How is Traditional Islamic Jihad compared with Just War Theory?

How is Traditional Islamic Jihad compared with Just War Theory?

  Written by: YACINE HOUHOUD

Introduction

      Mankind relies on just war concepts as a philosophical framework of analyzing the morality of warfare during international disputes. Although just war tenets were developed by Christian theologians, I believe that it has been an issue since the foundation of Islam in its Islamic tradition of ‘Jihad’.

      The term jihad has become one of the most frequently used terms in the media during the recent years. It has been usually associated side by side with terrorism. According to this view, the faith of Islam becomes more militant, reactionary, violent and it has been called the religion of the sword. These perceptions were particularly improved when Osama Ben Laden and other leading “radical Islamist groups” issued a Fatwa in February 1998, calling for jihad against “Americans and their allies” in the following languages:

      In compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it
is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al–Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of the lands of Islam. . . . This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, “and fights the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God.”

      However, Ben Laden and the members of his organization, al-Qaeda are not clerics, or religious scholars who are qualified to give Fatwa to the quarter of the world’s population. Moreover, they can’t be representative of Islamic belief or behaviour.

      Based on the previous introduction, a number of issues are going to be tackled in this paper for example, I am going to try to deconstruct Islamic tradition of just war (jihad), explain how it has been changed within the religion, show how this theory is compared with Christian just war, and then to conclude with analyzing Islamic literature (Qur’an and Hadiths) that provide a guide to the right way for the Islamic state to act in potential conflict situations. It is my conclusion that Islam forbids violence, extremism and radicalization. War in Islam is something that seems very wrong an “unwanted obligation” that has to be carried out with a code of ethical behaviour which is compatible with just war tradition of Western culture. 

Just War Theory

      Just war tradition is one of the most influential tenets on the ethics of war and peace. The theory of the just war deals with the view that war might be justified under certain situations. The theory attempts to analyze the morality of war through two questions: ‘when it is just to go to war?’ and ‘how the war should be fought?’

      The just war theory traditionally advocates in contrast with two other approaches to war: “pacifism” and “realism.” The former rejects the use of military force and the taking of human lives.  The pacifists argue that Jesus was a pacifist who practiced pacifism and rejected the option to use physical force even in defense of him against unjust aggressive violence. A reason for this being that war does not coincide with, “love your neighbour”, which is one of the main Christian goals (Matthew 5:9, 38-39, 22:39).

      Realism in the other area maintains that war has no moral limitations (Niebuhr, 1932). Just War theorists see that the widespread use of mass exterminations and the existence of evil aggressors who seek to cause the death and injury of thousands of innocent people show the weakness of pacifist principles. Just war theory rejects realism theory as well because it provides few if any limitations to government’s actions in war. Therefore, the just war tradition is a practical and moral theory of war that provides a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. My purpose in writing this article is therefore to focus on Islamic just war theory trying to make the comparison with Christian tradition of just war.

Early history of the Muslim Just War Tradition    

     The reason for discussing the roots of Islamic just war concepts is because many westerners believe that just war tradition of Western culture has a code of ethical behaviour based on resistant and respect for civilians, while Muslims have no comparable philosophical framework concerning  the morality of warfare in potential conflict situations. They further argue that Islam is militant and aggressive. I find this claim wrong, for the following reasons. I will start by explaining that Just war tradition from the juristic tradition of jihad evolved in the time of the prophet Mohamed who had been the first head of the Islamic community that wanted to be just, moderate and inclusive. Since then, “Islam began the process of political rule, exercise of power, and even the exertion of political will and exercise of force; and the formation of a highly effective governance and expansion” (Amjad-Ali, 2009). In other words, The history of Muslim just war theory became relevant to Islam since the prophet Mohamed and his companions emigrated to the town of Yathrib, which was  later to be renamed Medina. The prophet Mohamed finally announced a revelation from Allah that Muslims were allowed to get prepared for war, after twelve years of heavy persecution in Mecca. In the Qur’an, God says in Surah22-39-40:

39. To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged — and verily, Allah is Most Powerful for their aid. 40. (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right (for no cause) except that they say, “Our Lord is Allah”.

      These passages suggest that the Muslims were no longer required to resist passively; rather, they were to defend themselves against enemy aggressions (Ramadan, 2007:98). Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, was immediately understood that these verses announced impending conflict and war. Thus, most scholars agree that these verses contain the “first transformational statement of permission”. 

     It is worth mentioning here that for more than thirteen years, Muslims had been called upon to practice and proclaim a policy of peaceful non-resistance to the oppression and humiliation of pagans. Through this period Muslims lived as a minority and faced much oppression, while Quraysh was the dominant tribe of Mecca, The prophet Muhammad and his followers were harassed, tortured, abused, and even murdered. In addition, their houses and possessions were plundered. Despite this however, Muslims called to exercise the virtues of patience and passive resistance in the face of their opponents’ attacks. 

