James
Arlandson, Ph.D., is recognized in academic circles as an expert in
philosophy and world religions, especially the religion of Islam and
the history of its founder, Muhammad.
Jihad in the Quran and Early Islam
Part 2
By
James Arlandson
Classical legal opinions
Sharia is Islamic law embodied in the Quran and the hadith. Fiqh
is the science of applying and interpreting sharia, done by
qualified judges and legal scholars. Over the first two centuries
after Muhammad's death in AD 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqh
emerged, led by these scholars: Shafi (d. 820), who lived mostly in
Mecca, Arabia, but who was buried in Cairo, Egypt; Malik (d.
795), who lived in Medina, Arabia; Abu Hanifa (d.
767), who lived in Kufa, Iraq; and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855)
who lived in Baghdad, Iraq.
Ahmad
ibn Naqib al-Misri
(d. 1368), is the fourth major scholar, writing centuries later
than the other Sunnis. His medieval manual Reliance of the
Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed.,
trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994),
compliles and summarizes rulings in the Shafi school of fiqh.
Our
analysis is limited to this hard-hitting manual in the matter of
jihad, which follows the Quran and hadith closely, because
(1)
radicals can use it and still remain within orthodox Sunni Islam;
and
(2)
geographically, this school covers the hotspots today in the Islamic
world: Saudi Arabia and Egypt mainly, but also Palestine and Jordan,
'with
a significant number of followers in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hejaz
[Western Arabia], Pakistan, India and among Sunnis in Iran and
Yemen' (Oxford Dictionary of Islam).
What
is the purpose or goal of jihad?
Al-Misri
says that jihad establishes the religion of Islam.
. . .
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived
from the mujahada, signifying warfare to establish religion.
(p. 599, o9.0)
The
Caliph fights those who are not People of the Book or Zoroastrians
(a Persian religion), in order to force them to become Muslims,
according to the Shafi school.
The
caliph fights all other people until they become Muslim . . .
because they are not a people of the Book, nor honored as such, and
are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) (though
according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even
idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the
Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll
tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and
idol-worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but
becoming Muslim (p. 603, o9.9).
Thus,
the goal is to force people to become Muslim or to get them to pay a
tax for the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection,' that
is, so they will not get attacked again. They have three choices:
convert, fight and die, or pay the tax. Though technically this is
not a forced conversion, it comes close when a Muslim army sits
outside the city gate. As we will see shortly, non-Muslims have more
incentives to convert to Islam.
These
purposes do not reveal a defensive war, when the goal is to
establish Islam in a region that was blessed to live outside of this
excessively controlling religion.
What
are some rules of jihad?
1.
Women and children are not targets of jihad, except under one
condition.
It is
not permissible to kill women and children . . . unless they are
fighting against the Muslims. (p. 603, o9.10)
Islam
may (or may not) do this out of a sense of justice, but as we will
see, below, women and children are kept as slaves or sold into
slavery. So an economic motive must be factored in for letting them
live. Nothing is purely peaceful and just in Islam, without a sting
at the end of a law or Quranic verse.
This
rule is more just than the practice in the hadith that permits
nighttime attacks that puts women and children at risk. It seems
this later jurist is more just than Muhammad and the first
generation of Muslims. Muslims should follow this jurist, instead of
the founder of Islam.
2.
Women and children are sold into slavery.
When
a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact
of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately
annulled. (p. 604, o9.13)
This
means that the 'generosity' in not killing them is mitigated by
their being enslaved. Islam could have been judged more positively
if it did not have this hard rule in it (and many others). True,
slavery was a world-wide occurrence, but Islam codifies it in
unchanging religious law, based on the Quran and the example of
Muhammad.
What
happened to the rule that hero-jihadists could rape female
prisoners, either going all the way with them or practicing coitus
interruptus? Is al-Misri, the jurist who wrote this Shafi manual,
embarrassed by these hadith (see previous section, no. 2)? Is the
practice too entrenched in jihad? Whatever the case, one thing is
certain: the legal manual does not prohibit this horrible
immorality.
3.
When an enemy is taken captive, the caliph has four options:
When
the adult male is taken captive, the caliph . . . considers the
interests . . . of Islam and Muslims and decides between the
prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or
ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held
by the enemy. (p. 604, o9.14)
In
the hadith, jihadists could beat prisoners, and according to the
earliest biography of Muhammad, he tortured a man to extract
information. Apparently, this law improves on original Islam and the
founder.
