Published by Within the religion of Islam the doctrine of Jihad is a widely debated issue and there are many arguments on how it should be put in place in the modern world. Jihad originally meant struggle which could be as a physical confrontation is just one, some prophets identified Jihad to mean the struggle to master our passions and instincts[1]. Jihad traditionally means struggle but it is now used to mean holy war or the spiritual struggle against the world. Since there is not one clear definition of what Jihad means then it is not surprising that it is misunderstood. In the essay presented below a few arguments on how the doctrine is interpreted are put forward along with the traditional view on the doctrine.
Traditionally the Jihad laid out in the Qur’an could be argued that it should be strictly understood and restricted to collective self defense[2]. This would mean protecting ones land from intruders, and self defense if attacked. The idea of a defensive Jihad can be applied to the struggle in Algeria, Afghanistan[3] and other places where Muslim/Islam countries have been invaded and where wars are currently taking place. However it does not put forward anywhere in the Qur’an the concept that it is Gods’ will to attack innocent people, which is what has been happening in recent ‘terrorist’ attacks. Also traditionally it was used to reclaim land that was taken from their empire and not to expand their empire or to spread the religion. There are also two types of Jihad a personal one against evil furnishes and the second a external Jihad to destroy evil in the world. But Jihad should not be used as a way of getting revenge if someone says or does something they do not like. Traditional consequences of Jihad are very few and these are hard to look at as the time has passed due to this the consequences are only possibilities. Since the usage of it was known and the possible reasons for it taking place and who against was also known and agreed by the community. This meant there was no misunderstanding for it taking place in the future or at present because it is clearly defined unlike before..
If the Jihad had been undertaken without a possible reason then there would have been arguments about if it should be undertaken or not and misunderstandings and civil disputes might arise, which could lead to a new sect possibly wanting to form. Another possible consequences of a traditional Jihad are that the Muslim society would be united, when reclaiming land that has been taken. If expanding the empire the ramifications would be economical benefits for the community, possibility of slavery and celebrations. This is also the only way slavery can be implemented as it is not allowed into the Muslim society unless acquired by Jihad. But from the point of view of the people who were taken over then their life style would change and they would become slaves, the men who fought against them would die. So in reality they would not have any benefits and their rights would be taken away from them and their land taken. So the only people who would gain from a Jihad are the Muslim people and they would probably try to implant their religion to the people left arrive.
Each different Muslim sect interprets what is said in the Qur’an in a different way and due to this they will have interpreted Jihad differently to benefit their sect. As a result it fits in with the rest of their beliefs as they cannot have something in their interpretations of the Qur’an which doesn’t fit with their other beliefs or ideas. It is possible that the doctrine of Jihad maybe one of the main reasons why sects have developed in the Muslim society along with the different interpretations of the Qur’an as some sects believe in using it for self- defence but others for reclaiming land and expanding Islam as a religion and a way of life.
The doctrine of Jihad has not been modified over time but its interpretations have changed from the traditional so that people can implement it into their surroundings effectively and manipulated. The arguments on the interpretations of the doctrine have not always been disputed in the past but have just started to be recently when it has been brought into question by the actions of so called ‘Muslims’ attacking buildings in the west. This has meant that the West has scrutinized it and seen how it was misunderstood and used to the benefit of the terrorist preachers and suicide bombers. Using the name of Jihad to plan and carry out these attacks against the westerners has made people who are unfamiliar with the term assume it means killing innocent people. This is a consequence of the modern day Jihad another is that it has caused racial hatred towards people of Asian origin or any people who look Asian or from Muslim countries and has caused racial attacks. E.g. The Stockwell Tube shooting, where a man was shot for looking like a Muslim even though he was not one. These attacks have also caused an increase in security at underground stations and airport security which has actually benefited the country and made people more aware of who they trust. But it has also made people paranoid and vigilant about the possible threats to the country and made them weary of who they trust.
If the doctrine had been modified overtime appropriately then all the misinterpretations would not have taken place, and maybe it would be worth a Muslim priest or preacher. This should also be done with other possible controversial parts of the Qur’an and by doing so there would be a universal understanding of what they mean. This would or could stop possible doctrines being used or associated with inappropriate acts in the future and would show that they have been not understood or used in the correct understanding. But since there is no such document or religious document then it is still up to the individuals to make their own assumptions on what is in the Qur’an. The problems with this are that they are written in Arabic and might be translated wrongly and so as a result would mean something else as some words look very similar. But by translating it into English or a language where there would be no mistake about what it means then the strict Muslims might feel offended and protest it, even though there would be no way to enforce it. They would be offended because they see Arabic as the language that Allah spoke to the prophets and changing this would make them think that they are changing a main part of the religion as most Muslims like to associate Arabic with Allah, so if the language was changed then they might think it is being portrayed as not as religious as it should be. As they see Arabic as a scared language and feel that Allahs’ words shouldn’t be made into a language which is seen as common, as this would mean that anyone can read the Qur’an and not only the Muslims who the Muslims believe to be sacred.
In recent years terrorists have manipulated the doctrine of Jihad to lead attacks against the West as these preachers have used principles such as those put forward by Abdullah al-Azzam the Palestinian. The principles that were put forward in his teachings were that the duty of Jihad is one of the most important duty imposed on us by God it is a divine right, he also puts forward themes of martyrdom and sacrifice[4]. They use these and other themes like this to claim that attacks like the attack on the World Trade Centre and sacrificing ones self will lead to a short cut to heaven and lead to the person who sacrifices himself will be remembered forever. But in the Qur’an it condones killing and suicide so this idea put forward by the extremists actually goes against their religion and against any form of Jihad in the Qur’an. As in the Qur’an it was traditionally used to reclaim land which was taken from the Muslims by non-Muslims. Also in the Qur’an there are certain limitations also shown in classical texts some of these are that minors and women should not be killed unless they actually fight against Muslims[5]. These limitations were ignored when the attacks on London and America took place as the people who planned them did not fully understand or not even want to understand what Jihad is meant to mean. Due to this the Islam religion and the doctrine of Jihad are gaining bad publicity which is unjust.
It is likely that the extremists manipulate parts of the Qur’an to make people believe their teachings and as a result they willingly go and kill themselves and attack people because they have been taught that Jihad simply means getting rid of all the non-Muslims and they want to make Islam a world religion. This is not what a Jihad is meant to be associated with and this shows that the converted Muslims do not really understand the Qur’an properly and have been taught wrongly. They have also been taught that the Western world is evil and that they are infidels because they do not follow the same religion and this is a very old fashioned view and modern day views and actions should have evolved over the time with the changing environment.
To conclude there are many different ramifications of the doctrine of Jihad depending on whose point of view you look at it from. There are many different angles you can look at it from the participating Muslim point of views, the victims of Jihad, the community affected as many angles as possible have been put forward in the main body of this essay. But no matter which view or point of view that is taken the modern understanding of Jihad has more negative then positive ramifications and most if not all of these have tarnished the Islam religion throughout the world not just the West. As there have been recent attacks on India in Mumbai which is believed to be another Muslim terrorist attack. If it was not for the attacks being claimed to be by Muslims in the name of Allah for a Jihad then no one would have thought they were anything to do with Islam and the religion would not have gained a bad image which is what has happened since 2001 and its still getting worse to this day and mainly due to the use of Jihad.
[1] Ahmed, Islam Today, 8
[2] Ruthven, Islam in the world, 403
[3] Ruthven, Islam in the world ,404
[4] Ruthven, Islam in the world, 406
[5] Ruthven, Islam in the world, 403
