The Meaning of Jihad

By Mushfiqur Rahman      Posted September 24, 2002

The Washington Post article about Jihad as struggle to heal (Islam Attracting Many Survivors of Rwanda Genocide) The Washington Post, September 23, 2002 is well-written. This, one hopes, will help alleviate some of the misunderstanding surrounding the word Jihad that it is not limited exclusively to fighting.

However, it would be important to state that removing the element of fighting and and war from Jihad will be contrary to the primary meaning of the word in which it is used in the texts.

Such apologetic explanation is, in my view, a disservice both to Islam as well as to the non-Muslim audience. Yes, the linguistic meaning of the word Jihad is "struggle". And yes, Jihad is a broader concept that is not just limited to war. And yes, the hadeeth mentions about the Jihad of serving the parents, and yes, there is the greater Jihad of self-purification, struggle for improvement, and conquering the evils within one's self. But these true and correct meanings do not nullify the fact that the primary sense in which the word Jihad was used both in the Qur'an as well as in the Sunnah is fighting in the battle field for the sake of Allah. Any cursory look at the Qur'an and the Sunnah dealing with the topic of Jihad will point this out. But if an Osama bin Laden misconstrues the meaning of Jihad and attacks the lives of non-combatant civilians, or if a few extremists kill Jews and Christians living within their society, then the responsibility of such actions lies squarely on the shoulders of these extremists. Such acts of murder is diametrically opposite to the Islamic obligations towards the people of other faiths, which requires that Muslims protect the interests of the non-Muslim minorities living within their society even if it requires armed protection or going into war with others that attack these minorities. What the religion of a McVeigh or a Jack the Ripper is irrelevant.

Only in a world devoid of war, aggression, injustice, oppression, and massacre can the need for fighting be ceased and hence the need for Jihad. If such a world does not exist, then what is needed is an accurate explanation of what Jihad is. Addition of an apologetic layer is unnecessary, for the Islamic concept of Jihad is a concept par excellence when compared with the concept of war in other traditions and civilizations and their actual conducts of war.

A particular book that comes to mind that offers a clear and unambiguous explanation of what Jihad is based on the Qur'an and Sunnah is Sayyid Maududi's Al Jihad fil Islam. Initially serialized in the monthly journal Tarjamanual Qur'an which he edited, it was published in a book shortly thereafter in 1927 when he was only a 24-year old young man. After the Muslims were labeled as bloody war mongers and after seeing such apologetic view about Jihad, he decided that it was time that he finds the time to write about this issue. When this 560-page book (in translation) came out in 1927, he surprised the entire Indian subcontinent with his powerful arguments and was immediately known as a scholar. When Allama Iqbal was asked by a man about Jihad, he simply pulled out a copy of Al Jihad Fil Islam from his bookshelf and recommended to him that he read it. He was, however, sorry that he was unable to let him borrow the book. He would have to secure his own copy.

It is a masterpiece on the concept of Jihad. No other work, to the best of my knowledge, approached this topic so systematically and unapologetically. In this book, Maududi not only explains the concept of war in Islam and its noble principles regarding war, but also provides a comparative analysis of these concepts in other civilizations and traditions and their actual conducts. He analyzes the scriptures of all major religions including Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism and brings to light, with full contextual explanations, their concepts of war and war policies and conducts. Going beyond religious traditions, he scrutinizes major civilizations going as far back as the Romans and shows their conducts of fighting. He then takes on the modern European civilization and showed exactly what a bloodshed these "civilized" powers caused and how selfish and narrow their justification of war was. He provided a clear picture of what WWI was really about and what it did to other peoples. How systematic and logical his analysis was and how accurate his understanding of the European power-politics was can be surmised from this: he predicted in his book that if there happens a WWII, it would start from Poland. That became the case 12 years later.

Jihad is part and parcel of a Muslim's existence, and primarily it means fighting for the sake of Allah. Such a fight is fight for justice and fight against aggression. What is expected from a civic and responsible person has simply been made an inexcusable obligation. If the need for fighting against aggression and injustice is undeniable, then an apologetic explanation of Jihad is equally unnecessary. If fighting for national interest is a good thing, then fighting for the sake of Allah is a far superior one for it transcends the narrow interest of a particular nation and acts in the interest of a global humanity who is created and cared for by Allah, the One universal God of all.

A Muslim true to his faith is the most peaceful person on earth who is merciful enough not to even step on an ant or even pluck a leaf out of a tree without a reason. And yet, he is not a selfish vegetable type to walk away into hiding when aggression threatens peace or injustice victimizes people. Jihad is that kind of a concept that all peace loving people on earth should internalize, not just Muslims.

(This article was also published in the Weekly Mirror International, October 2, 2002.)