The concept of Jihad in Islam has been widely looked into and most often criticized. Critics have often argued that Allah, in the Quran, prescribes to killing non-believers and therefore hold Islam as a religion based on war and conflict. In the essay which follows, perspectives from three leading religious proponents of military jihad have been analyzed and criticized. As these three scholars follow a similar line of thinking therefore it is very important that their background is taken into consideration in order to understand their rationale for armed jihad. Here it is also imperative to mention that the Quran should be read in its proper context in order to grasp its true meaning. This has been an issue as numerous authors continue to misquote and associate verses from the Quran that are not related to militant jihad. It is further evident from their writings that the authors are primarily addressing Muslims who have limited knowledge about Islam, and those that are likely to join their movement.
Writers like Abdullah Al-Azzam, Abdel Salam Al-Farag and Sayyid Qutb, who have promoted the case of militant Islamic radicalism, all belong to some of the worst conflict-ridden regions of middle-east. While Al-Azzam belonged to Palestine, which has a historic and bloody conflict with Israel, Al-Farag and Qutb belonged to Egypt, where conflict of an internal nature has persisted over the years. Egypt, like other middle-eastern states, has a history of state sponsored oppression and serious human rights violations. Although Egypt poses itself as modern, secular state but in reality it has been a dictatorship for very long time where voices of dissent have always been dealt very harshly. Scholars like Sayyid Qutb often relate this political dissent with religion to gain support.
In this background it is easy to see scholars like Qutb (409-410) lamenting for war in order to establish Gods rule in his country and bring about relief to the masses. In the same context, Al-Azzam (426) talks of jihad in Afghanistan in order to rid it of infidels, but sadly, we see him taking up arms for his adopted country and not for the country of his birth where humanity has suffered for decades.
Interestingly, all these proponents of jihad seem to have serious flaws to their rationale and by giving them a scholarly stature we not only embarrass mainstream Muslim thinkers and philosophers but also ourselves on our own intellectual capabilities.
Al-Azzam (425) starts off his argument for militant jihad by saying that whenever a Muslim land comes under infidel occupation, it becomes a primary duty of every Muslim citizen to take up arms against the oppressor and in case the citizen is not motivated enough, it becomes an obligatory duty of bordering countrys Muslims to cleanse the land of the oppressor. This means to say that even if one does not wants to be saved must be saved. The author also does not give any clues as to what religious scripture led him to this conclusion. Al-Azzam (426) then goes on to debate various scholars who have deemed jihad in Afghanistan and Palestine as communal obligations but insists that Afghan jihad has now transformed into a personal obligations. The author, however, does not shed light on the problem of Palestine or its priority.
Al-Azzam (426) then goes on to suggest that no permission of any sorts is required in order to fulfill this obligation. This means to imply that no permission is required, either from family or from the government. Here, Azzam also advises his followers not to get into any sort of argument with people who may discourage them from this noble cause and by doing so he is closing the doors of reason on his followers. He goes on to say that people who may not want to be a part of this cause should be punished for not co-operating in the matters of righteousness and piety (426) which is in stark contrast to Qurans claim that there is no compulsion in religion.
In the notes regarding application of this ordinance, Al-Azzam (426) conveniently absolves clerics responsibility by saying that the job of scholar is just to clarify the Islamic legal ruling and that it is not the clerics job to call people to jihad. Oddly, the rest of his essay does not seem to support that argument. He also adds that no financial support will be provided to fighters or their families and quotes from a source (see Qartabi 426) which seems, at best, questionable.
Al-Azzam (427-28) then goes to discuss various issues related to jihad, i.e., how one can pursue jihad and how one is absolved. He sheds light on why Arab women cannot participate in the Afghan jihad. He also presents a code of conduct to the mujahid (freedom fighters) and states the rulesregulations to be followed upon returning from jihad. Here, Al-Azzam quotes an anonymous source to support his argument. With such lack of intellectual depth, one can only question his scholarly ability.
In contrast to Al-Azzam, who was mainly concerned about making a case for jihad in Afghanistan, Al-Farags writing seems much more philosophical in nature but his reasoning and deductions are certainly questionable, to say the least. In his essay, the forgotten duty, he argues a case of fighting infidels, who are near (417), meaning the rulers of his own country rather than to go and fight in distant lands like Afghanistan. In the first section, he does not give any religious reference to support his view point and only states that Rule of Gods Religion in Egypt has to be implemented first and foremost.
