Types of Jihad in Islam - Essay Example

Jihad in Islam by Jihad in Islam As an Islamic religious term, theword ‘jihad’ has a long history and a complex set of meanings. Many people associate it with the concept of ‘holy war.’ This definition has become widespread as a result of the Crusades. Many modern Muslim scholars on the contrary, seek to show that the term has a peaceful character and pursues a peaceful purpose - the spiritual struggle. The difficulty lies in the fact that the concept of jihad is dependent on the subjective perception of the individual or the leader. The term jihad has a real historical development, depending on the context of time and place. In any case, as various studies show, the interpretation of jihad as a call to use violence against all non-Muslims is unfounded (Ali & Rehman 2005). The fact is that the main source of this concept is the Qur’an. In turn, the study of the Qur’an makes it possible to understand that Islam focuses primarily on the spiritual struggle with one’s own passions and vices, while physical violence is seen as an extreme measure, which may be applied only in exceptional cases. In addition, despite the conventional wisdom, Islam can be seen as a much more peaceful religion compared for example with Christianity since Christianity demonstrates very careful attention to the concept of a just war and offers a much clearer conception of it than Islam. This paper analyzes the concept of jihad and provides its comparative analysis with the concept of holy war presented in Christianity. Four Types of Jihad in Islam As noted above, a number of theologians, including Muslim ones, insist that jihad involves aggressive and violent methods of struggle for the Islamic faith. In particular, Professor Roda Mushkat (cited in Ali & Rehman 2005) insists on the idea that Islamic law enjoins Moslems to maintain a State of permanent belligerence with all non-believers, collectively encompassed in the dar al-harb, the domain of war. The Muslims are, therefore, under a legal obligation to reduce non-Muslim communities to Islamic rule in order to achieve Islam’s ultimate objective, namely the enforcement of God’s law (the Sharia) over the entire world. The instrument by which the Islamic state is to carry out that objective is called the jihad (popularly known as the ‘holy war’) and is always just, if waged against the infidels and the enemies of the faith. In turn, according to other contemporary Muslim theologians, who refer to the views of their predecessors, there are several types of jihad. In particular, it is believed that the Qur’an presents the following four forms of jihad: jihad with the heart, jihad with the tongue, jihad with the pen, and jihad with the sword. Jihad with the heart is the struggle against one’s own inclinations and passions. Jihad with the tongue “means to use speech, communication power or any skill enabling a person to communicate with others to convey to them the message of the Qur’an” (Institute of Policy Studies n.d.). Jihad with the pen means the punishment of criminals (this kind of jihad is expressed in the system of Sharia). Finally, jihad with the sword allows the use of violence in certain cases. Three of the four above-mentioned forms of jihad are based on moral principles while the fourth form is understood as a struggle in the literal sense. The condition for the call for the protection of personal Islam can be considered the acceptance of the first pillar of the Islamic faith, which obliges to be in a constant struggle for one’s internal faith by fighting with one’s sinful inclinations. The call to jihad as a real fight must be justified by specific factors: the existence of a plan, having aggressive nature and directed against Islam; the danger of losing one’s own property or territory (in this case the jihad will be personal); and a military campaign against the Islamic state. The first condition can also be attributed to the conditions of the first type of jihad, considering it a spiritual side. In order to better understand the reasons for the call, one must understand the Muslim view of the world. Thus, Islamic law divides the world into Muslim and non-Muslim areas: Dar al Islam that is the Islamic house and Dar al Harb - the house of war. On the territory of Dar al-Islam, there is an Islamic state. Accordingly, the territory of the Dar al-harb is formed by other countries. The Qur’an considers Christians, Jews and Hindus the People of the Book. According to Muslims, they have a special status, because the follow true faith and have incomplete true revelation from genuine prophets. These people can live under Muslim rule until taking the status of submission, which entails payment of a tribute and at the same time creates a wide range of restrictions. In turn, Islamic laws are much more severe to people who do not belong to this group. They have a choice: to except Islam or to die. The history of Islam knows a number of peace agreements that were adopted to regulate relations with people belonging to other religious system. In particular, “the Prophet Muhammad made a peace agreement with the Meccans in 630, the Treaty of Hudaybiya, and several of the early caliphs made peace treaties with the Byzantine empire (some of which even required them to pay tribute to the Byzantines)” (Streusand 1997). Later, some of the caliphs adopted similar agreements with the Byzantine Empire. If there is a real military threat from Dar al Harb, according to some Islamic scholars, jihad as an act of war is obligatory for every Muslim individual, the Muslim community throughout the world. Only the ruler - the Imam, the head of the Islamic state can declare jihad. Only the governor, the overall leader of all Muslims, may ratify a peace treaty or end the jihad. During the jihad, all young people have parental permission to take part in hostilities. Exceptions are cases when the enemy entered the territory of Dar al Islam. In this situation jihad becomes an obligation for every Muslim who can bear arms. The society should submit to the leader even if he is not an example of justice. In this case, it is worth noting that the term jihad depends on the subjective opinion of a leader who can manipulate it. If one compares the forms of jihad, he/she can conclude that they are closely linked with each other and are in family relations, representing a kind of radial circles. The first of these is a circle presented by the jihad of the heart, directed at the inner mans faith. It is designed to protect the person’s spiritual world by forming human personality. In turn, the jihad of the tongue supposes the formed Muslim identity and is