Is there a religion some of whose members have NOT used that religion as a justification for killing non-religionists?
Christ does not command His followers to kill non-believers.
Buddha does not command his followers to kill non-believers.
Nor does Krishna, Shiva, etc.
Nope, as far as I know, of all the major religions, that "honor" belongs to Mohammed alone.
From Wikipedia: Jihad as warfare
See also: Offensive jihad, Defensive jihad, and Ghazw
The Qur’an asserts that if the use of force would not have been allowed in curbing the evils by nations, the disruption and disorder caused by insurgent nations could have reached the extent that the places of worship would have become deserted and forsaken. As it states:
And had it not been that Allah checks one set of people with another, the monasteries and churches, the synagogues and the mosques, in which His praise is abundantly celebrated would have been utterly destroyed.22:40
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi divides warfare into two types:[10]
1. Against injustice and oppression
2. Against the rejecters of truth after it has become evident to them
The first type of Jihad is generally considered eternal, but the second is specific to people who were selected by God for delivering the truth as an obligation. They are called witnesses of the truth (in Arabic:‘?????’); the implication being that they bear witness to the truth before other people in such a complete and ultimate manner that no one is left with an excuse to deny the truth. There is a dispute among Islamic jurists that whether the act of being "witness" was only for the companions of Muhammad[10] or this responsibility is still being hold by modern Muslims, which may entitle them to take actions similar to the ones, which companions of Muhammad were asked by God. As in Qur'an:
And similarly, O Companions of the Prophet! We have made you an intermediate group[11] so that you be witnesses [to this religion] before the nations, and the Messenger be such a witness before you. 2:143
Following is the first verse of the Qur’an in which the companions of Muhammad, who had migrated from Mecca were given permission to fight back if they were attacked:[10]
Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been oppressed – Allah indeed has power to grant them victory – those who have been unjustly driven from their homes, only because they said: ‘Our Lord is Allah’.22:39-40
The reason for this directive in Medina instead of Mecca considered by most Muslim scholars is that without political authority armed offensives become tantamount to spreading disorder and anarchy in the society. As one of Islamic jurist writes:
“ Among Kafayah obligations, the third category is that for which the existence of a ruler is necessary e.g., Jihad and execution of punishments. Therefore, only a ruler has this prerogative. Because, indeed, no one else has the right to punish another person. „
—Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu’l-Sunnah, 2nd ed., vol. 3, (Beirut: Daru’l-Fikr, 1980), p. 30
[edit]
Directive of warfare
The directive of the Jihad given to Muslims in Qur'an is:[10]
And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out [of the place] from which they drove you out and [remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and [in the land of Arabia] Allah’s religions reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers. A sacred month for a sacred month; [similarly] other sacred things too are subject to retaliation. So if any one transgresses against you, you should also pay back in equal coins. Have fear of Allah and [keep in mind that] Allah is with those who remain within the bounds [stipulated by religion]. 2:190-194
These verses told Muslims that they should not merely fight the Quraish if they resist them in offering Hajj, but the Qur’an goes on to say that they should continue to fight the Quraish until the persecution perpetrated by them is uprooted and Islam prevails in the whole of Arabia. Initially Muslims were required to fulfill this responsibility even if the enemy was ten times their might. Afterwards, the Qur'an reduced the burden of this responsibility.[10] As in Qur'an:
* Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. 8:65
* [From] now, God has lightened your [task] for He knows that there is now weakness amongst you: But [ever so], if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred, and if a thousand, they will subdue two thousand, with the leave of God: for God is with those who patiently persevere. 8:66
Some interpret above verses that Jihad never becomes obligatory unless the military might of the Muslims is up to a certain level. In the times of Muhammad, when large scale conversions took place in the later phase, the Qur'an reduced the Muslim to enemy ratio to 1:2. It seems that Muslims should not only consolidate their moral character, but it is also imperative for them to build their military might if they want to wage Jihad when the need arises. The Qur’an gave a similar directive to Muslims of the Muhammad times in the following words:[10]
Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers and others beside them who may be unknown to you, though Allah knows them. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged. 8:60
A policy was adopted regarding the extent of requirement that arose in wars that the Muslims had to fight. In the battles of Badr, Uhud and Tabuk, the responsibility was much more and each Muslim was required to present his services as a combatant.[10] As in Qur'an:
Not equal are those of the believers who sit [at home] without any [genuine] excuse and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has given preference by a degree to those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit [at home]. [In reality], for each, Allah has made a good promise and [in reality] Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight above those who sit [at home] by a huge reward. Degrees of [higher] grades from Him and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful. 4:95-96
Amin Ahsan Islahi writes in the commentary of verses 8:15-16:
“ Now the Muslims are being given directives regarding imminent wars. They are told that when they encounter the enemy army in formal warfare, they must never turn their backs. This directive has been given in the light of the background delineated earlier in which the Almighty had promised divine help. It is an anathema for people who have the support of Allah and His angels to run away from the battlefield.
