THE CONCEPT OF JIHAD AND MUJAHID OF...

102

THE CONCEPT OF JIHADAND MUJAHID OF PEACE1

Recent debates on the role of religion in violentconflicts have revealed two different opinions on reli-gion. Some emphasize the negative side of religion.They think that religions can oppose progress, as re-ligion in the Middle East has shown, and that the ter-rorism and conflicts seen nowadays are evidence ofthis. For them, religion can be a destructive power. Itshould be remembered that people who take a cynicalattitude towards religion fail to respect the humane na-ture of religion and its moral rules stressing tolerance.

On the other hand, secularists, who take a morepositive stance towards religions, view it as a humane

1 This paper has been published in Hisanori kato (ed.), TheClash of Ijtihad Fundamentalist versus Liberal Mulsims: The Developmentof Islamic Thinking in Contemporary Indonesia, (Book Series on Reli-gion, Politics and Society), New Delhi: ISPCK, 2011: pp. 40-57.

103

Konsep Jihad dan Mujahid Damai

creed and a force of civilization. Enlightened religiousfollowers, according to secularist groups, are well awareof the fact that terrorism, murder, and destructionviolate the teachings of all religions. Secularists knowthat such violent acts can only tarnish the name ofreligion, whatever that religion might be. Yet, it alsoshould be remembered that so-called liberals fail tounderstand that religions always require humans toobey the law of God, something one might call anabsolute submission to the God.

We can thus find two features of religion in rela-tion to violence, that is to say, the acceptance of vio-lence and the denial of violence. Religion might jus-tify the “utilization” of violence as a means of self-defense and the expansion of religion and might al-low the destructive behaviour of followers. In manyreligions, we find some resonance between the act ofviolence and the appreciation of the “holy martyr”who sacrifices him- or herself for the sake of religion.This concept leads us to the debate on jihad in Islam.It is hard to find a simple explanation for this delicatereligious question since the concept of jihad is itselfambiguous. However, it is vital to search for the genu-ine meaning of jihad, because terrorism and violencein the name of Islam occur so frequently these days.

Discussions of jihad have been very frequent sincethe spontaneous terrorist attacks on 11 September

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

104

2001 in New York, which destroyed the World TradeCenter in Manhattan and caused the war in Afghani-stan. The current tense situation in Palestine also makesdiscussion of jihad popular among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Some Westerners connect jihad withthe uncivilized crusaders who existed hundreds yearsago in the time of the rivalry between Christianity andIslam. This view endorses the idea that violence is in-herent in the concept of jihad. Others consider jihad aspiritual struggle rather than a physical martyrdom. Oneof the reasons why the concept of jihad is so varied liesin the history and the process of its theological legiti-mation, which happened fourteen centuries ago in anarea extending from Spain to the Middle East.

It is true that a sensitive relation between Mus-lims and non-Muslims was caused by various histori-cal affairs. In other words, historical events have ex-erted a major influence on the lives of Muslims. Weknow one extreme Islamic group that regards jihad asphysical war (or “holy war”, as it is sometimes trans-lated into English): the Khawarij sect. Like Khawarij,many theologians and orthodox jurists think that jihadis a religious obligation of that kind. However, theunderstanding of jihad varies substantially. It is thisauthor’s intention to examine the real meaning of jihadand to suggest a future course of Islam in this paper.

105


Jihad as War (the Meaning of jihad)

The word jihad comes from an Arabic wordj-h-d, of which literal meaning is a serious effort orhard-working. “Mujahid”, the subject form (ism fa’il)of jihad, means someone who participates in jihad en-thusiastically. In many contexts, jihad is used to meanwarfare, even though there are other Arabic words thatmore obviously mean war, such as qital and harb. Inthe Qur’an and other Islamic texts, jihad, is often fol-lowed by the word of sabilillah, which means the pathof Allah. It can be assumed that jihad fi-sabilillah (warwaged by Muslims against their enemies) denoted thephysical dashes between tribes during the Pre-Islamicperiod in Arabia.

