The buzz word after 9/11 has been jihad. This isn't a new term that has come to existence but a word which as haunted this earth for the past 1400 yrs. The purpose this article is to find out what this word actually means, for what reason this jihad is performed.

Jihad in Arabic means 'endeavor'. It is an Islamic way of establishing physical supremacy over the unbelievers or 'infidels'. Now let us examine the meaning of jihad.

What jihad means?

Jihad is obtained from the word Jahada.

JIHAD = JAHADA (verb). To struggle, strive, fight for the faith.

Now let us allow our Muslim friends to describe what jihad is.

Tafsir, is a commentary on the quran by Islamic scholars & one of the most renowned commentators of Koran is Ibn Kathir. This is what he says regarding jihad, in the book "tasfir of Ibn Kathir", volume 2, pages 116, 117 on verse 2:191:

As Jihad involves death and the killing of men, Allah draws our attention to the fact that the disbelief and polytheism of the disbelievers and their avoidance of Allah's path are far worse than killing. Thus Allah says, "And Fitnah (unbelief) is worse than killing." This is to say that shirk (Polytheism) is more serious and worse than killing.

In the book "Reliance of the Traveler" (This 1200+ page voluminous book on Sharia contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence), one of the more respected, classical works in Islamic theology, compiled by "the great 13th century Hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Iman Nawawi, and others. Defines jihad and its application in page 599 as follows:

JIHAD: "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word "mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the less Jihad. As for the great Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad.

Bassam Tibi wirtes in "War and Peace in Islam":

At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. "We have sent you forth to all mankind" (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da'wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da'wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam-Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur'anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da'wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is 'temporary truce' (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of 'temporary').

"The Qur'anic Concept of War", by Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, it says (in the preface):

"But in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His Will and work against the very purpose of the creation of mankind."

"Many Western Scholars have pointed their accusing fingers at some of the above verses in the Qur'an to be able to contend that world of Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle against the non-Muslims. As to them it is a sufficient answer to make... that the defiance of God's authority by one who is His slaves exposes that slave to the risk of being held guilty of treason and as such a one, in the perspective of Islamic law, is indeed to be

treated as a sort of that cancerous growth on that organism of humanity.... It thus becomes necessary to remove the cancerous malformation even if it be by surgical means, in order to save the rest of humanity."

This what America's close ally of war on terror thinks about this islamic terror (jihad) which is what America should be actually fighting against. Sure, America will win the war with such allies.

These definitions from Islamic scholars are more than enough to prove that jihad is about bloody war against non-Muslims, forcing them to embrace Islam.

Now if today's so called Islamic scholars and apologists have a problem with this tell them to quarrel with the Muhammad & Islamic scholars of the past and not with us. 

 
The truth about moderate Islam

Many people do believe in an illusion of moderate Islam. But I have got bad news for them. Though, jihad narrowly misses out from being the sixth pillar (obligations for a Muslim) of Islam. It is obligatory for a Muslim to perform jihad.

 "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each Allah has promised great good." Koran 4:95

Some people think say that even Muslims are killed by acts of terror by these jihadis, how come it is Islamic?  

The Koran has answered this query on jihad. 

 Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid,- these are (all) friends and protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile-..

Koran 8:72

As this verse clearly states that the protection of those Muslims who have accepted the faith but don't fight aren't in the hands of these jihadis. 

So does this mean all the muslims may not be a part of this jihad? Well, to say the truth, "may be" because we don't know exactly. As the tafsir Ibn kathir says: 

In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, "Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed, then he remains behind.'' It is reported in the Sahih:

مَنْ مَاتَ وَلَمْ يَغْزُ وَلَمْ يُحَدِّثْ نَفْسَهُ بِالْغَزْوِ، مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّــة

(Whoever dies but neither fought (i.e., in Allah's cause), nor sincerely considered fighting, will die a death of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era of ignorance).)

On the day of Al-Fath (when he conquered Makkah), the Prophet said:

لَا هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ الْفَتْحِ وَلكِنْ جِهَادٌ وَنِيَّةٌ، وَإِذَا اسْتُنْفِرْتُمْ فَانْفِرُوا

(There is no Hijrah (migration from Makkah to Al-Madinah) after the victory, but only Jihad and good intention. If you were required to march forth, then march forth.)

