I need to get this off my chest.
Most of us have gotten the memo that we must take back the lofty ideals of Jihad from the misguided terrorists...yeah, yeah, they've hijacked Islam, they don't speak for us peace-loving Muslims, they are using Islam for their political agenda, and so on. Jihad is not suicide bombing, airplane hijacking, contractor beheading, killing the infidels, crushing the Jews, blah, blah.
Fine, we get that.
But it seems that the only other alternative is itself another extreme. The concept of Jihad now being peddled seems disconnected from the traditional, balanced view. This modernized version has been sculpted to be more palatable to the western world than to the Muslim world.
Jihad is now the struggle of the nafs.
Jihad is the daily struggle to remain Muslim in the west.
Jihad is a purely historical phenomenon.
Jihad has no place in a pluralistic society.
Islam is about Mercy and Forgiveness, not Jihad.
Sure, the overriding message must be one of mercy (didn't Allah (swt) Himself declare that His Mercy overcomes His Wrath?), but has our Islam become so emasculated and emaciated that any talk of Jihad, regardless of the context, is immediately dismissed as terrorism or Islamism?
The choice thus presented to us is either the extremists' version of Jihad or the 21st century version of Jihad.
'You're either with us or with the terrorists' (sound familiar?)
It's gotten so bad that any mention of the word Jihad sends people to instant denunciation mode. Jihad has become taboo. We don't even have the courage to openly declare the legitimacy of the Jihad being waged against American occupation forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
We need to take Jihad back from those intent on watering it down, stripping it from any confrontational aspect, relegating it to the passive realms of inner purification.
Jihad is about justice.
Jihad is about sacrifice.
Jihad is about talking to the tyrant and giving help to the homeless.
Jihad is about fighting oppression, be it economic, political, or religious.
Jihad is about taking back your land, your rights, your humanity from the one who has no right to them.
Jihad is about taking the wallet out of your back pocket, the pen out of your pocket protector, and the sword out of its sheath.
Jihad is about the political as much as it is the spiritual.
Jihad is about the society AND the self.
Jihad is about confronting the forces that are intent on sabotaging Islam.
And its that last statement that makes many Muslims uncomfortable. In this day and age, it’s a bit discomforting to think in such a militant manner, no?
Talk of the ongoing battles between Haqq and Baatil, the forces of Truth and the forces of Shaytaan come off as a bit too 'Lord of the Rings'-ish, no?
But the reality is that never has a time passed when the flag-bearers of righteousness and justice were not confronted and challenged and rejected and fought and oppressed by the forces of greed and injustice.
Is this epic struggle not the way (sunnah) of Allah (swt)?
So what concept of Jihad are we advocating?
Are we remaining faithful to our beliefs when in the process of rejecting terrorism, we end up promoting a submissive Jihad?
In trying to placate the fears of western society, that Muslims are no fifth column, have we convinced ourselves that there is no room for a military aspect to Jihad?
Is military Jihad to be relegated to the outdated backwaters of Islam, with the likes of the slaves, dhimmis, and concubines?
I need to know, is that what Muslims in the West are now promoting?
WAW
1 day ago
6 comments:
Salaamualaykum,
Jazakallah for saying it as it is. Jihad truly is the pinnacle of the actions of this Ummah.
Something that strikes terror in the hearts of the enemies of this deen. Oops... did I just say terror?
Of course, when it comes to the military aspect of it, a lot of responsibility lies on the shoulders of the umara' to actually organize and channelize the energies of the people in the right direction.
Take the time of Banu Ummaya. Although they receive a lot of criticism for their indulgent ways, they never really stopped engaging in Jihad.
Think Muhammad bin Qasim and think Tariq bin Ziyaad. Do people even know these names today?
As-salaamu Alaikum
I only sort of agree with your post--the problem, but not the conclusion of it necessarily. I have sat with a sheikh and have had this concept explained to me so very thoroughly I think, and it is so very important.
