— International Cooperation —

— APA Newsletter, Spring 2006, Volume 05, Number 2 —

APA NEWSLETTER ON

International Cooperation

Omar Dahbour, Editor Spring 2006 Volume 05, Number 2

— 2 —

— 3 —

FROM THE EDITOR

This issue of the Newsletter on International Cooperation includes several articles that have been written for conferences in the past year, some sponsored or cosponsored by the APA’s Committee on International Cooperation: [1] continuing our informal series of articles dealing with various issues in contemporary Islamic philosophy and history, we publish an article by Professor Nazeem Goolam, which he presented at the Twenty-Second World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy in Granada, Spain, in May 2005; [2] two articles from a session on “Current Topics in Portuguese Philosophy” at the APA Eastern Division meeting in New York City in December 2005 are also published herein; and, finally, [3] a session at this same conference on “Philosophical Studies in China” is published here in its entirety.

ARTICLES

Understanding Jihad in Islam

Hafiz Professor Nazeem Goolam

Department of Jurisprudence, University of South Africa

1. Introduction and Meaning of “Jihad”

O you who believe, what is

The matter with you? that

When you are asked to go

Forth in the Cause of Allah

You cling heavily to the earth

Do you prefer the life of this world

To the Hereafter? But little is

The comfort of this life as compared

With the Hereafter...

Unless you go forth

He will punish you

With a grievous penalty

And put others in your place

But Him you would not harm

In the least. For Allah

Hath power over all things.¹

Where is the sense of honour of the Muslims, the pride of the believers, the zeal of the faithful?...They have become negligent and lazy...If, God forbid, Islam should draw rein, obscure her splendour, blunt her sword, there would be no one, East or West, far or near, who would blaze with zeal for God’s religion or choose to come to the aid of truth against error. This is the moment to cast off lethargy, to summon from far and near all those men who have blood in their veins…God-willing, the unbelievers shall perish and the faithful have a sure deliverance.²

These were the words of Salahuddin’s cry for jihad against the united might of Europe in 1191.

The word jihad is derived from the Arabic word al-jahd, meaning a struggle, or striving. It does not necessarily mean war or resorting to the use of the sword and the shedding of blood. The word jihad includes a striving, undergoing hardship and forbearance in great difficulty, while standing firm against one’s enemies. The actual words for war in Arabic are al-harb and al-qital.³

Jihad denotes the exertion of one’s power in the path of Allah and encompasses the struggle against evil in whatever form or shape it may arise. Al-Kasani, in his work, Bada’i al-Sana’i, states that in terms of the Shari’ah the word jihad is used in expending ability and power in struggling in the path of Allah by means of life, property, words, and other means.⁴ In the same vein, the great Pakistani scholar Mawlana Abu’l A’la Mawdudi explained that jihad “was not war, but a struggle—a struggle not in the name of God but along the path set by God.”⁵

In Islam, the primary purpose of the human being on earth is to fulfill his or her duty to Allah, the Supreme Being, to strive and struggle in the enjoining of good (ma’aruf) and the forbidding of evil (munkar). No doubt, then, that the word jihad has been described as the most glorious word in the vocabulary of Islam.⁶ Malik states that the word jihad, broadly speaking, means “to strive,” “to struggle,” or “to further the Divine Cause or Purpose.”⁷ Although different Muslim scholars have distinguished various types of jihad,⁸ wars of public interest, and wars against polytheists and apostates, one can struggle or strive to further Allah’s purpose primarily through four types of jihad, namely:

(1) that of the heart (faith);

(2) that of the tongue (good speech);

(3) that of the hand (good works), and

(4) that of the sword (jihad or holy war).⁹

The first three categories comprise what has been termed the “greater jihad,” that is, the struggle to purify oneself and to submit fully to Allah. The fourth category refers to the “lesser jihad,” or warfare. And it is this “lesser jihad” with which this paper is concerned.

