The first and most admired jihad in the eyes of Allah is the jihad of fighting evil temptations within one’s self. It’s a noble and spiritual jihad. Believe it or not, it also includes jihad against the other type of so called “jihad” (which we will get to in a minute) that extremist Islamic scholars preach.
The second most significant type of jihad is that which benefits society. A father who struggles and toils daily to feed and support his family is practicing jihad. A teacher sitting with a little girl and trying to explain to her a difficult chapter in her science textbook is practicing jihad. A medical scientist who sits in a lab for hours trying to discover a cure for a dangerous disease is practicing jihad. A policeman and a detective working hard to catch criminals are also practicing jihad. Hell, this blog itself is a form of jihad. On it I practice ijtihad (creative and critical thinking) which also falls under this category of jihad.
The third, least significant and by now notorious type of jihad is that of waging war in self defense. Islam and the Quran lay out clear rules concerning this type of jihad. Innocent people especially women, children and the elderly are not to be harmed. Even a tree is not to be uprooted. It’s clear that based on this; Al-Qaeda’s acts on the dark day of September 11th do not qualify as jihad. Add to that, the Bali, Madrid and London bombings. They’re all a clear violation of Islamic law regarding jihad. They’re all nothing but disgusting acts of terror.
Iraqi insurgents blowing up other innocent Iraqis are practicing terrorism. The targeting of innocent Israeli civilians is also an act of terror and I don’t care what people like Sheikh Qaradawi say. He’s stated that suicide bombings against Israeli civilians are justified. To him an Israeli civilian is an aggressor because he is essentially an occupier. Oh really? Well what if amongst those civilians is a child that was born in Israel. It’s not like it was that child’s decision to be born there. Is it okay to blow up children too because they’re evil infidel occupiers? I don’t think so. Occupier or not, innocents should never be targeted on purpose because that in my opinion is plain terrorism. (Hiroshima & Nagasaki?)
The only thing that qualifies as jihad from an Islamic perspective is when military targets are harmed. If they’re targeted using the method of suicide bombing, then the only thing that’s sinful in this case is the act of suicide itself.
After having read all of the above, which jihad do you think is more necessary for us as Muslims to engage in? Which one do you think we are in dire need of? I’ll give you a clue: the first type is the most significant and most pleasing to Allah and the third type (which majority of so called Muslims don’t even follow according to the proper rules) is the least significant. So which one(s) do you choose and why??
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Drima,
That was interesting and I really appreciated it. The problem that I see is that there are too few Muslims speaking out against the violence, or if they are it is not being heard by many people.
I’d have to go with critical thinking, because without it other efforts will never be directed so as to bear fruit.
The way you pose your question, Drima, is typical of religionists, whether Islamic, or Christian, or whatever. You set up a structure by defining the criteria by yourself, then pose a final question that’s weighted towards the answer you yourself want.
This happens over and over again in the Islamic debates I’ve read in translation (especially when it concerns Israel). It also happens in Christian debates, but too many people have turned to secularism for that to have any real significance anymore.
Islam doesn’t much discuss the problem of entertainment, and leisure, does it? When societies get affluent enough, there will be a surplus of free time. The notion of “struggle” becomes an anachronism. I don’t see why jihad needs to be thought of as a given. How about a life of living it easy? It’s possible, you know. And if everything needs to be seen as a struggle, then doesn’t that imply something about the person holding that view?
When I think of all the wealth in Saudi Arabia, with free medical care and cradle-to-grave social security, and masses of young people with nothing to do, - as immigrants do all the hard work - I can see all that free time creating conditions for some twisted forms of entertainment.
In a world where leisure is prevalent, the jihadist will probably see jihad as a form of entertainment.
