Ahmadiyya Times | News Staff | Articles
Source & Credit: Rochester Muslim Examiner
By Sardar Anees Ahmad
While the majority of Muslims say otherwise, thousands of extremists and many intellectuals argue that Jihad sanctions terrorism and forced conversion. What then does Jihad mean, and does it rationalize such acts?
In Arabic the word Jihad is derived from the root Juhd, meaning to “endeavor, strive, or be diligent to the utmost in a noble way.” Jihad can be undertaken against oneself, society, or a visible enemy. The Jihad against oneself and society cannot be enforced; the Qur’an states, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:257). Truly, what Islam terms “Jihad” is what every Israelite prophet was commissioned for – to demonstrate how to 1) continuously refine one’s character; 2) remove vices from one’s surroundings. Additionally, Jihad cannot be translated as “holy war”; the Arabic for “holy war” is harbun muqaddasatun. Islam does, however, permit the waging of defensive wars which can be termed Jihad because the aim is to establish peace, not to conquer or convert a people.
Naturally, Prophet Muhammad’s practice is in complete agreement with the grammatical confines of Jihad. Orientalists admit that for the first twelve years in Mecca, Muhammad and the Muslims endured systematic and brutal persecution – suffering the loss of wealth, food, and lives. Yet the Muslims never once retaliated, fully personifying Jesus Christ’s directive, “whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other” (Matthew 5:39). Instead of revolting against an unjust government (certainly justifiable by today’s standards) the Muslims crossed 200+ miles of desert and settled in Medina. Known as the Hijra, this migration, further established that the Muslims wanted to avoid fighting at all costs. The following year the Meccans travelled to Medina and attempted to crush the city. What ensued is today known as the Battle of Badr, where 300 Muslims fought a Jihad against an army of 1,000 Meccans. Orientalists argue that the change in Muslims behavior came about because waging Jihad became advantageous in Medina. In fact, the Muslims were outnumbered in virtually all of the battles during Muhammad’s lifetime. For example, aside from Badr, the major battles of Uhud and Khandaq also witnessed a 3:1 ratio of Meccan soldiers to Muslims. The motive for this Jihad was not to conquer land or terrorize a people. Nor could a desire to forcefully convert non-Muslims spur this Jihad because the most widespread conversion to Islam arose because of the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, the brainchild of Muhammad, which created a two-year period of peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.
If Muhammad sanctioned the sword for Islam’s spread, how have 14 million Arab Coptic Christians, or the millions of Jews in the Middle East, or the billion Hindus in India survived? Mohandas Gandhi acknowledges, “It was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days.” Christian missionary T.W. Arnold notes, “... of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing … The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf … the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Mohammedan [sic] governments towards them.”
Still, if Islam does not sanction terrorism or forced conversion, why are so many horrible acts perpetrated in Jihad’s name? In response, ask yourself from what source did the Jewish Sicarii (lit. dagger-men) rationalize acts of terrorism against the Romans? Howard Zinn notes in A People’s History of the United States that the Puritans cited (Psalms 2:8) & (Romans 13:2) to rationalize Native Americans’ subjugation. The word “thug” comes to us from the 13th century Hindu sect Thuggae, who worshipped a war god, and looted and murdered foreigners. Does this mean that these religions promote terrorism?
No. What it means is the beliefs of rogue factions should never be considered representative of an entire ideology.
(Originally Published FL Times September 2008)
Read here: Waging Jihad ... for Peace???
Sardar Anees Ahmad is a graduate of
Binghamton University with a B.A in economics, and has completed
studies at Cornell University. He is a monthly religion columnist for
the Finger Lakes Times and a contributing member of Majlis Sultanul
Qalam, USA (MSQ-USA). He is a member of The Muslim Sunrise's masthead, the oldest American Islamic periodical. 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.