JIHAD: CHAPTER 3:

DEFINITION AND MEANING:

Islam is the most misunderstood religion, and Jihad is perhaps the most
misunderstood concept in Islam. Jihad, mostly in western literature, has been defined and
interpreted as armed struggle, holy war and sometimes as crusade. As Peter(1996, p.1)
defines Jihad ‘in the books on Islamic Law, the word(Jihad) means armed struggle
against the unbelievers, which is also a common meaning in the Koran’. He further says
that the doctrine of Jihad lay down by Quran, Hadith and Islamic Law has the main
objective of the existence of an Islamic state ruling the entire Umma, ‘it is the duty of the
Umma to expand the territory of this state in order to bring as many people under its rule
as possible, the ultimate aim is to bring the whole earth under the sway of Islam and to
extirpate unbelief’ (peter, 1996, p. 3). He termed it as ‘Expansionist Jihad’ which he
believes is compulsory on the whole Umma under the organization of a legitimate Caliph.
Peter’s interpretation of Jihad, up to some extent, seems to be influenced by Mawdudi’s
concept of Jihad who also believes in the establishment of an Islamic order as obligatory
on Muslims. This establishing of an Islamic order, as obligatory on Muslims and Jihad as
a tool to fulfill this task will be discussed in this chapter.

DEFINITION:

‘Jihad is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ‘Jahada’ (to exert utmost effort, to strive,
struggle) which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual
struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle to further the Islamic
cause’ (wikipedia.org). Jihad has been used in a broader term in Quran, and is applied to
all forms of striving, not be used only for an armed struggle. There are plenty of words in
Arabic denoting armed struggle, such as ‘Harb’ ‘Sira’a and ‘Ma’araka’ etc. Quran could
have used these words if war was the only intended meaning of this struggle. ‘The Jihad,
in the broad sense of exertion, doesn’t necessarily mean war or fighting, since exertion in
Allah’s path may be achieved by peaceful as well as violent means’ (Khadduri, 1955, p
56).
 Ali Amir(2005) has described many different contexts in which the word Jihad is
used, in meaning of other than killing, in the Quran and the Hadith, e.g.
1. Recognizing the creator and loving him most(9:23,24)
2. Resisting Pressure of Parents, Peers, and Society(25:52)
3. Staying on the Straight Path Steadfastly(22:78; 4:97; 2:218; 3:142; 2:155)
4. Striving for Righteous Deeds (29:69; Sahih Al-Bukhari, No.2784 and No.5972;
Sunan Al-Nasai No.4209; Sahih Ibn Hibbanm, No.4862).
5. Having Courage and Steadfastness to Convey the Message of Islam(49:15)
6. Defending Islam and the Community(22:39-40; 2:190,193)
7. Removing Treacherous People from Power(8:58)
8. Defending Through Preemptive Strikes(2:216)
9. Gaining Freedom to Inform, Educate and Convey the Message of Islam in an
Open and Free Environment(2:217; 42:39; sahih Ibn Hibban, No.4708)
10. Freeing People from Tyranny (4:75).
It should be noted that the smaller part of Jihad in which fighting or killing is involved,
for that, the word Kital’ has been used in the Quran.