4.
But if the captive converts to Islam while captured, then one option
is removed:
If
the prisoner becomes a Muslim . . . before the caliph chooses any of
the four alternatives, then he may not be killed, and one of the
other three alternatives is chosen. (ibid)
Avoiding death, even before the captive knows which alternative will
be imposed on him, is a powerful incentive to 'freely' convert to
Islam.
5. To
preserve a conquered man's property and small children from military
theft is also a powerful motive to 'freely' convert to Islam:
Whoever enters Islam being captured may not be killed or his
property confiscated, or his young children taken captive. (p. 604,
o9.13)
Everyone has often heard that Islam does not force conversions.
Evidently, forced conversions by this definition take place only
when a sword hangs directly over the necks of the conquered. This
definition is wrong. People actually were forced to convert, unless
they were willing to forgo their entire livelihoods and their 'young
children.' Only the strongest of the strong would resist this
coercion, having this option hung over them like a sword of Muhammad
– who owned several and even nicknamed them.
6.
Old men and monks may be killed:
It is
permissible to kill old men (old man (shaykh) meaning someone
more than forty years of age) and monks. (ibid.)
In
Late Antiquity and the Medieval Age, life expectancy was much lower
than it is today, so a forty-year old man was should not be seen as
young. Also, killing monks is wrong. This belies the law that says
People of the Book may live.
7.
Fruit trees and homes may be destroyed.
This
law is not very peaceful for a religion that claims that the Quran
came down directly from Allah and that Muhammad's life was guided
directly by his deity:
It is
permissible to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their
dwellings (p. 604, o9.15).
We
should not be surprised at this ruling, since Muhammad started
cutting down the trees and destroying the homes of the Jewish Nadir
tribe before he exiled them (Sura 59:5).
8.
The three options are imposed on the People of the Book. In this
excerpt, the parentheses are added:
The
caliph (1) makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians . . .
provided he has (2) . . . invited them to enter Islam, and (3) if
they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam
by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya . . .) . . . and (1) the
war continues until (2) they become Muslim or (3) else pay the
non-Muslim poll tax . . . (p. 602, o9.8).
The
passage in the manual quotes the Quran in Sura 9:29, the foundation
of the three options.
9. As
noted in the section 'The purpose of goal of jihad,' everyone who
does not belong to the People of the Book is fought until they
become Muslims.
The
caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslims. (p. 603,
o9.10).
The
passage goes on to say that some schools of law allow for non-Arab
idol worshippers to pay the tax without converting to Islam, but the
Shafi school, the one analyzed here, says that they must convert or
die. Why would not terrorists today use the most severe school of
law, especially when it dominates their geographical area in Iraq
(Sunnis), Saudi Arabia, and Palestine?
What
happens to the spoils in jihad?
The
spoils are divided into five parts.
. . .
The first fifth is set aside [for the state] . . . and the remaining
four are distributed, one share to each infantryman and three shares
to each cavalrymen. From these latter four fifths, a token payment
is given at the leader's discretion to women, children, and
non—Muslim participants on the Muslim side. (p. 606, o10.1)
As
noted in the hadith section, Islam verbally claims to break down
class structure, but in reality these rules keep it alive. Only the
rich or upper classes could own a horse to spare for battle, and the
cavalrymen were usually far fewer than the infantrymen. However, the
horsemen were to get much more than the lowly infantrymen. How is
this justice?
The
first-fifth of the spoils goes to the state, and it gets distributed
according to the needs in a welfare state, such as to the poor or
orphans. It may also go to building up 'Islamic interests as
fortifying defenses on the frontiers, salaries for Islamic judges,
muezzins, and the like' (p. 606, o10.3).
Spoils of war are a powerful incentive for the poor and disaffected
to join a religion that conquers new areas in order to gain wealth,
even though they did not initiate warfare against Islam. If anyone
is looking for a reason for the growth of Islam, he or she does not
need to look beyond this point – though other factors, such as
weakening Byzantine and Persian Empires, play a role.
Islam
was not spread by simple preaching, without an army lurking in the
background or standing in the foreground.
What
happens to martyrs in jihad?
