Recently I read an editorial in the Times of India, written by S M Murshed, who according to the newspaper was a former advisor to the governor of J&K. The article was titled “Islam misunderstood”, considering the fact that Mr. S M Murshed was an advisor to the governor of J&K, an Indian state infested with terrorism – due to Islamic sectarian outfits. One would expect an erudite writing on how extremist views of Islam have led to all the blood shed and commotion, and how it can be reformed. If so, you are in for a disappointment! Instead of doing any of this Mr. S M Murshed, is a mode of extreme denial! – that Islamic extremism exists, that these extremists can use the Quran to justify there actions. What is in fact worrying is, he is most probably not ignorant of these but probably lying!
Mr. S M Murshed, launches an attack on western media for spreading myths about Islam and finally blames Pope Benedict XVI, for championing the spread of the myth. Now, what is it, that he calls myth?
The principal myth propagated is that Islam exhorts its followers to jehad or holy war and belligerent Muslims are termed as jehadis.
An Erroneous Strategy
After, defending the Quran with a rhetoric that it doesn’t support the concept of holy war (and latter he will say pope doesn’t know the meaning of jihad – it simply doesn’t mean holy war and also that the pope never quoted a quranic verse in support of his thesis), Mr. S M Murshed, goes on to remind the pope about the crusades:
The Pope forgot momentarily that a Holy War was a purely Christian concept and the call for it, i.e. the first Crusade, was given in 1095 AD by Pope Urban II, who granted all those taking part in it, the soldiers of the Church, absolution from all their sins as a reward.
I am not the one who champions the cause of the Catholic Church or the pope, pretty much obvious from my criticism of the bible. But one must admit that the pope is far more erudite than Mr. S M Murshed, in comparative religion.
Mr. S M Murshed, never once thought that his own argument (that jihad doesn’t mean holy war) could back fire on him. Crusade was actually derived from a French word croisade, meaning “Marked by the Cross”, referring to the taking of the cross during the journey to Jerusalem. So would that mean that the concept of Holy war doesn’t exist in Christianity? Also note that Mr. S M Murshed never quoted the bible in support of what he claims about crusade, yet he would call it a christian concept (I say so, because Mr. S M Murshed, would latter on wonder why the terrorists are called “Islamic terrorists” just because they are muslims when people of other religions are not).
Mr. S M Murshed, also forgets that the quran promises the Mujahideens (those involved in jihad with their wealth and lives) with greater reward, forgiveness than the those who stay back and those who are not disabled [Q 4:95-96] (Note that the verse has the word “jihad” and it clearly separates them from those who stay back, uninjured (and yet they stay back) and the Mujahideens, a clear reference from the quran that the jihad can refer to war). Other verses talk about similar rewards to those who fight [Q 4:74, Q 9:20-22, Q 9:111, Q 49:15, Q 61:10-13]. Yet Mr. S M Murshed would reckon Crusade as a holy war but Jihad which is given similar rewards in Islam isn’t! So much for the consistency, he will ask us latter regarding the calling of terrorists as Islamic!
Meaning Of Jihad
He then writes:
The Pope has not troubled himself to mention the specific verse or verses in the Qur'an that he alluded to. One must, therefore, divine what the Pontiff had in mind from the Arabic word jehad, which is commonly, and wrongly, regarded by the non-Muslim world in general, and the western world in particular, as meaning a Holy War of the Muslims.
Jehad means striving or struggling for any just and righteous cause and most emphatically, it does not mean war. The word occurs 41 times in the Qur'an and not once can it be construed to be an exhortation to war. Those familiar with the Urdu language will know that the term is used in daily life in conversation, for instance, when it is said that after considerable jadd-o-jehad one has been able to overcome some bad habit like smoking or drinking.
Note what Mr. S M Murshed says, the wrong term Holy war for jihad is only popular in non-Muslim and the western world and his emphatic denial that Jihad could refer to war. Then probably Mr. S M Murshed could explain this dictionary entry for Jihad in the, Lisan al-'arab, a great classical Arabic dictionary
Fighting the enemy. It involves using all effort in words and deeds.