     Later, Muslims had settled in Medina, where they could establish their own order in a more friendly and free environment. Even establishing their own system, they were not allowed physically to defend themselves till the revelation statement that mentioned earlier. In short, Muslims were allowed to wage war only because they were possessed and subjected to violence. Therefore, the verses continue by pointing out that fighting is presented as a necessity in order to resist human beings’ natural propensity for expansionism and oppression:

   If God did not check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure 22:39 – 40  

     The prophet Muhammad had been the first head of the Islamic community in Medina, where he ruled for about ten years (from 622 to 632). Then, he was followed by his rightly guided Caliphs: Abu Bakr, (632-634 A.D), Umar ibn al-Khattab, (634-644 A.D.), Uthman ibn Affan, (644-656 A.D.), Ali ibn Abi Talib (656-661 A.D.), who expanded the Islamic hegemony in the region through the guidance from the Qur'an and the Sunnah (words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad).

      Further support for this claim comes from the foundation of just war theory. Many scholars believe that the tradition of just war theory in Islam has emerged much earlier than Christian tradition of just war since the latter has neither religious premise nor any early theological roots, while Muslims scholars had access to the ancient classical texts, ethics, and political discourse, particularly with the work of Plato and Aristotle, which had largely been lost to the church at this time. These works, indeed, were brought back into Christian Medieval philosophers through Islamic resources in the mid-4th century, coming to Thomas Aquinas who has been influenced by Greek philosophers through the school of Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn Rusd) and admitted his indebtedness to them (Amjad-Ali, 2009).  Thomas Aquinas has developed the Christian doctrine of just war theory, based on Aristotelian principles that regarded as one of the most systematic expositions which still attract a number of juristic tradition scholars in western culture. Other scholars argue that just war theory dated back to Roman thought, especially Cicero (106-43 BC) to going further back, at least to Plato (c.427-347 BC) (Syse, 2010:104). Although many arguments have been raised concerning the foundation of just war theory, I believe that Islam has a philosophical framework of analyzing ethical behaviour that is almost compatible with Christian principles of war.  The treatment of the religious sources of these traditions, however, are greatly different from each others in (which will be discussed in the next chapters).

Roles of the Qur’an and the Hadith (Sunnah) in Islamic Law

      For Muslims, the Qur’an was reportedly revealed to Prophet Muhammad through the angel Gabriel over a period of twenty-three years of the prophet hood, from 610 AD till Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 AD in the Arabic language, and the Hadiths (reports or narratives) are oral traditions relating to the sayings and the actions approved by the prophet Muhammad on various religious, social, cultural, moral and legal issues. These Hadiths show how to put the guidance of the Qur’an into practice. They were collected by various Hadith collectors.  Both Qur’an and Hadith are the main knowledge sources of all aspects of life of all Muslims and both sources mention jihad as will be discussed later.  

      The Qur'an and Hadiths continued to reflect the revelation of God to Muhammad since he and his companions were in the process of establishing their new city, Medina alongside Jewish and Christian tribes, all lived together struggling against the Meccans who continued to threaten the existence of the Medinese state. Thus, the concept of ma’arakat (battle), harb (war), and the conduct of war were central to “the formation of Islamic theology, jurisprudence and ethics because they happened during the life of prophet and the process of revelation itself” (Amjad-Ali, 2009), while Christian just war theory began to emerge only in the middle of fourth century.

      The early period of the prophet Muhammad and his Caliphs, therefore, can be seen as the normative period for the formation of the Islamic law which covers all aspects of life, from matters of state, like governance and foreign relations, to issues of daily living.  Within the context of war, however, today many Qur’anic versus and Ahadiths on war have been exploited by the Radical Islamist or Jihadist who justified their vile terror attacks by quoting from the verses of Jihad and other aggressive scriptures will be discussed later. The purpose of this whole discussion, of course, is to find out how the concept of jihad approached in Islam. After discussing the Christian just war theory, I will try to study the issue of jihad by investigating the general meaning of this term in the Arabic language and its special meaning in the Qur'an and Ahadiths and its historical contexts of the early Muslims.

Christian and Islamic Just War: Origins of Thought

      Within discussing the sources of Christian just war, I want to analyze how religion has been treated by the traditions of jihad and just war. I will begin by arguing that the just war tradition reduces the concern of religion while Islamic juristic tradition strongly asserts its importance. That is to say, although just war tradition has significant Christian roots, it differs from jihad in that it obviously lacks reference to religious premises. Similarly, just war scholars rely more generally on secular philosophers and intellectual reasoning to reach their conclusions, instead of religious terms. Despite the fact that jihad and just war theories are understandably opposed to each others concerning their treatment of religion in their approaches to the morality of war, they reach the same conclusions on a number of issues.