The
Shafi manual quotes a hadith:
A man
said, 'O Messenger of Allah, will my mistakes be forgiven me if I am
killed, in steadfastness and anticipating Allah's reward, advancing
and not retreating?' He replied: 'Yes, except for debts.' (p. 667,
p20.3(3))
It is
unclear how Allah extracts the debts from a jihadist, but maybe it
involves some degree of punishment for him in the afterlife or a
financial burden on his family in their earthly life. Ruling o9.5(1)
(p. 602) says that a creditor may give his debtor permission to
fight, so the hadith passage is not followed that closely.
More
importantly, this passage guarantees jihadists the forgiveness of
sins and an escalator to heaven. This is reason enough for dazed and
confused young Muslim men to wage violent jihad against unbelievers.
Before moving on to the Christian response to these atrocities, we
should take stock of the last three sections, Parts One and Two.
The
hadith and the Shafi school follow the Quran closely. All three
sources permit injustices in jihad. Muslim soldiers are allowed to
rape and enslave captured women. Male enemies may be executed. In
nighttime raids women and children are permitted to leave this life,
provided it is not deliberate. However, what does this say about
Muhammad's capacity to be rightly guided in life-and-death policies
in jihad?
Jihadists were allowed to destroy homes and fruit trees of an entire
tribe, the Nadir, so this means that they are allowed do to this to
the homes and fruit trees of other enemies today. The Quran, a pure
revelation from Allah, says so. By analogy, the Muslim soldiers may
do this to other kinds of civilian property if this helps them win
the conflict. Muhammad should have received a revelation that
contradicts this excess.
One
powerful motive for waging jihad is the material benefits. The
conquered territories fall under the control of the jihadists, and
they are permitted to keep it. If anyone is looking for the reason
for the spread of Islam, then this is a solid one, (though other
reasons come into play, like following the will of Allah. The newly
conquered have the option to convert, in which case they pay a
forced 'charity' or zakat tax. Or they are allowed to remain
in the Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. Granted, it is
often asserted that the jizya is less than the forced 'charity' or
zakat tax, but either way, money flows into the Islamic treasury.
Why
would Muhammad receive a revelation that dries up this money flow,
when it was connected to military jihad?
Christianity
Jesus
and the earliest church never waged even a small holy war on people
in Israel or the Greco-Roman world who refused to convert or submit
to his new religion, and neither he nor his church imposed a
'non-conversion' tax on them.
So
the three questions have been taken out or modified, and others have
been posed instead.
What
are and what happens to Christians martyrs?
Matthew 5:10; 10:39; 19:29 speak of laying down one's life and
giving up one's possessions. These verses call Jesus' disciples to
be willing to give up all material possessions for the kingdom of
God and to lay down their life mainly in a spiritual way, and
possibly in a physical death under severe and fatal persecution. But
the verses are not found in the context of a bloody religious war.
Rather, Jesus calls his disciples to pick up their cross and follow
him (Matthew 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27), but he also
says that they should do this daily (Luke 9:23). The image of the
cross means that they must follow Jesus no matter what, on a daily
basis, which precludes an earthly martyrdom, which is done only
once; per contra, a 'daily martyrdom' is continuous. A
twisted love of physical death is not in view in those New Testament
passages in the context of qital or jihad.
It is
also true that some of the early Christians suffered martyrdom, but,
again, never in the cause of warfare; rather, they were persecuted
and put to death because the listeners and local authorities were
offended at their message, not because the Christians 'fight in
God's way: they kill and are killed' (Sura 9:111). Stephen is the
prime example and the first martyr in Christianity (Acts 6:8-8:1).
He was stoned to death because he preached the truth, not because he
was chopping off heads in a battle, only to have his head chopped
off in turn by an enemy who had sneaked up behind him. His place in
heaven was already secure before he preached or died, because Christ
had saved him in his 'Martyr's' death on the cross.
The
following cannot be repeated too often because it diametrically
opposes the Islam: only Christ's 'Martyrdom' guarantees a believer's
place in heaven; only his ultimate good work on the cross paves the
way to God. Thus, the Christian does not (or should not) have a
psychological inducement to kill himself or to be killed in battle
to achieve heaven. He needs only trust in Christ.
Hence, the Quranic bargain of martyrdom is completely foreign to
devout Christians and even to nominal Christians world over, who no
longer take their faith seriously. Christians want heaven, and they
are assured of it by the atoning death of Christ, once they receive
the life-giving Spirit, who is not Gabriel, as claimed in Islamic
theology.
Is
Christianity a warrior religion?
