One often hears the term “holy war” associated with certain groups who call themselves Muslims. Are their motives genuinely religious and are such groups representative of Muslims in general?
Muslims and non-Muslims alike have unfortunately been using the term “holy war” for generations. The expression is an inappropriate rendering of the Arabic term jihad (ji-HAAD), whose root meaning is “striving” or “struggle.” What Muslims mean when they use the term to describe external military and political activities is something like “religiously justifiable struggle against injustice and oppression.” In other words, in its classical meaning the term jihad is roughly analogous to Christian “just war theory.” Most of the time the call for a jihad is 90 percent rhetoric, involving little or no serious reflection on what the tradition in its considerable depth and sophistication stipulates about criteria and conditions for waging a “just war.” Political and economic considerations invariably intrude.
While the word jihad means “struggle” or “striving” toward a spiritual goal, the use of the word by radical Islamists has equated it with “Holy War.”
Why is the expression “holy war” such a hot-button term?
Many non-Muslims express misgivings about what appears to be the Islamic idea of “holy war.” They are often frankly afraid because they have formed the opinion that Islam is a violent religion. Many people have unfortunately and most unfairly come to expect that behind every episode of hostage-taking or large-scale terrorism there lurks a band of swarthy, bloodthirsty Arab or Iranian Muslims. Every time journalists use the term “jihad,” either as part of a faction’s name, or to describe the “holy war” a Muslim leader has allegedly called for, millions of listeners or readers have their worst fears confirmed. “There they go again!” one hears people say too often, citing such examples as Khomeini’s death sentence on writer Salman Rushdie and Saddam Husayn’s attempts during the Gulf War to galvanize Islamic support for a jihad against all infidels defiling sacred Arabian soil. In short, “holy war” is a term too often tossed around loosely, and questions in several chapters here will address specific aspects of the term and its implications.
Does Islamic tradition insist on specific limits to the use of violent means?
Questions abound concerning the conditions for religious sanctioning of violent means, which Islamic tradition shares with more than one other major religious tradition. There is no doubt that it is an important issue about which understanding several complex aspects is important. First, Muslims regard Muhammad as model; second, the actual aspirations of many millions of Muslims are for a life of peace; third, conditions governing authentic jihad are numerous and demanding; and finally, Americans and Europeans must try to appreciate the pain that the western domination of the Middle East and other parts of the world over the past century has caused in populations across the globe.
What is Muhammad’s role in Muslim views about using violence?
Muhammad stands out as the prime exemplar of the ideal mode of fostering peaceful relations among interest groups and communities that are defined by overlapping or otherwise conflicting claims. The story of the Prophet’s replacing the Black Stone in the Kaba suggests, along with other traditional accounts, that Muhammad developed a public reputation very early as a trustworthy person and an effective negotiator. When envoys came south from Yathrib (later Medina) to offer Muhammad and the Muslim community a new home, part of what they wanted in return was that Muhammad act as arbitrator in various factional disputes then troubling their city. Tradition cites prominently Muhammad’s diplomacy in forging treaties and alliances. It emphasizes especially Muhammad’s preference for peaceful means and the centrality Muhammad accorded to the reconciliation of hearts.
Author Salman Rushdie was targeted for assassination because of his 1988 novel, The Satanic Verses, which many Muslims felt insulted the Prophet. Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa in 1989 to have Rushdie killed. The fatwa has since been rescinded.
Why is Muhammad’s role in the unfolding of early Islamic history often portrayed so negatively in “western cultures”?
It is exceedingly difficult to see through the veil of dark images that has shrouded the picture of Muhammad in the thinking of many non-Muslims over the centuries. When non-Muslims read, for example, of Muhammad’s decision to resort to fight the Jewish tribes of Medina, they are shocked. Unfortunate events like these seem to blind one to anything positive in the early history of Islam, and non-Muslims rarely (if ever) get the Muslim side of the story. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Muhammad remains for Muslims the paragon of gentleness and concern for the needs of people. One always needs to look for the truth somewhere in between the ideal of utter perfection most communities see in their foundational figures and the jaundiced view taken by people who for many reasons prefer to cling to negative assessments of “others.”
Why is mutual understanding so hard to come by when it comes to such matters?
Part of the problem here is that there is sometimes a thin line between justifiable revolution and unlawful, treasonable action. How many colonial American preachers encouraged their congregations to support the “American revolution”? Whether in Northern Ireland or the Middle East, organizations like the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and Hamas have arisen to combat what they perceive as tyranny. Many of their members no doubt think of themselves as devout and sincerely religious. And many Irish-American Catholics and Arab-American Muslims who support these and other such causes financially no doubt regard their choice as highly ethical. But such support necessarily involves a terribly serious form of denial. It requires that one assert that no one on the “other side” is innocent, or at the very least, that it is sometimes acceptable to shed innocent blood to achieve a greater good.
Does the media accurately portray the notion that many Muslims, with support from clerics, are involved in terrorist activities?
Suppose a non-Christian living outside of the United States had heard that most Americans identify their country as a Judeo-Christian nation. Suppose that the only reports about Christians were of sectarian violence emanating from Northern Ireland. Would the conclusion be that Christians prefer violence? If IRA bombings and murders alone did not persuade people of that, suppose there were credible reports that some Irish Catholic priests regularly gave their blessings to such activities. Suppose further that reports from that quarter were reinforced by occasional news of “Christian” bombings and assassinations at abortion clinics in the United States. And suppose that there were accounts of how racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation regularly cloaked their social views in biblical and other ostensibly religious teaching, and that organizations like them actively recruited with a message of hatred. Would that be enough to form an opinion that Christianity and violence somehow go together? Virtually everywhere, people have appealed to religion to justify actions and policies that most persons of good will would condemn as incompatible with their religious beliefs. Just because people claim to belong to a particular