      To analyze how religion was treated in a code of ethical behavior of war, it requires evaluating the texts of the scholars of the two traditions. Early records of just war traditions of the ancient Greeks and Romans indicate that religious scriptures and moral considerations were absent from dialogue during the Peloponnesian war (Woods). They might have involved considerations of children women or the treatment of prisoners.  Generally, the earliest traditions assessed the morality of war based on honor and the interests of their own nations (Moseley, 2009). Furthermore, ancient philosophers such as Plato and Cicero did not include religious references on war ethics in their writings. The early just war of the Greco-Romans tradition, therefore, did not believe that religion is a key factor in affirming the morality of war.

      The considerations of religion on ‘just war’, however, began to appear in the mid-4th century with several sources. St Augustine of Hippo (d.430), for instance, justified the use of war to defend the church against those who threatened the faith. His justification based heavily on stories in the Old Testament as analysis of ethical warfare (Bowie, 2004:278).  He included, however, in his book the concept of bellum justum (just war) references to the secular philosophers. The just war tradition then goes through St Thomas Aquinas (d.1274) who drew the strands of Christian thinking and provided the most systematic exposition of just war. The work of Francisco de Victoria (d.1546) then was based on scripture for his assessments through his reflecting of the war between the Spanish and the indigenous. In order to provide evidence for ethical war, he provides “the work of the scholars such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas as well as ancient secular philosophers such Aristotle” (Woods). Although just war scholars sometimes justified the morality of war according to religious terms, they are more generally relying on secular philosophers to reach their conclusions.   

     Islamic tradition of Jihad, on the other hand, greatly relies on religious sources (the Qur’an and the Hadith (Sunnah)) as a guide to the right way for the Islamic states to act in potential conflict situations.   As Fred Donner (p: 31) states:

Depending on the investigator, this selection of texts may be quite narrow-for example, the Qur'an and the law treatises of one Sunni school of jurisprudence only, or even the Qur'an alone-or it may include a broader range of texts, such as the Qur'an, sayings [hadiths] attributed to the Prophet, and the writings of the most eminent jurists from the major Sunni and Shi'i schools of law.

      The Qur'an and the Hadiths, according to the Prophet and all Muslims, are considered the two supreme sources that are used to guide and model all aspects of their lives. In other words, Islam opposes any law made by mankind without referring to scripture or tradition (Woods). As Qur’an (4:65) states: “But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make Thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.” And "Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?"(5:50)

      Despite the fact that there are different positions held within scholars (the Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, and Maliki School), the religion (Qur’an and Hadiths) must be involved directly in all aspects of life particularly with jihad.   However, it is not necessary to refer to religious scripture in Western just war tradition because Christian religious texts do not provide a clear position of Jesus on warfare as Nicole Woods noticed. To clarify his point, he cited from the New Testament, when Jesus said in his Sermon:  "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."(Matthew 5:9) and also "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer."(Matthew 5:38-39) These passages suggest that Jesus was a pacifist who practiced pacifism and rejected the option to use physical force. However, Jesus himself later “created a whip out of cords and violently sent out the traders of the temple in Jerusalem without any explanation as to why violence was necessary” (John 2:13-17). These disagreements simply confuse Christian scholars who attempt to find out the New Testament’s position regarding ethical warfare. Thus, their writings are more generally based on secular philosophers and intellectual reasoning (Woods).

      Despite Islamic concepts of jihad do not define things in exactly the same way as western just war tradition has done, they reached the same criteria on a number of ethical issues such as Authority, Just Cause, Proportionality and Last resort. These criteria will be discussed in more details in the next chapter.    

Rules of Engagement

     Western just war tradition, as previously mentioned, was originated by Christian scholars like Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century and Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. This theory has also been evolved by political and social discourse. There are a range of tests-criteria concerning the morality of war in the traditional just war theory. They all fall into two basic elements, which together are considered the “Laws of war”. They are often referred with Latin names: the jus ad bellum (justice to war) and the jus in bello (justice in war). The former concerns the conditions under which the use of military force is justified, while the latter concerns how to conduct a war in an ethical manner. These components are well- differentiated in Michel Walzer’s book just and unjust wars when he states (2000:21):

The moral reality of war in divided into two parts. War is always judged twice, first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting, secondly with reference to the means they adopt. The first kind of judgment is adjectival in character: we say that a particular war is just or unjust. The second is adverbial: we say that the war is being fought justly or unjustly. 