Jesus
and his disciples through the first three centuries turned the world
upside down by simple proclamation, not by butchering with swords
(or by threatening to butcher with swords) people who opposed their
ministry. The subsequent warpath of Emperor Constantine in the
fourth century and the Medieval Crusaders do not set the genetic
code in the very origins of Christianity in the New Testament.
On
the other hand, Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he says that
a martyr's death in the cause of Allah (cause = war) guarantees
heaven. The contrast between the two religions is stark.
For
more information on the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades
see this
article.
Christ's original way leads to life and the light; Muhammad's
original way leads to death and darkness.
What
about the wars in the Old Testament?
This
question has been answered more thoroughly in this
article,
but the short answer may be discussed here.
Allah
and the true God at war are worlds apart.
(1)
The historical span of Quranic and Biblical history must be
considered. In Islam, Muhammad lived in Medina for only ten years
(AD 622-632). In this brief time, he either sent out or went out on
seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars. They range from
small assassination hit squads to eliminate anyone who insulted him,
to an Islamic Crusade during which Muhammad led 30,000 jihadists
against Byzantine Christians.
In
contrast, the Old Testament books covers around 1,400 hundred years
before Christ, and God did not send out leaders to wage war in most
of these years. For example, the Book of Judges alone says that
people enjoyed many decades of peace between each judge who was
raised up in order to fight off aggression.
Allah
compelled Muhammad to fight often in his ten years according to the
evidence in the Quran and Islamic history, but the true God for over
1,400 years did not wage nearly as many wars per year in Israel's
existence according to the Bible and Biblical history.
(2)
Clarity characterizes divine commands about war in Hebrew history,
but not in Islamic history. In the Old Testament, the true God
issued commands to wipe out specific inhabitants, for example, Sodom
and Gomorrah (punishments that the Quran also
endorses)
or the cities in Canaan – severe commands to be sure, but if such
commands are given, they must be clear.
On
the other hand, Muhammad goes from one treaty or command to the next
in regards to the polytheists in Arabia. Finally, in Sura 9:1-5, he
unilaterally breaks these treaties, but in some cases he keeps them
until their expiration dates.
Thus,
the true God is clear and stable in his severe, divine commands,
whereas Allah is unclear and fluctuating in his severe commands.
This is significant because Allah gives the impression of feeling
his way, but God is decisive.
(3)
Who is attacked? In the Bible, the true God orders warfare only
against Canaanites who were too far gone in their decadence. Let us
assume, contrary to fact, that a nation neighboring Israel was made
up of ethical monotheists. Would the true God decree that a war
should be waged against them? To reason deductively, the answer is
found in the Book of Jonah. He preached to Nineveh hundreds of miles
away, and the inhabitants of this city were neither degraded
Canaanites nor monotheists. God did not wage war on distant Nineveh
despite its being polytheistic. Jonah preached good news. So how
much more would God not attack a nation if it were made up of
monotheists?
The
bottom line is this: the only reason that God ordered these wars
after the Exodus was to purge a small and specific land (see no. 4,
below). He did not ordain wars of conquest outside of Israel to
spread Judaism around the known world. If Judaism was spread, it was
done by proclamation, as seen in the calling of Jonah.
On
the other hand, Muhammad waged war on polytheists, and Muslims
believe that these polytheists also were too far gone morally. But
Muhammad also attacked Jews and Christians, who are monotheists. For
example, he embarked on an Islamic Crusade against the Byzantines in
AD 630. The Byzantines never showed up, so Muhammad believed a false
rumor that said the Byzantines were mustering a large army to invade
Arabia. But along the way he extracted agreements from Arab
Christians and Jews so that they would not be attacked again. Allah
ordained wars of conquest outside of Arabia in order to spread Islam
by military force. Muhammad and his deity wanted either conversion
(the converted paid a 'charity' or zakat tax) or money in a jizya
tax on the unconverted. Either way, money flowed into the Islamic
treasury back in Arabia.
Muhammad's attacks on monotheists, besides polytheists, in and
outside of Arabia demonstrate beyond all doubt that Allah and God at
war are worlds apart.
(4) Geography is a factor. God told the ancient Hebrews to cleanse
the land of Canaan, but not to do this to surrounding nations. God
did not ordain the conquest of large regions far beyond Israel, in
order to spread Judaism. It is true that King David and King Solomon
expanded the borders of Israel, but this tiny nation is the size of
New Jersey, one of the smallest states in the US. How does this
temporary expansion compare to the Assyrian, Babylonian, or Egyptian
Empires? How does this compare to the Islamic Empire within only a
few decades after the death of Muhammad in AD 632?
