for all believers, within the world of Islam, and its defensive-offensive character produced a state of warfare permanently declared against the outside world, the world of war. Thus jihad may be regarded as Islam's instument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers.</blockquote> | ||
According to the Western just war concept, just wars are limited to a single issue; they are not universal and permanent wars grounded on a religious worldview. | According to the Western just war concept, just wars are limited to a single issue; they are not universal and permanent wars grounded on a religious worldview. | ||
The classical religious doctrine of Islam understands war in two ways. The first is literal war, fighting or battle (''qital''), which in Islam is understood to be a last resort in following the Qur'anic precept to guarantee the spread of Islam, usually when non-Muslims hinder the effort to do so. The other understanding is metaphorical: war as a permanent condition between Muslims and nonbelievers. The Qur'an makes a distinction between fighting (''qital'') and aggression ('' 'idwan'') and asks Muslims not to be aggressors: "Fight for the sake of Allah against those who fight against you but do not be violent because Allah does not love aggressors" (al-Baqara 2.190). The same Qur'anic passage continues: "Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of places from which they drove you. ... Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme" (al-Baqara 2.190-92). The Qur'anic term for fighting is here qital, not jihad. The Qur'an prescribes fighting for the spread of Islam: "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it" (al-Baqara 2.216). The qital of Muslims against unbelievers is a religious obligation: "Fight for the cause of Allah ... how could you not fight for the cause of Allah? ... True believers fight for the cause of Allah,. but the infidels fight for idols" (al-'Nisa 4.74-76). | |||
As noted above, Muslims tend to quote Qur'an selectively to support their own ethical views. This practice has caused a loss of specificity in the meaning of jihad, as Saddam Hussein's use of the term during the Gulf War illustrates. The current dissension about the concept of jihad dates from the rise of political Islam and the eruption of sectarian religious strife. Present-day Islamic fundamentalist groups - groups whose programs are based on the revival of Islamic values - often invoke the idea of jihad to legitimize their political agendas. The reason for this misuse of the concept is simple: most fundamentalists are lay people who lack intimate knowledge of Islamic sources and who politicize Islam to justify their activities. Before the Gulf War, for example, this occurred in Egypt, during the Lebanon War, and in the civil war in Sudan. Through such overuse and misuse, the concept of jihad has become confused with the related Islamic concept of "armed fighting" (''qital''). Therefore, there is a great need for a historical analysis of the place of scripture in Islamic tradition. Although Islamic ethics of peace and war indeed mostly scriptural, scriptural references can be adequately interpreted only in a historical context. | The classical religious doctrine of Islam understands war in two ways. The first is literal war, fighting or battle (''qital''), which in Islam is understood to be a last resort in following the Qur'anic precept to guarantee the spread of Islam, usually when non-Muslims hinder the effort to do so. The other understanding is metaphorical: war as a permanent condition between Muslims and nonbelievers. The Qur'an makes a distinction between fighting (''qital'') and aggression ('' 'idwan'') and asks Muslims not to be aggressors: "Fight for the sake of Allah against those who fight against you but do not be violent because Allah does not love aggressors" (al-Baqara 2.190). The same Qur'anic passage continues: "Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of places from which they drove you. ... Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme" (al-Baqara 2.190-92). The Qur'anic term for fighting is here qital, not jihad. The Qur'an prescribes fighting for the spread of Islam: "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it" (al-Baqara 2.216). The qital of Muslims against unbelievers is a religious obligation: "Fight for the cause of Allah ... how could you not fight for the cause of Allah? ... True believers fight for the cause of Allah,. but the infidels fight for idols" (al-'Nisa 4.74-76). | ||
As noted above, Muslims tend to quote Qur'an selectively to support their own ethical views. This practice has caused a loss of specificity in the meaning of jihad, as Saddam Hussein's use of the term during the Gulf War illustrates. The current dissension about the concept of jihad dates from the rise of political Islam and the eruption of sectarian religious strife. Present-day Islamic fundamentalist groups - groups whose programs are based on the revival of Islamic values - often invoke the idea of jihad to legitimize their political agendas. The reason for this misuse of the concept is simple: most fundamentalists are lay people who lack intimate knowledge of Islamic sources and who politicize Islam to justify their activities. Before the Gulf War, for example, this occurred in Egypt, during the Lebanon War, and in the civil war in Sudan. Through such overuse and misuse, the concept of jihad has become confused with the related Islamic concept of "armed fighting" (''qital''). Therefore, there is a great need for a historical analysis of the place of scripture in Islamic tradition. Although Islamic ethics of peace and war indeed mostly scriptural, scriptural references can be adequately interpreted only in a historical context. | |||
As we have seen, Islam understands itself as a mission of peace for all humanity, although this call (''da'wa'') can sometimes be pursued by war. In this sense, the ''da'wa'' is an invitation to jihad, which means fundamentally "to exert one's self" and can involve either military or nonmilitary effort. Jihad can become a war (''qital'') against those who oppose Islam, either by failing to submit to it peacefully or by creating obstacles to its spread. Although Islam glorifies neither war nor violence, those Muslims who fight and die for the ''da'wa'' are considered blessed by Allah.<ref>Bassam Tibi, "War and Peace in Islam," in ''the Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives'', ed. Terry Nardin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 128-45.</ref>}} | As we have seen, Islam understands itself as a mission of peace for all humanity, although this call (''da'wa'') can sometimes be pursued by war. In this sense, the ''da'wa'' is an invitation to jihad, which means fundamentally "to exert one's self" and can involve either military or nonmilitary effort. Jihad can become a war (''qital'') against those who oppose Islam, either by failing to submit to it peacefully or by creating obstacles to its spread. Although Islam glorifies neither war nor violence, those Muslims who fight and die for the ''da'wa'' are considered blessed by Allah.<ref>Bassam Tibi, "War and Peace in Islam," in ''the Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives'', ed. Terry Nardin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 128-45.</ref>}} | ||