In the subsequent section (418), Al-Farag presents his case of offensive jihad where he quotes from a Hadith (sayings of Muhammad, P.B.U.H.) and concludes by saying that fighting is essential for jihad, be it offensive or defensive. This is a classic case of a fundamentalist who interprets the idea of fighting literally (to combat), in contrast to other scholars. However, El Fadl (463) has extensively discussed this argument by saying that jihads literal meaning is to strive and clean ones self from social evils.
Al-Farag (418) then goes on and makes a case for militant jihad by quoting a couple of verses from the Quran (9.5 2.216), which he labels as the Verse of Sword. When these verses are read in their contextual background, they would seem that these verses apply to a specific circumstance. Verse 9.5 states But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. It is clear that this verse applies to a treaty which was signed with non-Muslims. In this verse God offers specific code of conduct to Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) incase of transgression. In the other reference (2.216) Allah states, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. This verse again refers to a particular situation where God is answering specific questions which Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) was asked by different people. In the very next verse (2.217), the Quran says, Say Muhammad Fighting, therein, is a grave (offence) but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Similarly, in the continuing verses answers were given on other matters like drinking, gambling and the life hereafter. This again goes on to show that these verses applies to particular situations. Jackson (396), has raised the argument against Al-Farags reasoning by saying that this particular sequence was pegged to the annual pilgrimage to Mecca at that time, where the pilgrims needded time to perform pilgrimage and return safely to their homes.
Interestingly, in the next section of his essay Al-Farag (419-20) argues and quotes from a certain scholar, Al-Suyuti, who raises this very question which has been put in the pervious paragraph but then goes on to imply that Al-Suyutis argument does not holds weight. Al-Farag then goes on to say that jihad shall continue till the day of resurrection and cites Muhammads saying in support of this. Towards the end of this section, Al-Farag (420) argues that Muslims must not wait until they gain strength to fight and implies that one should not one should hurry to war and expect God to send His reinforcements to the mujahidin.
Al-Farag (421), quotes from the Quran (5.3) arguing that since the teachings of Islam has been completed, one has to comply whatever has been written by God. He says this in order to counter an argument which says that the above verses were revealed at a time when Islam was still in infancy and hence do not apply to later periods. Al-Fadl (462) has contested this argument by saying that Islamic debates in modern times have often become politicized and polarized.
In the following section Al-Farag (421) goes on to debate that jihad is now a moral duty of every Muslim as the other tenets like fasting or Salah (daily prayer) and goes on to say that by fighting the Quran literally means combative fighting. Here, neither he elaborates nor offers any verse in favor this argument. He then delves into an argument that jihad is an individuals duty and there is no need for any permission from anybody.
Unlike Al-Azzam, Al-Farag does not shy away from presenting opposing views in his work. He quotes from Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (422), who argued that there are three categories, and this is view which now most of the Islamic scholars seem to agree upon, but in his usual manner Al-Farag completely rejects this view by giving a counter argument that since jihad against ones self will never end so one cannot progress to the other level, i.e., jihad against the Devil. He then concludes by completely rejecting a Hadith which says that jihad is against ones soul.
In the concluding paragraph, Al-Farag (424) argues that one must not encompass within himher the fear of failure but rather one must stay firm to hisher beliefs, and display patience and trust in God. He also dismisses an argument stating that when clear or able leadership is absent, jihad must be undertaken. He affirms this by citing a questionable Hadith (424) by most standards.
It is apparent from the above criticism on Al-Farag, that numerous flaws are present in his rationale. He not only continues to quote out of context, but also add incompetent rationale to his perspective by overlooking facts. Although he does not seem to shy away from popular counter arguments to jihad, the deep grey areas in his thought process led him away from mainstream Islam and towards counter-revolution.
Of the three writers, Sayyid Qutb seems to be intellectually superior (in a philosophical way) but this does not mean his rationale is at all correct. Throughout the essay, he keeps churning out ideas which are often conflicting and rejecting the ones which do not conform to his own beliefs. In his essay jihad in the cause of God he asserts that all Muslims should strive for establishing a dominion of God and returning the sovereignty from the usurper (409) by enforcement of Shariah (way or path of God) and by rejecting the laws of man. He pleads that since the usurpers will not give up their vested interests easily, it is essential to go for jihad or movement as prescribed by God (410).