There are several principles associated with these two elements. Those principles are:

Conditions for jus ad bellum:

• Just authority

     The decision to go to war must be made by a legitimate authority as Aquinas wrote: “the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged”. War therefore must be declared by a proper authority, not by individuals or private groups.

• Just cause

     There must have a proper reason for going to war such as self defense, protecting innocent life, and guaranteeing basic human rights. Aquinas described this principle in the following term: “...Those who are attacked should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault”. This leaves open the possibilities for a proper authority as long as it has a proper reason for attacking.

• Just intention

   The aim of war must be to create better and restore a just peace. Sovereigns, according to Aquinas, must fight for “the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil.”

• Proportionality

    Besides being just, there had to be proportionality between the injustice that led to the war and the suffering and the destruction caused by the enemy. The Catholic Bishops stated that:  “…proportionality means that the damage to be conflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms” (1983:99). Therefore, the government should not wage a war that will cause more damage.

• Last resort

    War must be chosen only as a last resort. In other words, war can’t be chosen at first response unless a state has tried all peaceful attempts.

• Reasonable chance of success

    There should be a reasonable chance of succeeding. It is immoral to take up arms that will cause a lot of suffering and death for no constructive purpose. This is “to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile” as the Catholic Bishops (1983:98) stated.

Conditions for jus in bello:

• Proportionality

    This means that in the conduct of the war the destruction expected should not be outweigh the good to be obtained and the minimal force necessary should be used. Thus, the Bishops reject the use of nuclear weapons that could lead to “wholesale and long-lasting effects” (Bowie, 2004:281).    

• Discrimination

This means non-combatant must not deliberately attacked.

There are no normative criteria that can be used as universal standard (Amjad-Ali, 2009). That is to say, a number of additions and deletions fall into these two basic elements the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello mentioned earlier. However, these listed criteria have become formally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Bishops of America (Bowie, 2004:279).

     It is worth mentioning here that there are many theologians and scholars who reject and exclude holy wars or crusades from being part of just war theory. The reason is that they take a simplistic view of God that supports the “love of adventure, hope of plunder, desire for territorial expansion, and religious hatred [against the Muslims]” according to C.S. Song (1994:131).

     After analyzing the general meaning of the term jihad in the Arabic language and its special meaning in the Qur'an and Ahadiths of the prophet, I will try to show how Islamic principles of war closely match those within jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

The Concept of Jihad

       It is essential to shed light on the doctrine of jihad because it plays an important role in the Islamic thought. At present time, the concept of jihad has become probably one of the most common misconceptions of Islam because of the mass media. Although it is given a very central position in Islam, it is not one of the five pillars of Islam as misunderstood by European scholars and even by Muslims themselves. The Five Pillars, then, consist of Shahadah (sincerely reciting the Muslim profession of faith), Salat, (performing ritual prayers in the proper way five times a day), Zakat (paying an alms (or charity) tax for the poor and the needy), Sawm (fasting during Ramadan), Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

      Still, jihad is considered to be the duty of every Muslim to improve the quality of life in society, prevent the exploitation of the poor or vulnerable, struggle in the battlefield for defensive purposes and to improve oneself before the Day of Judgment. Jihad in Islam is something that seems very wrong an “unwanted obligation” that has to be carried out with a code of ethical behavior that facilitates “the quick restoration of peace and harmony and minimizes the harm and destruction that war inevitably brings” (Hayward 2010). 

       It might be very interesting to see that the concept of jihad now has been exploited by some extremist Muslims who are full of hatred for their own political objectives. Their acts of aggression such as committing crime and suicide bombing against innocent people in the name of jihad is unjust and a great distortion. In the Qur’an, God commands to treat even the non-Muslims kindly and justly:

God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. God loves just dealers 60:8

     This verse and other verses send a clear message which says that Islam forbids violence, extremism and radicalization. At the same time it encourages peace and security between citizens and nations.

The inaccuracy of the term ‘Holy War’

      The word Jihad does not mean "Holy War" as it is misunderstood in today’s global community among some wayward Muslims and non-Muslims. According to Reuven Firestone (1999: 131),

 “The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihad has no relation to holy war or even war in general. It derives, rather from the root J-H-D, the meaning of which is to strive, exert oneself, or to take extraordinary pains. Jihad is a verbal noun of the third form of the root verb jahada, which is defined classically as ‘exerting one’s utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation.”

       In other words, the term jihad is translated directly from an Arabic root word J-H-D as “struggle”    “strive”, “effort”, “labor”, and “fatigue” in the path of God against anything which derives oneself to a state of perdition. Therefore, the Muslim struggles against evil inclinations within the wider world.