In
contrast, Muslims could claim that Allah told Muhammad to cleanse
Arabia of polytheists, but Allah also tell his prophet and his
successors to expand beyond this region to conquer other
territories, like the Persian and Byzantine Empires and a city like
Jerusalem. Thus, ancient Israel had a completely different calling
that is related specifically to their land, which is small
geographically, whereas Islam waged war on peoples of distant lands,
far beyond Arabia.
It is
impossible to exaggerate the importance of 'the land' in Biblical
history. God wanted only a specific land to be purified, not
worldwide conquest. But Allah waged war on the entire known world.
However, for Christians, this debate over the differences between
Allah and God at war is academic, anyway. They believe that the
first coming of Jesus Christ, 600 years before Muhammad, ushered in
a new era of salvation, a way to the true God that excels the one
offered in the Old Testament, and much better than the one offered
in the Quran; thus, Muhammad's wars on polytheists were misguided
from the start, coming so late in history after Jesus showed us a
better way.
Christians honor the Old Testament and regard it as inspired, but at
the same time they acknowledge that it was written for its own
times; they also believe that Christ fulfilled it, and hence they
must rise above such commands as animal sacrifices, diet
restrictions, and wars over geopolitical 'holy' sites like Jerusalem
– what the Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders did is not
foundational to Christianity; only Christ is.
Jesus
raised his vision much higher than Jerusalem or any other holy site.
He loves the whole world and wants to win it to his cause and
spiritual kingdom one soul at a time and by proclamation alone, not
by waging war on the unconverted or the religiously deceived, like
the pagans whom Muhammad slaughtered. True monotheism does not need
a black stone just because pagans walked around it for centuries
before Muhammad conquered it. True monotheism does not need a city
or any earthly holy site. Christianity looks towards the heavenly
Jerusalem (Book of Revelation) or the City of God (Augustine).
Isn't
the US a Christian nation, so why does it wage war?
I got
at least two emails from Muslims who point out that America, a
'Christian' nation, uses the sword, so who am I to talk about it?
First, we should set aside the complications of defining the US as
'Christian.' Rather, we should note that this comparison leaps over
1,400 and 2,000 years of history. It is always better to compare the
founder of a religion and his sacred texts with the founder of
another religion and his sacred texts. Jesus and Muhammad should be
contrasted, not Muhammad and the US government. Muhammad claims
direct inspiration from God; the US government does not.
When
the proper contrast is made, then the similarities break down
completely. The two religious founders differ from each other as
much as bright daylight and dark night.
Also,
since the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800), reason has influenced the
West. Original Christianity teaches the dignity of humans. Human
reason agrees. For example, here is what the Geneva Convention
says
about the treatment of women prisoners of war, to choose only this
one topic:
Women
must be protected against any attack on their honor, including rape,
enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Women must
also not be adversely discriminated against because of their sex.
This
is an improvement on the Quran and the hadith. The Quran 'annuls'
marriages so jihadists can have sex with captured women or enslave
them, and the hadith simply allows jihadists to have sex with them,
as their human property.
Conclusion
For
the first three centuries or more after the Resurrection of Jesus,
the church turned the known world upside down by proclamation alone.
The early Christians did not raise armies to attack polytheists,
tear down pagan temples, or force Jews to convert. They did not wage
a Christian jihad. Was the church perfect, though? No one is. But
Jesus set the genetic code for his worldwide movement, and he chose
the path of divine peace and love. And it caught on and spread like
God-breathed wildfire.
Jesus
never raised even a small army to conquer the unconverted. In the
passage about Satan tempting Jesus (Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13),
Satan shows Jesus the whole world and all of its kingdoms. Satan
promises to give the whole thing to him. No doubt this included
military conquest and riches beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Jesus
turned it down, rebuking the devil. Therefore, if original
Christianity is followed closely, then women will not be raped
during military conquests. People will be able to keep their
property. Forced taxes after a military conquest, even a religious
tax that makes it into a pillar of the faith, will not be imposed.
On the positive side, Jesus and all of his disciples will spread the
message of the kingdom by preaching alone – Constantine and the
Medieval Crusaders are not foundational to Christianity, so they do
not set the genetic code.