Besides the Qur’an, jihad is often explained as anact of war in Hadiths. For example, there are 199 ref-erences about jihad in Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, whichall regard jihad as an act of war.2 Broadly, BernardLewis explains that most mutakallimun (theologians),jurists and classic muhaddithun (traditionalists)3 regard

2 See M. Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Medina, 1981 edition., vol. 4,pp. 34-204.

3 Mutakallimun means Muslim scholars who deal with theo-logical issues referring to Qur’an, Hadith, and human reasoningand is usually translated into English as ‘theologian.’Muhaddithun means Muslim scholars who “study” hadith andconvey the content of hadith to his fellow Muslims and they areusually translated into English as ‘traditionalists.’

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

106

jihad as a military obligation.4

Classical jurists5 explain that jihad should be ap-plied to both the land of Muslims (dar al-lslam) and theland of non-Muslims (dar al-harb). This suggests thatthat there were frequent conflicts between Muslimsand non-Muslims in the early days of Islam. This isone of the reasons why jihad is understood as war.However, it is important to remember that dar al-lslamnever means destroying non-Islamic areas or killingnon-Muslims. Moreover, jihad never brings about forc-ible conversion. The Qur’an (al-Baqarah 2:256) states:“There is no compulsion in religion.” We should alsonot overlook the political feature of jihad in that itencourages Muslims to establish their own politicalentity, which would bring two positive results: Islamrecognizing the existence of other religions, and giv-ing Muslims the chance to establish social order andpolitical justice.

Jihad is not Compulsory Conversion

Classical Islamic law divides the citizens of dsral-harb into two groups: ahl al-kitab (People of theBook); and Mushrikun (Polytheist). Ahl al-kitab con-

4 B. Lewis, The Political Language of Islam, Chicago, 1988, p.72.

5 There are three divisions in Islamic history: the classical pe-riod from 750 to 1250; the mediaeval period from 1251 to 1800;and the modem period from 1801 to present time.

107


sists of Jews, Christians, and Sabi’in (those who donot worship idols), and these people have the samestatus as Muslims because they follow the true revela-tions conveyed by genuine prophets. They live com-fortably under Islamic rule as long as they fulfil theirduties (ahl al-dhimmi) that they pay the jizyah (specialtax) and do not disturb the lives of Muslims. Mean-while, according to Islamic law, Muslims should offertwo choices to Mushrikun: converting to Islam ordeath. Yet, this action was rarely taken after the Mus-lim conquest of Arabia. Muslims usually treated allnon-Muslims s (ahl al-harb) in the same manner as thepeople of sacred book (ahl al-kitab). The classical ju-rists regarded even Zoroastrians, for example as ahl al-kitab. After the Muslim conquest of India, the con-cept of ahl al-kitab even extended to Hindus as well.These historical facts eventually suggest that “conver-sion or death” approach in propagation was notadopted by Muslims, and terminology such asmushrikun (Polytheist) became obsolete among Mus-lims.

Although it is understood &&t jihad should becontinuously carried out until dar al-lslam is completelyrealized in this world, this does not mean that juristsexpect Muslims to engage in endless war. The ProphetMuhammad signed a peace contract with the Meccans,the Hudaibiyah Agreement of 630, and some early

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

108

khalifah (caliphs) also signed a peace treaty with thekingdom of Byzantium. Even if there is no mecha-nism in Islamic law that recognizes non-Muslim gov-ernments, Muslim jurists have encouraged Muslims tonegotiate with non-Muslims to cease hostilities andsign peace accords. We also know that many juristshave supported the policy that no single party shouldpossess excessive military power. Some other juristshave set up new categories, such as dar al-’ahd (terri-tory where a “social contract” binds together differ-ent groups) and dar al-sulh (territory where peace ex-ists among different groups).

In addition, jurists have seen jihad not only as anindividual obligation of Muslims (fard al-’ayn) but alsoas a communal obligation of Muslims (fard al-kifayah).However, it is expected that all Muslims will partici-pate in jihad when dar al-lslam is being attacked. And,if the community as a whole fails to fulfill religiousobligations, including jihad, its members are regardedas sinners. However, when some Muslims in the com-munity exercise jihad on behalf of other Muslims, therest of community members do not need to partici-pate in jihad. Some Shia writers explain that offensivejihad is allowed only if Imam al-Muntazar (the awaitedImam) appears in this world. Thus, offensive jihad isnot allowed at the present time (since Imam al-Muntazar has not yet appeared).