2. The Qur’an and Ahadith on Jihad

The Qur’anic verses (ayat) on jihad were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace) in Medina because the enemies of Islam refused to leave the Muslims at peace notwithstanding the fact that the Prophet and his followers had migrated thereto. In such conditions, it was imperative to defend the cause of Islam and the recently established capital of the Islamic state. According to Doi, the first verse (ayah) revealed concerning jihad was the following:

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.¹⁰

Johnson adds that the warrant for jihad in the sense of defensive warfare or military action can be traced to the permission given to the first Muslims in Medina to fight back against those who broke their solemn pledges. Allah speaks:

Will you not fight against them who violated their oaths,

plotted to drive out the Messenger

and took the initiative by first attacking you

Do you fear them? Nay, it is

Allah Whom you should more justly fear

If you believe.¹¹

The treatment to be meted out to such unbelievers is very clear. Again, Allah speaks:

If they withdraw not from you, and do not offer you

(guarantees of) peace and do not restrain their hands

Seize them and slay them

Wherever you come across them

In their case We have provided you with

Clear authority against them.¹²

But perhaps the most oft-quoted Qur’anic verses in respect of jihad are the following:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,

But do not transgress limits

For Allah loveth not transgressors.

And slay them wherever you find them

And drive them out from where they

Have driven you out.

For tumult and oppression are

Worse than slaughter...

Fight them until God’s religion

Reigns supreme

But if they cease

God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.¹³

In his commentary on verse 190, Yusuf Ali states that war is permissible in self-defense and within well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigor, not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of Allah.¹⁴ Strict limits must not be transgressed, thus, women, children, the old, and the infirm should not be harmed, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms.¹⁵

Commenting on these verses, Yusuf Ali states that although in general it may be said that Islam is the religion of peace, good will, mutual understanding, and good faith, it will not acquiesce in wrongdoing, and its men will hold their lives as cheap in defense of honor, justice, and the religion that they hold sacred. He adds:

Their ideal is that of heroic virtue combined with unselfish gentleness and tenderness, just as is exemplified in the life of the Prophet. They believe in courage, obedience, discipline, duty and a constant striving by all the means in their power, physical, moral, intellectual and spiritual, for the establishment of truth and righteousness. They know that war is an evil, but they will not flinch from it if their honour demands it and a righteous Imam (such as Muhammad was per excellence) commands it, for then they know that they are not serving carnal ends.¹⁶

Sayyed Qutb,¹⁷ too, after examining the theory of war and peace in Islamic international law, concludes that peace is the rule while war is the exception. Qutb argues that war should only be resorted to in order to achieve one of the following four objectives:

(i) to uphold the rule of Allah on earth, so that the complete submission of human beings would be to Him exclusively;

(ii) to eliminate oppression, extortion, and injustice by instituting the word of Allah;

(iii) to achieve the human values that are considered by Allah to underlie the purpose of life;

(iv) to secure people against terror, coercion, and injury.¹⁸

Thus, while some may regard jihad as the most glorious word in the vocabulary of Islam, perhaps the word salaam (peace) is the most glorious word in Islam’s vocabulary. The striving and struggling is thus for the sole purpose of attaining a truly just social order based on Islamic law and precepts. Thus, in Islamic legal theory, as Majid Khadduri argues, jihad is a temporary legal device designed to achieve the ideal Islamic public order and to secure justice and equality for all people.¹⁹

Notwithstanding the fact that peace is the rule and war is the exception in Islamic legal theory, the Qur’an condones offensive military action in certain circumstances. Allah declares:

And fight them until there is no more

Tumult and oppression

And there prevails justice and faith

In Allah everywhere

But if they cease, indeed Allah

Doth see all that they do.