      One kind of jihad is jihad an-nafs (jihad against one’s self). This is known as the ‘greater jihad’ (al-jihad al-akbar). As the prophet Muhammad stated, “The greatest Jihad is the one a person carries out against his lower soul.” What the Prophet meant here was that a greater form of striving (jihad) is going against selfish desires and ambitions. Islamic literature used jihad (striving or struggling) in many ways even this term applied to the efforts that students do in order to pass an exam. The following verses and Hadiths illustrate these common examples of striving:

In the Qur’an, God said:

“We have enjoined on man kindness to parents; but if they [the parents] strive (jihad) to make thee join with me that of which thou hast no knowledge, then obey them not. Unto Me [God] is your return and I shall tell you what ye used to do” 29: 8 and “As for those who strive (jihad) in us [God i.e. in a spiritual striving], We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good” 29:69

      In the Hadiths, the prophet replied those who asked him for permission to participate in Jihad: “Your Jihad is the performance of Hajj.” The prophet also answered a man who asked the Prophet, “Shall I participate in Jihad?” The Prophet said, “Are your parents alive?” The man said, “Yes.” the Prophet said, “Do Jihad for their benefit.” In other Hadith, previously mentioned, he said: “The best jihad is to struggle against your own self and ‘nafs’ in the path of Allah.”

      The above verses and Hadiths clearly show that jihad with different contexts does not mean ‘holy war’. The latter’s Arabic words are: “Harbu muqadasah” (الحرب المقدسة ) which is not found in the Qur’an or Hadiths. In the article entitled Misconception of jihad (Anon, n.d), the concept of Holy war begins to appear by Orientalists to describe the Christian crusades when they conquered many countries in the name of the religion. They used this term against the Christians by calling it a holy war.  In contrast, the Qur’an mentioned that Muslims have no power to impose Non-Muslims to believe in Islam. But they should support religious tolerance and the idea of “no compulsion in religion.” This is so clear in the second Surah of the Quran which states that “There is no compulsion in religion” (Al-Bakarah 2:256).  Individuals therefore are free to choose their own path.

      Jihad also takes another form in the Quran and Hadiths which means striving against oppression and persecution in the physical sense. This form of jihad is known as the ‘lesser jihad’ (al-jihad al-asghar). It is called in the majority of verses “qital,” which means “fighting.”  As the Quran states, “Fight (qital), in the cause of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not the transgressors…And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression” 2:190-193.

     War, however, must be fought only in the name of justice, to improve the quality of life in society, prevent the exploitation of the poor or vulnerable, struggle in the battlefield for defensive purposes. These meanings will be discussed in more detail later through explaining the ‘Verse of the Sword’ and tackling the stages of jihad permission.

The Lesser Jihad and its critics

      Before explaining the ‘Verse of the Sword’ and tackling the stages of jihad permission, I would like to point out that The lesser jihad or striving against oppression and persecution in the physical sense is one of the most controversial and misunderstood ideas in Islam. Thus, numerous critics argue that Islam is the religion of the sword unlike other faiths. These critics tend to focus their attention on a number of issues. First of all, critics argue that there are many passages in the Qur’an that promote violence. These passages, according to this view, encourage Muslims to subjugate unbeliever, and even to kill them if they refuse to surrender. One of the most frequently quoted Qur’anic verses is Surah (Chapter) 9, Ayah (Verse) which is known as ‘Ayat al-Sayf’ (the verse of the sword):

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5) 

      The scholars and pundits also add other verses that command Muslims to fight all disbelievers anywhere who refuse to accept Islam or at least to submit to Islam rule (Hayward 2010).  These verses are:  “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” 9:29.

They also focus their attention in the second Surah of the Qur’an (2:190-194) when God said:

 190. Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.191. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. 192. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. 193. Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

      The opponents also argue that the early years of the prophet Muhammad was called upon to practice and proclaim policy of peaceful-non resistance to the oppression and humiliation of people of other faiths. Later, when he and his followers had escaped and settled in Medina, where they could establish their own order, they became increasingly bitter at his opponent of pagans on one side and people of the book (Jews and Christians) on the other side.

 These critics were particularly improved when radical Islamists issued Fatwa and cited the verses from the Qur’an to justify their attacking against non-Muslims. Their assertions that the verses of the sword are still in place and universally applicable (Hayward 2010). In other words, there are some passages in the Qur’an that extol compassion, tolerance, humanism, and peace. However, these verses are abrogated by the verse of the sword previously mentioned as David Bukay (2007) state: “Coming at or near the very end of Muhammad’s life … [Surah 9] trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content”.