Assalamu Alaikum,
Its a nice blog you got here, I am going to read through your blog. Hope to see you guys visit my blog inshallah. Keep on the good work.
regards
Drima, I (personally know of these difference in Jihad) - but, if you’re interested - there’s a very good article detailing the specifics of the warrior kinda jihad, that - unfortunately - the newspaper (Haaretz) has already removed - but can be found on the following link, being the cache version of that very article. Striking I found the following:
~~~~~One of the questions that engaged them was whether a lone warrior is permitted to attack a large enemy force. According to Mohammed al-Hassan al-Shibani, one of the founders of the Hanifa school, who lived in the second half of the eighth century, a lone fighter may attack even a thousand of the enemy if a reasonable chance exists that he will survive the assault or kill some of the enemy before himself being killed. If it is more than likely that he will be killed without doing damage to the enemy, his action is considered reprehensible, as he is exposing himself to death without an expected gain to the Muslims. So it stands to reason that the shahids in our time would meet with the approval of the Hanifa school, though under one condition: that they directed their operations against fighting forces and not against civilians.~~~~~
Read the whole thing:
http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:ycEWECCESeoJ:www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml%3FitemNo%3D153917%26contrassID%3D2%26subContrassID%3D5%26sbSubContrassID%3D0%26listSrc%3DY%26itemNo%3D153917+&hl=nl&gl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=1
PS - this is written from an outsiders view - but gives examples of Islam professionals….
Take care,
Tse.
Finnpundit,
“jihad as a form of entertainment”
LOL, now that’s one I haven’t heard.
Tse, thanx for the link. In the overall sense it’s good even though it contains some inaccuracies.
I’m curious why nobody responded to the (Hiroshima & Nagasaki?) part. I would love to hear your opinion regarding that.
On one hand, terrorism and suicide bombings are acts of desperation in my opinion. On the other hand, the US never targets innocent people purposely. However when it comes to Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the bombs were purposely dropped right smack on top of two innocent civilian towns. That was an American act of desperation but it was effective. Afterall it did end the war but do you consider it a double standard?
I’m glad that I’ve given you something to think about (jihad as a form of entertainment), but I must say I can’t take all credit for that. There exists a large body of philosophical work in the west that addresses issues of meaning if one is to live in a world where God is relegated to a concept that grew out of human anxiety about a lack of meaning. A branch of that body of work delves into the meaning of entertainment, and leisure: and it takes these issues quite seriously.
All of this kind of thinking is, of course, not very prevalent in the Muslim world, which is a shame, as it does relegate Islam to the back of the class in terms of development (and I don’t mean that in any disrespectful way, believe it or not. I just don’t see Islam as contributing any new ideas to world religion, the way Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are actively doing. All of the world’s religions are adapting to modernity, with the exception of Islam.)
Entertainment and leisure are very important issues in philosophy, and even more so, as the world gets more time to enjoy such things. Old paradigms such as jihad simply don’t have as much relevance, as they were concepts that developed when the average life expectancy of a human being was about thirty, or forty at the most. Jihad simply becomes more problematic as a preoccupation if scientists identify the aging genes (which they are close to doing) and life expectancy reaches 150, 200….
An African-American R&B singer once told me (we discussed the black prison population in America) that people should realize that young angry people eventually grow up. They get older, and wiser, and don’t want to misbehave anymore (he was against decades long prison sentences. I must say he was rather convincing.) Jihad seems to me to be about never growing up, never mellowing out, because it is such a form of identity, of complete, resolute belief in meaning, in a cartoon-like, superhero, entertainment way. The righteousness of a jihadist is so absolute that it eventually ceases in being terrifying, and just becomes absurd, as in a joke.
I have to address your Hiroshima comments later. Perhaps others can get to that old canard?
And cheers! I don’t mean the above comments in a bad way.
Finnpundit, don’t worry I know you don’t mean it in a bad way =)
I must say that was very interesting indeed. It defintely gives a new perspective of looking at it. One of the advantages of living in a secular country is that absolute free philosophical thinking is allowed. Philosophies of movies such as Matrix for example won’t develop in an Islamic country I believe as they question sensitive religious issues like choice and predestination. Such questions are important. Atheism certainly does look at things from a “very out of the box” perspective.
Cheers to you too mate!
I see what ur trying to do. By mentioning Hiroshima, ur trying to make ur post more balanced and appealing to Muslims. I hope it works.
I find Hiroshima and Nagasaki a very thought provoking point but it’s not the same as acts of Islamic fascists if that’s what ur trying to say.
Anonymous, bingo. I’m trying to change my tone and writing style to make my posts a little more appealing to Muslims. I don’t wanna repel them away and so I try to make things a little balanced sometimes.
