The History Of Salafism II

APPENDIX 1: “Jihad”?

The exegetical elasticity of “struggle” is demonstrated most starkly by the juxtaposition of two works: Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” from 1925 and Karl Knausgard’s “Min Kamp” from 2009-11. While the titles have semantic parity, they do not have hermeneutic parity. The former is best translated as “My Holy Crusade” while the latter is best translated as “My Existential Plight”. What’s going on here?

The Torah tells us that one of Jacob’s sons (sired via Laban’s handmaiden, Bilhah) was named “Napthtali”, Hebrew for “My Struggle”. (Napthtali begat the Galilean tribe that supported the ascension of the House of David.) Meanwhile, the alternate name for Jacob was “Yisra-El”–conventionally translated as “struggle with god”. This indicates that the “struggle” in question was a spiritual one. {L}

The dual hermeneutic of “jihad” has been cause for vexation. Other than the German “kampf” (ref. Bismarck’s antagonistic use of “kulturkampf”), we encounter such two-fold meaning with the Hebrew “ma’avak”–a lexeme that dates back to Judaism’s earliest era. This Hebraic lexeme was (and remains) a loaded term that, while it is typically translated “struggle”, has connotations of conquest [“kibbush”]–as when it is used by Revisionist Zionists vis a vis dominion over Canaan. And while Hitler’s use of “kampf” in his magnum opus has different connotations, the title is effectively the same as “My Jihad”.

So what are we to make of references to a distinctly SPIRITUAL struggle? The dying words of Siddhartha Gautam[a] of Lumbini (a.k.a. the “Buddha”) were said to have been: “Strive onward with vigilance / diligence.” In Pali: “appamad[en]a sampadetha” effectively means: “It is through vigilantly / diligently striving onward that one obtains liberation.”  This spiritual striving [“sampadetha”] contains within it the notion of vigilance [“sati” / “avippavasa”].  It’s ultimate aim is liberation [“appamada”].  Meanwhile, “sadhana” refers to an endeavor to transcend one’s egoistic impulses: also integral to this vigilant / diligent striving.

Given that non-violence / non-aggression were Buddha’s central tenets, his exhortation to engage in “sampadetha” did not connote outward aggression (and certainly did not involve any kind of militancy).  Thus “sampadetha” is taken to mean a spiritual undertaking–one animated by empathy and self-discipline.  Ideally, such a striving leads to LIBERATION. The goal, then, is the opposite of submission (viz. to some external authority).

All edification–as well as spiritual development–is invariably a matter of striving (grappling with various psychical exigencies). For it requires a prodigious amount of will-power.

We should bear in mind, though, that self-discipline can be either salutary (when prudent) or deleterious (when pathological):

The former is based on autonomy–as with Kant’s clarion call: “Sapere Aude!” [Dare to know!] (an exhortation to have the courage to use one’s own understanding; to think for oneself).

The latter is often mandated by insidious actors–as with the so-called “struggle sessions” in Mao’s China (nothing more than a regimen of INGSOC-style conditioning).

In a genuinely Reformist Islam (which, to be clear, would require a major paradigm shift), the notion of “jihad” would pertain exclusively to a spiritual undertaking: “jihad al-daf’a”.  This is all well and good; but it is incumbent upon Reformers to recognize that this is NOT the Koranic meaning of the term.

In this sense, Mahatma Gandhi could be characterized as a “jihadi”. After all, he was undertaking a spiritual struggle…in order to better himself (even as he was engaging in a CIVIL struggle to end colonialism and foster social justice). The revamped conception of “jihad” would be more in keeping with the Sanskrit notion of “sampadetha” / “sadhana”–which has no militant connotations whatsoever.  Such a semiotic adjustment would entail a COMPLETE re-conceptualization of “iman”.

The kind of “jihad” enjoined by the likes of, say, Martin Luther King Jr. is not about subservience; it is about initiative. It’s not about supplication; it’s about edification. It is a noble endeavor requiring effort; but one in which the cause is categorically CIVIL.  In this context, the struggle-in-question pertains to mental discipline…which is a vehicle for emancipation (from anxiety, from oppression, from despair) rather than subjugation (that is: being hamstrung by the “slings and arrows” of this mortal coil). Defined in this way, “jihadi” (in the broader sense: submission to the divine) could apply to Tibetan Buddhist monks and Quakers as much as to the most ardent freedom-fighter.

However, in doing so, we CANNOT then say of the Sunnah: “And THAT is what was meant all along!”

In the Eastern tradition, such “striving” is undertaken in order to discern the true nature of things–a state of mindfulness that the Hindus variously refer to as “vipasyana”, “abhyasa”, “vairagya”, and “saha-jayana”. Here, the ultimate goal is insight (viz. into the true nature of things).  This spiritual enterprise involves what the Classical Greek philosophers referred to as “epieikeia” (a spirituality informed by reason, moderated by temperance) and “enkrateia” (mental discipline based on autonomy; what Kant called “maturity”). In this sense, the struggle is not about SUBMISSION (“Islam”); it’s about LIBERATION (“moksha”).

The goal, then, is to achieve a state of enlightenment–variously conceptualized as “prajna” / “jina” (“panna” in Pali) or “nirvana” in the Eastern tradition. It yields what the ancient Greeks referred to as “eudaimonia” (spiritual–as opposed to material–flourishing). {A}

But is this the sense of “jihad” propounded by Salafists? Clearly not.
In Bukhari’s Hadith (no. 2787), Abu Hurayrah reports that MoM proclaimed that god “will admit the ‘mu-jahid’ into Paradise if he is killed [i.e. martyred in battle].” Otherwise (if the “mu-jahid” survives during this striving in the Cause), god “will return him to his home safely with ‘anfal’ [war booty].” Clearly, to partake in “jihad” was to engage in a potentially fatal martial activity, in which the reward would be material SPOILS…that one could take home.

Are we to take Mohammedan exhortations to “jihad”, then, as an invitation to engage in self re-invention? Or are we to take it as an enjoinder to fight on behalf of the Faith? The former pertains explicitly to a spiritual endeavor. The latter, though, could mean, well…ANYTHING. Fighting (in the MILITANT sense) is clearly what it meant in the Koran; which means that is what it meant for Salafis.

We might note that the notion of militant struggle was nothing new in the ancient Middle East–as with the aforementioned (Hebrew) “ma’avak”. And so it went with the original usage of “jihad”. Throughout Islam’s sordid history, any mention of “jihad” by prominent expositors was a matter of “ghazawat” [engaging in raids; waging war for Islam]; not of some lofty endeavor to achieve what Aristotle referred to as “eudaimonia”.

Defensive Jihad?

Since the days of the Salaf, the decidedly militant enterprise to confront “Dar al-Kufr” has hardly been a matter of “jihad al-daf’a” (a personal, spiritual aspiration). Rather, it has been exclusively a matter of “jihad at-talab” (a.k.a. “jihad bis-saif”; i.e. a rapacious military enterprise)…against what is surmised as “Dar al-Harb”.