109


Despite the historical facts, already mentioned,relating to the peaceful side of jihad, a prominent phi-losopher Ibn Taymiyah (1268-1328) took a more ag-gressive position. He declared that any ruler who failsto implement shariah (Islamic Law) thoroughly, includ-ing jihad, will lose his right to govern the nation. Heencouraged all Muslims to take part in the jihad struggleby fighting Christian crusaders and Mongols. He dearlyfollowed the Khawarij tradition which was popular inthe seventh century and which emphasized the physi-cal side of jihad against non-Muslims. Another radi-cal group called the Assassin emerged in the eleventhcentury.6 This group evidently gave an impetus to radi-cal Muslims to physically resist non-Muslims. IbnTaymiyah also made it very clear that nominal confes-sion of the faith cannot be recognized as a true con-fession or shahada. Interesting, however, Ibn Taymiyahsupported jurists who accepted rulers who did notimplement shariah in their government. It is better,according to Ibn Taimiyah to have a government,whatever it might be, than to have no government.

6 T. Sonn, “Irregular Warfare and Jihad: Asking the RightQuestion,” In J. Kelsay (eds.). Cross, Crescent and Sword: The Jus-tification and Limitation of War in Western and Islamic Tradition,Wesport, Conn., 1990, pp. 132-8.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

110

Islamic Expansion and Jihad

Islamic law forbids any war that is not recognizedas jihad, especially war between Muslims. Muslims areallowed to attack heir fellow Muslims only when “Mus-lims” rebels (bughat) against the legal authority and areno longer regarded as Muslims.7 We can see some ex-amples of this in history. When khalifah al-Ma’mun andhis relative al-Amin argued over the caliphate between809 and 813, al-Ma’mun regarded al-Amin as a rebel.The internal rift in the Islamic community became ap-parent a mere hundred years after the revelation. Theterm fitnah (slander) has been used to describe the dis-integration of Muslim community. It is true that thestate of fttnah has been a standard condition of Is-lamic world since the early period of Islamic history.

One of the earliest Muslim writers, Muhammadibn al-Hasan Shaybam (the founder of Hizbut Tahrir),codified the laws relating to war and peace after Is-lamic communities became divisive. Nonetheless, theselaws seem to have worked rather ineffectively Otherjurists have tried to find solutions to the disintegra-tion of Islamic world and dashes between Muslimsand non-Muslims. However they have failed to presentan effective means to stop an effective means to stop

7 F.M. Donner, “The Sources of Islamic Conception of War”,in Ibid., pp. 51-52.

111


it. They also failed to establish a legitimate authority,that is, the khalifah (Caliph).

Yet, the disintegration of Islamic world did notprevent the expansion of Islam. Jihad, in the sense ofphysical conflict, continued, and the non-physical fea-ture of jihad had very little influence on Islamic gov-ernment policies. The word ghazi, which means raid,is generally considered as synonymous with jihad. TheOttoman kingdom was once called the Kingdom ofghazi because of its frequent recourse to jihad. How-ever, carrying out jihad was not the primary purposeof Ottoman expansion. There were other purposes,such as population control, competition with otherMuslim countries, and pacification by conquering op-posing countries. Besides, the jihad doctrine, Ottomanpolitical ideology was mixed with elements of Turk-ish, Mongol, Persian, and Byzantine traditions and cul-tures. With this multicultural orientation, Islam evenreached as far as India. It should be remembered thatthe rulers of Ottoman Empire, such as Uzun HasanAqquyunlu, who reigned from 1453 to 1478, andSafawi Shah Tahmasp, who ruled from 1524 to 1576,conducted jihad to expand their territory and to ac-quire sovereignty over more tax-paying citizens. Thisprovides evidence that the justification for carryingout “physical jihad” can be political as well as religious.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

112

Jihad as Spiritual Struggle

“War” is just one of the many interpretations ofjihad. Discussion of the meaning of jihad seems never-ending. Jihad can mean either an internal struggle aim-ing to bring about personal growth or an externalstruggle with the goal of achieving justice. We can finda passage in Hadiths that indicates the substantivemeaning of jihad. Muhammad said when he came backfrom the Badar war: “We have just come back fromsmall (jihad al-asghar) and will come across to great jihad(jihad al-akbar).” Then, one of his friends asked: “Whatis great jihad?” He replied “It is jihad towards our-selves (jihad al-nafs).” Although this hadith is not in-cluded in the authoritative canon of Hadiths, it hashad great impact on Islamic mysticism and Sufism.