And also another dictionary entry in Mujam matn al lughah:
Jihad is commonly used to refer to waging war for the sake of Al-haqq (the truth)
Sunni Islam, the largest Islamic division has different schools of thought, namely Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali – each having their own Fiqh (law). Al Inayah Sharh al Hidayah, a fiqh Hanafi has this to say on Jihad:
Calling towards the true religion and fighting with one’s soul and wealth against those who reject it.
Al Sheerazi in al Muhadhab, a fiqh Shafi'I says Jihad is fighting. Mawahib al Jaleel fi Sharh Mukhtasar Khali, a fiqh Maliki, says:
Jihad is a Muslim waging war agianst a non-Muslim who has no peace agreement with Muslims and the fighting is for the sake of the word of Allah to prevail. Jihad is also fighting the non-Muslim who attacks Muslim territory and it is also the Muslims attacking the non-Muslims in their land.
It is true Jihad means striving or struggling for any just and righteous cause, as Mr. S M Murshed says, but didn’t it never dawn on him fighting a war would be one among them? And what is termed as righteous may not end up being so righteous. In fact, if any of us are to look into the quran for the term "Holy War" – we would certainly not find it, for the very term "Holy War" is relatively very new. Friedrich Schwally coined the infamous term "holy war" (heilige Krieg) in his monograph by that name published in 1901. Issue is not whether Quran sanctions "Holy War" in those exact words, but whether it sanctions what we now understand as "Holy War"– war that is understood by its adherents and warriors as divinely sanctioned – and whether Jihad is used in the quran in that sense.
Jihad by definition could mean a host of things:
to strive or labour or toil, exert oneself or his power or efforts, employ oneself vigorously or diligently or studiously, take extra pains, put oneself to trouble or fatigue, examine someone or something, to burden or weaken or fatigue beyond one's power, churn and extract from a thing, very eagerly desire or long for something, lay upon or compress, become manifest, to fight for a cause, be in a state of extreme difficulty or trouble, meditate upon something, to overload (such as a camel or cattle), strive after, struggle against difficulties.
The context determines the meaning. Mr. S M Murshed’s analogy that “jadd-o-jehad one has been able to overcome some bad habit like smoking or drinking”, completely misses the point. Has Mr. S M Murshed heard English phrases such as “Crusade against Adult Illiteracy” or “Crusade against Littering” etc. So employing Mr. S M Murshed’s argument we could safely conclude Crusade has nothing to do with religious warfare. As noted the context determines the meaning, no matter what Mr. S M Murshed has to say on the other uses of Jihad.
Mr. S M Murshed’s logic is a mere smoke screen. Jihad literally doesn’t mean “Holy War” (the actual Arabic word for holy war is "Harb Muqaddasah") so the quran doesn’t teach the concept of holy war and Jihad can’t refer to holy war. This argument was first brought out by Muslim speaker and polemicist, Dr. Jamal Badawi, which has since been deflated by Sam Shamoun of Answeing Islam. Shamoun was not to be outwitted he came up with a fitting reply. It is simple, according the quran “the holy” is one of Allah’s names and numerous verses call for fighting is Allah’s cause in the quran – so there we have a Holy war!
The point is, it is not that we need to find the exact words for holy war to say that a book promotes it. Crusades can’t be “holy war” since it doesn’t mean holy war, yet Mr. S M Murshed calls it “holy war” but he can’t even dream of similar logic against his own religion. I think enough references has been provided from Islamic sources that Jihad can be referred to “Holy war”, though it doesn’t literally mean so.
In fact, he couldn’t deny that Jihad could mean war:
But conceivably when a struggle has to be undertaken literally on a war footing in a just cause, the war becomes jehad, such as, for instance, the Palestinians are fighting to expel foreigners, who, with Anglo-American support, have usurped their land.