In other words, the new religion was not propagated via evangelization (i.e. persuasion); it was spread by brute force–replete with brutal massacres and systematic enslavement. Violence wasn’t the exception; it was routine. {C}

MoM’s companion, Khalid ibn al-Walid was not a peace-loving missionary who’s sine qua non was “jihad al-daf’a”; he was a pathologically avaricious military commander who was fond of decapitating prisoners, EXACTLY as the “Recitations” instructed him to do.

Throughout the entire epoch of aggressive Mohammedan expansion, nobody was being “rescued” from the clutches of some tyrant–finally to be delivered into the hands of benevolent emancipators. Are we really expected to believe that the merciless Mohammedan invaders were–in reality–just guardians impelled by strictly humanitarian motives? What are the chances that every key player in the long saga of invasion outlined in the present essay was operating from a guidebook that encouraged agape above all else?

This strains credulity to the breaking point.

But what of instances of militant struggle that are (ostensibly) justified–as with “jihad al-daf’a” (ref. 22:39-40)? Insofar as so-called “DEFENSIVE jihad” is concerned, it is important to bear in mind that to “wage war on” and to be “oppressed by” (as the Koranic wording is roughly translated) can each be construed to mean many different things. This depends one which language games one deigns to play. As history has shown time after time, offensive measures are regularly undertaken in the name of “defense” (see the Roman Empire, Germany’s Third Reich, the Judean Settler movement, and U.S. foreign policy during Cold War…and then again in the advent of September 11, 2001).

So what constitutes an assault on (or “threat to”) Islam? Would such a thing not warrant reprisal under the aegis of “defensive” jihad? One of the most esteemed Islamic theologians in history, Ibn Taymiyyah, addressed this matter as follows: “It is allowed to fight people for [not observing] unambiguous and generally recognized obligations and prohibitions, until they undertake to perform the explicitly prescribed prayers, to pay zakat, to fast during the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to Mecca and to avoid what is prohibited, such as marrying women in spite of legal impediments, eating impure things, acting unlawfully against the lives and properties of Muslims and the like. It is obligatory to take the initiative in fighting those people, as soon as the Prophet’s summons with the reasons for which they are fought has reached them.”

This has echoes of political correctness: a puritanical doctrine (based on an authoritarian mindset) in which one feeling “offended” / “insulted” (or in any way off-put) by anything another says or does constitutes being a victim of BATTERY. Thus: To experience discomfiture is to be ASSAULTED. The culprit is therefore guilty of an intolerable transgression.

And so it goes: To be “offensive” / “insulting” is to be an assailant. One’s culpability is dictated by another’s subjective (psychical) state. And so we might ask: Is the present essay “waging war” on the Ummah? Objectively-speaking: Of course not. Yet, according to the Salafi (p.c.) mindset, a critical analysis such as this is tantamount to “waging war” on their religion–that is: causing “fitna” (introducing a disruption into what’s supposed to be an eternal homeostasis).

According to this standard: Any scholarship that reveals unwanted truths can be caricatured as an intolerable “assault” on the Faith. According to whom? Well, according to the whim of any bystander who is bothered by the unsolicited critique.

The Koran is explicit that those who simply deny its contents are–by dint of being “deniers”–to be deemed a THREAT (2:217), and thus considered an ENEMY.

Bear in mind: The vilification of ANYONE (as failing to submit) is all that is needed to contend that hostile reprisal is warranted. Don’t forget, any disruption [“fitna”] is seen as invidious. To challenge “sharia” (however defined) is to sew discord / dissent. That is sacrilege.

Taken to its extreme, this line of logic entails that anything short of complete submission is a tantamount to “oppression”…which warrants reprisal. Thus, anyone living under anything but an Islamic theocracy is–effectively–deemed “oppressed”…and thus in need of rescuing…per 42:40-43 and 60:7-9.) Those being “disruptive” are thereby qualified as “oppressors”…in need of fighting. For by bringing into question the credence of sacrosanct “truths” (and of Salafism in general), I am indubitably “causing mischief in the land” [“mofsid fi al-ard”]: a didactic salvo against which bystanders must be “defended”!

This is what George Orwell dubbed “Doublespeak”.

So we might ask: Would Salafis be “oppressed” should the insights of the present piece come to be widely known? Well, according to such Doublespeak: Yes. Ergo the prompt to wage “defensive” war is made relevant via entirely specious criteria. Such criteria are then used as license to retaliate.

Once critical analysis is equated with “oppression”, we’ve gone through the looking glass; and our terminology becomes downright Orwellian. According to such contorted logic, criticism is blasphemy; and any subversive expression (i.e. dissent) constitutes an assault on the sanctified dogmatic system.

After all, critical analysis an offense against god’s word. (!)

And so it goes: Those whose dogmas are being brought into question are being “oppressed”; as they depend on those dogmas being upheld (presumably, until the end of time) in order to subsist AS SUCH.

Human behavior has demonstrated over and over again, the siege mentality is easily used to rationalize offensive measures…even when one is the superior power…and EVEN WHEN ONE IS THE AGGRESSOR. In modern history, this stunt has been pulled off by cult movements of many stripes–from Nazism to Revisionist Zionism, from Maoism to the Khmer Rouge, from American Neocons to militant Islamic mu-jahideen. In each case, we hear some variation of: “We’re under siege from the nefarious OTHER; so we must attack them in self-defense…wherever they may happen to be…lest their very existence ends up undermining our agenda.”

Such a skittish “enemy at the gates” disposition (effectively a kind of collective neurosis) was leveraged for–among other things–the American Cold Warriors’ cockamamie “domino theory” of communism (employed to legitimize genocide in Vietnam, Lao, and Cambodia) along with active support for the vicious persecution of civilians by tyrants in throughout Latin America. All in the name of “national defense”, of course. {P}
Such is the nature of so-called “defensive” jihad.

A prime example of the phenomenon today is the Judean Settler Movement’s brutal occupation of Palestine–all in the name of “defending” what they deem to be their divinely ordained piece of real estate: “Eratz Israel”. The supposition–taken seriously by surprisingly many–is that the Creator of the Universe is a real-estate agent. This is used to justify the Judaic version of “lebensraum” in the Levant. {R} The upshot of the entire project is: “It was wrong when others did it to us; but when we do it to others, it’s perfectly justified. Why? Because of what it says in our holy book!”

Might we list the other empires that tried to conquer the world in order to “protect” it? Hint: Ask about what happened to Poland in 1939. Nazi propagandists SWORE that they were merely defending the blessed Reich from nefarious Polskies. Undertaking pre-emptive strikes in the name of “national security” is a common ruse. Empires have rationalized their hegemony as a means of self-preservation since time immemorial.