Sufis regard jihad as a spiritual struggle or jihadal-nafs, especially in the face of physical desire and poly-theism. True understanding of great jihad is neces-sary when looking at one’s inner self. Thus, great jihadis the most important part of achieving Spiritual en-lightenment.8 Sufism exerted a great influence onMuslim spirituality up until the eleventh century. It istrue that many Muslims regarded jihad as a personal

8 See J. Renard, “Al-Jihad al-akbar,” Muslim World 78 (1988):pp. 225-42, and V.J. Hoffman, Sufism, Mystics and Saints in Mod-ern Egypt (Studies in Comparative Religion), Columbia, 1995, pp.196-200.

113


struggle rather than a politically-motivated physicalstruggle. However, Sufism was challenged by IbnTaymiyah, who criticized mystics for breaching Shariah.His disciple Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyah (1292-1350)condemned the doctrine of jihad al-akbar more explic-itly, casting doubt on the authenticity of that hadith.9

In short, we find three contrasting views on jihadin the pre-modern period: (1) jihad as an obligationand a communal effort to create and maintain dar al-lslam (originating in classical fiqh); (2) jihad as a physi-cal struggle and governmental duty (originating in theideas of Ibn Taymiyah); (3) jihad as jihad al-akbar or apersonal struggle (originating in the ideas of Sufism).Since classical jurists failed to present an accord onthe concept or jihad, it is easy to understand why therehave been debates about the true meaning of jihad.Let us see in the remainder of this paper how the de-bate over jihad has developed in the modem period.

Various Interpretations of Jihad in the Modern Pe-riod

The first systematic explanation of jihad in mo-dem history came after the Indian uprising against Brit-ish rule in 1857. Sayyid Ahmad Khan and other Mus-

9 J.J.G. Jansen, The Neglected Duty: The Creed of Sadat’sAssassins and Islamic Resurgence in the Middle East, New York,1986, p.102.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

114

lim scholars expressed their view that jihad meant de-fensive war and did not justify offensive actions againstthe British government so long as the latter did notcontravene Islamic practices. Sayyid Ahmad Khan con-ceived of Islam as a private concern rather than a publicor political matter.10 Although his view was formed inresponse to the specific situation of British coloniza-tion, his ideas had an impact on the attitude of Mus-lims in India in general.

Some modem Muslim writers encourage their fel-low Muslims to look to the Qur’an for guidance inreconciling Islam and the West. They believe that jihadis defensive in nature. To prove it, they explain thatany war initiated by the Prophet Muhammad and thefour rightly guided caliphs (khalifah) were defensive.They also say that the Qur’an tells Muslims to seekreconciliation when their enemy asks for dar al-sulh (theterritory where peace prevails among different groups).Such reconciliation deal can last eternally, and Mus-lims need to take a neutral position when internationalconflicts arise.11 Some Muslim scholars in the modemperiod have also attempted to accommodate shariah andsecular law. Muhammad Shaltut, former rector of al-

10 M. V. Ali, A Critical Exposition of the Popular Jihad, Delhi,1984, p. 21.

11 M.Mir, “Jihad in Islam.” m Hadia Shakeel and Ronald A.Messier (eds.). The Jihad and Its Enemies, Michigan, 1991, pp.119-22.

115


Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, was of the opinionthat shariah encourages reconciliation between Muslimsand non-Muslims, and that the legal right for self-de-fence advocated in shariah is in accordance with theprinciples of the Charter of the United Nations.12

Abul A’la al-Mawdudi (1903-1979), a scholar fromIndia/Pakistan, also presented a systematic explana-tion of jihad. For him, jihad is not only a war to ex-pand an Islamic political domain but also a processfor establishing a legal government and ensuring reli-gious freedom. Al-Mawdudi’s political life began whenhe participated in the caliphate movement in India af-ter the First World War. The movement demandedIndia’s independence from Great Britain. He said thatjihad was a concrete strategy for liberating the peopleof India, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.13

Mawdudi’s views significantly changed the con-cept of jihad; he connected a religious concept jihadwith the secular concepts of the anti-colonialism move-ment, which meant that jihad became a way not onlyto expand Islamic political influence but also to de-velop an Islamic polity in an independent nation. More-over, jihad, for Mm, is the way to ensure the specialstatus of non-Muslims (ahl al-dhimmi) by offering them