Let’s set aside the general meaning of Jihad and the questions as to whether Mr. S M Murshed supports the violent ways of the groups like Hamas. Let us concentrate on the Killer argument of Mr. S M Murshed – “The word occurs 41 times in the Qur'an and not once can it be construed to be an exhortation to war.” It is true that the word “Jihad” and its derivatives are used 41 times in the quran. Given the fact that Mr. S M Murshed is aware of the no occurrences of the Arabic word in quran, it would be inconceivable that he doesn’t know their context. I had already pointed out one of those verses [Q 4:95-96] and it clearly a call for muslims to fight/war. Let me quote Tasfir Ibn Kathir – a extremely popular and authoritative commentary on the quran by renowned commentator Ismail Ibn Kathir – on the verse:
Al-Bukhari recorded that Al-Bara' said, "When the Ayah, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home),) was revealed, the Messenger of Allah called Zayd and commanded him to write it. Then, Ibn Umm Maktum came and mentioned that he was blind. Allah revealed, (except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame)).'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`di said, "I saw Marwan bin Al-Hakam sitting in the Masjid. I came and sat by his side. He told us that Zayd bin Thabit told him that Allah's Messenger dictated this Ayah to him, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled, and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah) Ibn Umm Maktum came to the Prophet as he was dictating that very Ayah to me. Ibn Umm Maktum said, `O Allah's Messenger! By Allah, if I had power, I would surely take part in Jihad.' He was a blind man. So Allah sent down revelation to His Messenger while his thigh was on mine and it became so heavy for me that I feared that my thigh would be broken. That ended after Allah revealed, (except those who are disabled).'' This was recorded by Al-Bukhari. At-Tirmidhi recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled), refers to those who did not go to the battle of Badr and those who went to Badr. When the battle of Badr was about to occur, Abu Ahmad bin Jahsh and Ibn Umm Maktum said, `We are blind, O Messenger of Allah! Do we have an excuse' The Ayah, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled) was revealed. Allah made those who fight, above those who sit in their homes not hindered by disability. (but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home), by a huge reward. Degrees of (higher) grades from Him), above the believers who sit at home without a disability hindering them.'' This is the wording recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who said, "Hasan Gharib. Allah's statement, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home),) this is general. Soon after, the revelation came down with, except those who are disabled). So whoever has a disability, such as blindness, a limp, or an illness that prevents them from joining Jihad, they were not compared to the Mujahidin who strive in Allah's cause with their selves and wealth, as those who are not disabled and did not join the Jihad were. In his Sahih, Al-Bukhari recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said, قالوا: وهم بالمدينة يا رسول الله؟ (There are people who remained in Al-Madinah, who were with you in every march you marched and every valley you crossed.) They said, "While they are still in Al-Madinah, O Messenger of Allah'' He said, (Yes. Only their disability hindered them (from joining you).) Allah said, (Unto each, Allah has promised good) meaning, Paradise and tremendous rewards. This Ayah indicates that Jihad is not Fard on each and every individual, but it is Fard Kifayah (which is a collective duty). Allah then said, (but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home), by a huge reward). Allah mentions what He has given them rooms in Paradise, along with His forgiveness and the descent of mercy and blessing on them, as a favor and honor from Him. So He said; (Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.). In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said that the Messenger of Allah said, (There are a hundred grades in Paradise that Allah has prepared for the Mujahidin in His cause, between each two grades is the distance between heaven and Earth.)The only reason blind and other disabled where exempted from jihad was not because Jihad here was merely some struggle, but it was a war!
Is this not an exhortation to war Mr. S M Murshed?
So lets look at the other verses too. Q 5:53 uses the word “jihad” in the sense diligent or studious. Q 6:109, Q 16:38, Q 24:53, Q 35:42, Q 9:79, Q 8:74 – 75, Q 16:110, Q 29:6, Q 29:8, Q 29:69, Q 31:15, Q 5:54, Q 5:35, Q 22:78, Q 22:52, Q 9:24, Q 47:31 – almost all of these verses use the word either in a similar sense & which can’t be seen as an outright and obvious call to war.
Q 2:218 uses the word in the sense of striving in Allah’s path, we already saw what it means to strive in Allah’s path in Q 4:95-96, this verse only reiterates that stand with its context. The previous verse deals with the norm prevalent then, not to fight in the sacred months. The Meccan polytheists point out this norm and the reply comes in Q 2:217-218 that it is a greater fault to be in Allah’s way and this is a greater fault than to kill someone. And hence urges the believers to fight, a clear call for war!
Q 3:142, a verse better understood in the light of the previous and subsequent verses. Muslims suffer great losses in the battle of Uhud, including seventy dead, Allah talks about the killing on both sides in Q 3:140 and reminds that the muslims have also inflicted causalities on the opponents. In verse Q 3:142, Allah says:
“Do you think that you will enter Paradise before Allah tests those of you who fought (in His Cause) and (also) tests those who are As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)?”