        However, the following thought-experiment will show that these arguments are unsustainable due to the fact that many Qur’anic verses and Hadiths of the prophet and the acts of four rightly Caliphs show that Islamic principles about political issues was extremely peaceful and moderate. This fact has been confirmed by the majority of Muslim scholars and many non-Muslims theologians and historians. I will begin by arguing that radical Islamists are not clerics, or religious scholars who are qualified to give Fatwa to the quarter of the world’s population. Therefore, they can’t be representative of Islamic belief or behaviour. In addition, the main reason for misunderstanding of the concept of jihad by Muslim extremists is based on enthusiasm with little knowledge and intelligence, while Islamic teachings encourage Muslims to seek knowledge and dispraised ignorant. As God said: “And we have sent among you [O people!] a Messenger [Muhammad] from among you who recites Our verses to you, purifies you, teaches you the Book and Wisdom, and teaches you that which you did not know” 2:151 and

“It is the knowledgeable ones from among Allah’s servants who fear Him” 35:28. These passages suggest that Muslims who accept a passive education that based on uncritical reliance on the views of a couple of clerics or scholars are more likely to be aggressive and militant. Muslims, however, need critically to examine their true essence in life as well as the world where they live. Muslims who seek for knowledge and read Islamic scriptures through its historical context are more likely to be more open minded and tolerant with Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

     Recently, in his article, “Jihad and Professors”, Daniel Pipes (2002) affirms this argument when he reported the results of the views of a number of experts in American Universities on the meaning of “jihad.” These experts stated that jihad “is not a license to kill,” and the correct meaning of jihad is “the constant struggle of Muslims to conquer their inner base instincts, to follow the path to God, and to do good in society” and “a majority of learned Muslim thinkers, drawing on impeccable scholarship, insist that jihad must be understood as a struggle without arms.”

       Further support for this claim comes from Muslim jurists who believe all verses in the Qur’an that encourage Muslims to be tolerant and peaceful are: Muhkam verses. This means, according to the rules of Arabic languages, verses that have one clear meaning. As Imam Al-Qurtubee writes in his Tafsir, “The Muhkam is the (phrase or word) whose interpretation is known, its meaning and exposition are understood and clear” (Al-Qadhi, 2011). All verses of peace and tolerance therefore are not open to interpretation and they are not known to have been abrogated. Furthermore, the majority of Muslim and Non-Muslim scholars believe that people who understand the verses that seem violent and aggressive within its historical contexts will clearly see that related to a particular time, place and set of circumstances (Hayward 2010).  Through the history of Islamic world, Muslims have never acted in accordance with extreme view. It was easier, however, for Muslim government to sign a contract with “the people of the book” (Christians and Jewish) to live side by side in peaceful co-existence with them and that 1600 million Muslims all over the world today do not accept the issues of terrorism and violence.        In his book Concept of War in Islam, the great Scholar of al-Azhar and specialist of juridical principles, Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra (1961:18) affirmed these meanings when he stated that: “War is not justified … to impose Islam as a religion on unbelievers or to support a particular social regime. The prophet Muhammad fought only to repulse aggression.”

The explanation of the Verse of the Sword

      The Verse of the Sword is one of the most quoted Qur’anic verses by Islam’s critics who argue that Islam preaches violence. They argue that the Prophet Muhammad abrogated all other statements of tolerance, peace, and reconciliation with the verse of the sword. Here is the verse again: “But when the forbidden months are past, then Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them: seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” 9:5

      However, the truth is quite different from what they believe for a number of reasons. First of all, it is important to consider that the verse of the sword should be read in conjunction with the two preceding verses as “but” (“ wa” in the Arabic conjunction) in the verse indicates. Thus, studying these verses through its historical context will clearly show that Islam is against intolerance of non-Muslims. The previous verse briefly talks about a peace agreement (Hudaybiya) which had been signed by the state of Medina and the pagans in 628. Two years later, the pagans violated the terms of the agreement when Banu Bakr Tribe attacked Banu khuza’a tribe, which had the allied with the Muslims. Consequently, the Islamic armies attained great power against the Quraysh Tribe and the Muslim conquered Mecca without bloodshed and in spirit of tolerance (Yahia, 2004).

The stages of jihad permission

     It is worth mentioning here that there are four different interpretations of lesser jihad in the Qur’an as Muslim scholars recognize it.

• Non confrontation:  the prophet Muhammad was commanded to practice and proclaim policy of peaceful-non resistance to the oppression and humiliation avoiding any confrontation with the unbelievers as God stated in the Qur’an: “so forgive with gracious forgiveness,”15:85 and “Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists”15:94.
• Argumentation: God commanded the prophet to confront with non-Muslims by ways of argumentation: “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided” 16:125
• Permission to fight those who wage war against the Prophet: the confrontation thus was limited.  The prophet and his companions were allowed to fight their enemies only if they had been waged war against them. In the Qur’an: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might”22:39-40.
• Unconditional war against the unbelievers as previously mentioned in the Verse of the Sword.