JIHAD’S PURPOSE:
Nearly all the militant Islamic organizations in the world, particularly in Pakistan,
label their militant activities as Jihad. It is very much important to understand the concept
of Jihad and to know what the purpose of Jihad in Islam is. In this chapter I will discuss
how prominent Islamic scholars of the Indian subcontinent define the purpose of Jihad.
This chapter is also important in this regard to evaluate the activities of the militant
organizations, on the concept of Jihad discussed in this chapter. It should be noted here
that the word Jihad used in this chapter is taken only as qital (fighting or killing).
Mowlana Mawdudi (1903-1979) is a well-known and one of the most influential
Pakistani ideologue of the twentieth century, it should be noted that most of the militant
groups in Pakistan follow Mawdudi’s philosophy of Jihad-the establishment of an Islamic
state. As a revivalist and a political leader he could be consider as the founding father of
the modern fundamentalist Islam particularly in Pakistan. Another great Islamic scholar
Javid Ahmad Ghamdi (1951- ) whose work on Jihad is a clear break from the traditional
interpretation of Jihad that marked the theory of Jihad for about 1000 years of Muslim
history (Iftikhar, 2004, p. 94). His comparatively novel interpretation of Jihad is a case of
great interest in the literature of Jihad. This thesis is mostly based on his interpretation of
Jihad which makes all the militant organizations and their activities in Pakistan un-
Islamic.
The first foremost difference between these two great Islamic Scholars is that
Ghamdi (K 16:36; 51:56 footnotes) argues that the basic obligation in religion is not the
establishment of an Islamic world order or the implementation of the Shariah but
servitude to God, and that it is to help humans meet that obligation that religion is
revealed for their guidance (cited in Ifthikar, 2004, p. 6). Quran has mentioned in many
places that the prophets’ main task was to preach people to worship the only one God and
to save the people from Satan (Ghamdi, 2002, p. 77-80) and not to struggle for the
establishment of an Islamic government. In religious history there were very few
prophets who had established some kind of a (Islamic) government.
While Mawdudi believes that the establishment of an Islamic order (iqamat-i-din)
is a religious obligation upon Muslims and that the Islamic State and Jihad are vehicles of
this basic objective (cited in Ifthikar, 2004, p, 10). For the establishment of an Islamic
order Mawdudi literature encourages the Muslims to wage war against all Un-Islamic
system of Satan (Taghut) on political as well as military grounds. But it is a matter of
concern that Muslims have resorted more towards militancy rather than political struggle.
In fact most militant groups consider Militant Jihad the only way for the establishment of
an Islamic system which they deem as an obligation on all the Muslims.
Ghamdi(2002, p. 241-242 and p. 260-262) writes that the ultimate goal or purpose
of Jihad (armed struggle or qital) is to uproot ‘Fitnah’ which means ‘persecution’ (to
force a person to give up his religion). Quran has regarded persecution as (ashaddu min
al-qatal K: ) a greater crime than murder. Ghamdi argues that God has created this
world to test man by giving him the right to freely choose his religion and ideology.
Consequently, any person who forces someone to give his religion is in fact rebelling
against the scheme of God. So its God’s way to punish those who persecute innocent
people (regardless of which religion they are; footer k: 49:9-10 and Bukhari No 7084)
through his army of believers. Jihad is only and only for God, Ghamdi quotes (K: 2:190-
4) and says that Jihad should not be undertaken to conquer territories and rule them or to
acquire fame or to appease the emotions of communal support or any other reason than
God, the word fi sabillilah-in the way of Allah is clearly evident that Jihad is only for
God. ‘Ghamdi includes religious persecution in his definition of oppression, but, unlike
Mawdudi, doesn’t regard the existence of a ‘non-Islamic system’ as oppression perse’
(Ifthikar, 2004, p. 82)…footer( K:4:75-6)
Another famous Indian scholar Molana Waheed-ullah Khan, former member of
Jumat-a-Islami was the first JI member who also vehemently criticizes Mawdudi’s basic