Other questions present themselves. Generally speaking, can a program of protracted ransacking be rationalized via appeals to self-preservation? For case-studies helpful for making this query, see: U.S. slaughtering of native Americans during its territorial expansion; the imperial Japanese in China; the U.S. military’s genocide in Vietnam; Serbians’ assault on the Bosniaks; the Sudanese Janjaweed’s slaughter of non-Muslim residents of Darfur; etc.
Oftentimes, “national security” is a pretense for fascistic impulses–an excuse to creat a police-State or to be the aggressor against some designated bogeyman. And sometimes the “we’re just defending ourselves” rational is employed in BOTH sides of a conflict, as with the Iraq-Iran war during the 1980’s.

And so it goes: As far as a caliphate is concerned, each incursion into Dar al-Harb is merely protecting the world from the kuffar. (This strategy is not completely insane. As they say in team sports, “The best defense is a good offense.”) By smugly using such pretense, every rampage can be legitimized via a marvelously inverted logic.

When designs on hegemony is presented as some kind of defensive maneuver, we have entered a Kafka-esque wonderland–a universe governed by Orwellian Doublespeak.

Such an invidious ruse was no different during the first caliphates in the Middle East during the Dark Ages.

If, on the other hand, all the Koranic verses about “fighting” are–indeed–only about (genuine) “defense”, as many Islamic apologists contend, then they need to explain one thing: How is it that the Mohammedans conquered territory from the Barbary Coast all the way to the Hindu Kush WITHIN SEVEN DECADES of MoM’s death…in “self-defense”? Pray tell: Who were they “defending”?

And so when we consider the theme of “jihad al-daf’a”, we must bear in mind that domination does not constitute some exalted form of deliverance. Subjugation is not a form of emancipation. {F}

If this was all an endeavor to effect “jihad al-daf’a”, what in heaven’s name was going on? The explanation is quite straight-forward: The spread of Islam was almost entirely a matter of ravenous hegemonic ambitions (read: “jihad at-talab” / “jihad bis-saif”). The entire process was characterized primarily by mass slaughter and systematic enslavement (rather than by some exalted enterprise to enlighten mankind).

Let’s pose the question this way: How is it that a relentless, hegemonic imperium radiated out from Arabia and seized almost 15 million square kilometers of land…including the Maghreb, Egypt, Abyssinia, Palestine, Syria, Eastern Anatolia, Kurdistan, Mesopotamia, and Jazira…and eastward into Persia, Khorasan / Transoxiana, Margiana / Bactria / Sogdiana, Gandhara / Arachosia, and Punjab / Sistan / Baloch / Sindh…with such ferocious expediency; and all by the end of the 7th century? {D}

Another question: Did the people of all these regions need to be DEFENDED? If yes, from whom? Such rapacious conquest–replete with looting and enslavement of the conquered–seems NOT to have been a humanitarian intervention; or an endeavor to RESCUE “oppressed” peoples.
Did the Islamic forces press into the Iberian peninsula because they sought to “defend” Western Europe? From whom? (The Visigoths? The Franks? Themselves?) Of Dar al-Islam–which, by that time, encompassed the Maghreb, the Levant, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Persia–we might ask: Was Andalusia threatening its existence?

It should go without saying that conquest and defense are not synonyms–though the imposition of authority is often spun as “protection”. Rapacious hegemony is NEVER driven by an endeavor to promulgate liberty.

Conflating conquering others with defending oneself is an old trick (especially when one passes off the former AS the latter). It would seem that there is a reason that non-Islamic parts of the world (“Dar al-Kufr”) have traditionally been referred to as the domain of WAR (“Dar al-Harb”) rather than, say, the realm in which others need to be protected from oppression. {O}

When the Turkic conquerer, Ikhtiyar al-Din Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji razed the world’s greatest institutions of learning at Nalanda and Vikramshila in the 12th century, was he somehow “saving” people from something? From what? Scholarship? What else might have compelled him to slaughter thousands of Buddhist monks and destroy the vast libraries in these places? {B} When he tried to attack Tibet, was he seeking to defend the world against an imaginary scourge of Tibetan monks?

Was all this part of some massive humanitarian outreach program?

So what WAS thought of (so-called) “defensive” jihad by the Salaf? We might ask: When, in 630, MoM sent his top general, Khalid ibn al-Walid (a.k.a. the Sword of God) to Dumat al-Jandal to extract the city’s wealth by force, was this somehow a defensive measure?

Answer: No. The (Christian) prince of the city, Ukaydir ibn Abd al-Malik of Kindah, was kidnapped and–upon threat of death–secured ransom for the Mohammedan forces (including two thousand camels, eight hundred heads of cattle, four hundred coats of mail, and four hundred spears). Ukaydir had done nothing to threaten the Mohammedans. The Islamic dominion in the Hijaz was not in any jeopardy by the presence of Dumat al-Jandal, which was over a fortnight’s camel-ride north of Medina. In this case, “jihad” clearly involved an interest in PLUNDER, not in defense.

Dumat al-Jandal posed no more threat to Dar al-Islam than did, say, the peaceable Berber tribes in northern Africa (far to the west)…or the Rajputs of India (far to the east).

So when Byzantine-held Tabuk was attacked by the Ishmaelites that same year (630), it was clearly not a defensive measure; it was a purely hegemonic enterprise.

In 711, when Tariq ibn Ziyad crossed the Mediterranean Sea (at Gibraltar) and attacked the Iberian peninsula, was he deigning to “protect” the Berbers of the Maghreb from the Visigoths of Andalusia?

And when general Muhammad ibn Qasim of Ta’if [of the Banu Thaqif] (minion of the notorious Umayyad tyrant, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf of Ta’if) made incursions into Sindh, Balochistan, and the Punjab, was his rapacious conquest a defensive measure? Clearly, when sweeping through the Hindu Kush, he was not “defending” Muslims; he was broadening Islamic dominion–replete with vicious persecutions and pogroms. (Ref. the “Chach Nama”.)

One wonders if, perhaps, Tamerlane might be able to shed light on this quandary. Alas, he seemed not to be working from an instruction manual that enjoined good will toward one’s fellow man. (Perhaps his copy of the Koran was missing a few pages.) Which verses was he not reading?
As Amir, the (explicitly Islamic) Tamerlane wreaked havoc across Asia during the late 14th century. It is estimated that his ferocious military campaigns caused the deaths of at least 17 million people: over 5% of the world’s population at the time. Given the contents of the Koran, should we be completely flabbergasted by his conduct? More to the point: Was he “defending” mankind by slaughtering such a large portion of it?

Later (under the Ottoman Empire), Armenia, Caucasia, all of Anatolia, Thrace, Volga Bulgaria, Romania, the Balkans (Dalmatia, Illyria, Slavonia, Moesia, Macedonia, Pannonia, etc.), Dacia, Hungary, Scythia / Sarmatia, the Crimea, the Peloponnese (a.k.a. Morea), Crete, Attica and upper Greece, Sicily, and Abyssinia would be conquered as well. There was also acquisition in the Far East under the aegis of the Mughal Empire (Bengal, India, Kashmir, and the remaining parts of what we now call “Pakistan”. NONE of it had anything to do with edifying people on spiritual matters. NONE of it had anything to do with protecting people from oppression.
The world was not being saved by being overrun. {E}

In 1453, were the Ottomans “protecting” Constantinople from “oppression” when they pillaged the city? Or, might it instead have had something to do with the fact that the Koran clearly endorses pillaging? In their vicious campaign of aggression, is the Islamic State (ISIS / ISIL) DEFENDING something? What are they deigning to “protect” with their violent blitzkrieg through Syria and Mesopotamia?

During the 18th and 19th centuries–throughout western Africa–the “Fula[ni] jihads” were HOLY WARS–waged to establish sharia law across the region. (They went from Futa Toro and Futa Jallon to as far east as the Sokoto Caliphate.) It should come as little surprise that all of the ensuing imamates were active in the slave trade; and were governed as Islamic theocracies.

Contrast this with the existential struggle known as the “agon” in Classical Greek lore.  This referred to overcoming adversity in order to achieve some estimable goal–especially in a way that imbued one’s life with meaning.  Here, the one who strives is the “agonist” (hence the literary terms “protagonist” and “antagonist”).  Such striving is not militant (that is: focused against another); it is aspirational (that is: focused on self-improvement).  In other words, it is characterized by perseverance rather than by hostility.  This makes sense, as when we hear about noble struggles, we rarely hear about anything that is imperious or pernicious.

We might also contrast Islamic “jihad” with the Buddhist notion of “samyak-vyayama” [alt. “samma-vayama”]: a process of “samadhi” (contemplation in the spiritual sense) to achieve “dhyana” [alt. “jhana”] (enlightenment).  This spiritual endeavor is markedly different from “dawa” (an endeavor to promulgate the Sunnah).  The distinction here is between edification and evangelism.

It is telling that even the least objectionable versions of “jihad” involve hegemonic designs; as “dawa” is–after all–an (often aggressive) campaign directed toward others.  This is why, in Islamic lore, we never hear about a struggle for, say, sexual equality or universal emancipation.  A “jihad” for human rights would not make any sense.  After all, human rights have no place in the Sunnah; and so would be anathema to a mujahid / ghazi.

Only the most elementary content analysis is required to debunk much of the hermeneutic chicanery that currently passes for honest commentary.  But a basic historical analysis is also informative.  Looking to the Judaic tradition, it is instructive to note that “Yisra-El” (“Israel”) means “struggle with god”.  This was the moniker assigned to Abraham’s grandson, Jacob (son of Isaac); and subsequently used to refer to Jacob’s progeny (putatively: the progenitors of the Jewish people).  It is the exhortation to submit to–and GLORIFY–god that sets both Christians and Muslims (who’s charge is to struggle FOR god) apart from most Jews (who’s charge is to struggle WITH god).  The distinction here is acting on behalf of (a communal enterprise) vs. grappling with the reality of (a personal enterprise).

Struggle has always been part of the Abrahamic tradition.  But there’s a catch.  “Islam” means “submission to god”.  Consequently, “struggle” must play a different role in Mohammedan theology than it does in creeds for which the sine qua non is something other than, well, unconditional SUBMISSION.  A Muslim’s charge is not to struggle with GOD; it is to struggle against non-Muslims in service to god.

What characterizes this kind of struggle is sycophancy (that is: unwavering piety, not critical inquiry).  Thus “jihad” was seen as an alternative to “bidah” [innovations that undermined that which had been sacralized], which entailed disrupting the established order (“fitna”).  The key, then, was to demonize anything having to do with “bidah”.  As Jonathan Berkey put it in his “The Formation of Islam”: “Among the most important [developments in the 11th century] was a sharpening of the Islamic doctrine of ‘bidah’ (innovation) according to which ‘every innovation is an error, and every error leads to hell’ in the words attributed to [MoM by Ibn al-Hajj].  Such is the logical extenuation of the doctrine of Sunnah, the opposite of ‘bidah’, whereby the practice of [MoM] and his companions established a permanent normative framework” (p. 202).

In this way, “jihad” was simply a way of enforcing conformity; and staving off innovative thinking.  Berkey: “[What is dubbed] ‘jihad’ became an instrument, not only of resistance to infidels, but of the enforcement of standards of proper belief and behavior, particularly in the ulema’s struggle against various elements of popular religion… So, for example, when Ali ibn Maymun al-Idrisi [a Maghrebi Sufi who settled in Damascus in the late 15th / early 16th century] wrote a treatise condemning practices of Syrian Muslims of which he disapproved, he drew naturally on the language of holy war.  According to him, waging jihad against these miscreant Muslims… ‘is preferable to doing so against the infidels of the House of War, as the damage [which they inflicted on Islam] is more severe and more significant than that of the infidels’…” (ibid; p. 202).  And so it went: The “takfiri” fervor of the Salaf remained alive and well.

Were these violent offensives somehow antithetical to Koranic directives? The answer to this is obvious to anyone who has read Islam’s holy book.

Textual Clues:

But how can we be sure that the term “jihad”–as originally used–primarily pertained to a militant enterprise? Well, common sense gives us an incontrovertible answer: One does not accumulate “spoils of war” and become martyred from an internal “spiritual” struggle. But what of the term’s use IN SCRIPTURE? In Bukhari’s Hadith (no. 2787), we read that MoM declared: “God guarantees he will admit the mu-jahid into Paradise if he is killed. Otherwise, he will return him home safely with rewards and war booty.” “Mu-jahid” [one who struggles; alt. “jihadi”] refers to someone who is fighting non-Muslims in the Cause. What cause? Propagating Islam by the sword: “jihad bil-saif”. This is the sense of the term found in the Koran–as with 61:11 (note 61:4 for context) and 66:9 (note 66:7 for context).

In Surah 9 alone, the use of “jihad” is consistent with this theme–as in verses 41, 73, and 88. Want context? Verses 5, 12-14, 19, 27-29, 36, 44, 81, 111, and 122-123 are all about FIGHTING. There is no mention of a internal “spiritual” struggle anywhere in this Surah.

Those who want to engage in Hadith-sifting escapades may wish to view Bihar al-Anwar’s oft-quoted passage in light of salient passages in far more respected Hadith collections. {I} Bukhari is considered the most authentic [“sahih”] hadith. It is prudent, then, to see what HE had to write on the matter:

[Following a battle], a man came to god’s messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals jihad.” [The messenger] replied, “I have not found such a deed.” (no. 2785)

God guarantees that he will admit the “mu-jahid” [literally, one who engages in ‘jihad’; i.e. fighter in his Cause] into Paradise if he is killed; otherwise he will return him safely to his home with rewards and war booty. (no. 2787) One does not need to “return safely” from contemplative activity.