In such a situation, those who desert the battlefield would invite the wrath of God and Hell shall be their abode. This shows that the crime is no less than the crime of apostasy and disbelief. Obviously, the severity of this crime hinges on the fact that, at times, a person who runs away from the battle field poses a great threat for the whole army and sometimes for the whole Muslim collectivity.
Only those measures are an exception which a soldier adopts as military tactics or, as in some cases, the need arises that he must vacate his front and join some other one. In other words, what is forbidden is to show one’s back in order to flee from the battlefield. Showing one’s back as a war strategy is an exception [and is not forbidden].
„
—Amin Ahsan Islahi, Tadabbur-i-Qur'an, 2nd ed., vol. 3, (Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1986), pp. 450-1
[edit]
The driving force
Islamic scholars agree that Jihad should not be undertaken to gratify one’s whims nor to obtain wealth and riches. Many also consider that it must also not be undertaken to conquer territories and rule them or to acquire fame or to appease the emotions of communal support, partisanship and animosity. On the contrary, it should be undertaken only and only for the cause of Allah as is evident from the words.[10] As in Qur'an:
Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan. Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Satan. 4:76
Muhammad, at various instances, also explained very forcefully this purport of the Qur’an:
* Abu Musa Ash‘ari (rta) narrates that once a person came to the Prophet (sws) and said that some people fight for the spoils of war, some for fame and some to show off their valour; he then asked the Prophet (sws): ‘Which one of them fights in the way of Allah’. The Prophet (sws) replied: ‘Only that person fights in the way of Allah who sets foot in the battlefield to raise high the name of Allah’.[12]
* Abu Hurayrah (rta) narrates from the Prophet (sws): ‘I swear by the Almighty that a person who is wounded in the way of Allah – and Allah knows full well who is actually wounded in His way – he would be raised on the Day of Judgement such that his colour be the colour of blood with the fragrance of musk around him’.[13]
* Ibn Jabr narrates from the Prophet (sws): ‘A person whose feet become dust ridden because of [striving] in the way of Allah will never be touched by the flames of Hell’.[14]
* Sahal Ibn Sa‘ad says that the Prophet (sws) once said: ‘To reside in a border area for a day to protect [people] against an enemy [invasion] is better than this world and everything it has’.[15]
Similarly as a reward for participation in such a strive, the Qur'an states:
Consider not those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they will be provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind [not yet martyred] that on them too no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers. 3:169-171
[edit]
Ethical limits
See also: Rules of war in Islam
It is stated in Qur'an:
A sacred month for a sacred month; [similarly] other sacred things too are subject to retaliation. So if any one transgresses against you, you should also pay back in equal coins. Have fear of Allah and [keep in mind that] Allah is with those who remain within the bounds [stipulated by religion]. 2:194
Amin Ahsan Islahi writes:
“ This verse implies that fighting in the forbidden months or fighting within the boundaries of Haram is a big sin. However, if the disbelievers disregard their sanctity, Muslims on account of Qisas also have the right to strip them off the protection that these sacred entities afford them. The life of every person carries great sanctity in the eyes of the Shari‘ah. However, when a person violates this sanctity and kills someone, then he himself will be deprived of the right of sanctity for his own life to avenge his own deed. Similarly, the sanctity of the forbidden months and of the Haram itself shall be upheld in all circumstances on the condition that the disbelievers also uphold it and do not oppress and tyrannize people in them. However, if they unsheathe their swords in the forbidden months and in the sacred land of Makkah, then on account of Qisas they themselves deserve to be divested