manifested through the mission, the struggle for the Islamic faith. It is enough to recall the formation of Muhammad as the Islamic prophet who began to preach only after experiencing his own personality. By preaching in secret for several years, Muhammad formed the basis for the Muslim society, after which the mission took on a new form of an open proclamation of the divine will. Jihad with the pen was a logical continuation of the formation of an Islamic society. The purpose of this kind of jihad is to defend the Islamic society through public regulation of relations of Muslims with one another by means of Sharia. In turn, the task of the jihad with the sword is to protect Islam from foreign enemies, i.e., Dar al Harb. This type of jihad is designed to protect an Islamic state and society against external enemies. Thus, one can see the historical development of the concept of jihad and its formation as a complex system, which was improved in accordance with the historical realities of the Islamic society. An analysis of the text of the Qur’an makes it possible to make sure that the Qur’an does not call for war. War is accepted only if it is the only way to save the Islamic community and its members. This fragment of the Quran reveals that the Quran insists primarily on peaceful coexistence among people belonging to different religions. Violence is used as a response to the violence which threatens death: Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors./And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for tribulation is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the recompense of disbelievers. / But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful./And fight them until tribulation is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers./The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to God, and know that God is with the pious (The Holy Qur’an, Al-Baqarah 2:190-194). The common belief that Islam is an aggressive religion, which defends the idea of a holy or just war, is wrong. Analyzing the concept of a just war in Christianity, one can come to the conclusion that Christianity is more militant religion than Islam. This view is supported by a number of Christian ideas that were specifically developed by the fathers of the Christian church. Moreover, one can note the fact that the concept of holy war has a much more pronounced form in Christianity rather than in Islam. One should not forget the fact that Christians had no less fierce wars for the Christian faith. The Concept of Holy War in Christianity The question of the relation of Christianity to the phenomenon of war and the factors that might justify it has always been of particular interest to various researchers. As is known, one of the basic ethic rules of Christianity expressed in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount states that people should not resist evil and commit violence. They should turn the other cheek and forgive their enemies (Matt 5:39, 41; 7:1; cf. Luke 6:27-9; Rom. 14:13.). It may seem that based on this principle, Christianity rejects war considering it an evil that cannot be justified in any case. Nevertheless, as claimed by some authors, this is not true, because the analysis of the Christian tradition presented in, particular by the works of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas allows one to come to the opposite conclusion. Independent research of the works of the great Fathers of the Church gives one reason to agree with the Just War theorists that war is compatible with Christs teachings. Indeed, Augustine can be seen as the first theologian who considered the question of the just war as a particular important topic. Later, his successor Thomas Aquinas developed his theory of the just war. According to the general concept proposed by both thinkers, the war can be justified by the following four factors: 1) The war should have a just cause; 2) The war can be started only by a lawful authority; 3) There must be a proportion between the aim of the war and its effects on human life and health; and 4) The war should be considered as a last resort to solve the problem (Coverdale 2004). Thus, despite the appeal for non-violent coexistence between people, Christianity can justify the war if it meets specific requirements mentioned above. As indicated above, one of the rules to justify the war against the enemy states that the war must have a just cause. This means that the cause of the war must have the criterion of fairness to those who participate in it. “Medieval just war theory generally recognized three goals that could justify recourse to war: defense against attack, recovery of something wrongfully taken, and punishment of evil” (Coverdale 2004). Augustine and Aquinas compared the war with the situation of self-defense when a person who is a victim of violence has the right to protect the safety of his/her life. As noted by Aquinas, “therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible” (Baumgarth & Regan 1988). In this regard, the reason of the beginning of the war can be justified in self-defense if an enemy brings a danger to the lives of people. Similar to a man who in this case has the right to defend his/her life, the country that is facing an external attack might have military resistance in order to protect its people. The second reason, namely aimed at the recovery of something wrongfully taken can justify the beginning of hostilities in the case when it comes to forcible seizure of things that represent a particularly important value for the state and cannot be returned except by means of active hostilities. Finally, the third objective is consistent with the medieval conception of the role of Christianity as the religion responsible for restoring justice in the world, in particular by punishing evil. The war should aim at establishing justice and combating lawlessness. Belligerents must come from Christian motives of love of neighbor. In fact, this reason was particularly important to medieval Christianity. While the current understanding of the justification of the war does not take into account this cause, medieval theologians saw the punishment of evil that reigns in this world especially important task for Christianity. Equally important to justify the war is the factor that the war should be initiated only by a lawful authority. In fact, “Augustine’s writings indicate that the authority of the prince or state or God’s direct authorization is indispensable for just war” (Baumgarth & Regan 1988). Christianity was well aware that war is above all violence and death. The goal of Christianity has been designated