Are Westerners' Opinions of this Term Really Accurate? Dr. Walid Phares Has His Say
Link
DON'T PERVERT HISTORY: JIHAD IS JIHAD
by Dr. Walid Phares
Many intellectuals and politicians within the Muslim world often attempt to stretch the meaning of historical concepts and manipulate them in order to cope with current political situations, or as a way to polish their political agendas. Peace and Jihad in Islam are two of the most popular concepts redefined by twentieth-century political writers. In an article published by the Palestine Times (August issue) entitled "A Christian Perception of Islam, the Struggle for Dialogues and Peace," the author tries to assure Western readers that no militant concepts are promoted by Islamists. But by trying to reach his legitimate, political goal, that is to brush a brighter picture of Jihad, the author falls into the trap of distorting history and subverting centuries of implementation by generations of Muslim leaders and activists.
It is true that "Muslims are called by the Qurían and the example of the Prophet of Islam to strive for Peace through all available means," but the Peace that is called upon believers to implement is a politico-military one, i.e., under the banner of Islam. Not that early Muslims were different from other religious movements, including Christians under the Crusades, but it is not fair to reinterpret what the Prophet asked his followers to do, in light of what twentieth-century Muslim politicians are eager to achieve. One should respect the will of Mohammed, and not try to rephrase words which shaped the history of the region for 13 centuries.
In the same order of ideas, it is not true to say that "the very term "Islam" derives from the root word whose basic meaning is peace", when the opposite is true. In fact, the terms "Salaam" or even "Silm" (which, by the way, have different political meanings) come from the root verb sallama, meaning "surrender" or more precisely "gave up". Peace, or Salam, means the state of surrendering. Thus, al-Islam is technically to surrender to Allah, accurately described by the author as "self-surrender to God."
Also the author is right when he writes that "in Qura'anic terms, peace does not only mean absence of war, it is also a positive state of security in which one is free from anxiety or fear." But he fails to explain that this state of security is only available in Dar el-Islam, or wherever Islam prevails. That is to say that there will be full peace and security in the conquered land. The question is why is the land conquered in the first place.
The author writes that "Jihad is often translated as holy war, a characterization which does not, however, fully or deeply reflect the essence of the term." He explains that "the word Jihad comes from the verbal noun of the Arabic verb Jahada, meaning to endeavour, to strive or to struggle." In fact while it is true that the linguistic root of Jihad comes from Jihd (effort) or the verb Jihad (constant effort), the debate is not about the linguistic meaning, it is about the political meaning. For example, no one would examine the concept of crusade from a strict linguistic angle, as it is related to the word cross; otherwise the meaning of crusade would be "act on behalf of the cross", which was not the reality of the movement not the meaning still given to it in the English language today.
The author wrote that "in a religious context, it can mean to struggle against one's evil inclination or toward the moral uplift of society or for the spread of Islam. Islam can be spread peacefully with the Jihad of the pen, according to Surah 16:125 of the Qurían." That is true, but again that is not the reason why Jihad is being debated. Then the author finally admits the other meaning of Jihad when he wrote "but the use of force is also possible, namely with the Jihad of the sword according to the Surah 2:193 of the Qurían. That, in fact, is the essence of the debate today. That fact that many verses praise Jihad as a personal, moral struggle is not the object of inquiry, but rather that one single verse, and there are many others, that links Jihad to violence; this deserves thefocus of analysis.
The author then tries to personally interpret the concept by writing: "In my understanding, the concept of Jihad is more meaningfully translated as "holy peace"." Here again, ethnocentrism prevails. If Jihad is perceived as holy peace, one should also look to its perception by the recipients of the holy war. As for the original concept of Peace, the instrument of Jihad has two facets. To those who implement it, it can be what they believe it is. To those who are facing it, it is what it is, i.e., a violent implementation of an alien ideology and political agenda.
The author goes on to distinguish between greater Jihad and lesser Jihad as he writes: "Among pious Muslims and mystics, it is a spiritual and moral Jihad that is emphasized. This is called greater Jihad in comparative terms, in relation to the lesser Jihad, the more popular concept of Jihad, which is the 'Holy War'" as stated in the following tradition (Hadith) of the Prophet Muhammed: "Once, having returned from one of his campaigns, the Prophet said: 'We have now returned from the lesser Jihad". The tradition adds that the companions asked: "What is the greater Jihad?" and the Prophet answered: "The struggle against one's evil inclination." This is the deeper and more personal aspect of Jihad that by its very etymology is an inner struggle for "holy peace", as opposed to the outer physical struggle for "holy war". To attain real peace, one first must undergo a real struggle that begins from within. However, again and again, the author forgets the level of analysis and omits it in order to compare the implementation in various realms. In other words, what is important to non-Muslims is not the philosophical order of Jihad within the Muslim community, but the implementation of Jihad to non-Muslims. If the so-called lesser Jihad means war against the infidels, then the lesser Jihad is more important to non-Muslims than the so-called greater Jihad, which affects only the personal lives of Muslims. In sum, why would non-Muslims, in historical terms, attach any importance to the personal Jihad of individual Muslims if what makes an impact on them is the Jihad (lesser or greater) that affects their lives and the future of their community?
The author adds that "any initiative toward peace taken by an enemy must be accepted and responded to in good faith and with good will." He fails to explain why there is an enemy in the first place. Historically, Jihad was an offensive movement that moved Arab Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula to Spain and India. To claim that mercy as a feature of the Mujahedeen (Jihad militants) is a interesting detail, but the question is what is the reason for Jihad? This is the debate that all Muslims, and probably non-Muslims as well, should be undergoing by now.
We are curious about the mercy claimed by the Jihad advocates, and the real challenge is for them to explain to Muslims and non-Muslims as well why was there a Jihad at the origin of the movement? The author concludes that "the religions of Islam and Christianity teach moral fortitude and enjoin each member to exercise justice. It is within this commandment that Jihad or 'holy war' has to be understood under the present circumstances." In other words, the author tells us that holy war can take place in order to exercise justice. Unfortunately, the constant missing link is whose justice are we talking about? Who decides which it is?
In conclusion, we acknowledge the reasons why advocates of Jihad feel uncomfortable with that concept in modern times. The balance of power is not (yet) in favour of the Mujahedeen. But history is history, and Jihad is Jihad, and no one can change the legacy of 13 centuries. One cannot and must not pervert history as a way to serve political gains. Those who invented Jihad inthe 7th century intended it for particular purposes and are the authors of the concept and as such, they should be respected intellectually. If some of their heirs wish to change the meaning of what was normal then, they should say so, and act upon it. In the Christian world, modern Christians outlawed Crusading; they did not rewrite history to legitimize themselves. Those who believe that the Jihad-Holy War is a sin today must have the courage to delegitimize it and outlaw it as well.
PS: Published in "Palestine Times," August 1997
Editor's note: The said article was a Christian perception of Islam. The articles published in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Palestine Times. However, we agree with Dr. Phares on many points mentioned in his article.
"