All praise belongs to Allah and blessings and peace be upon the final prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
We have recently seen a number of articles and lectures by various speakers and scholars about jihad and terrorism, and although these brothers have sincere intentions (and we ask Allah to reward and guide them), I fear that this discourse is lacking the basic framework of an academic methodology, and as a result it can easily be misleading and cause more problems than it solves.
The most fundamental principle to be considered prior to any discussion concerning any given topic is to define the major terms used throughout that discussion. With reference to recent discussions, we find that they revolve around the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘jihad’ and are used in an attempt to condemn those who misunderstand both terms, yet commentators fail to provide comprehensive and accurate definitions for them. As a result, discussions become relative where all understand terrorism and jihad according to their own view. Modernists will see it as a proof that the concept of jihad should be re-interpreted according to Western imperial views dominated by an anti-Islamic agenda whereby the ‘correct’ and ‘moderate’ understanding of jihad does not include any type of physical engagement, including self-defence which of course is preposterously incorrect. Others will capitalise on this warped view in order to justify their ideological opinions regarding jihad in that it is limited to one’s struggle against his/her own whims and desires.
For those who have become embroiled in this discussion, it makes no difference as to whether a clarification is offered that these incorrect forms are not the jihad that they meant, or that their statements were misunderstood. What is of importance however, is that which the average reader understands, and therefore, providing clear and precise definitions must be a priority in order to avoid any possible confusion. In addition, it is notable that many lectures and articles written against so-called jihadists use an emotional tone – the same tool employed by the ‘jihadists’ themselves. This consequently lacks the ability to convince those who believe that they are the ‘authentic’ Mujahideen. It is also surprising that commentators use blanket statements which are basic , vague , and weak given that ‘jihadist’ discourse has developed to provide answers for most of the textual and rational evidences used against its mission and ambition.
One of the major concerns at this given juncture is that those who believe in this so-called jihadist methodology become more content that their opponents’ rhetoric is falsehood and so weak that they cannot manage to even produce a consistent (let alone strong) argument! Let us remember that if one is upon the truth but then is unable to deliver it in a convincing manner, it can instead become a source of misguidance for many. This is why Allah sent his Prophets with clear evidence, He said, “Then! Are the Messengers charged with anything but to convey the Message clearly?” The Prophet also said “Every Prophet has been given signs/verses the like of which, people believe in.” The scriptural texts quoted in most anti-jihadist literature to prove that killing innocent people is an act of great corruption and mischief on Earth is overplayed, and there is a lack of clear and comprehensive interpretation clarifying the boundaries between what is true jihad and what is not. It is known that ‘jihadists’ agree with these texts, but countering the argument by simply stating that these verses speak about those who kill innocent people. They state that the people killed by their operations are not completely innocent but either guilty of killing Muslims in other parts of the world or aiding those who perpetrated those acts. An example of this issue is when anti-jihadists state that jihadists are extremists and evil as Allah says, “And those who invoke not any other ilah (god) along with Allah, nor kill such life as Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse; and whoever does this shall receive the punishment. The torment will be doubled for him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace”. The jihadist simply respond by saying that this verse is actually proof against the anti-jihadists since Allah states the exception is a “just cause” and jihad and self defence is ‘a just cause’ for killing others who aim to kill you and rape your wives and daughters!
In conclusion, I would like to advise our brothers, whether they be preachers or scholars to exercise careful consideration in regards to anything they say, and in particular, complicated matters such as jihad in the current context. Our brothers should not be fooled by those who welcome their statements, something which might later be the cause of a regrettable reaction. If we feel that we have no choice but to speak about such issues, we should avoid projecting our views in a way that implies that ours is the ultimate truth and anyone who disagrees is an extremist or has gone astray. The same advice must be said to those who believe that they are protecting the honour of the ummah (Muslim nation) by calling for what they see as Jihad.
(Please note that we disagree with the term ‘jihadist’ and the way it is used in the media. However, it was only used since it is the common word used to Muslims who believe that they are carrying out jihad activities)
Quran never teaches muslims to be bad to create havoc, violence and etc. in the soceity
Quran never teaches muslims bad to create violence, havoc , jihad and etc. in the society. Muslim extremists have abused or mis-interpreted the Quran simply by means of the word, fight, as mentioned in the Quran here and there so as to suit their taste to create havoc in the society.
An-Nisa, Chapter #4, verse #90 in Mohsin Khan translation, “…So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them.” This verse has guided the fact that muslims should always be in the defensive role in fighting. Or in other words, if the opponents cease in fighting with muslims, non-muslims should cease in fighting with them.