as the preservation of peace between people. For this reason, the war can be justified only if it is necessary from the point of view of the legitimate authority, which is responsible for its people. Legitimate authority has the right to go to war if it sees the war as the only possible way to save the peace. Legitimate power is responsible for the preservation of peace and stability in the country. As a result, it has the right to make the decision to go to war based on national interests of the country. Responsibility for such a decision lies entirely on the legitimate authority. Nobody has the right to bare the sword without a prescription of the government. In addition, special attention is paid to the relationship between the objectives pursued by the war and the consequences, to which the war might lead: “An act may be rendered unlawful if I be out of proportion to the end” (Baumgarth & Regan 1988). The purpose of the war must be commensurate with the price to be paid as a result of the war. In this regard, the government must take into account all the consequences and make sure that the damage caused by the war does not exceed the original aims of the war. Finally, according to the Christian understanding, the war should be considered as a last resort to solve the conflict. Christianity clearly understands the horror of war, because war is primarily a threat to the lives of hundreds and thousands of innocent people. For this reason, the war can be justified if it is the only way to resolve the conflict. The decision to start the war must be preceded by various attempts for a peaceful arrangement of the conflict between the warring parties. Thus, a just war is a war in which the resulting benefit outweighs the evil that accompanies war, and it is possible to clearly distinguish between the warring parties - those who are vitally interested in the war, and those innocent people who are involved in it. It should be understood that the adoption of the notion of a just war logically fits into the Christian understanding of the nature of the world presented in the framework of medieval society. In particular, Augustine’s ideas of war and peace are based on the idea of enduring sinfulness of human nature. Peace is an ideal unattainable in the earth, the human kingdom, and the sinfulness of people will always cause strife and conflict (Mendelson 2010). Therefore, the state is necessary as a tool for correcting the effects of human depravity. The state provides order, including violent measures, and the duty of citizens is to comply with the orders of legitimate authorities. A Christian must fight under the banner of the emperor. In principle, participation in hostilities might be seen as legal under certain conditions outlined above. One should note that the principles enunciated by Augustine must, in his view, manage the activities both of a state and individual citizens in the conduct of the war, but they do not mean that, on the basis of them, any Christian has the right to decide whether to go on a war. Obedience to lawful authority is clearly understood as a duty of the citizen. However, one should recognize the fact that Augustine not only formulated the theory of a just war, which was destined to have a long life, but also became the creator of the first Code of warfare, which included ethical requirements to the individual soldier. On a par with the concept of peace as the main condition for coexistence between people, the phenomenon of war occupies no less important place in Augustine’s idea of the existence of two cities - the city of God and the city of Man (Mendelson 2010). In the understanding of the thinker, the city of Man is presented by a secular state, based on the struggle of people for material things and for priority of their selfish personal interests. A distinctive feature of the citizens of the earthly City is egoism bordering on contempt for God. In turn, the city of God is a spiritual community of God’s saints. With the help of religious communities and churches, the members of the city of God are connected not physically, but spiritually and morally. Their life is based on the love of God brought to self-contempt. The city of God in the view of St. Augustine is a conditional symbolic designation of the community of the righteous, the following not the divine commands. Given the sinfulness of the earthly world and its tendency to sin, Augustine considers war as justified in cases where nothing and no one can help deal with evil and punish human sin. Thus war is justified as a last resort for justice in the name of ridding the earthly world of sin and its approximation to the ideal of the city of God. Conclusion A careful study of the Islamic tradition and history allows one to see that jihad does not insist on the violent struggle against all non-Muslims. In fact, the Qur’an defends the idea of ​​peaceful coexistence between people because human life is considered to be extremely valuable. Jihad takes the form of the use of violence only in cases when the enemy threatens to destroy the Islamic society and all its members. Thus, the idea that Islam is an aggressive religion is totally unjustified. The Prophet Muhammad is the most important example of this because during his leadership, the Islamic community had a series of peace agreements with different countries. Comparing Islam to Christianity, one can see that Christianity attaches much more importance to the concept of holy war rather than Islam. Fathers of the Christian church such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas have focused on the concept of holy war. Furthermore, they identified practical legal framework for the use of the concept that cannot be said about Islam. Reference List Ali SS & Rehman J 2005, ‘The concept of jihad in Islamic international law,’ Journal of Conflict & Security Law, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 321–343. Baumgarth, WP. & Regan RJ (eds) 1988, Saint Thomas Aquinas: on law, morality, and politics, Hacket Publishing Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge. Coverdale, J F 2004, ‘An introduction to the just war tradition,’ Pace International Law Review, vol. 16, no.2, pp. 221-277. Institute of Policy Studies n.d., The law of war and concept of Jihad in Islam, viewed 26 June 2015, . Mendelson, M 2010, ‘Saint Augustine,’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 26 June2015, . Streusand DE 1997, ‘What does Jihad mean?’ Middle East Quarterly, vol.4, no.3, pp. 9-17. The Bible: James Moffatt translation 1994, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids. The Holy Qur’an n.d. viewed 26 June2015, . Read More