If they refuse, be sure

That Allah is your Protector

The Best to Protect and the

Best to Help.²⁰

As far as the ahadith is concerned, the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace) had the following, inter alia, to say on jihad:

He who dies without having gone or thought of going out for jihad will be guilty of hypocrisy. (narrated by Abu Huraira)²¹

The one who fights so that Allah’s Word becomes superior is striving in Allah’s Path. (narrated by Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari)²²

Use your property, yourselves, and your tongues in striving against the polytheists. (narrated by Anas)²³

The last-mentioned hadith is, in fact, a confirmation of the following Qu’ranic verse:

Say, if it be that your fathers, your sons

Your brothers, your mates or your kindred

The wealth that you have gained

The commerce in which you fear a decline

Or the dwellings in which you delight

Are dearer to you than Allah

Or His Messenger, or the

Striving in His Cause—then

Wait until Allah brings about

His Decision; and Allah

Guides not the rebellious.²⁴

3. The Status of Jihad

The status and spiritual rank of those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah is such that Allah has made special mention of them and their status in the Qur’an. He declares:

Not equal are those believers who sit (at home)

And receive no hurt, and those who strive

And fight in the cause of Allah

With their goods and their persons

Allah hath granted a grade higher

To those who strive and fight

With their goods and their persons

Than to those who sit (at home)

Unto all in faith

Hath Allah promised good

But to those who strive and fight

Hath he distinguished

Above those who sit (at home)

By a special reward.²⁵

4. The Doctrine of Jihad in Shaybani’s Siyar

The great Muslim jurist Al-Shaybani, who wrote in the eighth century of the Christian era, wrote a major work entitled Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir. This was the first major work of its kind on the law of nations²⁶ and international law and written 850 years before the so-called father of international law, the Dutchman Hugo de Groot, wrote his famous De Iure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace).

The term siyar literally refers to the conduct of the state in its relationship with other communities—thus its translation as the “law of nations.”²⁷ Shaybani’s first book on the subject, Kitab al-Siyar al-Saghir, was dictated to him by Abu Yusuf and embodied the views of Abu Hanifa. This work is thus known as the Siyar of Abu Hanifa. However, it was Shaybani’s Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir that was his magnus opus.

Shaybani accepts the juristic division of the world into the dar-al-Islam (abode of peace) and the dar-al-harb (abode of war), as well as the idea that a perpetual state of war exists between the two. He argued that although any person entering the dar-al-Islam from the dar-al-harb may be killed, in practice, peaceful forms of interaction between the two territories are possible. Since the political territories of the dar-al-harb are not recognized as legitimate, temporary peace treaties—a truce or armistice—may be concluded with them to facilitate necessary interchanges (for example, commerce) between the two territories. Furthermore, harbis were to be admitted into the dar-al-Islam if it was advantageous to the latter.²⁸ Shaybani paid particular attention to rules that set out the peaceful interaction between the two territories.

In respect of warfare or military action between the two territories, Shaybani followed the example of his teacher, Abu Hanifa, arguing that the unbelievers should not be attacked by Muslims simply on account of their lack of faith; they should be attacked only if they show themselves to be a hostile threat. His interpretation of the Qur’anic verse 2:190²⁹ is that only defensive jihad against the harbis is permissible. Shaybani’s conception of jihad is thus fundamentally one of defensive war for the faith.

5. The Concept of Jihad in Farabi’s Aphorisms

Al-Farabi was born more than a century after Shaybani and lived at a time when the juristic tradition on jihad was well established. Johnson states that he also lived at a time when the spread of Islam had made the borders between the dar-al-Islam and the dar-al-harb relatively distant from the seat of the caliphate in Baghdad.³⁰ Farabi’s concern, therefore, was not with the warfare that might occur on these frontiers but with the use of force that might be necessary for virtuous rulers of cities within the Islamic world. Thus, Farabi’s concept of warfare differed in certain important respects from that of jihad as defined by Shaybani and the earlier jurists.