12 R. Peters, Jihad in Mediaeval and Modem Islam, Leiden, 1977,p. 66.

13 A. Mawdudi, Al-Jihad fi Sabil Allah, Gujranwala, [n-d.], p. 10.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

116

political autonomy. Muslims in Arabia oppose Zion-ism and Israel because they regard the creation of Is-rael as an act of colonization. In this regard, the rectorof al-Azhar University stated in 1973 that all Egyp-tians, including Christians, should participate in jihadto oppose Israel, and Arafat also should execute jihadto liberate Jerusalem.14

Other Islamic scholars, such as Hasan al-Banna(1906-1949) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-1956), endorsedthe ideas of al-Mawdudi and praised him for havingplayed a significant role in establishing Islamic gov-ernment. For them, as Ibn Taymiyah notes, jihad is aneffort to eliminate any government that fails to imple-ment shariah. This sort of jihad matches the course ofrevolution which the Quran instructs Muslims to bringabout. On this view, Muslims may have to enter intoconflict with their own government before dealing withexternal enemies. In the eyes of these Muslim schol-ars, political leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser andAnwar Sadat were not true Muslims; they failed toexercise jihad properly (despite stating their opposi-tion to Israel). The aforementioned Muslim scholarsinsist that jihad is a religious obligation for all Mus-lims and their community as a whole.15

14 Peters, Jihad and Colonialism: the Doctrine of Jihad in the ModernHistory, The Hague, 1979, p. 134.

15 E. Sivan, Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics,New ftgaven, 1990, pp. 16-21, 114-16.

117


One of the assassins of Anwar Sadat, MuhammadAbd al-Salam Faraj, presented his understanding ofjihad in the booklet titled “The Neglected Duty”, whichhe distributed after killing the President. His view canbe seen as giving pure expression to hardliner Mus-lims’ understanding of jihad. He said that jihad waslike a firearm and that it belonged to the core teach-ings of Islam. He also stated that Islam would be in adisadvantageous situation if jihad was not properlypracticed, and that physical force shouldbe used todestroy paganism. An example of this, according toFaraj, was when Ibrahim and Muhammad destroyedthe idols in Kaba in the early days of Islam. Far; criti-cized Muslim political leaders as apostates and insistedthat all Muslims should make every effort to realize atrue and legitimated Islamic government, to revive thecaliphate, and to expand dar al-islam (Islamic terri-tory).16

Shiite revolutionaries shared the views of Faraj.The Ayatollah Khomeini (1903-1989) said that juristsshould struggle to create goodness, eradicate evil, elimi-nate a tyrannical government so that Muslims couldestablish their own government. According toKhomeini, true jihad and true Islamic teaching encour-age all Muslims to be mujahid (someone who

16 J. J. G.Jansen, op. cit.,.p. 162.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

118

struggles).17 Ayatollah Muhammad Mutahhari, a well-known scholar during the Iranian Revolution, regardedjihad as a political obligation, too. A.M Mutahharithought that the “power of gun” was sacred in Islam,and various fatwas (Islamic ruling pronounced by reli-gious scholars or authorized religious bodies) sup-ported his view. Mutahhari did not deny the validityof the defensive orientation of jihad, but he promotedthe offensive side of jihad more actively. He insistedthat it was legitimate and permissible to attack coun-tries that tolerate polytheism. He also believed thatIslam was superior to Christianity because Islamteaches jihad, which encourages Muslims to act politi-cally, whereas Christianity has no concept similar tojihad.

Jihad as Non-Military Actions in the Modem Pe-riod

In the modem period, liberals and Sufi Muslimshave dearly expressed their views on jihad, advocatingits peaceful nature. They believe that jihad is a processof socio-political struggle for Muslims. And jihad isan important doctrine for the realization of justice insociety. Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani scholar and a pro-fessor at the University of Chicago, argues that Mus-

17 R. Khomeini, Islamic Government, Berkeley, 1981, pp. 108,132.

119


lims can never bypass jihad when dealing with sodo-political matters. According to Rahman, there can beno doubt that the Quran teaches Muslims to create apolitical entity that ensures justice and equality. Jihadis one means for achieving this goal.18 For instance,former Tunisian President Habib Borguiba, exercisedjihad to bring about economic growth in Tunisia, andhis struggle was known as “the War against Poverty.”In this case, jihad does not imply violence at all. In-deed, it contrasts sharply with the general understand-ing of jihad envisaged by non-Muslims.19