of the protection these months and this land hold for them. The verse goes on to say that just as that taking of Qisas for the forbidden months is necessary, the Qisas of other sacred entities must also be taken. In other words, if the disbelievers deprive Muslims of the right of protection that certain sacred things hold for them, Muslims too have the right as a result of Qisas to pay them back in equal coins or measure. Consequently, whatever measures the disbelievers adopt in violation of the sanctity of the Haram and the forbidden months, Muslim too can retaliate – but they must fear God and retaliate on equal footings: neither should they initiate such violations nor exceed the limits while retaliating against any aggression in this regard. Only those people become worthy of Divine Help who are fearful of the Almighty in all circumstances. „
—Amin Ahsan Islahi, Tadabbur-i-Qur'an, 2nd ed., vol. 3, (Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1986), pp. 479-80
Observance of treaties and pacts is stressed in Qur'an. When some Muslims were still in Mecca, and they couldn't migrate to Medina, the Qur'an stated:
And to those who accepted faith but did not migrate [to Madinah], you owe no duty of protection to them until they migrate; but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance; and Allah is the All-Seer of what you do. 8:72
Similar reports are attributed to Muhammad:
Abu Sa‘id (rta) narrates from the Prophet (sws): ‘On the Day of Judgement, to proclaim the traitorship of a traitor and the betrayal of a person who betrayed his words, a flag shall be hoisted which would be as high as [the extent of his] traitorship’, and [the Prophet (sws) also said]: ‘Remember that no traitor and betrayer of promises is greater than the one who is the leader and ruler of people’.[16]
Other directives may include:[10]
* A display of pomp and pride should be avoided when an army sets out for a battle. As in Qur'an:
And be not like those who came out of their homes boastfully and to display their grandeur and who stop [people] from the way of Allah even though Allah fully encompasses what they do. 8:47
* People who want to remain neutral in war should be left alone and not be troubled in any way. As in Qur'an:
Or those who approach you such that they neither have the courage to fight you nor their own people [and are such that] had Allah willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah does not give you permission to take any action against them. 4:90
* People who neither take part in a battle nor are able to take part in it – as per the dictates of custom as well as sense and reason – should not be killed. As according to a hadith:
‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar (rta) reports from the Prophet (sws) that once in a battle when it became known that a woman had been killed, the Prophet (sws) emphatically forbade the killing of the women and children.[17]
* People among the enemy should not be killed by setting them ablaze.[18]
* Plundering and looting should be abstained from. As according to a hadith:
A person from the Ansar narrates that once while traveling for a Jihad, because of great compulsion, some people of the Muslim army snatched some goats to quench their hunger. When the Prophet (sws) came to know about this, he overturned all the utensils and remarked: ‘plundered [food] is not better than dead meat’.[19]
* Dead bodies should not be mutilated.[20]
* Setting up obstructions and robbing travellers is forbidden. As according to a hadith:
Mua‘adh Ibn Anas narrates that once when he and others in the company of the Prophet (sws) embarked upon a campaign of Jihad it was observed that people had been obstructing the place where the army was to disembark and were busy robbing the passersby. When this complaint reached the Prophet (sws), he publicly announced at once that any person who obstructs the place of disembarkment and loots the passersby is in fact not doing Jihad.[21]
Ibn Athir further adds:[22]
* Wrong no one and exercise no torture.
* Do not touch the children, women and the old.
* Do not destroy fruit-trees and fertile lands.
* Do not kill sheep and cattle.
* Respect all religious persons who live in hermitages or convents and spare their edifices.