In his Aphorisms Farabi lists eleven types of war (harb) that may occur and the ends for which they are waged and further distinguishes between just and unjust war. The following are some of his reasons for a just war:

(i) defense;

(ii) acquiring a good the city deserves;

(iii) reforming others;

(iv) retaking what is rightfully the city’s but has been taken from it;

(v) to punish those who have committed some crime; and

(vi) warfare against enemies of the city where their survival would be harmful to the city.

Each of these six types of war serve one of two purposes: acquiring some good for the city and establishing justice.

Farabi’s remaining types of war represent reasons for unjust warfare. These are:

(i) war for the sake of the ruler’s increased honor or self-aggrandisement;

(ii) pure conquest;

(iii) venting of rage or achieving some other pleasure through victory; and

(iv) overreaction to an injustice committed by others.³¹

These, then, were the reasons put forth by Shaybani and Farabi for engaging in just war. These are Islam’s reasons for a iustum bellum or a ius ad bellum. Johnson defines the iustum bellum concept as understood in the West as follows:

The ius ad bellum, as traditionally defined, requires a right authority to initiate force, a justifying cause, a right intention toward the enemy (hating the evil but not the enemy as persons), an overall calculation that the good brought about by this action will outweigh the evil that would result from failing to act, a situation of last resort, a calculation that there is reasonable hope of success in achieving the ends sought, and an overall purpose of restoring peace.³²

From a comparative perspective it is interesting to have a brief look, too, at the medieval Christian debate concerning just cause for war and, more generally, at just war in western legal discourse.

6. Just Cause for War in Western Legal Thinking and Christian Thinking

Since the time of Aristotle, the distinction between just and unjust war has been made and it has been argued that war should be waged only for the sake of achieving peace.

Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas argued that the true reason for making war is “to obtain earthly peace for the sake of enjoying earthly goods.”³³ Furthermore, St. Augustine argues that those who are attacked should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some wrong they have done. In his own words:

A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished for refusing to make make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.³⁴

Just as in Islam, the purpose of war is the attainment of peace. Thus, Augustine adds:

We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war in order that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against and bring them to the prosperity of peace.³⁵

The only fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that in Islam the peace sought to be attained is for the Cause of the Ultimate Truth, based as it is on God’s Final Revelation to the human race. And, one may ask, is this not the Ultimate Peace?

Hugo de Groot, based on his secularized approach to the issue, listed three iustae causae for war. These were:

(i) self-defense;

(ii) recovery of property; and

(iii) inflicting of punishment.³⁶

In the past century the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the UN Charter of 1945 replaced the concept of just war with that of legal warfare, while the concept of war was replaced by “the threat or use of force.” Peace and security also became more prominent than justice.³⁷

7. Jihad as Just War

Based on what has been stated in this paper, it is abundantly manifest that neither Islam nor any Muslim jurist has ever justified war for any worldly purpose such as territorial expansion, imposing their religion on unbelievers, or supporting a particular social regime. Zawati writes:

The classical sources³⁸ of Islamic legal theory maintain that all kinds of warfare are outlawed except the jihad, which is an exceptional war waged by Muslims to defend the freedom of religious belief for all humanity and constitutes a deterrent against aggression, injustice and corruption.³⁹

8. Jihad and Resistance to Colonialism

The classical doctrine of jihad has inspired many movements that have waged armed struggles against western colonial domination. With the rise of western capitalism in the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, most Muslim peoples in various parts of the world were subjected to western colonial rule. Various economic, social, and political developments caused the Muslim populations to revolt against western domination.⁴⁰ The following are instances of such struggle and revolt:

(i) Muslim resistance against British rule in India;

(ii) Algerian resistance against French colonialism;

(iii) The Mahdist movement in Sudan;

(iv) Egyptian resistance against the British occupation of Egypt;

(v) Sanusi resistance against Italian colonialism in Libya;

(vi) The Ottoman jihad declaration of 1914; and

(vii) Resistance to British colonialism and, now, Zionism, in Palestine.⁴¹

It is, perhaps, the liberation of Jerusalem as part of Islam’s Holy Land that is at the center of the battlefield of jihad today. Of course, the liberation of the Holy Land is a command of Allah and is obligatory upon all Muslims.