Thrust of Qutbs argument is that the mankind has been subjugated through economic, social and political systems. In order to end such tyranny, it is necessary that Gods law must be implemented in letter and spirit (410). On the same note he informs his readers that Gods law, in fact, provides freedom to humanity and under His law everybody is free to adopt any belief system one may wish to follow. Qutb, however, does not informs his readers as to how this will happen when there will be nobody left to digress from the religion of God.
Qutb raises a genuine argument discussing the reasons as to why successors of Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) continued act on the offensive following his death (412). He suggests when there were no holy scriptures being sent by God through Muhammad (for particular instances for going to war), his companions like Umar and others continued to spread the word of Allah by the sword. Qutub also asserts that jihad was never a defensive strategy. However, this argument has been countered by Al-Fadl (461) who says that Islam entered in China, Malaysia and other parts not through war but through trade. The reasons for armed jihad after the death of Mohammad (P.B.U.H.) are, at best, debatable.
Yet another example of Qutbs conflicting thought process when he quotes that there is no compulsion in religion (412), but as the mankind is already suffering, this idea cannot be implemented till the rule of God reigns supreme. Moreover, he harshly puts aside the notion that offensive jihad had been ordered for specific instances. He then goes on to build an argument on jihad by saying that Muslims were not allowed to fight in the earlier times, then God permitted them to fight and finally Allah ordered them to fight (413). Thus according to him there is an eternal cause for jihad. Qutb then delves into an extensive debate on the different periods of early Islamic history, i.e., the Medinite period and the Meccan period. It should be noted here that very seldom in his essay Qutb directly quotes from the Quran or Hadith. Moreover, he utilizes quotes from different verses and merges them to form his argument. For example, he quotes verse (838-40), Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector - the best to protect and the best to help. Qutb (416) goes on to conclude that reasons for jihad which have been described in the above verses are to establish Gods authority on earth to abolish the satanic forces and satanic system of life.These reasons are sufficient for proclaiming jihad.
Towards the end of his essay, Qutb quotes several verses from the Quran (415-16). This writer however was unable to find the first quote as mentioned (3.74-76) by Qutb. The exact quote is For His Mercy He specially chooseth whom He pleaseth for Allah is the Lord of bounties unbounded. There is no mention of jihad in these verses. In his second reference he quotes from the verse, the spoils of war (chapter 8) which talks about the distribution of bounty from war. Here, this cited reference seems more of a warning from God, if read in its proper context. Lastly, he quotes verse number 9.29-32, a critical argument which has been posed against Al-Farags writings.
Interestingly, Qutb never goes into the discussion as to who shall enforce Gods religion on earth or who is qualified enough to assign this important task He also does not shed light on the debate that whoever considers himself pious enough to take up arms for this cause From his writing style it seems that his real motive has political connotations rather then religious fervor.
In conclusion, it is evident from the proponents of military jihad that almost all follow the same line of thinking. Rather, this jihadist thinking has become more narrow minded and intolerant in some ways. If we look deeper into this rationale it seems that the movement of modern jihadist thinking started from Qutb, who included quotes from the Quran to a social and political cause in order to make his argument to the Muslims living in Egypt but the fact remains that Qutub was primarily concerned with his part of the world (the enemy which is near). Next in line comes Al-Farag, who is also restricts himself to fight enemies of Islam which are physically near. Al-Farag extensively quotes from the Quran and the Hadith to give his cause a religious color but his arguments are certainly questionable, if not far fetched. Al-Farag is followed by Al-Azzam, who can be termed as the godfather of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
According to him there is no distinction between the enemies who are far or near, instead he chose to fight an enemy afar in Afghanistan. What is really alarming about his rationale is that nowhere in his essay does he debate on counter arguments, rather he seems to issues a religious decree to fellow Arabs to fight the infidels in Afghanistan. Moreover, he seems to instruct his followers not to get into any debate with the opponents of military jihad saying who ever may do so shall commit a despicable sin.