[edit]
Objectives of warfare
According to verses 2:190-194, the Qur'an implies two objectives:[10]
1. Uproot fitnah or persecution (forcing people to renounce their religion)
2. Establish supremecy of Islam in the Arabian peninsula
[edit]
Against persecution
Directives for action against persecution can be found in verse 8:39. At another place, the Qur'an states:
And what has come over you that you fight not in the cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors, and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help. [You should know that] those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan. Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Satan. 4:75-76
Most of Muslims scholars considers it an eternal directive and believes that all types of oppression should be considered under this directive.[10][23] Similarly, if a group of Muslims commit unwarranted aggression against some of their brothers and does not desist from it even after all attempts of reconciliation, such a group according to the Qur’an should be fought with:
And if two parties or groups among the believers start fighting, then make peace between them both. But if one of them outrages against the other, then fight you against the one which outrages till it complies with the command of Allah. Then if it complies, make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are the equitable. The believers are brothers to one another. So make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allah that you may receive mercy. 49:9-10
If Muslims do not have a state, then in such a situation, Muhammad while answering a question raised by one of his follower, directed Muslims to dissociate themselves from such anarchy and disorder:
I asked: If there is no state or ruler of the Muslims? He replied: In this situation, dissociate yourself from all groups, even if you have to chew the roots of a tree at the time of your death.[24]
[edit]
Supremecy of Islam in Arabian peninsula
It is stated in Qur'an:
Indeed those who are opposing Allah and His Messenger are bound to be humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: ‘I and My Messengers shall always prevail’. Indeed Allah is Mighty and Powerful. 58:20-21
After Itmaam-i-hujjat (clarification of religion to the addressees in its ultimate form) it were the Jews who were subdued first. They had been granted amnesty because of various pacts. Those among them who violated these pacts were given the punishment of denying a Messenger of God. Muhammad exiled the tribe of Banu Qaynuqa to Khyber and that of Banu Nadir to Syria.[25] The power they wielded at Khyber was crushed by an attack at their strongholds.[26] Prior to this, Abu Rafi‘ and Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf were put to death in their houses.[27] The tribe of Banu Qurayza was guilty of treachery and disloyalty in the battle of the Ahzab.[28] When the clouds of war dispersed and the chances of an external attack no longer remained, Muhammad laid siege around them. When no hope remained, they asked the Muhammad to appoint Sa'd ibn Mua'dh as an arbitrator to decide their fate. Their request was accepted. Since, at that time, no specific punishment had been revealed in the Qur’an about the fate of the Jews, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh announced his verdict in accordance with the Torah. As per the Torah, the punishment for treason was that all men should be put to death; the women and children should be made slaves and the wealth of the whole nation should be distributed among the conquerors.[29] In accordance with this verdict pronounced, all men were executed.[30] No other incident of note took place regarding the Jews until in At-Tawba the final judgement was declared against them:[10]
Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and are subdued. 9:29
This directive related to both the Jews and the Christians. The punishment mentioned in these verses was in fact a show of great lenience to them because of the fact that they were originally adherents to monotheism. In reality, they had become worthy of death and destruction after deliberately denying Muhammad. However, they did not benefit from this lenience because after the death of Muhammad they once again resorted to fraud and treachery.[31][32][33][34] Consequently, the Jews of Khyber and the Christians of Najran were exiled once and for all from the Arabian peninsula by the second Sunni Caliph Umar. This exile actually fulfilled the following declaration of the Qur’an about them:[10]
And had it not been that Allah had decreed exile for them, He would certainly have punished them in this world; and in the Hereafter theirs shall be the torment of the Fire. 59:3
When the Idolaters of Arabia had been similarly subdued, it was proclaimed in the At-Tawba that in future no pact would be made with them. They would be given a final respite of four months and then they would be humiliated in retribution of their deeds and would in no way be able to escape from this punishment. After this time limit, This declaration was made in the Qur’an in the following words:[10]
And a declaration should be made from Allah and His Messenger to these people on the day of the great Hajj that Allah is free from [all] obligations to these Idolaters and so is His Messenger. So if you [O Idolaters!] repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape from the grasp of Allah. And give tidings [O Muhammad (sws)] of a painful torment to these disbelievers. Except those of these Idolaters with whom you have a treaty, and who have not shown treachery in it nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to the end of their term. Indeed, Allah loves those who abide by the limits. Then when the sacred months [after the Hajj] have passed, kill these Idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and establish the prayer, and give Zakah, then leave them alone. Indeed, Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful. 9:3-5
The Qur’an has specified that God chose the companions of Muhammad as witnesses over mankind just as He chooses Messengers from mankind to fulfill this objective:[10]
He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the religion of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this [Qur’an]: [He chose you so that] the Messenger may be a witness [of this religion] to you, and you be witnesses of this religion to non-Muslims [of your times]. 22:78
After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Muhammad himself singled out these nations by writing letters to them. In all, they were written to the heads of eight countries.[35] Consequently, after consolidating their rule in the Arabian peninsula, the companions launched attacks against these countries giving them two options if they wanted to remain alive: to accept faith or to accept a life of subjugation by paying Jizya. None of these nations were adherents to polytheism in the real sense, otherwise they would have been treated in the same way as the Idolaters of Arabia.[10]
[edit]
Permission for warfare according to Islamic jurists
It is important to note that there are several sects within Islam and four differing schools of thought (see Madhhabs). These sects may differ in their interpretations of basic Islamic precepts, Jihad being one of them. Madhhabs generally agree on the main issues of Islam. The opinions of scholars such as Ibn Taymiya are not followed or even recognized by most Muslims, though his opinions are held in high esteem amongst many who consider themselves followers of the Salafi sect.
