WASHINGTON: Gone are the days when avoiding religious and political discussions was essential to retaining friendships. Today one cannot open a newspaper without stumbling upon a story on murder and mayhem in the name of jihad somewhere in the Muslim world and op-ed pieces that implicate Muslims and Islam as a monolithic faith. Discussing religion and politics in public and private squares is essential to peace, coexistence, development and progress!
Among the most misunderstood and, indeed, most abused moral concepts of the 21st century is the doctrine of jihad. The doctrine was not fairly presented or objectively analyzed in the marketplace of ideas – merely shoved by the events of 9/11 onto a dichotomous stage of political theater designed to keep Islam and the West apart. The script was written, the actors played their roles. For some, the “clash of civilizations” was unavoidable.
As a multifaceted spiritual process to improve one’s relationship with Allah by enduring challenges, improving conditions, improving one’s own self and one’s relationship with family, neighbors, community, with all of God’s creation, jihad is abused by actors on both sides.
Its root word comes from J-H-D in Arabic, which means struggle or strive. There is no room for reckless violence, domination, transgression, chaos or oppression within that definition. Yet, for the average person in the West, Muslim or not, the word projects a negative picture of angry, sword-wielding Muslims waging holy war against non-Muslims.
Ironically, the concept of holy war, or xarb al-muqaddas, does not exist within Islam. In Islam, war is a situational phenomenon permissible only under specific conditions such as self-defense, ending oppression, or establishing law and order. Declaration of a war – violent struggle or jihad – comes only after all other means of remedying a given problem were exhausted. Only a legitimate state can foster necessary deliberation on the legitimacy of that final decision, maintain monopoly of its army’s arsenal and discipline transgressors.
Wars cannot be holy, because in Islam once something is holy, it remains holy.
This is why violent extremists who arbitrarily declare themselves a legitimate authority do not win genuine, sustainable public support. The holy war concept erroneously associated with Islam is deeply rooted in the doctrine that inspired the Crusades.
According to the Prophet Mohammed’s teachings, the best form of jihad is the word of truth, or demanding justice before a tyrant – speaking truth to power. Since the Arab Spring – and before that with the anti-apartheid, civil rights and anti-colonial movements – history’s testimonies have long revealed that the most potent power in changing policies, compelling political concessions, reforming societies, is the united will of the people once they decide to take their rage to the streets, peacefully, even if that means risking their lives.
Violent extremists such Al Shabaab and Al Qaeda are notorious to omit or outright disregard the 13 years when the Prophet Mohammed and his companions endured persecution with perseverance before migrating to Medina, though this period of Islamic history is the foundation of the faith. Extremist groups do not care for the wellbeing of the people or resort to means other than violence to settle differences or resolve problems. “Where is your 13 years?” is a question they cannot answer.
In a Hadith, the Prophet said, “The greatest form of jihad is Jihadul nafs” – that aimed at purifying one’s self. The inward struggle requires three elements: self-knowledge, self-discipline and humility to recognize the transcendental objective of one’s actions and inactions. The Koran confirms this form of jihad in chapter 11, verses 1-10, in which God reveals that ultimate success belongs to those who morally purify their own selves and ultimate failure belongs to those who morally corrupt their own selves.
Mohammed was resolved on transforming a society primarily ignorant both in the moral and literal sense. The fundamentals of Islam are encapsulated in one of the shortest chapters in the Koran, chapter 103, verses 1-3. As an illiterate, his motto was “Innama al ‘ilmu bi ta’alum, innama al sabru bil tasabur, innama al hilum bi attahallum,” or “Verily true knowledge is gained through the act of seeking and practicing; verily patience and perseverance is gained through the act practicing, and verily the honorable act of forbearance is gained through practice.” In other words one must regularly demonstrate these qualities before being considered a sincere follower – an area in which violent extremists fail miserably.
Examples from history are worth studying:
When Mohammad returned to Mecca after suffering persecutions, in the year 622, he ordered his oppressors to gather and posed the question, “What do you think I ought to do to you now?” Then, he released them with the words: “Today, no harm shall be done onto you. You may leave (or stay peacefully) for you are free.”