Not only does the verse use Jihad (those who fought) in the sense of war, but also but also clearly says that whether they fought or not will determine their entry into paradise! Allah is luring muslims into war with the bait of paradise. How audacious is it for, Mr. S M Murshed, to say in the light of these few verses that never has Jihad been used in the quran as an exhortation to war?
Q 9:73 is another verse, with the word jihad with asks the prophet to be harsh against the disbelievers and promotes violence against the disblievers.
It is not possible for me to touch upon all the verses, I will just summarize the rest of the verses - Q 8:72, Q 9:16, Q 9:19, Q 9:20, Q 9:88, Q 9:44, Q 9:81, Q 61:11, Q 9:41, Q 9:86, Q 49:15, Q 66:9, Q 60:1. All contain an exhortation to fight and kill in war. Another point that should be taken note is that, many of the verses that call for war have been omitted because they don’t use the word jihad!
Moreover, the major Sunnah [saying of Muhammad] including the “two Sahihs (authentic)” Sahih Bukari & Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Muwatta' Imam Malik all contain a chapter on Jihad: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad), The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar), Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad), Jihad. And astonishingly almost all of hadiths (sayings) included in them refers to Jihad as fighting war!
Mr. S M Murshed, is merely playing to the galleries using the naiveté of his readers on the Quran and other aspects of Islam.
Final Comments
He continues:
Some terrorist organisations have, however, adopted the term jehadi, attributing their cause to a struggle for justice, for redressing an imagined wrong done to their fellowmen. In the instances where it has been so used, it is a misnomer and no Quranic support can be found for it.
We have seen enough evidence, this is an outright lie! Mr. S M Murshed becomes more desperate:
The transition from jehad to terrorism becomes all too easy, giving currency to the fallacious aphorism: All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. It is Islamic terrorism, they say.
I would say it is Mr. S M Murshed’s imagination rather than being any aphorism. I have not seen a single serious commentator on Islamic terrorism use such an aphorism. Yes! All terrorists are not muslims.
Of the people killed in terrorist attacks in India in the year 2007, less than one-third were killed by Muslim organisations, while the rest were killed by others - notably Left-wing extremist groups, the ULFA in Assam and the PLA in Manipur.
So what is your point Mr. S M Murshed? Apart from the fact he gives no proof for his stats. Anyone, understand the hollowness of his logic. A lot more people die of diseases than terrorism, does that make terrorism any less dangerous? Moreover, muslim extremists groups are present all over the world, what is he trying to achieve by considering only India?
Surely the Gita or the Bible cannot be blamed for much of the terrorist activities in the world, which has, meanwhile, learned to blame only the Qur'an. All Muslims are not terrorists, only a minority is. Why is it that all the terrorists are not identified by their religious denominations while the term ‘Islamic terrorism' comes glibly to one's tongue in identifying a section of them on the assumption that terrorism is ingrained in Islam?
Mr. S M Murshed, conveniently forgets that he used the term “Left-wing extremist groups” yet all left-wing groups are not terrorists groups. But He can’t allow the same principle being applied to his religion. They are called Islamic terrorists because they draw justification and Inspiration for their actions from Islam. And of course, terrorism is ingrained in Islam, after all didn’t the prophet of Islam claim that he has been made victorious by terror? Are you going to deny this too, Mr. S M Murshed?
For his information Christian extremism or terrorism is not an alien term to muslims – the current war on terror is widely known so in muslim nations and Atheists also use the term.
Mr. S M Murshed, has failed fatally in removing any misconception on Islam, if at all he has succeeded in anything, he has only managed add a few of his own.
This has been the problem with muslims, for that matter followers of any religion. There are possibly three groups of followers – those who know what their religion preaches and they follow it, those who are not aware of all what is preached or are totally unaware of it, those who know what it preaches, but pretend as though it doesn’t teach something. The latter think they are doing their religion some good by protecting it, they are wrong! The first step in arriving at a solution to any problem is accepting that there is a problem. If Murshed wants to do away with the problems that plague Islam he needs to confront it, closing your eyes and pretending that no problem exists will do no good! In fact it will do more damage than anything.
Tags: Islam, Religion, Quran, SM Murshed, Terrorism, Times Of India