view of the establishment of an Islamic order. Soon after his departure from Jumat-i-
Islami wrote a book ‘Tabeer-ki-Ghalati (Error in Interpretation) in which he argues that
the effort to establish an Islamic “system” is not a primary religious responsibility on a
Muslim. At most, a Muslim is required to contribute toward the religious improvement of
the system he lives in. But to say that it is a primary religious obligation on him to strive
for the establishment of that system is a gross misinterpretation (Iftikhar, 2004, p. 31).
According to Mawdudi’s critic his basic mistake is that he politicized his vision of Islam
so much that he ignored the basic pillars of Islam (e.g. prayers, charity, fasting and
pilgrimage) which have the central position in Islam, his critics (Khan, Nadwi and
Ghamdi) argue that Mawdudi has practically reduced these aspects of Islam to mere
means of the realization of theocratic rule on earth (Iftikhar, 2004, P. 38). Mawdudi a
fundamental, radical revivalist strongly believed on the revival of Islam to counter
western imperialism and expansionism. His understanding of Islam and particularly Jihad
revolves around the sole objective of the establishment of an Islamic system. To defy the
western imperialism the establishment of an Islamic system was considered the solution
and Jihad its instrument, though ironically Mawdudi’s brand of Jihad is also an
expansionist Jihad. Most of the Jihadi literature of the nineteenth, twentieth and the
current century is much in reaction to western imperialism. The armed struggle against
western imperialism is colored in term of Jihad, which is an effective method for mass
mobilization.
 JIHAD- A DEFENSIVE WAR:
Another interesting debate is of Jihad- a defensive or aggressive war? Amongst
the Indian Sub-continent Muslims scholars Syed Ahamd Khan was the first who defined
Jihad a defensive war. He campaigned very hard after the 1857 mutiny to eradicate the
misunderstanding created between the Muslims of India and the British Raj. Syed Ahmad
Khan cautioned Muslims of doing any aggressive attempts (or aggressive Jihad) against
the more powerful British… (K2:195: ‘and cast not yourselves by your own hands into
destruction’) he presented Jihad only as a defensive struggle to make assured the British
that the Muslims don’t have any aggressive designs against the British government. Such
views of Syed Ahmad Khan seem to be in clear contradiction to the classical views on
Jihad. ‘On the basis of a new reading of the Koran, Syed Ahmad Khan asserted that Jihad
was obligatory for Muslims only in the case of positive oppression or obstruction in the
exercise of their faith impairing the foundation of some of the pillars of Islam’( peter, p,
6). Other prominent Muslim scholars who also consider Jihad as only a defensive war are
(Molvi Chriagh Ali, Syed Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Rashid Rida,
Mutahhari, 1988, p. 41, etc). on the contrary Ghamdi(2002) says that Jihad has never
been a defensive war, he says that for a defensive war there is no need of any directives
from the holy scriptures, as its in human nature to defend himself. There is much strength
in Ghamdi’s argument for example during the time of Muslims in Mecca there were only
those poor Muslims persecuted who couldn’t able to protect their selves, while those who
were powerful the Meccans couldn’t dared to harm them physically. As Firestone (p,
113) writes ‘on the other hand, when aggressive believers such as Sa’d, Hamza, or Umar
physically responded to intimidation in Mecca, they were not harmed but, in fact, left
alone’. Defensive war can never be unlawful one has to defend himself in any
circumstances, considering defensive war as lawful or not is itself futile to debate.
Ghamdi (2002, p. 262) says that the directive of Jihad to wage war is to help the
oppresses and this directive of the Quran is everlasting. Though religious persecution is
very rare in the present world, but it can not be ruled out that human can revert to it
anytime. Ghamdi argues that if a Muslim government is that much resourceful that it
could uproot any persecution happing anywhere in the world then it becomes obligatory
on that Muslim state to do Jihad. Ghamdi rejects the notion of Jihad as a defensive war;
he believes Jihad is an aggressive war against persecution. Jihad though an aggressive
war but the conditions attached with it makes it very difficult to apply it.