“I find Hiroshima and Nagasaki a very thought provoking point but it’s not the same as acts of Islamic fascists if that’s what ur trying to say.”
I know they’re very different in nature but I was talking about war from an Islamic perspective. Targeting innocent civilians is not allowed.
I am quite new to commenting on weblogs in general and I never have commented here before, but I will try to put some thoughts into words:
I believe that the general perception of “good” and “evil” makes it difficult here. Maybe I am over generalizing, but my guess would be, that everybody (or mostly everybody) tries to do and reach his best, the way he perceives it to be. So, most of us are usually convinced to be on the “good” or “right” side. Problem being, that we all perceive the world differently. So it happens that two different people fight against each other, both being convinced to fight for “the good” (might it be God, freedom, democracy, right way of living, religion, moral, even peace (!)) and yet kill each other in the most horrendous ways (nuclear weapons as well as suicide bombers and others included). So Drima, your question was if this is double standard. I would say, yes it is. Because on the one hand the use of nuclear weapons is seen as being the last possibility to save a country and has been used in the case of the U.S. and on the other hand, people who might kill themselves, because they see it as there last possibility to fight for their country (of course choosing the palestinians here for example) are viewed as terrorists.
It is quite “simple”: Being on the “good” side of course also implies that you are only defending yourself whenever you harm others. It is only the other side that sees you as “evil”, “terrorist” and what not. And to be honest, I am at a point where I think that the name of the countries here are pretty much exchangable.
Does this view help or change anything? No, it does not. It rather makes you more pessimistic (at least me), because those people who are the most convinced of being on “the right side” are usually the most dangerous ones in harming other people (often also called “fundamentalists”).. but they are usually also the best ones to give people a vision of the future that seems to be worth fighting for. And we all need those visions…
hope it makes some sense and is (at least in part) an answer to your question, Drima.
A from Berlin, what you said does make sense. The whole good VS evil makes it complicated especially when each side views itself as good and the other evil. This is why sometimes I like to zoom out and pretend I’m an alien from outerspace when analyzing things. It makes it easier to spot the flaws on both sides. I’m for coexistence but ya I know, it’s just a fantasy.
Drima, to be honest, the idea of “coexistance” is also my vision for the future.. as I said, everybody needs one. I just try to watch my means of fighting for it ;).
btw, nice blog! hav been following it now for quite a while
Finally. A voice or reason in the wilderness. Why our we not hearing more people like you. Where are all those voices or reason. Why are they silent. More Muslims are killed by these nuts than nonmuslims.
“However when it comes to Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the bombs were purposely dropped right smack on top of two innocent civilian towns.”
As far as I know, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were factory towns that created munitions that Japan used to fight with. The local economies of both towns were centered around the direct support of the war effort. It’s not like these were simple fishing villages — they had great strategic value.
lasati, thanx for that great piece of info. I’ll do more research on the matter.
I wonder why people the world over have to be CAREFUL with what they say for the fear of offending Muslims, or to appeal to Muslims. Muslims appear to be so fragile and sensitive, and they just overheat so easily. You have to rub them the right way, and there is no way you can prove to them that sometimes they may be wrong. I admire your writing, Drima, you manage to balance it out between sanity and reason on one side and an angry mob of fundamentalists (of whatever religion or system) on the other. If only I could say that about the angry mob!!
Drima, I admire your blog greatly. It is time for all of us to reach understandings amongst ourselves that will result in a more peaceful world. In wars, as always, the innocent die in disproportionate amounts. As an American veteran of the Viet Nam era, I have seen this fact first-hand and haved long lamented this sad bit so obvious fact.
Finnpundit has just enetered one of the most thought-provoking posts I have ever read and I want to tip my hat to him/her. The “entertainment philosophy” is indeed valid and noteworthy. I have pondered around the edges of this train of thought for decades, actually, but am lamentably out of touch with the philosophical schools he speaks of. Now, Thornstein Veblen was always one of the closest, philosophically, to this with his concepts of “conspicuous consumption” and entertainment-related features and he wrote in the 19th Century. I would dearly enjoy seeing more on this fascinating topic. Perhaps Finnpundit could post a link or two regarding this fascinating field. I do, indeed agree wholeheartedly.
Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The US firebombed Tokyo a few months prior to these nuclear events, once they had air superiority. The casualty figures of Tokyo’s firebombing easily approach those figures of the nuclear deaths. My point here is to mention the openness of the skies over an enemy who had declared death to the last person standing to be the face of surrender. Truman’s choice was to give them this option, right in the face, I believe. I am just glad I would not have to make that decision. One has also to rememeber that period of time saw one very, very exhausted world regarding war. Oddly, I think he made a hard choice and am reluctant to judge him for it.
Qatar Cat & Steve, thank you for your kind words.
Finnpundit, stick around because I’m going to put a fresh new blog post about your extremely thought provoking comment. It still has me thinking and I think others should read it. From a psychological perspective, I think it’s very valid. Too much free time is the worst enemy any man can face.
v
“On one hand, terrorism and suicide bombings are acts of desperation in my opinion. On the other hand, the US never targets innocent people purposely. However when it comes to Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the bombs were purposely dropped right smack on top of two innocent civilian towns. That was an American act of desperation but it was effective. Afterall it did end the war but do you consider it a double standard?”
Actually, I believe this is not true in terms of its being ‘desperation’. The Emperor had already agreed to surrender but the sticking point was whether or not the Emperor-system would remain. the bombs were dropped, and then the peace was negotiated with the Emperor still in place. I believe a message was being sent to Russia to back off from further expansion. She had plans to conquer all of Europe which Hitler (and the Allies) thwarted.
In terms of jihad, this was clearly an immoral act. Many US leaders and generals said so at the time, and they were right.
Thanks for yr post, Dima. Well done. Two things, first about entertainment, second about military jihad in the modern context.
Entertainment: for those arguing that jihad is an antiquated notion, I suggest you re-read the first definition. Having leisure etc. is good, but then what does one do with it? Fritter away one’s life on drugs? Watch TV 20 hours a day? The choices are endless. Ideally, one would lead a moral, decent, productive life. So the first definition is relevant and not at all sidelined by modernity. Now, how you define a ‘moral life’ etc., that is another question, but I believe that just opting for pleasure represents a form of decadence. Might be the right choice for you, but certainly those choosing something else are not necessarily by definition wrong or antiquated. It is a deep topic.
Military jihad in the modern context: the old rules about only attacking soldiers and avoiding needless suicide make perfect sense. In the West, we had similar rules governing the military. However, since the invention of the airplane especially, the lines between military and civilian have blurred. You mentioned H and Nag. Well, the fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden, although not nuclear, killed far more. They violated old norms of military conduct. About 1,000,000 Germans were bombed to death, mainly by fire, during WW II.
Civilian infrastructure provides the resources for a country to wage war, so killing or starving the civilian population undermines their ability to achieve victory. In a sense, this is the same as medieval sieges, i.e. starving a town into submission or trying to infect them with disease. Different methods, but the same thing.
In cultures who have a clear warrior class and code, it is very simple, and it seems to me that the old guidelines you cited are from that time. But we don’t live in those times.
I deplore all violence personally, but in the real world it exists. If your people are being bombed and starved and displaced and the best you can do is a suicide attack to punish or deter further aggression, is this so very wrong? On one level, of course it is. But it is sheer hypocrisy for most Westerners to approve of massive death by aerial bombardment with hi-tech push-button weapons and then to get hysterical about the immorality of a lone suicide bomber. In terms of numbers, the suicide bomber is committing a far smaller crime, albeit still a crime. The B 52 bomber who doesn’t die when he/she releases the armaments and casually kills many hundreds, are they morally superior? Certainly they are not braver.
So it is a tricky issue made more complicated by the fact that Islamic culture and sources are couched in flowery, medieval language which doesn’t translate easily into the modern context, either in their own language nore in once or twice removed translation in English, usually using words that are old-fashioned and therefore hard to relate to the current context.
Anyway, well done with your blog!
re nagasaki: it may have had some factories (what city doesn’t) but it wasn’t the original target. The first city was covered by cloud, then when the cloud cover broke over Nagasaki, they went for it. They were sending a message. What that message was and to whom is debatable, but it had nothing to do with bombing a factory. You don’t need a nuclear bomb to target a factory or factories. B 52 delivered bombs work just fine.
Leave a Comment