This paper will not go into any further detail as regards jihad during the era of colonialism.

9. Jihad Today against Globalization and Western Domination

There can be little doubt that Muslims worldwide believe that global conditions require a jihad today. In a world dominated by materialism and consumerism, a world drowning in western culture and values, Muslims are being robbed of their culture and their options of being governed according to their own choice and living in a more just society and world.⁴²

Furthermore, the present declaration by the United States and its allies of a “war against terror” is seen by Muslims—and others—as nothing less than a “war against Islam.” In this climate, it is not difficult to understand the call for a global jihad.

In the present global climate there is, I would argue, no need for an offensive jihad. In the context of the declaration of “war against Islam” it is merely a defensive jihad that is called for. There can be no question that the jihad is just and justified. The only possible point of debate may be on the means employed. But who is following the rules? In a world in which there seem no longer to be any rules of international law or, more correctly stated, where such rules are not observed by the very people who drafted them, it would seem that no one is following them.

In 2002, Judge Richard Goldstone, the former chief prosecutor for UN war crimes tribunals, accused the United States of violating international law in its antiterror campaign. He stated that the Bush government was picking and choosing which international agreements it would honor while expecting the rest of the world to abide by all of them and said that he feared that the September 11, 2001, attacks would mark the start of a decade of U.S. regression in respect of international law. It is no wonder, then, that the United States opposed the creation of the International Criminal Court.

As regards Bush’s then-promised action against Iraq with or without UN approval, Goldstone said: “What will happen one day when somebody does it back to them?” Goldstone added that such violations could undermine the Geneva Convention’s principle of reciprocity, which may be summed up as “you treat my people decently and I will treat your people decently.” Goldstone also referred to the hundreds of prisoners of war taken from Afghanistan and held by the United States without trial in Guantanamo Bay. Of course, their rights in terms of the Geneva Convention were clearly violated by the United States. This is a good opportunity for the United States to go back to basics as far as international law and international humanitarian law is concerned. In this regard Shaybani’s Siyar on the treatment of prisoners in times of war would be a good starting point.

Since Goldstone’s statements things have only gotten worse. The crimes against humanity are becoming war crimes. One thinks of the recent treatment of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and last November’s horrific scenes in a mosque in Fallujah. I can couch it in no other terms than this: when a non-Muslim enters a masjid with his shoes on, uses vulgar language in this holy place, and then takes the blood of an unarmed Muslim, can there be any further degradation not only of Islam but of human dignity? Even they are fully aware that the rules of engagement allow the use of force only when faced with a hostile act, intent, or threat. In this environment does it really matter, then, what form the jihad takes, what means are employed?

It is worth bearing in mind that the stated purposes of the United Nations are to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, to achieve international cooperation, and to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. The United States clearly is not interested in any of these purposes.

It does begin to seem that the only way forward is through a strict interpretation of the verses on fighting in the Qur’an. It seems that the only way forward is to “seize them and slay them wherever you find them.” And since the Qur’an is full of repetition for the sole purpose of emphasizing important issues, two of these verses should be repeated here. First:

If they withdraw not from you, and do not offer you

(guarantees of) peace and do not restrain their hands

Seize them and slay them

Wherever you come across them

In their case We have provided you with

Clear authority against them.⁴³

And, secondly:

Fight in the Cause of Allah those who fight you

But do not transgress limits

For Allah loveth not transgressors.

And slay them wherever you find them

And drive them out from where they

Have driven you out.

For tumult and oppression are

Worse than slaughter...

Fight them until Allah’s religion

Reigns supreme

But if they cease

Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.⁴⁴

Is there any other means—other than jihad, be it defensive or offensive—left to achieve a just world order? Perhaps.

