Jihad means a war that can be called for by any Islamic leader, but
individual Muslims must decide whether to answer the call to arms. Most
calls for jihad tend to appeal mostly to Islamist extremists and do not
result in total war within or between countries. However, America’s war
in Afghanistan, and the threat of another war in Iraq, have led many
Muslims to rethink jihad. While the majority does not see jihad as a
violent struggle, more and more Muslims would argue that all Muslims
have a duty to defend
Islam.
The increase in terrorist acts against American and Israeli civilians
reflects this widened, violent interpretation of jihad. More Muslims now
consider some form of jihad—violent or nonviolent—to be an obligation
of the faith. Today, Muslims can mean many things by jihad—the
extremists’ idea of warfare, Ibn Taymiya’s revolt against an impious
ruler, the Sufi’s moral self-improvement, or the modern concept of
political and social reform. Terrorist organizations often take
advantage of the disagreements over the types of jihad to insist to less
sophisticated Muslims that war is the only acceptable form of jihad.
The different interpretations of jihad have also caused confusion in the
West. For example, in 1997, when Yasir Arafat called for a “
jihad for Jerusalem,”
he intended his Muslim audience to hear a call to arms while
simultaneously assuring his Western supporters he intended only a
peaceful struggle. Usually, however, the meaning of the word jihad is
clear from its usage. When Sufis discuss spiritual jihad, they use the
term “greater jihad.” Advocates of a jihad on social issues, like
Bourguiba’s war on poverty, clearly do not intend to use violence to
improve education and development. When the World Islamic Front for
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, backed by Osama bin Laden, called for a
jihad in 1998, its aim was clearly violent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.