      However, resorting to force was allowed only for defensive purpose as the classical Muslim jurists Shamseddin al-Sarakhsi stated. Indeed, series of statements end with instructions that “if the attackers ceased their attacks, Muslims were not to continue to fight them because Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” (Hayward 2010). The greatest victory of the prophet (in his return to Mecca) clearly shows that Islam is the religion of peace. The prophet Muhammad could have taken the revenge on Quraysh leaders like Abu Sufyan and Hind bint Utbah, but he chose to forgive them and treated them with the utmost tolerance because he believed that the relation between humans based on mercy and forgiveness. He also believed that jihad in Islam is something that seems very wrong as an “unwanted obligation” that has to be carried out with a code of ethical behavior. Thus, Islamic concepts of jihad have to be based on a number of certain rules of conduct such as Last resort, Just Cause, and Proportionality compatible with just war tradition of Western culture as mentioned in Rules of Engagement.

      To illustrate that The Qur’anic permission for fighting was for self-defense, while unnecessary violence should be forbidden. Muslims should avoid fighting unless they have tried all peaceful attempts (Last resort).  It is vital to consider that Islamic law (Sharia) commands Muslim leaders to make a proper declaration of war to their enemies before the warfighting can start in order to consider their position and for reflection. Moreover, Islam believes that Islamic states should not wage a war till they make a sure that there would be less suffering. This what the Qur’an means: “but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors 2:190. According to Ibn Kathir, a famous Mufassir (commentator of Quran), the “transgressions” mentioned in the Qur’an refer to “killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit” (528). There are a number of Hadiths of the prophet Muhammad has confirmed that by prohibiting killing of innocent people. Some of the Hadiths says,

• “Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance is found for a span of forty years.”
• “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elderly or sick person.”
• “Do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.”
• “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship.”
• “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.”
• “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy. Pray to God to grant you security, but when you encounter them, exercise patience.”

After the death of the prophet Muhammad, his rightly guided Caliphs expanded the Islamic hegemony in the region through the guidance from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The first Sunni Caliph, Abu Bakr, offered ten commands about the conduct of battle:  

Do not act treacherously; do not act disloyally; do not act neglectfully. Do not mutilate, do not kill little children or old men, or women; do not cut off the heads of the palm-trees or burn them; do not cut down the fruit trees; do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. You will pass by people who devote their lives in cloisters; leave them and their devotion alone. You will come upon people who bring you platters in which are various sort of food; if you eat any of it, mention the name of God over it.

     These Islamic texts enjoin Muslims to deal nobly with enemies on the battlefield. Thus, the majority of Muslim jurists and scholars believe that resorting to force was allowed only for defensive purpose against outside attack. Therefore, Islam forbids violence, extremism and radicalization and at the same time it promotes peace, social harmony, and security among people of all faiths.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the term of Jihad has been changed and evolved over time. The word originally came from the Arabic root J-H-D which means “struggle” or “strive” in the path of God against anything which derives oneself to a state of perdition. The Qur’an often makes references to jihad to mean striving against selfish desires and ambitions; while sometimes it takes another form of jihad to mean striving (qital) against oppression and persecution in the physical sense. The use of force can be justified only for self-defense. Indeed, the Qur’an represents war as a “disliked” activity, but it is morally necessary to struggle against oppression and persecution from the society. 

      Unfortunately, in today’s global community the meaning of jihad has been exploited by both the West and some extremist Muslims for their own political objectives or a lack of knowledge and intelligence sometimes. The reason of these misunderstandings is that there are some Qur’anic verses that seem to be aggressive and militant. The most controversial verse in the Qur’an is “the Verse of the Sword” that seems to encourage Muslims to subjugate all unbelievers, and even to kill them if they refuse to surrender. The opponents of Islam dislike that fact that Islam is the religion of tolerance, humanism, and peace. They argue that the Verse of the Sword had cancelled out all verses of tolerance. Their attitudes have been improved by the acts of aggression such as committing crime and suicide bombing against innocent people committed by jihadists or radical Islamists in the name of Islam.

The aim of this essay, therefore, was to show that there is a very convincing just war tradition within the Islamic thought that evolved in the time of the prophet Mohamed and his companions who set a range of principles concerning the morality of war. Also, to find out how these principles closely match with the criteria that Christian just war tradition has done. As we have seen, both Christian and Muslim just war traditions have reached the same criteria on a number of ethical issues such as Authority, Just Cause, Proportionality and Last resort even they are greatly different from each others in their treatment of their sources. That is to say, although just war tradition has significant Christian roots, it differs from jihad in that Islamic tradition of Jihad greatly relies on religious sources (the Qur’an and the Hadiths (Sunnah)), while Christian just war relies more generally on secular philosophers and intellectual reasoning to reach their conclusions, instead of religious terms.