Muslim leaders, including Umar Ibn Al-khattab and Salahuddin Al-Ayyoubi, displayed forbearance upon conquering the city of Jerusalem centuries apart, the 7th and 12th, respectively, and recognizing as all great leaders do, that the high road and long-term view carry priority over satisfying one’s vindictive urges.
Ali Ibn Abi-Talib while engaged in a swordfight, also in the 7th century, struck his opponent’s weapon out of his hand. Ali lifted his sword to deliver a fatal blow, and his enemy spat in his face. Ali immediately disengaged. The enemy questioned Ali, who replied: “In the beginning I wanted to kill you for God’s sake; but, after you spitted on me, I wanted to kill you solely for my sake and that is not permissible in Islam.”
The likes of Al Shabaab and Al Qaeda fail to abide by the self-discipline that curtails reckless violence in all its forms. The answer as to why can be encapsulated in one sentence: ignorance about the teachings of Islam and an attitude that I call assertive ignorance. The violence-first doctrine has absolutely no trace in Islam.
Mohammed described Muslims in several ways: “Al Muslimu man salima annaasu min lisaanihi wa yadih,” or “A Muslim is the person whom the people of all faith or lack thereof are safe of his or her hands and tongue.” On another occasion, he said, “Al mu’minu man amanahu alnaasu bi dima’ihim wa amwalahim,” or “A faithful is the person whom the people of all faith, or lack thereof, trust him or her with their lives and their wealth.” The Prophet also said in no uncertain terms, “Inna Allaha Rafiqun yuhibu al-rifq. Wa ya’ti bil rifqi mala ya’ti bil u’nf,” or “Verily God is Gentle and Kind and loves gentleness and kindness. And He bestows through gentleness and kindness what He would not bestow through violence and cruelty.”
The means of extremists do not achieve blessings, forgiveness and acceptance.
It would require a personal jihad to break the shackles of groupthink. One must conduct one’s own study and form independent opinions about the nature of jihad and its religious context.
Life is indeed a perpetual struggle without which there is derailment of conscience and depression of the heart and the mind. In the absence of necessary moral restraints, the human being has the capacity to be savage – the capacity to manipulate, exploit, hoard, corrupt, oppress and carry out genocide against other humans. None of these are considered jihad.
Jihad is the constant motivation for gaining knowledge, to seek and create opportunities for ourselves, to cultivate good families and good communities, to spiritually develop and purify ourselves, find the sublime Creator, understand the purpose of our respective lives and find a common ground in which coexistence is possible.
Abukar Arman is Somalia Special Envoy to the United States. This article is based on a presentation he gave at an event, 19 October, 2012, organized by the Muslim Students Association of Ohio State University. On Twitter: @AbukarArman. Rights: Copyright © 2012 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. YaleGlobal Online
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Abukar Armaan has voiced the view of progressive Muslims by saying that Jehad Al Nafs or internal transformation is the real meaning of Jehad. As he has said, Islam is not a monolithic religion; however, the Wahabbis and Tablighis and Deobandis have made it appear like that.
The easiest way to silence the progressives is for some clergyman to deem it "un Islamic". Unless the clergy becomes progressive and hundreds of Vastanvis enter the mainstream, these voices will remain unheard and will be smothered by the fundamentalist forces.
I am an unapologetic Hindu & I don't mind this article at all.
Read 'Islamic Humanism'.
Valiant effort to whitewash history!. The author should read the Sirat-al-Rasul (the autobiography) and the Hadits (sayings and teachings which also provide enough information on the history of the times) which provides countless examples of bloodcurdling cruelty and violence. Just see what he did to the people of Medina (after he gained strength) who provided refuge and protection when he had to flee from Mecca. Not to mention all the raids, lootings, murders and pillages of the desert merchant caravans.
why tell us when school books in our neighboring state say otherwise
Muslim liberals keep on telling us that Jihad means 'internal struggle' but they are telling the wrong people. You never see them having heated debates with their jihadi brethren because they know their heads would get chopped off.
Besides, why tell us when school books in our neighboring state otherwise. These books which are used to brainwash young impressionable minds use the words Jihad and Shahadat in tandem. Since when does internal struggle result in martyrdom?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT