Friday, May 23, 2008

As I was reading through Zad al-Ma'ad by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (student of renowned Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taymiyya) I began thinking about the Islamic concept of Jihad.

Much has been made about the distinction between Jihad al-Akbar (The Greater Jihad, a spiritual and internal struggle for good) and Jihad al-Asghar (The Lesser Jihad, the outer jihad). My thoughts centered on the latter. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya names jihad as 'dharwat ul-Sanam' (lit. pinnacle of the camel's hump) of Islam.

He says (and I translate) that "Jihad is the pinnacle of the summit of faith, and the prophet experienced it in all its states". Al-Jawziyya divides the outer jihad into several categories. Among them:

1) Jihad al-Lisan (tongue)
2) Jihad al-Qalam (pen)
3) Jihad al-Qalb (heart)
4) Jihad al-Sayf (sword)

1) Jihad of the tongue, which is professing the "truth of Islam" to the unbelievers in an attempt to convert them, this also includes speaking against "injustice".
2) Jihad of the pen, writing against injustice or in support of the faith.
3) Jihad of the heart. If there is an injustice which cannot be stopped by word or deed, knowing its evil in the heart is a jihad.
4) Jihad of the sword.

This is where I came to rest.The jihad of the sword is two fold:
1) Ibtida'iyya (offensive)
2) Dafa'iyya (defensive).

The first is used to spread Islam into the Dar al-Harb (Realm of war) and the second is to defend the Dar al-Islam (Realm of Islam). I noticed further that in Islam there are two forms of general obligation:
1) Fard Ayni (Individual obligation)
2) Fard Kifaya (communal obligation)

The Greater Jihad falls in the first category and the Lesser Jihad in the second. This is important because Jihad al-Ibtida'iyya is an OBLIGATION. It is obligatory to engage in offensive jihad against the non-believers. It is obligatory on the community, thus not everyone must take up the sword against the 'kufar' (Infidels), but there must be some who do.

In this sense, the 9/11 atrocities where the manifestation of an Islamic obligation. For any objections to the loss of innocent life, the Islamic position is that it is permissible as long as pecunniary restitution is made to the families of those lost. It is also permissible in Islamic law to use human shields in the performance of both offensive and defensive jihad. Suicide, however, is indeed forbidden.As westerners we must look carefully at this doctrine of mandatory and exclusive warfare. The world shall be reduced to:

1) Dar al-Islam, where all will be Muslim. Those that remain Christian or Jewish will be forced to pay a sizeable tax. All those not in these two groups will be given the option of conversion to Islam, or death.

2) Dar al-Harb. The non Muslim world. This world is in a perpetual state of warfare with Islam.

Occassional treaties are acceptable, only so long as it increases Muslim strength for another onslaught. It is far more reminiscent of Orwellian war, which never ceases. We should look hard at the dystopia that this form of Islam seeks to impose, and determine how best to deal with it.

6 comments:

Jonathan said...

I freely admit that I'm fairly ignorant about Islam, but I'm learning more thanks to RD.net and posts like this.

The more I learn, the more I tend to worry about it. The problem is I don't have sufficient knowledge to realistically judge how "bad" things are, and posters like Fanusi (who blatantly have an axe to grind) don't help. This is a useful post.

Ibn al-Rawandi said...

Well, things can be bad, but it is highly relevant to the person you are dealing with. Islam has no formal structure and thus can't be treated as a monolith. But as a pure interpretation of Shariah, this is fairly accurate. But there are many different rationalizations, for many different people. Fanusi tends to be alarmist, but he is hyperbolic about a real problem.

Michael (MPhil) said...

Very interesting post, Al. I do have one question - I assume you can help me understand this: In a hypothetical world under Sharia-rule, why would Christians and Jews be allowed to observe their religion (although taxed), and others wouldn't? Is it because these these religions are seen as related, ie that Christians and Jews just have a "wrong" conception of the "right" god, while others haven't?

Cheers,
-MPhil

Ibn al-Rawandi said...

Michael,



Well, Islam honors the revelations in the Torah and Gospel (although it curiously berates Christians for believing Jesus is the son of God). So these people are seen as worshipping the same god as the Muslims, the God of Abraham. So in that sense they are considered progenitors of Islam, so they can retain their faith.

However Shariah would gradually squeeze them out of their religions, as it is illegal for them to construct new places of worship or even to repair the ones they had. It was a burdensome system of apartheid, designed to keep the flow of power and wealth in the direction of Islam.

Does that help?

Michael (MPhil) said...

Thanks, that does help.
I suspected that it was because these are all abrahamic religions, but you provided the detail that I wanted to know. Thanks.

Oh, in case you're interested... I just created a blog:

http://mphil.livejournal.com

Richard Morgan said...

Fascinating blog.
There does however seem to be a pervading atmosphere of gloom and doom.
Am I wrong?
Also I was very surprised to read:
"Islam is an ideology freely adopted by its adherents."
Am I to take that at face value, or am I misunderstanding something?
Having said that, it's good to be able to switch off CNN and come here to read your pertinent insights on international situations.