The concept of greater jihad upheld by Sufis isalso important in terms of the development of Is-lamic philosophy. Although Sufis have little influenceon the majority of Muslims compared to voluble Is-lamists in the political sphere, they have a great impacton Muslims’ spiritual life. Egypt is an important placefor this peaceful idea of jihad, since there are moreSufis than radical Islamists in the country.20 PresidentSadat was a pioneering writer on Sufism and was suc-cessful in spreading the ideas of Sufism.21 Some an-thropological research conducted in Egypt, Sudan, and

18 F. Rahman, The Major Themes of the Qur’an, Minneapolis, 1980,pp. 3-64.

19 Peters. Jihad in Mediaeval, op. dt, pp. 116-117.20 Hoffman, op. cit, pp. 357-358.21 Jansen, op. cit., pp. 65-66, 74, 78.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

120

Tunisia suggests that jihad is deeply connected withRamadhan fasting.22 Because Sufi concept of jihad,which emphasizes the spiritual side of human struggle,drew a great deal of attention, some Muslim hardliners,such as Hasan al-Banna, became reluctant to criticizeSufis.23 Sufis now use the term mujahadah (greaterjihad) more than ever as they need to oppose aggres-sive jihadist.

The Impact of Jihad

As has been seen, the concept of greater jihad,which emphasizes the moral struggle of Muslims, hasappealed to the hearts of many Muslims, particularlySufis. On the contrary, the concept of lesser jihad,which advocates physical action, has had little impacton the lives of Muslims. Although it is also true thatphysical jihad has caused serious problems in the worldtoday, such jihad has never spread to mobilize themasses worldwide. In this regard, physical or little jihadhas found very little support in Muslim communitiesin the world. Historically speaking, the Pan-Islamismmovement, whose main goal has been defending daral-lslam and promoting the concept of little jihad, hasonly seemed to find success as anti-colonialism move-ments.

22 Sonn, loc. cit., pp. 132-138.23 Ibid.

121


Although there have been many Islamic move-ments to stop European expansion in Islamic soil, jihadhas never served as a factor to materialize geographi-cal as well as political unity of Islamic world. The mostsystematic attempt to mobilize Muslims in opposingthe West was made by the Ottoman regime in 1914,but it failed completely. When it declared war on Aus-tria, the Ottoman Empire simultaneously issued fatwaon jihad that every Muslim, including Muslims in Rus-sia, France, and Britain, should participate in thestruggle to improve the lot of Muslims. The fatwa waspublished in Arabic, Urdu, Persian, and Turkish lan-guages, but was not heeded by Muslim communities,with the result that they failed to unify the Islamic worldin jihad?24

Calls for jihad have often had very little resonancefrom Muslim communities. Saddam Hussein’s call forjihad against Israel while President of Iraq, for ex-ample, failed to mobilize Muslims to annihilate Israel.He also called for jihad to oppose the U.S. and maneu-vered to lend an Islamic tinge to his secular govern-ment. There were some Islamists who responded posi-tively, but S. Hussein gained little support from themasses and never succeeded in resolving his conflictwith the USA Ayatollah Ali Khomeini did the same

24 Peters, Jihad and Colonialism, op. cit., pp. 90-94.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

122

thing when he encouraged his community to go towar against the USA, something he called jihad. In thecase of Afghanistan, the call for physical resistance orjihad against Russia never gained mass support al-though many “mujahidin”25 were engaged in fighting.Even though Afghanistan received a great deal of sym-pathy from Islamic countries, only three states, SaudiArabia, Iran, and Pakistan, actually sent significantnumbers of mujahidin. “Lesser jihad” has failed to unitean Afghanistan that is divided politically, ethnically,sodally, and ideologically. In fact, the recent war involv-ing Afghanistan and the U.S.A. has revealed tensionsbetween the current Afghan government and the North-ern Alliance which supported the Taliban government.