The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies [in battle] and finds reward from god [in the afterlife] would wish to come back to this world, even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it; except for the martyr, who–upon seeing the superiority of martyrdom–would like to come back to the world and get killed again [in god’s Cause].” (no. 2795)

I would certainly never remain behind any “sariya” [army unit] going out for “jihad” in god’s Cause. I would love to be martyred in god’s Cause and then come back to life and get martyred, and then come back to life again and get martyred, and then come back to life again and get martyred. (no. 2797)

Bukhari’s record of MoM’s teachings on jihad is loud and clear. One might also consult 2/24, 8/387, 59/643, 60/40, and 60/80. {J} Indeed, we find in the Koran a stipulation that those who engage in “jihad” (strive in the way of god) with their possessions and their lives, rather than merely staying at home, will be rewarded. This makes no sense if “jihad” was meant as an inner, spiritual struggle–as one does not need to sacrifice all one’s possessions nor one’s own life to engage in such activity; and one can certainly do so while at home.

In the Koran, 4:102 notifies us that one is permitted to NOT strive for the Cause if it rains or if one is sick. Yet surely one can engage in an inner spiritual struggle on rainy days or while one is ailing.  It should go without saying: spiritual struggle does not involve rampant depredation; and Islamic theology does NOT make this clear.  Hence tyrannical theocracies like contemporary Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have scripture on their side.

22:39 is often cited as an example of DEFENSIVE jihad.  It says, “fight back when you are attacked.” Yet well-meaning Islamic apologists treat it as if it said, “fight ONLY as a defensive measure, and NEVER at any other time”.  (Of course, that is not what it actually says.  But they don’t let that fact stand in the way of them PRETENDING that that is what it says.)

Moreover, 22:39 is cited as if this is the ONLY way in which the Koran discusses fighting.  Thus, apologists make a practice of taking strategically-selected segments of text completely out of context.  In other words, they wantonly ignore the rest of the book in order to make carefully-selected statements mean what they want them to mean.  Such cherry-picking is denounced when anyone else does it; but it is entirely permissible when THEY THEMSELVES do it.

Islamic apologists must realize that no Koranic passage exists in isolation.
Other than 22:39, the closest we get to a message that discourages militancy is 4:90, 8:61, 41:34-35, and 42:38-43.  But these five (eminently laudable) passages hardly make up for the dozens of passages that beseech followers to do the contrary.  And NONE of these five passages say anything about limiting hostility to a specific group at a specific time.

Suffice to say: The “fighting pertained only to specific enemies that no longer exist” interpretation of the Koran’s strident “call to arms” is tremendously disingenuous.  Why?  Because that is not what the Koran ACTUALLY SAYS.

Commonly heard: “I know this ayah makes little sense in the modern context, but at the time of Mohammed…”  Such demurrals are little other than evasions when referring to a book that claims to be ETERNAL (and perfectly clear about what it means).

When the term (“jihad” / “jahada”) is actually used in the Koran, it clearly pertains to armed attack against non-Muslims. 9:73 says to “strive hard against” non-Muslims; not against “oppressors”.

Remember, the Koran is supposedly articulated for followers EVERYWHERE, FOR ALL TIME.  That is to say: the wording is PERFECT.  PERIOD.  Presumably, when god issued his directives (contained within an allegedly eternal book), he foresaw their potential applications in later centuries…in places other than Arabia…given very different circumstances.  Therefore, the “it only pertains to situations unique to 7th century Arabia” excuse is a non-starter.

Alas, the “It was only meant to apply to a certain time and place, and is thus no longer applicable” defense is particularly popular for ALL militant passages. For example, the command to fight non-Muslims in 2:190-192 is often held to be obsolete. The problem with this is the existence of the following verse. 2:193 explicitly stipulates a two-part condition for obsolescence: Until there is no more “fitnah” (discord / dissension) AND until all people worship the Abrahamic deity (according to the conditions stipulated in the Koran). {G}

Incidentally, unscrupulous exegetes are required to take the relevant verse out of context in order to make their (fraudulent) case that OTHERS are taking it out of context. The irony here is unfortunate. If we follow the Koran to the letter, this disturbing command still applies to Nebraska in the 21st century.

Ergo “jihad” as striving to become a better person (or as a struggle against injustice) should be wholeheartedly encouraged; but, in doing so, it must be acknowledged that such enterprises do not derive from the Koran.
But, some apologists protest, the exhortations to engage in “jihad” in the MILITANT sense no longer attain! Though they come from an eternal book (the final revelation for all mankind, to be honored forevermore), they are–as it were–obsolete.

Engage in “jihad”, we are instructed, “until there is no more corruption in the land.” Suffice to say, this condition has (yet) been met. Obviously, there is still “fitna”. And–last I checked–not all of mankind are Muslims. Therefore the command is clearly still in effect.

If a statute-of-limitations for fighting non-Muslims (a phantom proviso that contemporary Islamic apologists deign to smuggle into Koranic text) DOES exist (as if hidden somewhere in the subtext), the most revered Koranic commentators throughout history–along with a panoply of major Islamic rulers over the centuries–somehow did not manage to see it. How strange. (Where, for example, is the crucial sunset clause for “fighting the non-Muslims wherever you find them”?)

For virtually every Muslim icon not to have gotten the memo on such a crucial matter, might it be surmised that the Koran was insufficiently clear on that point? The only alternative is that all these figures knew EXACTLY what the Koran said–and THAT was the problem. (As it turns out, rather than reading BETWEEN the lines, as some eisegetes insist we should, most people simply read the lines themselves.)

Alas. According the romanticized narrative we hear today from Islamic apologists, in their aggressive campaigns of military conquest, the caliphs (and other early Muslim leaders) must have been BETRAYING everything the Koran stood for. (“If only those Islamic conquerers had understood the Koran better, they would not have undertaken a millennium-long blitzkrieg!”) Are we to suppose, then, that for over a thousand years, all of the world’s Muslims–including the most esteemed early commentators–were completely misreading their holy book; and that it is only today’s Islamic apologists that finally got it right?

Goodness gracious.

What, then, of the “greater” vs. “lesser” jihad?

A liberalized conception of “jihad” would be explicit and unequivocal. It must pertain exclusively to an INNER striving (that is: a spiritual struggle carried out within oneself). This would be in accordance with the Hadith, “Bihar al-Anwar”–compiled in the late 17th-century by a Safavid (Shiite) mullah named Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi of Isfahan (a.k.a. “Alama” Majlisi). {H} In that text, MoM is alleged to have said that his soldiers “have returned from the minor jihad, [and come back] to the major jihad” (19/182/31). This meant that they have returned from armed battle (a military affair) to the battle waged within oneself (a spiritual affair). The insinuation in this passage is that the PRIMARY meaning of “jihad” is a personal one “within oneself” rather than a campaign in which one fights others with force. Thus, the SPIRITUAL “jihad” is the more important one.
This pithy anecdote is one of the most oft-cited passages by well-meaning Islamic apologists whenever the question of the “true” meaning of “jihad” arises. It is extracted from a Hadith written over a thousand years after MoM’s death (by an Imamiyyah, nevertheless); so it is almost certainly apocryphal. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized by Progressive Muslims today. That is to say: It should be extolled whilst kept in its proper context: as NOT derived from either the Koran or from the “sahih” (most dependable) Hadith record.

To reiterate: The anecdote is from a dubious Hadith collection that is promptly dismissed the moment an UN-savory passaged is cited from its 110 volumes. (Yes, this is THE BEST passage that can be culled from the entire 110-volume collection.) To make the case that THIS is what MoM “really meant all long” is to engage in farce. The mere suggestion is completely spurious.

Bottom line: In order to propound this salubrious conception of “jihad”, we mustn’t pretend that this sense of “jihad” is consonant with the sense of “jihad” promoted throughout Islamic scripture. Indeed, the teachings of MoM (i.e. the REST of the Hadith) paint a decidedly different picture of “struggle” in the cause of god. Talk of a “jihad al-akbar” [greater struggle] and of a “jihad al-asghar” [lesser struggle] notwithstanding, the Koranic sense of the term clearly pertains to “yuqatil” / “uqtul[u]” / “[y]aqtul[u]” (that is: fighting / killing non-Muslims). {H}

In considering the exhortations to massacre “kuffar”, we should take note of MoM’s express reasons for conquest. In a letter to “Muqawqis”, the viceroy of Alexandria (Egypt) at the time, a scrivener (purportedly conveying a message from the self-proclaimed prophet) is alleged to have written: “If you become a Muslim you will be safe.” In other words, if you refuse to become Muslim, you will NOT be safe. To ensure that this point was clear, the letter elaborated: “If you reject this invitation to Islam, you will be committing a sin by misguiding your subjects.” This phrasing is very revealing. It states that to not convert is tantamount to what is (elsewhere) called “fitna” (“disruption”; “causing mischief in the land”). And THAT is an affront warranting reprisal; as such “fasad” (mischief) stands in the way of “dawa” (the promulgation of Islam). {Q}

Therefore, when we hear that MoM only endorsed attacks on those who were doing “injustice” (“adaala”, as narrowly defined in the Koran), this includes those who declined the invitation to convert; or were in any way seen to be engaged in “fitna” (i.e. disruption of the the established order). Refusing to sign up for the program was equated with committing sin; which might thereby warrant aggression. When we read that “god does not love aggressors” (2:190), this merely means that god disapproves of attacking people out of the blue, without first checking to see if they are willing to be assimilated.

It is apparent from letters like this that rulers were not allowed to be non-Muslim, as being “kuffar” was tantamount to misleading (read: HARMING) their subjects. (To rule by anything other than the Sunnah was thus considered a kind of oppression.) Insofar as being non-Muslim qualifies as “sin”, the injunction against not fighting against those who aren’t sinning is rendered meaningless. In other words: Equating a refusal to become Muslim with GUILT vitiates any admonishment to not attack innocents. (If you don’t play along, you’re ipso facto guilty.)

A question worth posing: If an inner (spiritual) struggle were the “greater jihad”, would not copious amounts of ink and pulp have been devoted to this explication? One might sift through the over 7,300 ahadith in Bukhari’s collection in search of clarification on this crucial point. In the end, one will find oneself empty-handed. There is no such clarification. One must wonder how Bukhari missed this vital teaching; yet, eight centuries later, Bihar al-Anwar was suddenly aware of it. {K}

Regarding the matter of a “akbar” vs. “asghar” struggle, then, it is helpful to note that one must first win people’s hearts and minds before one can persuade them to risk their lives fighting for one’s cause. Surely MoM understood this. {H} Ergo the dichotomy of greater and lesser instantiations of “jihad”. Naturally, as leader of a cult movement that demanding unwavering dedication, he didn’t want his followers to be just going through the motions. If it was to be iron-clad (and it DID need to be iron-clad if they were going to routinely risk their lives for the cause), their fealty–as “fedayeen” had to come from within.

This was actually a pressing concern at the time; as a big deal was made of so-called “takfirs”: ostensive followers who outwardly professed fealty yet secretly harbored doubts inside. {O} It was important to enforce thorough indoctrination (the greater struggle) to ensure mu-jahideen were going to be dependable in carrying out the “jihad bil-saif”. This was not unique to the Salaf. Such a concern also attained for every leader thereafter. So this oft-touted ahadith makes perfect sense.

Also telling is that there is no chapter in the Koran devoted to an internal / spiritual struggle; yet there IS a chapter devoted to pillaging.  Not only is “spoils of war” [“anfal”] the title of one of the chapters of the Koran (Surah 8), the first administrative center of the Islamic dominion was the “diwan”: an office commissioned to oversee the distribution of war booty.  Priorities.

Such an emphasis on LOOT (accumulated during pillaging sprees) would not make sense were the emphasis of “jihad” on some personal (spiritual) endeavor…characterized by contemplation.

When 25:52 exhorts the audience to engage in a “greater jihad”, it means to work more diligently in one’s fealty to the cause. To what end? So that one will more dependably serve the cause. When one is engaged in an enterprise as important as a holy crusade, simply “going along just to get along” is not enough.

Concluding Remarks:

The quandary surrounding this loaded term primarily stems from a proliferation of Orwellian Doublespeak. Here, perfidious interlocutors contend that their preferred meaning of the term is the traditional meaning: “We fancy THIS to be the meaning; so we will pretend that this has ALWAYS BEEN the meaning.”

A similar semantic swindle could just as well be conducted with the Arabic term for conquest: “ghazw” / “qahr”. (This is salient, as struggling for something often requires overcoming something else.) To exhort “conquest” can be to encourage people to do various sorts of things. After all, one can conquer one’s fears just as one can conquer new territory. But therein lies the rub. (The conquests of, say, a seducer are different from the conquests of, say, an imperial army.)

So are we to say that environmental activists are engaging in a “jihad” to preserve our ecosystem? Can we engage in a “jihad” against pollution? How about against socio-economic injustice? Against bigotry? Against disease? Well, yes. Of course. But is any of that in keeping with the Koranic sense of “jihad”? No. Do such struggles have anything to do with the Sunnah? No.
As is well-known in Islamic vernacular, when the first Muslims spoke of “ghazw” / “qahr”, they were not thinking of a climber “conquering” a mountain. One doesn’t need to be a whiz in philology to come to this conclusion.

And so it goes: When it comes to a generalizable term like “struggle”, it is easy to elide the original textual meaning by using a bit of hermeneutic chicanery.

It is, of course, admirable to insist that “jihad” should NOW mean a struggle for overall well-being; but to insist that that’s what it has meant ALL ALONG is disingenuous. This (well-meaning) semantic swindle does more harm than good; as it dissuades people from addressing what is an abiding problem…and even from acknowledging that certain things need to be changed in order to effect this salubrious reconceptualization of “jihad”.
In sum: To propound “jihad” as a spiritual endeavor, one is required to disavow its meaning in the Koran and Haddith.

Over the course of Islam’s long history, if “jihad” pertained PRIMARILY to an inner “spiritual” struggle, there would be bookshelves upon bookshelves of material on said activity. Yet NOT ONE such book exists. Outside of the extensive corpus of Sufi mysticism, at no point did it occur to a single (nominal) Islamic “mu-fassir” to expound upon this all-important “jihad al-daf’a”. {M} Instead, all we get is endless disquisition on holy war; and a history that follows suit.

It makes sense, then, that the interpretation of “jihad” as a militant enterprise was validated by arguably the most influential commentator of the Middle Ages: Ibn Kathir of Damascus (ref. his work “Ijtihad fi Talab al-Jihad”). It was not considered at all peculiar that he opted to use the loaded term, “jihad” in the title of this landmark work. {N}

In the late 1920’s, Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi penned “Jihad fil Islam”, which propounded jihadist–effectively declaring war between Islam and the rest of the world. His understanding of “jihad” was clearly holy war; not an inner “spiritual” struggle. In the end, we find that the liturgical meaning of “jihad” is loud and clear.

Abd-ullah Yusuf Azzam, one of the most infamous militant Salafis of the 20th century, was an avid reader of Sayyid Qutb, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the founder of “Lashkar-e Taiba”. Imagine the world’s surprise when he came to be known as the “Father Of Jihad” throughout Dar al-Islam. Suffice to say, Azzam was not known for quiet contemplation. As it turns out, he would eventually become the mentor to an Arabian millionaire named Osama bin Laden.

Incidentally, Bin Laden’s other mentor was the notorious Ayaman al-Zawahiri, who had founded the organization, “Tanzim al-Jihad” in Egypt: also not a meditation group. Nor was “Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad” in Jordan. Nor was “Mu-jahideen-e Khalq” in Iran / Iraq. Nor was “Harakat al-Jihad-i Islami” in Bangladesh. It seems that clerics across the Muslim world did not get the memo that “jihad” was–first and foremost–a peaceably, private activity involving introspection / reflection.

Today, it makes perfect sense for one to claim that, in studying hard for an exam, one is engaging in a “jihad” to earn a better grade in class. But to then pretend that this is what was traditionally meant by “jihad” is to be ridiculous. A scholarly enterprise does not involve pillaging. And one does not martyr oneself to do well in school. In the end, it is the striving HOW and FOR WHAT that is the key. Let’s be honest about what we’re talking about TODAY vis a vis what was talked about in bygone eras.

{A In the argot of Islamic apologists, this novel sense of “jihad” (that is: as a personal, spiritual enterprise) is referred to as “jihad al-daf’a”. Presumably, one engages in such an INNER STRIVING with the aim of achieving some exalted state–a state in which one has achieved communion with the divine. Yet if THAT had been what was at issue, there were other Arabic terms available–notably “wasilah” / “qurbah”. The Ancient Greeks referred to this as “henosis”. Japanese Buddhists refer to it as “ken-sho” or “satori”: seeing the true nature of things (alt. being in touch with the divine, which pervades the world). There are various takes on mental-discipline (alt. mindfulness) in the Eastern tradition, such as “kriya” in Kundalini meditation. Generally speaking, this undertaking takes the form of a contemplative practice (“dhyana” in Sanskrit; “jhana” in Pali), where the aim is to emancipate oneself from illusion / misapprehension and anxiety / confusion. This is done, it is believed, by attaining a kind of lucidity–referred to as “samadhi” in Sanskrit [“samapatti” in Pali; “sanmei” in Chinese]. The idea is to be fully in tune with Reality. It is through patient reflection–not militancy–that one achieves enlightenment. Here’s the key: Such struggle is about LIBERATION, not submission. Meanwhile, “wasilah” / “qurbah” does not yield “anfal” [war booty].}

{B The great library at Nalanda was the largest library in the world at the time, housing manuscripts from all over the world. In true Mohammedan fashion, it was burned to the ground. In fact, during Bakhtiyar Khilji’s rampage across India and into Bengala, ALL of Nalanda was destroyed, its inhabitants completely massacred. Untold numbers of valuable documents were lost forever. Higher learning there–as with everywhere else annexed by Dar al-Islam–ceased.}

{C Note that Islam PER SE was not forced upon kuffar; it was ISLAMIC LAW that was forced upon them. In other words: People were not forced to convert, they were forced to submit. They didn’t need to personally SUBSCRIBE TO Islam; they simply needed to abide by all its laws. Such is the nature of theocracy. Stoking militarism as a means of promulgating an ideology might be contrasted to Ashoka’s policy of “Dharma” [Pali: “Dhamma”]. The Mauryan Emperor renounced violence in his enterprise to promote Buddhist ideals across the region. In doing so, he denounced warfare as a legitimate means of hegemony (ref. Edict VIII). “Jihad” and “Dhamma” / “Dharma” are two very different conceptions of ideological struggle: one militant, the other peaceable. It should come as no surprise, then, that the divvying up of booty [“anfal”] was not a point of contention when it came to the latter. Indeed, the Buddha never discussed the “spoils of war” as part of Dharma.}

{D Other attempts were made–including onslaughts on Cyprus, Crete, Sardinia, and southern Gaul. These attempts at expansion failed (most famously, at the battle of Tours). Nevertheless, the violent conquest would eventually bring the imperium through Anatolia / Byzantium, through Thrace and Dacia and Bulgaria, up through the Caucuses…and all the way to the gates of Vienna (in 1683, just as the Enlightenment was revving up). In northern Africa, the hegemony would continue across the Maghreb into the Sahel…all the way to Morocco. It should go without saying: The ferocious incursion into, say, the Austrian countryside was not motivated by some endeavor to “defend” anyone or anything. An elementary truism: When raping and pillaging is routinely involved, an intervention is not being conducted as a rescue mission. Rapacious plunder is not the hallmark of humanitarian crusade.}

{E Imperialism is not a vehicle for emancipation. Being subsumed into a regime’s dominion does not entail being protected by it. However, this is the manner in which “emancipation” and “protection” were used in the Mohammedan lingo. The “jizya” was known as the protection tax: the same model the mafia uses with local businesses. One pays the mob not merely to be protected BY the mob, but to be protected FROM the mob–who are little interested in civic service, let alone humanitarian outreach.}

{F Prior to the modern era, the only instance of Islam metastasizing via quasi-peaceable evangelism is Java / Sumatra (a.k.a. Indonesia) during the High and Late Middle Ages–and possibly the Malay peninsula during the 14th century. Pace pockets of sub-Saharan Africa in the modern era, the rest of its metastasization was via violent conquest.}

{G Note that “fitnah” (disruption in the established order) is also sometimes translated as “persecution” (against Muslims) and/or “sedition” (on the part of the non-Muslims). Such Orwellian double-speak is extremely misleading, as the term can refer to any disruption in the designated agenda; not “persecution” in the modern sense of the term (viz. persecution of ANYONE, for ANY REASON). That is to say: Whenever expressing a grievance about persecution / oppression, “fitnah” pertained exclusively to the persecution / oppression OF MUSLIMS.}

{H Note that the passage in full reads: “The Prophet of God dispatched a contingent of the army (to the battlefront). Upon their return he said, ‘Blessed are those who have performed the minor jihad and have yet to perform the major jihad.’ When asked, ‘What is the major jihad?’ the Prophet replied, ‘The jihad of the self” (Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 19, chapt. 182, no. 31). As explicated by well-meaning Islamic apologists, the idea here is as follows: The battle waged within oneself is against the “nafs” (ego / ID). It involves the on-going struggle for self-betterment. In this “greater” (inner) struggle (“jihad al-akbar”), the primal self (“nafs-e ammarah”) must be brought under the control of the conscience (“nafs-e lawwamah”). In other words, only when what Freud considered the primal drives (represented by the “nafs”) are subordinate to higher reasoning faculties (represented by the “ruh”) can one attain a self that is at peace with itself (“nafs-e mutmainnah”)…and thereby get “in touch with” the divine (a state known as “wasilah”).}

{I Such quixotic cherry-picking expeditions are analogous to starry-eyed gold prospectors sifting through mountains of rubble in the hopes that their diligent efforts might turn up a small, shiny nugget now and then. Bihar al-Anwar’s 19/182/31 seems to be such a golden nugget when held up in isolation. The question becomes: What else winds up in such prospectors’ monumental harvest?}

{J Rather than find passages in the Hadith that are consummate with the “greater jihad as inner / spiritual struggle” trope, one will come across derisive passages like 2/24, 8/387, 59/643, 60/40, and 60/80 (also in Bukhari). Clearly, when the term “jihad” was used, it did NOT refer to a personal endeavor to achieve “wasilah”.}

{K Mohammed al-Bukhari lived in the 9th century; but the records of his Hadith are not even from him personally; they are from others whose documentation is from the 10th century. So even the vaunted Hadith collection named after him is not directly from his pen. In any case, according to the universally-accepted hierarchy of authenticity, all “sahih” Hadith (like Bukhari’s) must take precedence over “da’if” Hadith. This is a moot point anyway, as the ultimate arbiter of every doctrinal issue in traditional Islam is the Koran; and the Koran says absolutely nothing about “jihad” being an inner “spiritual” struggle [“jihad al-daf’a”].}

{L In Judaic lore, Jacob ben Isaac ben Abraham was anointed “Yisra-El”: One who struggles with god. That moniker is typically interpreted in symbolic ways. That is: It is a matter of “wrestling” with one’s own Faith; and even with one’s own destiny. To wit: It refers to a SPIRITUAL struggle; a struggle WITHIN ONESELF. It is a call to Faith rather than a call to arms. It is what would be dubbed in Arabic the “jihad al-nafs” [struggle of the soul]. Is it prudent to construe the Koranic sense of “struggle” in the same manner? The answer is: No. Clearly, Islam’s holy book AND the Sunnah speak of “jihad bil-saif” [struggle by the sword] rather than “jihad al-daf’a”.}

{M Sufi mysticism was a clear departure from the Sunnah. There were no whirling dervishes amongst the Sahabah.}

{N For more on this topic, a decent–though marginally flawed–disquisition is provided by Michael Bonner in his “Jihad In Islamic History”. Bonner engages in an ample dose of white-wishing, glossing over a slew of inconvenient facts. Nevertheless, his work is worthwhile insofar as it is relatively informative regarding general history.}

{O  Martial imperialism is not a way to effect social justice. And indoctrination is not the same as edification. It is important to note, though, that Islamic hegemony did not necessary involve forced conversion (i.e. convert or die). Islam PER SE (i.e. Islam qua personal Faith) was not spread by the sword; Islamic LAW (i.e. Islam qua dominion) was spread by the sword. Surah 109 (and later: 2:256) ensured that there would be no compulsion in any given person’s choice of Faith; and so that there would only be laws that took into account which Faith any given person happened to be (namely: inferior status for those who opted to not be Muslim). Opting out of Islam would have significant consequences (namely: subjugation–as with imposition of the “jizya”). Thus: stringent coercion was not out of the question; but the choice ultimately had to be left to each person (per 2:256). Outward professions of fealty were insufficient; as rulers did not want people just going through the motions: a recipe for insolence down the road.}

{P  I’m reminded here of the title of one of Noam Chomsky’s (many) books on U.S. foreign policy: “Hegemony or Survival”. It is an implicit question about the conduct of the U.S. during the post-war era. The dichotomy regards the rationalization propounded for the American Imperium’s “defensive” measures in foreign lands–which, though not for territorial acquisition (colonialism), was a matter of economic imperialism. It should be reiterated that imperialism is ALWAYS done in the name of “defense”. Pretense is how one sells the idea that WE–the chosen few–are charged with saving the world. From whom? From THEM. (!) Indeed, we must fear the enemy is at the gates; so if we don’t attack first, we’re doomed. It’s why the U.S. War Department was kept fully in tact–nay GROWN–pursuant to the end of the second World War; and simply rebranded the “Department of Defense” (where “Defense” was Newspeak for “Offense”). The new moniker did not make the Pentagon any less of a department for war. It merely added a more conciliatory veneer of noble intentions–in other words: pretense.}

{Q  A hint that “dawa” is often considered far more than just a matter of peaceable evangelism: The Berber “Ansar Din”, the Iraqi “Ansar al-Islam”, and the numerous “Ansar al-Sharia” groups purport to be merely “helping” a noble cause; as “ansar” means “helper”.}

{R  The comparison to Revisionist Zionist “lebensraum” is apt. The Judean Settler movement rationalizes its brutal occupation of Palestinian land–and its forced eviction of indigenous inhabitants–by invoking Biblical decrees (read: divine ordinance). Meanwhile, the ethno-nationalist regime deigns to justify its expansion via specious appeals to “security”…even as said expansion COMPROMISES security. Hence the Judeo-Supremacist “jihad” is excused, we are told, because the perpetrators are merely “defending” themselves. This is yet another illustration that the siege mentality is a kind of collective neurosis. We find, then, a pernicious delusion off of which ideologues feed in order to sustain their odious agenda.}