About a year ago I was giving a presentation to a group of campus police officers. Conditions weren't ideal, and I wasn't properly trained or prepared for that kind of audience (my training was geared towards kids studying religion or social studies.) So I had to improvise, trying to tailor the presentation so they would find it interesting.
One thing I mentioned to them was jihad--because the way they observed it seemed somewhat inconsistent. First of all, the way the west at large, through film, radio, newsprint and any other possible means of public media, describes jihad is as "holy war." Even those words describe such a vague concept upon which people cannot agree.
What is so troubling for a police officer (as an example) is to think that jihad means "holy war" and yet to hear Muslims praise it as an act of supreme nobility.
So what happened (I think) is that when Muslims focus on the nobility of it they talk about internal jihad, and not physical jihad. This is of course in conversations with non-Muslims most especially.
So when the average Westerner looks at jihad, he will see the eastern Muslims (i.e., the "terrorists) declaring jihad is physical, while seeing Western Muslims calling it interal/spiritual. And many reconcile the difference by calling one of the groups liars.
Most people I see actually assume that it's the local Muslims (who describe spiritual jihad) who are liars, while it's the terrorists who are telling the truth.
So yes, I think we should be more open about what jihad actually means.
But even more important than that... we need to teach ourselves, other Muslims, what jihad means. Including physical jihad. I think some people (Muslims) have the wrong idea, and assume that if they are fighting for any reason, it is jihad. And that's not the case.
Perhaps I'll make a blog on the same topic, explaining what I've learned from my sheikh, and the way he has recommended we describe jihad to non-Muslim audiences. InshaaAllah.
Jazakallahu khair for bringing up the topic. It does seem that jihad has become a bad word. :-)
One of the posts I've been meaning to write (in my "Straight Talk About Islam" series) is that there are three words that Muslims shouldn't need to feel bad about or apologize for, and they are "jihad" (including the lesser jihad), "shari'ah," and "islamism." I guess I'm going to have to work on that post sooner rather than later. ;)
AA-
@Islamblog, "Of course, when it comes to the military aspect of it, a lot of responsibility lies on the shoulders of the umara' to actually organize and channelize the energies of the people in the right direction."
Thank you so much for saying this. I didn't wish to delve into the fiqhi side of jihad, but its clear that jihad is not the same as vigilantism.
@Amy,"But even more important than that... we need to teach ourselves, other Muslims, what jihad means. Including physical jihad. I think some people (Muslims) have the wrong idea, and assume that if they are fighting for any reason, it is jihad. And that's not the case."
I agree with your sentiment 110%. Jihad is not to be taken lightly andso there is alot of education on this topic that we need to undertake.
"Perhaps I'll make a blog on the same topic, explaining what I've learned from my sheikh"
Please do. That would be an invaluable resource for many...
@JDsg, "I guess I'm going to have to work on that post sooner rather than later. ;)"
As I said to Amy, posts on this topic of getting Jihad straight are so very badly needed. Looking forward to your post bro...
Salaam
So I wrote a post, Balancing Jihad.
The biggest weakness is the lack of use of authentic sources, but since I based it on what I normally tell non-Muslims, and they aren't much interested in authentic sources, I don't have much more than that, since it was from just personal sitting with the sheikh, the notes I took, and the corrections he made. It might be a good place to start, Wallahu Alam.
Hello Naeem:
I’ve read your this post.
Seems the whole world thinks "Jihad" means "holy war"
but it's wrong!
In my country-China ,we have Confucianism，I don't know whether you have heard of it.
By Confucianism, we Chinese always say:"天行健，君子自强不息，which means "one should struggle to himself all the times for being stronger and wiser ", this is the most exactly expression of "Jihad" in Chinese traditional way.
SO I think you are right.
As to "Islam is about Mercy and Forgiveness, not Jihad."--------------I want to ask the speakers that how could you know what mercy and forgiveness really are without jihad?
in my opinion,eliminating Jihad from Islam, is another kind of sucide
Post a Comment