CONDITIONS FOR JIHAD:

NO JIHAD WITHOUT THE STATE:

‘Holy war has been a well known phenomenon in human civilization from long
before the genesis of Islam. The Hebrew Bible contains many examples of warring on
behalf of God or religion’ (Firestone, 1999, p. 19), the most obvious reason of war on
behalf of God (Jihad or Kital) mentioned in Hebrew Bible is that Prophet Moses had
succeeded in establishing an authority or a rule of law in a certain land. And after Moses
death his successor Prophet Joshua had completed his mission by conducting many wars
(Jihad) on behalf of God (Deuteronomy: 20: 1-20). The reason of holy wars not
mentioned in Christian Bible is that Jesus didn’t get the opportunity to establish a
government like Prophet Moses; therefore there is not a single verse of holy war or
killing on behalf of God in Christian Bible. It is very much obvious from the Holy
Scriptures that the establishment of a state is a condition for Jihad. In case of Prophet
Muhammad during his thirteen years time of preaching in Mecca, the Muslims had been
persecuted and some killed by the Meccans, but the Muslims were not allowed to
retaliate. It was then when the Muslims migrated to Madina and they established their
own government. It should be noted that there is no word of Jihad used in the meaning of
killing or fighting in the Meccan verses of the Quran, all the directives of Jihad are given
in the Madinan verses.
It has been unanimously agreed among the prominent Muslim scholars that Jihad
is allowed only under the authority of the state. ‘And the third category of collective
duties is one in which [the authority of] the State is a [necessary] condition; for example,
jihad and the implementation of the law of punishments in Islam’ (fiqhussunnah,
assayyidussabiq cited in Ghamdi, 2002, p. 245). Ghamdi (2002, p. 243) argues that the
reason for this [condition] is that without political sovereignty jihad becomes fasaad
[disorder, chaos, anarchy, etc]. How is it possible that a group which does not even have
the right to award punishment to a criminal should be given the right to wage war? God
has never given the orders to fight unless the believers establish their sovereign
government. An explanation of this reason can be found in Islaahi’s da`wate diin or us
kaa tariiqe kaar ‘That God Almighty does not like the dissolution and disintegration of
even an evil system until a strong probability exists that those who are out to disintegrate
the system will provide people with an alternative and a righteous system. Anarchy and
disorder are unnatural conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even
an unjust system is preferable to them....this confidence [that a group will be able to
harmonize a disintegrated system and integrate it into a united whole] can be reposed in
such a group only as has actually formed a political government and has such control and
discipline within the confines of its authority that the group can be termed as aljamaa`ah
[the State, or the government]. Until a group attains this position, it may strive [by
religiously allowable means] to become aljamaa`ah -- and that endeavor would be its
jihad for that time -- but it does not have the right to wage an `armed’ jihad’ (cited in
Iftikhar, 1996).
It is very relevant to mention here a very famous tradition of the prophet
Muhammad, which the Islamic militant groups present in favor of their terrorist
activities, the prophet is reported to have said: He amongst you who sees any wrong
should change it with this hand(that is to eradicate it); if that is not possible for him, then
with his tongue; if that is not possible for him, then in his heart(that he should condemn
it) and that is the weakest level of faith(Muslim, Kitabul-Iman). Ghamdi (2002, p. 215-
16) comments that this statement of the prophet Muhammad has a specific context in
reference to which the statement merely means that it is the duty of every Muslim to try
for the eradication of evil within the confines of the social and legal authority he or she
has. For example, parents having the rights to punish their children for their betterment,
similarly a court of law has the right to use its power under its jurisdiction to punish the
culprits for the betterment of the society. It doesn’t mean that if a court makes a wrong
decision and somebody or a non-governmental organization takes law in his hands and
sentenced the culprit himself.
 Through out the Quran the directives of Jihad (killing) have been given as a
collective duty. The great mediaeval scholar Averroses (cited in Peters, 1977, p. 9)
clearly mentioned, Jihad as a collective duty, in his book-Bidayat Al-Mudjtahid,
surprisingly Molana Mawdudi also argued that individuals could not legitimately declare
Jihad (Stern, 2000, p. 117). Ghamdi writes (2002, p. 244) that there is absolutely certainty
that Muslims in their individual capacity are not the addresses of the verses of Jihad, the
addressee are their rulers the responsibility rests on their rulers. He quotes a very clear
Hadith ‘a Muslim ruler is the shield of Muslims and Jihad can be waged only under his
command and people should seek his shelter in war (Bukhari: No 2957). Jihad only
becomes compulsory when a Muslim ruler asks his people for Jihad in that case it
becomes obligatory on Muslims to participate in Jihad.

