User:Vector4F/Jihad
- About the Qur'an. I think we should give an overview of interpretations on jihad from the Qur'an. This should be its own section. We cannot be complete in any sense, but we can sample particular slices that are widely read (I'm thinking about around three interpretations). We can cover all the bases without bringing everyone up to bat, so to speak. This is acceptable, because Islam does not have a central juridical interpretation. I'm working on some selections.
- On Jihad and violence. We need to make the debate over the context of when to wage war or any violent conflict. The "verses of the sword" are controversial and there are also restrictions of waging war in general.
- The cause of Islam is the spread of Islam and submission to God, which are bound together (nothing really controversial about that). There is no complete literal meaning jihad (in the grammatical sense of an object to the verb), unless you are citing a specific interpretation of it (which is rare outside jurisprudence). "Struggle" for what? The object is never clearly singular - there are many activities that involve struggling for Islam mentioned in the Qur'an. What's more, jihad is not a lonely word, but sits in a family of words that all take on different contexts in the Qur'an. Also, some verses can be considered "abrogated" depending on the jurist you're reading. And of course, there are limitations on any jihad.
- Nevertheless, the notion of offensive military jihad was 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. 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 Perian Safavid dynasty.
- Notably, these concepts of jihad differ substantially from purely textual interpretations. They were typically developed in the political rhetoric of leaders, rather than major Islamic schools of jurisprudence. This also meant they often lacked the complex legal and ethical dimension of scholastic theories of jihad. Finally, the fulfilling of ghaza was almost strictly secular in exercise and frequently involved non-Muslims. [1]
References
[edit]- ^ Bonney, Richard (2005). Jihad: From Qur'an to bin Laden. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1403933723.