Offensive or Defensive jihad
A central question of war, and in our case of jihad, is whether it should be understood as an offensive or as a defensive act. The answer to this question will determine whether or not jihad, as an act of war, can be categorised as just.
Within Islam, there is both an offensive and a defensive interpretation of the term jihad.33 The offensive interpretation of the term is based on the assumption that the prophet Muhammad conducted offensive wars, wars of aggression, against non-believers (kuffar; singular: kafir). There are numerous Qur’anic verses that confirm this assumption, including the so-called ‘sword-verses’ (Q. 9:5 and 9:29). Proponents of a defensive interpretation of the term by contrast, see no proof in the Qur’an, or in the life of the prophet, that would favour an offensive doctrine of jihad — and if there were any, it would be a gross anachronism to assume applicability in the present. They consider all significations to be either exclusively defensive, or to be limited in their applicability to their historical context. The fact is, however, that the offensive interpretation of the jihad term was widespread, particularly during the time of the Umayyads (661- 750) and the Ab- basids (750 -1258), as well as in the course of military expansions?4The offensive interpretation of jihad is also represented in the classical fiqh,[291] or hadith literature. When jihad is mentioned in these works, it is in reference to war-like activity, including wars of aggression. In the hadith collection of Muslim, one finds in The Book of Jihad and Expedition (kitab al-jihad wa al-siyar), for example, the following subtitle: ‘The chapter on the permissibility of attacking unbelievers, who have been informed of the message of Islam, without notifying them of the attack’ (bab jawaz al-ighara'ala al-kuffar alladhina balagha- thum da'wat al-islam min ghayr taqaddum al-i'lam bi-l-ighara).[292] [293] In fiqh literature also, it is common for jihad to be divided into offensive (hujumι) and defensive (difa'ι) battles.31
It is important to take into account that the classical theories pertaining to jihad, some of which continue to be handed down to this day, discuss the term as a tool of domination, an instrument of power.
That is, they assume the existence of a central authority, defined solely by its religious identity, knowing no national or other bases for identification, and that considers itself dutybound to deliver the message of Islam — which it considers to be just — to all humans?[294] It is not imperative that all accept the message of Islam and convert, but its message has to reach them?[295] The manner in which jihad and its conditions are discussed reveals how the term’s understanding presumes an existing Islamic governing entity.[296] This point is further reinforced if one looks at the story of the term’s formation: while the prophet and his few followers remained in Mecca (610 - 621), no physical confrontations took place between them and their opponents. Quite the opposite: people were called upon to maintain peaceful relations with one another. It is only with the founding of the first political community in Medina under the prophet’s leadership, that jihad begins to emerge in both the Qur’an and the hadith. Muslims were now in a position in which they had to critically confront and determine guidelines for social and political concerns, including the question of war.41 Thus, the traditional conception of jihad, which provides also for an offensive variation, is based on the assumption that a) rulership is defined via religious affiliation, and that b) a legitimate, Islamic, central authority exists.In the present, however, there is no Islamic central authority, not even one that is nominally recognised. People live within nation-states in which they are recognised as citizens in accordance with the constitution of each state, and are not defined by their religious identities. In this context, the traditional interpretation of jihad is no longer tenable. Tellingly, in the present, the only people or organizations calling for an offensive jihad are concerned with the recreation of the conditions of early Islam and yearn for an Islamic global empire. Today, most Muslim scholars and religious institutions, such as al-Azhar University and Representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, assume a defensive understanding of jihad. It is interpreted as an act of defense against aggressors and not as an act in the context of spreading Islam.42
More on the topic Offensive or Defensive jihad:
- China before 1905: gentlemanly imperialism on the defensive
- What Is Jihad?
- Jihad as Just War?
- Jihad in Legal Works
- On the term jihad
- Jihad in the Hadith Works
- UNDERSTANDING THE JIHAD AGAINST ISRAEL
- UNDERSTANDING THE JIHAD AGAINST ISRAEL AND AMERICA
- HINDUS, JEWS, AND JIHAD TERROR IN MUMBAI
- HITLER, JIHAD, AND NAZISM
- THE POPE, JIHAD, AND “DIALOGUE”