DJIHAD etymologically signifies an effort directed towards a determined objective. (Cf. idjtihdd: the work of the scholar-jurists in seeking the solution of legal problems; mudjdhada or, again, djihdd: an effort directed upon oneself for the attainment of moral and religious perfection. Certain writers, particularly among those of ####e persuasion, qualify this djihdd as "spiritual djihdd" and as "the greater djihdd", in opposition to the djihdd which is our present concern and which is called "physical djihdd" or "the lesser djihdd". It is, however, very much more usual for the term djihdd to denote this latter form of "effort"). In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the djihdd consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defence. The notion stems from the fundamental principle of the universality of Islam: this religion, along with the temporal power which it implies, ought to embrace to whole universe, if necessary by force. The principle, however, must be partially combined with another which tolerates the existence, within the Islamic community itself, of the adherents of "the religions with holy books", i.e., Christians, Jews and Madjus [q.v.]. As far as these latter are concerned the djihdd ceases as soon as they agree to submit to the political authority of Islam and to pay the poll tax (djizya [q.v.]) and the land tax (kharddi [q.v.]). As long as the question could still, in fact, be posed, a controversy existed—generally resolved by a negative answer—on the question as to whether the Christians and Jews of the Arabian peninsula were entitled to such treatment as of right. To the nonscriptuaries, in particular the idolaters, this half measure has no application according to the opinion of the majority: their conversion to Islam is obligatory under pain of being put to death or reduced into slavery. In principle, the djihdd is the one form of war which is permissible in Islam, for, in theory, Islam must constitute a single community organized under a single authority and any armed conflict between Muslims is prohibited. Following, however, the disintegration of Muslim unity and the appearance, beginning in the middle of the 2nd/8th century, of an ever increasing number of independent States, the question arose as to how the wars which sprang up between them were to be classified. They were never included within the strict notion of djihdd—even in the case of wars between states of different religious persuasion—at least according to the general Sunni doctrine; and it is only by an abuse of language that this term is sometimes applied to them, while those authors who seek for a precise terminology label them only as kitdl or mukdtala (conflict, war). There is even hesitation in referring to the struggle against the renegade groups in Islam as djihdd. The viewpoint of ####e doctrine is not the same, for, according to the ####e, a refusal to subscribe to their teaching is equivalent to unbelief (kufr). The same holds good, a fortiori, for the Kharidiite doctrine [see further TAKFIR]. The djihdd is a duty. This precept is laid down in all the sources. It is true that there are to be found in the Kurgan divergent, and even contradictory, texts. These are classified by the doctrine, apart from certain variations of detail, into four successive categories: those which enjoin pardon for offences and encourage the invitation to Islam by peaceful persuasion; those which enjoin fighting to ward off aggression; those which enjoin the initiative in attack, provided it is not within the four sacred months; and those which enjoin the initiative in attack absolutely, at all times and in all places. In sum, these differences correspond to the stages in the development of Muhammad's thought and to the modifications of policy resulting from particular circumstances; the Meccan period during which Muhammad, in general, confines himself to moral and religious teaching, and the Medina period when, having become the leader of a politico-religious community, he is able to undertake, spontaneously, the struggle against those who do not wish to join this community or submit to his authority. The doctrine holds that the later texts abrogate the former contradictory texts (the theory of naskh [q.v.]), to such effect that only those of the last category remain indubitably valid; and, accordingly, the rule on the subject may be formulated in these absolute terms: "the fight (djihdd) is obligatory even when they (the unbelievers) have not themselves started it". In two isolated opinions, however, attempts were made to temper the rule in same respects. According to one of these views, attributed to ‘Ata (d. ii4/732-3), the ancient prohibition against fighting during the sacred months remains valid; while according to the other, attributed to Sufyan al- Thawrl (born 97/715), the djihdd is obligatory only in defence; it is simply recommended (li 'l-nad-b) in attack. According to a view held by modern orientalist scholarship, Muhammad's conception of the djihdd as attack applied only in relation to the peoples of Arabia; its general application was the result of the idimd (general consensus of opinion) of the immediately succeeding generations. At root, of course, this involves the problem as to whether Muhammad had conceived of Islam as universal or not. The opinion of al-Thawrl appears to have been adopted by al-Djahiz. The heterodox movement of the Ahmadiyya [q.v.], beginning towards the end of the 19th century, would go further than al-Thawri inasmuch as it refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the djihdd even as a recommended activity. Cf., in the same sense, the doctrine of Babism (see BAB).
According to the general doctrine of the Shi’a. due account taken of their dogma concerning "the absence of the Imam", who alone has the necessary competence to order war, the practice of the djihdd is necessarily suspended until the re-appearance of the Imam or the ad hoc appointment of a vicar designated by him for this task. The Zaydi sect, however, which does not recognize this dogma, follows the same teaching as that of the SunnI doctrine. Characteristics of the duty of djihdd. The djihdd is not an end in itself but a means which, in itself, is an evil (fasdd), but which becomes legitimate and necessary by reason of the objective towards which it is directed: to rid the world of a greater evil; it is "good" from the fact that its purpose is "good" (hasan li-husn ghayrih).
pt. 1
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
I (would) like to think that the older I get the thicker my skin has become and I’ve got more of a handle on my temper. But try as I might, even though I tried counted beyond ten, I just couldn’t let these comments pass coming as they do from someone ordinarily described as an academic (which was always a dirty word where I was taught...by scholars); especially from someone who sought to put me in my place by quoting the sales blurb rather than actually reading the book I suggested he consult (academics!). Those quoted below (of which there were many more but I didn’t want to bore you), apart from Akbar (who is a journalist, I think) and Nafzinger (a military historian usually of the Napoleonic era), are reputable SME’s...I don’t acquire knowledge from twats like Robert Spencer (in case you were wondering).
Bookmarks