According to Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani a 10th century Maliki jurist:
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.
According to al-Mawardi an 11th Century Shafi'i jurist:
The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…
Ibn Taymiyya, a 14th Century Hanbali jurist15:
Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).
In the Hidayah, vol. II. p. 140 (Hanafi school):
It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."
Ibn Khaldun, the 15th century Tunisian historian:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, a Sunni Islamic scholar, writes in Mizan:
There are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al) as a form of Divine punishment -- for they had persistently denied the truth of the Prophet's mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by God through the Prophet, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam only allows Jihad to be conducted by a Government[36] with at least half the power of the enemy.[37][10][38]
[edit]
Jihad in Muslim societies
History records instances of the "call for jihad" being invoked by Islamic leaders to 'legitimate' wars of conquest. The major imperial Muslim dynasties of Ottoman Turkey (Sunni) and Persia (Shia) each established systems of authority around traditional Islamic institutions. Part of this incorporation involved various interpretations of jihad.[citation needed] For example, in the Ottoman empire the concept of ghaza was promulgated as a sister obligation to jihad. The Ottoman ruler Mehmed II is said to have insisted on the conquest of Constantinople by justifying ghaza as a basic duty. Later Ottoman rulers would apply ghaza to justify military campaigns against the Persian Safavid dynasty. Thus both rival empires established a tradition that a ruler was only considered truly in charge when his armies has been sent into the field in the name of the true faith, usually against giaurs or heretics -often meaning each other-, often invoking some Sufi or other theological dispute, but rather driven by the universal craving for power, prestige, and if possible booty or territory.[citation needed]. The 'missionary' vocation of the Muslim dynasties was prestigious enough to be formally reflected in a formal title as part of a full ruler style- the Ottoman (many also had Ghazi as part of their name) Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, 6th Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421 - 1451), literally used Sultan ul-Mujahidin[citation needed]. On the other hand, the political success of the Mughal dynasty in most of the Indian subcontinent rather followed the Roman model: willingness to rule an almost entirely unconverted non-Muslim (mainly Hindu; they even adopted the name Hindi=Hindustan referring to that faith for their empire) population and nobility (many of which became their vassals and officials untill the British became the new Paramount power).
The so-called Fulbe jihad states and a few other jihad states in western Africa were established by a series of offensive wars. [9]
The commands inculcated in the Quran (in five suras from the period after Muhammad had established his power) on Muslims to put to the sword those who will neither embrace Islam nor pay a poll-tax (jizya) were not interpreted as a general injunction on all Muslims constantly to make war on the infidels (originally only polytheists who claimed to be monotheists, not "People of the Book", Jesus is seen as the the last of the precursors of the Prophet Muhammed; the word infidel had different historical uses, notably used by the Crusaders to refer to the Muslims they were fighting against). It was generally supposed that the order for a general war can only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which is vacant), such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states, always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad; there has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on unbelievers since the early caliphate. Jihad was generally proclaimed by whoever claimed to be a mahdi, e.g. the Sudanese Mahommed Ahmad in 1882.
[edit]
Non-Muslim opinions
The United States Department of Justice has used its own ad hoc definitions of jihad in indictments of individuals involved in terrorist activities:
* "As used in this First Superseding Indictment, 'Jihad' is the Arabic word meaning 'holy war'. In this context, jihad refers to the use of violence, including paramilitary action against persons, governments deemed to be enemies of a fundamentalist version of Islam."[39]
* "As used in this Superseding Indictment, 'violent jihad' or 'jihad' include planning, preparing for, and engaging in, acts of physical violence, including murder, maiming, kidnapping, and hostage-taking."[40] in the indictment against several individuals including Jose Padilla.
Karen Armstrong in her book "Muhammed", writes:
"Fighting and warfare might sometimes be necessary, but it was only a minor part of the whole jihad or struggle[9]
The noted specialist of Islam, Maxime Rodinson, wrote that "Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements." (Maxime Rodinson. Muhammad. Random House, Inc., New York, 2002. p. 351.)
The neologism jihadist is sometimes used to describe militant Islamic groups, including but not restricted to Islamist terrorism (see for example Jihadist organizations). The term is deemed offensive by many Muslims who see it as vilifying the more complex ideology of jihad.
The Islamic religious legitimacy of the goals or methods of various Islamist movements who adopt the terminology of jihad is often brought into question by other Muslims for it's failure to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.
en.wikipedia.org |