LOYALTY TO STATE:
As mentioned earlier Islam gives great emphasis on law and order and loyalty to
one’s state, Islam warns Muslims to comply with their rulers and not create chaos in
anyway. In Sharia, there has been death penalty for only two persons, the one who kills
someone innocent and the other who makes chaos or disrupts an established system (K:
5:33-34; Muslim: No. 1852). The Qur’an directs the Muslims to follow those in
authority after following Allah and the Prophet in the following words:
Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye
have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to God and the messenger if ye are (in
truth) believers in God and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end
(4:59).
The Prophet Muhammad has instructed Muslims never to detach themselves from
state authority. He is reported to have said:
He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear it, for he who even
slightly disassociates himself from the state system and dies in this condition shall die the
death of ignorance( Jahiliyyah-the days of the age of ignorance that prevailed in Arabia
at the advent of Islam) Bukhari: No. 7054 cited in ]
Another text of this Hadith reads:
 He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear it for he who even
slightly disassociates himself from the obedience of the sovereign crown and dies in this
condition shall die the death of ignorance (Bukhari: No. 7053 cited in ). Islam
strongly believes on the existence of law and order it always supports the existence
system (until there is a strong chance of success of an alternative system). Such is the
importance of obeying the law of the land in Islam that the Prophet is reported to have
said:
It is your duty to listen and obey your rulers whether you are in difficulty or at
ease, whether willingly or unwillingly and even when you do not receive what is your
right (Muslim: No. 1836 cited in ).

CONDITIONS OF REVOLT:

However, a stage may come when Muslims have been given the permission to rise
against their government in the form of a public rebellion. But for that some clear
conditions have been given which should be fulfilled before making revolt against a
government. Before these conditions are explained, it needs to be noted that rebelling
against Muslim rulers even when all the conditions are fulfilled never becomes obligatory
upon Muslims. They can still choose to live under their rule.

Firstly, the rulers of the Muslims are guilty of openly and deliberately denying
Islam or any of its directives.’ Ubadah Ibn Samit reports: The Prophet called us to pledge
allegiance to him which we did. We had been asked to pledge to the following: We shall
listen and obey whether willingly or unwillingly whether we are in difficulty or at ease,
and even when we do not receive what is your right and that we shall not contest the
authority of our rulers. The Prophet of God said: You can only rise against them if you
witness outright Kufr in any matter from them, in which you have clear evidence from
God. (Muslim: No. 1709). Secondly, Muslims are not democratically able to change
their rulers. The basis of this condition is found in the Qur’anic directive of (amruhum
shura baynahum K: 42:38: Their system is based on their consultation). According to this
directive, the rulers of Muslims should be democratically elected to office. Consequently,
if Muslims are able to change their leadership by democratic means, resorting to rebellion
and revolt is actually a violation of this principle. It amounts to revolt against the masses
and not the rulers. This, according to the Shari‘ah, is spreading disorder in the land and is
punishable by death in the most exemplary manner. The Prophet is reported to have said:
You are organized under the rule of a person and someone tries to break your collectivity
apart or disrupt your government, execute him. (Muslim: No.1852). Thirdly, those who
are undertaking this uprising are in majority and united under the leadership of one
person. The basis of this condition also exists in the verse referred to above (42:38). In
fact, it as a natural corollary of the principle stated in the verse: only the person who has
the mandate of the majority is their legitimate ruler. If the person who is leading the
uprising has the clear backing of the majority behind him, it means that the previous one
has lost his mandate to rule. The majority is now willing to accept a new person in his
place (Salim, 2002).

Another condition put forward by Islam is the balance of power between a

Muslim state and a non-Muslim state which has been fixed as one ratio two. The
maximum number of enemies against which one is obliged to stand one’s ground is twice
the number of one’s own troops. About this everyone agrees on account of (K: 8:66):
‘Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So
if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of
you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah.
Allah is with the steadfast’. The advent of modern conventional and nuclear weapons
have made very difficult to evaluate the real strength of the belligerent parties. Also the
economic power can make the power parity very difficult to calculate, which makes Jihad
(killing) very difficult to conduct in the present times.

Jihad is God’s scheme of ending persecution happening any where in the world,
to end that persecution God has placed this as an obligation on a Muslim country but with
due conditions. The militant groups in Pakistan engaged in militant activities in the
pretext of Jihad are totally un-Islamic as they don’t fulfill the conditions mentioned in
this chapter. The addition of this chapter is to evaluate the activities of militant
organizations in Pakistan that how much they fulfill the conditions related with Jihad
even a government support doesn’t make these militant organizations legally or
Islamically right. If an Islamic government supports an organizations it should
unequivocally declare its support for that organizations, considering all the conditions
before hand.