The most glorious word, it has been said, in the vocabulary of Islam is jihad (struggle). But perhaps the word salaam (peace) is more glorious than that. After all, the purpose of the struggle is the attainment of peace, both temporary peace in this world and eternal peace in the next world. Is it possible, therefore, to harmonize “struggle” and “peace” and to engage in a peaceful struggle? Perhaps.

10. Through Dialogue amongst Civilizations or Global Convivencia?

It was Iranian President Mohammad Khatami who articulated a distinctive alternative approach to relations between Islam and the west. The militant jihad or clash of civilizations perspective offered stark alternatives of victory or defeat. In the words of Esposito:

His vision combined a nonmilitant jihadist defense of Islamic identity and values with a call for civilizational dialogue by which all societies could benefit through the exchange of information and ideas.⁴⁵

When he denounced America’s use of sanctions against Iran and other countries, he said that America attempts to impose its own domestic law on the world, but neither Iran nor the world will tolerate a master anymore. In this way Khatami combines a strong affirmation of Iran’s views and principles with a simultaneous critique of U.S. foreign policy through the advocacy of civilizational dialogue and of improved Iranian-U.S. relations.⁴⁶

At the start of the new century, albeit in the Christian era, Khatami believes that there is a need for the creation of a new civilization. Esposito explains further:

However, this call for dialogue must be seen within the context of his particular worldview, which differs from that of many in America and Europe. Many in the West assume that dialogue with the West means that eventually non-Western peoples will see the advantages of western civilization and become more westernized. This would be a complete misunderstanding of Khatami’s vision of dialogue, which is not a passive policy of accommodation but a competitive strategy for strengthening and transforming Islamic civilization. It transcends a militant vision of jihad offers a way to avoid destructive conflict. Dialogue with the West is an important way of strengthening Islam. Khatami’s vision holds out the hope that, as the West evolves and possibly declines, Islam will regain its position as the leading progressive world civilization.⁴⁷

Former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim also had a similar vision of civilizational dialogue. He termed it convivencia. Cornerstones of convivencia are pluralism and tolerance based on mutual respect and understanding. Convivencia, meaning “living together,” has deep roots in medieval Islamic history. Ibrahim finds support for his approach not only in history but directly from the Qur’an. Allah says:

O mankind, indeed We have created you

From a male and a female

And have made you into nations

And tribes so that you may come

To know one another (not that you

May despise one another).⁴⁸

Esposito explains further:

Convivencia, for Ibrahim is an Islamic form of pluralism, a vision quite different from the typical Islamist programs that make a place for non-Muslims in a traditionally conceived Islamic society. It is based on the primacy of social and economic justice and equality, recognized as fundamental to other religions as well as Islam. This pluralist vision is the foundation for his call for civilizational dialogue.⁴⁹

As Anwar Ibrahim himself has stated:

For us, the divine imperative as expressed in the Qur’an is unambiguous. Humanity has been created to form tribes, races and nations, whose differences in physical characteristics, languages and modes of thought are but the means for the purpose of lita’arafu—“getting to know one another.”⁵⁰

11. Concluding Remarks

Akbar writes that George Bush has multiplied the number of Muslims who believe in jihad and that for Muslims the jihad will only end when they are convinced that their lands have been rid of American domination and are truly dar-ul-Islam once again.⁵¹

It is apt to end with the words of Ijaz Khan Hussein, a volunteer in the war in Afghanistan:

We went to the jihad filled with joy, and I would go again tomorrow...If Allah had chosen me to die, I would have been in Paradise, eating honey and watermelons and grapes, and resting with beautiful virgins, just as it is promised in the Qur’an. Instead, my fate was to remain amid the unhappiness here on earth.⁵²

The jihad goes on. The struggle continues. The struggle along the path set by Allah continues.

Endnotes

1. Qur’an, Surah 9 Al-Tawbah, verses 38-39.

2. MJ Akbar. The Shade of Swords