Dave Andrews

In Reconstructing Jihad, my friend Halim Rane, a brilliant Muslim scholar, argues that the concept of jihad needs to be deconstructed – and reconstructed as a struggle for righteousness and for justice.

Quoting Fatoohi, Halim says ‘jihad is most accurately defined as “exerting efforts, in the form of struggle against something in the name of Allah”.’ Contrary to the popular notion, Halim says ‘in its original sense “jihad” does not mean “war”, let alone “holy war”. It means “struggle” (jahd), exertion, striving; it signifies the exertion of ones power to the utmost of ones capacity in the cause of Allah; the opposite of being inert (qu’ud) sitting.’[i]

Halim says that ‘the term jihad and its grammatical equivalents occur thirty five times in the Quran.’ Of these thirty-five verses Halim says ‘twenty are open to differing interpretations’ but ‘only four verses use the term in a combative context’. He says ‘by contrast, eleven verses use the term in a pacific sense.’[ii]

When talking about jihad in a militant sense, Halim says that the famous ‘sword verse’ – that calls on Muslims to ‘slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them’ (9:5) – that has been ‘quoted through out Muslim history to justify aggression against non-Muslims for their “unbelief”’- has to be interpreted in context’. And, in context, Halim says this verse is not calling Muslims to a generic ongoing war against non-Muslims, so much as specific call at a particular time in history, for Muslims to fight in self-defense in a war that was ‘already in progress’ because the ‘unbelievers’ had broken their treaty obligations and subsequently attacked their Muslim neighbours.[iii] Halim says we should note that the very next verse (9:6) calls on Muslims to protect ‘unbelievers’ who seek their protection; and he concludes that ‘if their unbelief was the basis of fighting against them, this provision would be nonsensical’ [iv]

When it comes to armed combat it would seem that many Muslims – like many Christians – would subscribe to their own version of a just war framework. Halim asserts that the Quran permits armed combat only on certain strict conditions:

1. That Muslims have sought to make peace. ‘The establishment and maintenance of a just peace is an overriding objective in Islam. In fact the word “Islam” is from the root word ”slm” meaning “peace”.’[v]
2. They have not used their vows to God as an excuse not to seek peace. The Quran instructs Muslims ‘Do not allow your oaths in the name of God to become an obstacle to the promotion of peace between people.’(2:224)
3. They have not rejected open offers of peace because of hidden agendas. The Quran says: ‘do not out of your desire for fleeting gains…say to anyone who offers you a greeting of peace “you are not a believer”.’(4:94)
4. They acknowledge that, apart from securing a just peace, all killing is sin. The Quran famously says ‘if anyone slays a human being – unless it be punishment for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; where as if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.’ (5:32)[vi
5. All acts of aggression are forbidden. Killing is only permissible when there is no other alternative for people to pursue in the quest of self-defense, self-determination and peace with justice (17:23; 2:191)[vii]
6. In conflict, homes and homelands are to be protected. [viii] Not only Muslim mosques, but also Jewish synagogues and Christian churches are to be guarded and to be defended (22:40).[ix] And ‘helpless men, women and children’ are to be liberated from oppression. (4:75) [x]
7. Wherever possible Muslims are to make peace between conflicting parties.(49:9-10) Those who forgive their enemies and make peace with them can expect God’s reward (42:40) even if they are non-Muslims (4:94)[xi]
8. The Quran demands that Muslims ‘respond to (one) offer of peace with a better one’ (4:86) ‘In fact, peace must be given a chance, even if deception is anticipated from an enemy.’ (8:62) [xii]
9. Muslims are expected to seek peace with justice. In Islam justice (adl) literally means ‘the act of straightening making equal or establishing equilibrium’. Only when things are ‘in their rightful place’ can there be justice and only when there is righteousness can there be peace.[xiii]
10. The maqasid (purpose) of jihad (struggle) – whether it is violent or nonviolent – is to strive for human freedom, fraternity and welfare.[xiv]

Most, if not all, of the wars being waged today, cannot be justified according to this just war framework. But surprisingly, Halim argues it is not only the invasion of Iraq, it is also the Palestinian intafada against Israel that cannot be justified.

Halim says that the first intafada was quite effective, because it used largely nonviolent means – like noncooperation, resignations, strikes, demonstrations, marches, breaking curfews, blocking roads and flying flags – to advocate for self-determination, which mobilised international support for the Palestinian cause, including support for them from within Israel;[xv] but the second intafada was quite counterproductive, because it used largely violent means – like armed combat, suicide bombs and missile attacks – to advocate for self-determination, which was a public relations disaster for Palestine and provoked globally sanctioned Israeli repression in the name of self-defense.[xvi]

Halim argues that, in these present circumstances, all Muslims should set aside violent jihad as a strategy altogether and struggle for righteousness nonviolently.

Halim says that while there is a precedent in the Meccan period of the Prophet Muhammed’s life, ‘in Muslim tradition the nonviolence displayed by the prophet has been overshadowed by his military conquests’. So much so, that many ‘Muslims do not see the value of nonviolence’ at all and tend to ‘regard violence as the most “Islamic” means of resolving conflict.’ This perspective is not helped by the fact that the Muslim sects who have practiced nonviolence most – the Maziyariyya and the Ahmadiyya – are considered heretical by the orthodox.[xvii]

However, Halim insists that the idea of nonviolent jihad is completely consistent with the fundamentally nonviolent principles in Islam – of benevolence (ihsan), compassion (rahmah) and patience (sabr).[xviii] Abu-Nimer says Islam can be used as ‘a force for tolerance, pluralism, and reconciliation’.[xix] And Johan Galtung says the pilgrimage (hajj) can provide ‘Muslims with the cultural tools to carry out such nonviolent actions as mass demonstrations and marches.’[xx]

---

[i] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad Amid Competing International Norms Palgrave Macmillan New York 2009 p141

[ii] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p141

[iii] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p186

[iv] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p187

[v] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p192

[vi] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p190-1

[vii] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p181, p190-1

[viii] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p191

[ix] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p179

[x] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p183

[xi] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p193

[xii] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p193

[xiii] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p193

[xiv] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p168

[xv] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p116-21

[xvi] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p121-26

[xvii] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p122-3

[xviii] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p122

[xix] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p124

[xx] Halim Rane Reconstructing Jihad p123