30/11/2011 Assignment 5 Readings: Peters, Shaybani, Shaltut

Summary: Jihad In contemporary America, jihad is one of the most talked about, and misunderstood, facets of Islamic law. Given the prominence of jihad in America as both a domestic and an international policy issue, it is a topic that demands covering in any survey of Islamic law. Unit 7 begins the discussion of Islam by focusing on classical jihad theory while Unit 8 covers contemporary debates on jihad and its purposes. When speaking of jihad without qualification, what is being talked about is the Smaller Jihad or the Jihad of the Sword (Peters, p. 10). Jihad of the sword is armed conflict against unbelievers in an attempt to assert the supremacy of Islam. Jihad is to be waged against unbelievers who reside in the Territory of War, or lands not under Muslim control. Lands under Muslim control are considered within the Territory of Islam. This distinction between the two territories is important both for when and how jihad is to be conducted. Under most circumstances, jihad is a collective duty placed upon the community. As long as some members of the community participate in jihad, the entire communitys obligation is fulfilled (Peters, p. 13). When jihad is defined as a community obligation, there are certain types of people exempt from participating in jihad: minors, the insane, slaves, women, the disabled, those who do not possess the materials necessary to engage in jihad, the best lawyer in town and those who did not obtain the permission of their parents

or creditors (if any) (Peters, p. 15-17). If the Territory if Islam is attacked, it becomes an individual duty and the entire community is expected to engage in jihad whether or not they are exempt from it as a collective duty (Peters, p. 15). An example of jihad as an individual duty can be seen in the Ottoman fatwa of 1914. Rules concerning conduct while engaging in jihad are numerous and well-defined. The general theme running throughout these rules is that Muslim prerogatives and advantages are of foremost importance. Women and minors are not to be killed unless they engage in actual fighting against Muslims. One of the arguments for this rule is that captured women and children become slaves and therefore killing them would be depriving property to the victorious Muslims (Peters, p. 21). All enemy property captured during jihad becomes Muslim property but movable property is not to be divided amongst the victorious Muslims until they return to the Territory of Islam. Also, any movable property that cannot be taken back to the Territory of Islam is to be destroyed so that the enemy cannot profit from it (Peters, p. 24). Keeping with the theme of securing advantages, armistice may not be entered into by Muslims unless it serves their interest and must be ended when it is advantageous to Muslims to end the armistice (Peters, p. 33). In classical studies of jihad, there is no attempt to rationalize or justify jihad; the authority of the shariah had not yet been challenged in the Islamic world by the introduction of western legal codes and ideas. Beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century, as these western concepts gained momentum in the Islamic world, authors on jihad and other legal subjects had to find justifications for applying shariah (Peters, p. 113). Modern writings on jihad are less legalistic and most authors do adhere to any single

school of law. They also redefine the essential character of relations between Islamic and non-Islamic states. In classical jihad theory, the basic relationship between Islamic states and non-Islamic states is one of war; any land not ruled by Muslims was subject to jihad. Many modern writings reject this notion and assert that the relationship between Islamic and non-Islamic states is essential peaceful. In this reinterpretation, modern authors turn to Quranic verses such as 4:90 and 4:94 (Peters, p. 114). Modern writings on jihad also differ from classical texts in that modern authors give more attention to the Greater Jihad than do classical texts. According to Prophetic tradition, the jihad against oneself is considered the greater jihad (Peters, p. 118). One facet of this internal jihad is the necessity of Muslims to struggle to ensure that Islamic values are upheld in Muslim societies. Education is important to this struggle and therefore some authors speak of an educational jihad (Peters, p. 118). This educational jihad is better and more important than the jihad of the sword according to many modern writers. Shaltut writes that Quran instructs Muslims that God did not wish for people to turn to Islam under compulsion, and that if He wanted to people to be compelled into following Islam He could have done so himself. Also, compelling people to convert under the threat of death prevents the convert from esteeming, respecting and believing Islam. (Shaltut, p. 64-65). Like the majority of topics in Islamic law, jihad theory is a complicated subject. Classical jihad theory is more or less strictly about war and its conduct. Modernist writings take the opposite tact and disavow the inherently violent definition of jihad found in classical sources. For the majority of modern writers, internal jihad with its emphasis on

education and proselytization is the most important form of jihad. Only by understanding these two competing doctrines can a holistic understanding of jihad be formed. CRITIQUE Peters gives a good synopsis of classical jihad theory and the rules of conducting a jihad. It was refreshing to read from an objective point of view. Other readings, particularly the Ali book, were too apologetic and seemed as if the writer was bending over backward to defend Islam. It is important to have some context, but being able to get the facts without the apologetics is very nice and makes the readings themselves more bearable. Classical jihad theory did, however, leave me with a somewhat sour taste in my mouth. On one hand, Islam is generally described as a principled and rational religion. On the other, the rules concerning the conduct of jihad seem to me to be very unprincipled. Its very easy to stick to Islamic principles when the community is fighting from a position of strength. The true test of principles comes when things are hard and the community is fighting from a position of weakness. Classical jihad, to my mind, fails this test. In Islam a Muslim is supposed to be honest with all of his dealings, but in jihad the Imam is to break an armistice when it is advantageous to the Muslim. Unbelievers can participate in the jihad when the community is likely to lose, but the community is to turn down the offer of help when they are in a position of strength. So unbelievers are good enough to bail out the community when theyre going to lose but otherwise they are not good enough? This all seems rather unprincipled to me. THEMATIC QUESTION

Did the Ottoman fatwa of 1914 have an effect on the war? To what extent are calls to jihad effective within the Muslim community in the modern period (outside of isolated incidents of asymmetrical warfare conducted by small groups of Muslims such as the attacks of September 11, 2001)?