But
Jesus and his early church turned the world upside down with their
message and peaceful method of spreading it.
This
demonstrates that the true God was backing this divine Messiah and
his message. This demonstrates that the message of Christ was
attractive and winsome.
In
contrast, for the first three centuries and many more after
Muhammad's death of a fever in AD 632, Islam spread only with an
army lurking in the background or standing in the foreground.
Muhammad set the genetic code for Islam, and he either sent out or
went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions or full-scale wars.
Military armies stormed out of Arabia and conquered cities along the
Tigris and Euphrates, as well as cities towards the Mediterranean
Sea, like Jerusalem in AD 638. Then Islam spread militarily beyond
those regions.
No
one can accurately predict how far Islam would have spread if it had
used only proclamation without armies. But the implication is that
it would not have spread very far. After all, as soon as Arab tribes
had heard that Muhammad had died, many of them revolted against
Islam and wanted nothing more to do with it. The world could have
judged Islam more positively if it had not used military jihad as
the means of spreading Allah's religion around the known world. But
it did use military jihad.
This
implies that the true God did not back this merely human and mortal
messenger (Sura 3:144) and his message. This demonstrates that the
message of Muhammad was unattractive and too restrictive, like
forced prayers five times a day or a forced pilgrimage to a black
stone that true monotheism does not need.
On
the other hand, Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he wants the
whole world, even by conquest, if necessary. This conquest allows
for injustices. They have seeped into the Quran and in his words and
policies in the hadith.
Dying
as a Muslim martyr in a holy war catapults the martyr into a hundred
layers of paradise.
Martyrs in the early church of Jesus Christ suffered because of
their holiness and because their proclamation offended ungodly
authorities. They did not die in a military holy war. They entered
heaven only because of Christ's once-and-for-all and unique
'Martyrdom' on the cross.
This
is right.
Muhammad's martyrs were called into dying in a military holy war
that they often initiated in order to expand Islam.
This
is wrong.
Which
religious path leads to true peace?
The
way of Jesus leads to life. The way of Muhammad led to death.
Supplemental Material
This
article at an Islamic website quotes mostly from the Meccan suras
(chapters) in the Quran, in which Muhammad was not strong enough to
wage a military holy war, so he is forced to take a more peaceful
path. And the few Medinan suras the author cites, in which Muhammad
became violent, are Muhammad's claims that he and his fellow Muslim
were being persecuted by Meccans early on, though he lived in
Medina, about two hundred-plus miles from Mecca. But this is
exaggerated or self-induced, as seen
here.
This
short
article at
a website produced under the auspices of the University of Southern
California says that jihad is defensive or offensive, but the
offensive jihad is waged only to suppress tyranny. This is a
whitewash. Jihad may be also used to spread Islam around the world,
even if this entails a physical war. History demonstrates this. It
also says inaccurately that women and children are not targets, but
the hadith says they may become targets in a nighttime raid when
visibility is low. Women may also be raped or sold into slavery as
sexual property.
The
article also says that only the Medieval Crusaders waged a
wrongheaded jihad. However, the facts say that the offensive and
wrongheaded Islamic Crusades happened centuries before the European
ones. If Islam had spread itsr message by preaching alone, then its
military conquests would have never happened, and the Europeans
would have had no reason to launch all their Crusades. See this
article
for a contrast between the two Crusades.
This
Muslim online
booklet
is directed at
young Muslims.
It analyzes jihad in the Quran, hadith, and legal rulings, and
concludes that it includes a physical fight. However, the article is
not always available, so here is a key quotation:
People have for some time now ridiculed this but today these same
people acknowledge that preparation for war is the surest way to
peace! Allah did not ordain jihad for the Muslims so that it may be
used as a tool of oppression or tyranny or so that it may be used by
some to further their personal gains. Rather jihad s used to
safeguard the mission of spreading Islam. This would guarantee peace
and the means of implementing the Supreme Message. This is a
responsibility which the Muslims bear, this Message guiding mankind
to truth and justice. For Islam, even as it ordains jihad, it extols
peace . . . .
Thus,
jihad is used to spread Islam around the world.
James
M. Arlandson may be reached at
jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
Jim
Arlandson (Ph.D.) teaches introductory philosophy and world
religions at a college in southern California. He has published a
book, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity
(Hendrickson, 1997)
|