“Even though the word, fight, is mentioned everywhere in the Quran and An-Nisa, Chapter #4, verse 90 has restricted fighting to be in defensive role, Allah only granted his permission to fight to apostles instead of to muslims people nowaday and he demands them not to shed blood or even cutting down trees as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari,(Book #3, Hadith #104), “”(that)…SO ANYBODY WHO HAS BELIEF IN ALLAH AND THE LAST DAY (i.e. a muslim) SHOULD NEITHER SHED BLOOD IN IT NOR CUT DOWN TREES…ALLAH GAVE PERMISSION TO HIS APOSTLE, BUT HE DID NOT GIVE IT TO YOU….””
Let’s conclude the right teaching in Quran. No doubts the Quran mentions the word, fight, numerously, it has no value nowadays since the word, fight, could only be applicable to his apostles instead of to muslim people nowadays. Not only that, the word, fight, for the apostles in the past was only meant for them in defensive role.
Allah even protect non-muslims in some instances.
Sahih Bukhari, Book #52, Hadith #287, “Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun: Umar (after he was stabbed), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying, “I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE NON-MUSLIMS WHO ARE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF ALLAH and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability.” The extracted phrase, to take care of those non-muslims who are under the protection of Allah, implies that there are non-muslims that are under the protection of Allah. As there are non-muslims that are under the protection of Allah, how could the word, fight, in Quran to be interpreted as fighting against non-muslims or else all non-muslims would be under the attack of Allah instead of protecting them.
An ironical proof that the word, fight, in Quran must not be interpreted as fighting against non-muslims
Ad-Dukhan, Chapter #44, Verse #30, “And indeed We saved the Children of israel from the humiliating torment:”
If all the word, fight, in the Holy Quran is meant to demand muslims to slaughter non-muslims, there should not be any reason for muslims to rescue the children of Israel as mentioned above?
From the above, it gives the ironical proof that the interpretation from muslim terrorists to treat the word, fight, as fighting against non-muslims is erroneous or else Allah would call his apostles to fight against the children of Israel instead of saving them.
Is it justifiable for Muslims to fight agaisst non-muslims?
Israel has been found favour by Allah and yet muslims have fought against them in the past:
Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #40, “O Children of ISRAEL! Remember My Favour which I bestowed upon you…”
Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #47, “O Children of ISRAEL!…”
Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #122, “O Children of ISRAEL! Remember My Favour which I bestowed upon you and that I preferred you to the ‘Alamin [mankind and jinn (of your time-period, in the past)].”
The paragraph below even conveys the message that Allah even ordained children of Israel not to do this or that:
Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #32, “Because of that We ordained for the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind…”
The above verses show that Allah was not against Israel. A question has to be raised: Should muslims be against non-muslim people?
Sahih Bukhari, (Book #3, Hadith #104), “Narrated Said: Abu Shuraih said, “When ‘Amr bin Said was sending the troops to Mecca (to fight ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair) I said to him, ‘O chief! Allow me to tell you what the Prophet said on the day following the conquests of Mecca. My ears heard and my heart comprehended, and I saw him with my own eyes, when he said it. He glorified and praised Allah and then said, “Allah and not the people has made Mecca a sanctuary. SO ANYBODY WHO HAS BELIEF IN ALLAH AND THE LAST DAY (i.e. a muslim) SHOULD NEITHER SHED BLOOD IN IT NOR CUT DOWN TREES. If anybody argues that fighting is allowed in Mecca as Allah’s Apostle did fight (in Mecca), tell him that ALLAH GAVE PERMISSION TO HIS APOSTLE, BUT HE DID NOT GIVE IT TO YOU….”
The phrase, So anybody who has believe in Allah and the last day (i.e. a muslim) should neither shed blood in it nor cut down trees, in the above extract conveys a clear message that Allah forbids muslims to be involved in violence or fighting or shedding blood or even cutting trees.
The phrase, Allah gave permission only to his apostles but he did not give it to you, in the above extract implies that Allah only gave permission to his apostles instead of to us. As Allah does not permit muslims to fight and to shed blood except to his apostles, there should not be any reason for muslims today to fight or shed blood. As Allah gave permission only to his apostles but not unto us, it implies that the word, fight, in the book of Quran is meant only for Prophet Muhamad and the apostles instead of to muslim people nowadays.
extreamist of any religion will listen to nothing
The truth is in the nature of the beast. You can not have someone be a fanatic and resonable at the same time.
Christianity and Islam both deal with this problem.
They would do better if they would only use peacefull methods. Like Ghandi did.