It seems to be true that physical jihad or little jihaddoes not function efficiently as a part of Muslimstruggle. Most Muslims do not regard war as an obli-gation for individuals or the community as a whole.Reinhold Loeffler, who worked in a small village inSouth Iran, found strong evidence that physical jihadwas not overwhelmingly embraced by the people ofIran at the time of the Islamic Revolution. An infor-mant told Loeffler that “a young man who is not a

25 Mujahidin, which is a plural form of mujahid, is generallyknown as Muslim fighters who are engaged in physical fighting.However, the author believes that mujahidin also means Muslimswho struggle for spiritual achievement and peace.

123


soldier will be killed in vain. I do not believe that theywill be martyrs in the heaven.”26 Another informant,who was aware that Khomeini wrongly modeled him-self as Imam Husain, said that “before his last battle.Imam Husain set his followers free from the obliga-tion of jihad and many lives were saved.27 Meanwhile,Khomeini could not be regarded as a saint as he let hisfollowers come to death.”28 Such anecdotal evidencesuggests that the call for jihad by the Islamic Republicof Iran failed to receive enthusiastic support from theMuslim community.

Mujahid of Terror versus Mujahid of Peace

To the foregoing discussions and analysis, we canadd two distinct orientations or types of mujahid,namely the “mujahid of terror” and the “mujahid ofpeace.” The mujahid of terror uses violent means topurify his or her religious community and confrontother religious communities, believing that the use ofviolence is a part of his holy obligation. On the otherhand, the mujahid of peace (peace-maker, peace-builder, peace-keeper) refuses to legitimize the use ofviolence in the name of religion, although he will still

26 R. Loeffler, Islam in Practice: Religious Beliefs in a Persian Vil-lage, Albany, 1988, p. 229.

27 Ibid., p. 235.28 Ibid., p. 237.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

124

take to arms when necessary. Both believe in the righ-teousness of their religious tradition. However, theyshow a clear contrast in their exercise of jihad. It isimportant to note that the mujahid of peace seeks tokeep his use of violence to a minimum, resorting toarms only when he faces a tyrant or injustice whichcannot be stopped without physical conflict, actionswhich, for mujahid of peace, are self-defence. Themujahid of terror regards violence as his religious rightand even believes physical fighting is imperative to re-alize justice.

It is important to recognize that the mujahid ofterror does not hesitate to employ physical force, in-cluding waging war, in order to achieve his religious aswell as political goals, while the mujahid of peace re-fuses to glorify the stories of war, concentrating ratheron the spiritualization of Islamic life. An exemplarymujahid of peace m the history of Islam is Khan AbdulGhaffar Khan, who end the non-violence movementin the Pathan community (Afghanistan) against theBritish army. In Buddhist and Hindu traditions, “spiri-tual war” is extremely important, with believers prac-ticing severe religious disciplines such as fasting, celi-bate prayer and meditation in order to detach them-selves from worldly desires. They are permitted to usephysical force in self-defense only. This attitude cor-responds to the orientation of the mujahid of peace.

125


For the mujahid of peace, being true to one’s prin-ciples is extremely important, and he will refuse to useviolence as an instrument to express his disappoint-ment, resentment, or frustration. AH Muslims shouldremember that it is not merely evil but shows disre-spect to Allah to treat other humans viciously and bar-barically.

The special feature of the mujahid of peace is thathe appreciates humanity and seeks to establish a legalbasis for creating a society that is egalitarian, irrespec-tive of religious faith. It is not difficult to imagine thatmujahid of peace would also face injustice and op-pression in their lives. However, they stand resolute inthe sight of Allah and choose to coexist with theirenemies. Anyone who breaks the law of Allah will bepunished, and anyone who fulfils the holy duties of aMuslim will be rewarded. Thus, it is right to under-stand that the way of mujahid of peace is very much inaccordance with the teaching of Islam, which also re-spects human rights. Muhahid of peace will be the truecreature of Allah, whose good deeds match Allah’s will.

A clear contrast can be seen in how the mujahidof terror and that of the “mujahid of peace” approachthe process of conflict resolution. Mujahidin of peacealways try to find a solution for conflicts by refrainingfrom violence. Reconciliation and peaceful coexistencewith the enemy are the primary goal of the mujahid

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

126

of peace. By contrast, mujahidin of terror prioritizevictory over their enemies and do not scruple to useviolence even when it offers little chance of finding asolution.

By now it should be obvious that the source ofbloodshed is not religion itself but rather such reli-gious extremism as found with the “mujahid of ter-ror.” Therefore, the position of the mujahid of peace,will be important for the creation of peace and recon-ciliation between religions.