      Another purpose of this article was to study the issue of jihad by investigating the general meaning of this term in the Arabic language, in its special meaning in the Qur'an and Ahadiths and in its historical contexts of the early Muslims in order to determine whether Muslims are permitted to be just, tolerant and moderate or not. After analyzing the Qur’an and reflecting the verses that seem to be aggressive into specific historical situations, I reached the conclusion that Islamic jihad is based on a number of principles that are extremely peaceful and moderate compatible with just war of western culture. Muslims strongly offer their condolences to all victims of such terrorist activities, particularly in the last events of 9^th September, 2001, which caused the death and injury of thousands of innocent people. These barbarous attacks are against humanist and Islamic morals and this militant form often erupted in every major faiths. As Karen Armstrong, the British historian and a renowned expert on Middle East history said “Every fundamentalist movement I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that liberal, secular society is determined to wipe out religion. Fighting, as they imagine, a battle for survival, fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more compassionate principles of their faith. But in amplifying the more aggressive passages that exist in all our scriptures, they distort the tradition” (2001).

References

• Abu Zahra, M (1961) Concept of War in Islam), quoted in Hashmi, ed., Islamic Political Ethics, p. 208.

• Al-Qadhi,  A. A.Y., 2011 An Introduction to the Sciences of Qur'an. [e-book] Available through: The Islamic Network website http://www.islaam.net/main/display_article_printview.php?id=288 [Accessed 18 November 2011].

• Al-Qur'an, Eng. Trans. Yusuf Ali, Qatar Ed.

• Amjad-Ali, C.W., 2009. Jihad and Just War Theory: Dissonance and Truth. Dialog A Journal of Theology, 48(3), p.239-247. Available at: http://blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6385.2009.00467.x. [Accessed 24 November 2011].

• Anon, (n.d.) Misconception of Jihad. Available at: http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/Jihad.html [Accessed 14 November 2011].

• Aquinas, St Thomas (1273) Summa Theologica, Transl. by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Benziger Bros, USA, 1947.

• Bowie, Robert. (2004). Ethical studies. 2^nd   Ed. United Kingdom. Thrones, Nelson.

• Bukay, D. (2007) Peace or Jihad: Abrogation in Islam, in Middle East Quarterly. Available at: http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam [Accessed 22^nd November 2011].

• C. S. Song, Christian of Mission toward Abolition of the Cross, in Jacob Tesfai, ed., Scandal of a Crucified World. Maryknool, New York: Orbis Books, 1994.

• Donner, Fred, "The Sources of Islamic Conceptions of War," Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic

• Traditions, Kelsay, John and James Turner Johnson, eds., New York, Greenwood Press.

Firestone, R., (1999) Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Hashmi, ed., Islamic Political Ethics, p. 211; Fred M. Donner, trans., The History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk): Volume X: The Conquest of Arabia (State University of New York Press, 1993), p. 16.

• Hayward, J.2010. The Quran and War, Air Power Review, [online] available at: http://www.quranandwar.com/

• Armstrong, Karen (2001) The True, Peaceful Face of Islam. Time, available online at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011001-175987,00.html [Accessed 20^th November 2011].

• McMahan, Jeff (1991). War and peace. In: A Companion to Ethics (ed.singer, P.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 385-386.

• Moseley, Alex (2009). Just War Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/ [Accessed 18^th November 2011].

• Niebuhr, Reinhold (1932), Moral Man and Immoral Society, Scribner, New York.

Pipes, D., (2002) Jihad and the Professors, Available from:

http://www.danielpipes.org/498/jihad-and-the-professors [Accessed 15^th December 2011].

• Ramadan, Tariq (2007). The messenger the meanings of the life of Muhammad. Oxford university press, London.

• Syse, Henrik, 2010. 'The Platonic Roots of Just War Doctrine: a Reading of Plato’s Republic', Diametros 7(23): 104–123.

• Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 1, p. 528.

•The Promise of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, Catholic Bishops of America Pastoral Letter, CTS, USA, 1983.

• Walzer, Michael. (2000) just and unjust wars: Amoral Argument with Historical Illustration. 3^rd edition. New York: Basic books.

• Wesley's New Testament, available at: http://bible.crosswalk.com [Accessed 22^nd November 2011].

• Woods, N., Treatment of Religion in the Traditions of Just War and Jihad. Available at: http://home.mtholyoke.edu/~nmwoods/jihad.htm [Accessed 18 November 2011].

• Yahia, H, 2004. The Pacifism of Islam. Available at: 

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/32terrorism_pacifism_soc10.html [Accessed 13 November 2011].