Conclusion

As we have seen, Muslims have interpreted jihadin various ways throughout the history of Islam: clas-sical jurists understood jihad as war, bound by certainconditions; Ibn Taymiyah regarded jihad as a rebellionagainst tyranny; Sufis considered jihad to be a moralstruggle; modernists interpreted jihad as a means tobring about social and political reform. Disagreementamong Muslims on the interpretation of jihad is real,and the ideas of pluralistic Muslims are giving fuel tothe discussion. The fact that jurists a thousand yearsago offered a number of interpretation of jihad doesnot mean that all Muslims unanimously agreed withthem. It is therefore wrong for non-Muslims to be-lieve that jihad only means war in Islam, and that Mus-lims are willing to use violence. The tern jihad can be

127


confusing because various interpretations of jihad haveexisted m the circle of intellectuals in the Islamic his-tory. The ambivalence of jihad, however, would becleared up only when Muslims with the attitude ofmujahid of peace show that Islam relates peace and theco-existence of different religions in this world.

References

Ali, Maulavi Vheragh. A Critical Exposition of the Popu-lar Jihad. Delhi: Idareh-i Adabiyyat-i Delhi,1984.

Bukhari Muhammad bin Ismail. Sahih Bukhari. Medina:Dar al-Fikr, 1981.

Donner Fred M., “The Sources of Islamic Concep-tion of War” in John Kelsay and James TurnerJohnson (eds.). Just War and Jihad: Historical-and Theoretical Perspectiveson War andPeace in Western and Islamic Tradition, NewYork: Greenwood Press, 1991: pp. 31-69.

Hoffman, Valerie J. Sufism, Mystics and Saints in ModernEgypt. Columbia: University of South Caro-lina Press, 1995.

Hujwiri, Ali ibn Uthman. The Kahsf al-Mahjub (transl.R.A. Nicholson). London: Luzac, 1911.

Jansen, Johannes J.G. The Neglected Duty: The Creed ofSadat’s Assasins and Islamic Resurgence in theMiddle East. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

Zakiyuddin Baidhawy

128

Kelsay, John and Johnson, James Turner (eds.). Cross,Crescent and Sword: the Justification and Limita-tion of War in Western and Islamic Tradition.Wesport, Cn., 1990.

Kelsay John and Johnson, James Turner (eds.). Just Warand Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspective Warand Peace in Western Tradition. New York,Wesport, Cn., 1991.

Khomeini, Ruhullah. Islamic Government. Berkeley:Mizan Press, 1981.

Lewis, Bernard. The Political Language of Islam. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Loeffler, Reinhold. Islam in Practice: Religious Beliefs in aPersian Village. Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 1988.

Mawdudi, Abul A’la. Al-Jihad fi-Sabil Allah. Gujranwala:Dar al-’Arubat li Da’wah al-Islamiyyah, [n.d.].

Mir, Mustansir, “Jihad m Islam,” in Hadia DajamiShakeel and Ronald A. Messier (eds.). The Jihadand Its Enemies. Michigan: University of Michi-gan Center for Near Eastern and North Afri-can Studies, 1991, pp. 113-26.

Peters, Rudolph. Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam.Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1977.

Peters, Rudolph. Jihad and Colonialism: the Doctrine ofJihad in the Modern History. The Hague: Mou-ton, 1979.

129


Rahman, Fazlur. The Major Themes of the Qur’an. Min-neapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980.

Renard, John, “Al-Jihad al-akbar,” Muslim World 78(1988): 225-242.

Shakeel, Hadia Dajami and Messier, Ronald A. (eds.).The Jihad and Its Enemies. Michigan, Univer-sity of Michigan Centre For Near Eastern andNorth African Studies, 1991.

Sivan, Emmanuel. Radical Islam: Medieval Theology andModern Politics. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1990.

Sonn, Tamara, “Irregular Warfare and Jihad: Askingthe Right Question,” in John Kelsay andJames Turner Johnson (eds.). Cross, Crescentand Sword: The Justification and Limitation of Warin Western and Islamic Tradition. Wesport Cn.:Greenwood Press, 1990, pp. 129-147.

THE CONCEPT OF JIHAD AND MUJAHID OF...

Documents

Transcript of THE CONCEPT OF JIHAD AND MUJAHID OF...