Finally, from Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadis #0033, and Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, Book 8, Hadith #387, comes a telling insight on the true meaning and scope of Jihad:

Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight against people until they say that "there is no god but Allah", that "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah", they pray, and pay religious taxes. If they do that, their lives and property are safe."

The Qur'an says Jihad receives the highest reward and is the surest way to paradise if the "fighter" dies: "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead - they live - in the presence of their Lord" (Qur'an 3:169). "- To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah - soon shall we {God} give him a reward-." (Qur'an 4:74).

Allah also allures them with a reward (paradise).

But the good news is many Muslims don't do this and some, who know about this, are leaving Islam.

Peace according to Islam

Then, don't the today's Islamic scholars and apologists of Islam; say that Islam is a religion of peace? Then if jihad plays such an important role in Islam when is peace achieved and how?

According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi,

"Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.... If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. - Those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them"

So after all the infidels are the one who don't want world peace according to Islamic scholars.

World peace in accordance to Islamic teachings can be achieved only when all the people in the world submit themselves to Islam.

The biggest lie about Koran ever told

Today's Islamic scholars have a pleasure in showing the "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION VERSE" (Koran 2:256). But these Islamic scholars who accuse the critics of using koranic verses out of context must check out the context of this verse. This is exactly what we will do:

But before we go into this we have to see when and why a verse was said by Muhammad (1) and does he contradict his earlier verses in that process (2)? In that case what happens (3)?

To know why and when Muhammad said some thing as a revelation (1) we need to make use of the chronology of the koranic verses obtained from the Hadiths and Siras, and the tafsir will also help us in this issue. Though there is no standard and accepted chronology of the Koran.

The Egyptian standard edition gives the following chronological order of the Suras, with the verses said to date from a different period given in parentheses:

XCVI, LXVIII (17-33, 48-50 Med.), LXXIII (10 f., 20 Med.), LXXIV, I, CXI, LXXXI, LXXXVII, XCII, LXXXIX, XCIII, XCIV, CIII, C, CVIII, CII, CVII, CIX, CV, CXIII, CXIV, CXII, LIII, LXXX, XCVII, XCI, LXXXV, CVI, CI, LXXV, XCV, CIV, LXXVII (48 Med.), L (38 Med.), XC, LXXXVI, LIV (54-6 Med.), XXXVIII, VII (163-70 Med.), LXXII, XXXVI (45 Med.), XXV (68-70 Med.), XXXV, XIX (58, 71 Med.), XX

(130 f. Med.), LVI (71 f. Med.), XXVI (197, 224-7 Med.),XXVII, XXVIII (52-5 Med., 85 during Hijrah), XVII (26, 32 f., 57, 73-80 Med.), X (40, 94-6 Med.), XI (12, 17, 114 Med.), XII (1-3, 7 Med.), XV, VI (20, 23, 91,114, 141, 151-3 Med.), XXXVII, XXXI (27-9 Med.), XXXIV (6 Med.), XXXIX (52-4 Med.), XL (56 f. Med.), XLI, XLII (23-5, 27 Med.), XLIII (54 Med.), XLIV, XLV (14 Med.), XLVI (10, 15, 35 Med.), LI, LXXXVIII,XVIII (28, 83-101 Med.), XVI (126-8 Med.), LXXI, XIV (28 f. Med.), XXI, XXIII, XXXII (16-20 Med.), LII, LXVII, LXIX, LXX, LXXVIII, LXXIX, LXXXII, LXXXIV, XXX (17 Med.), XXIX (1-11 Med.), LXXXIII Hijrah, II (281 later), VIII (30-6 Mec.), III, XXXIII, LX, IV, XCIX, LVII, XLVII (13 during Hijrah), XIII, LV, LXXVI, LXV, XCVIII, LIX, XXIV, XXII, LXIII, LVIII, XLIX, LXVI, LXIV, LXI, LXII, XLVIII, V, IX (128 f. Mec.), CX.

The Encyclopedia of Islam, op cit, also details three Western Islamic scholars chronology of the Qur'an. (Noldeke was one of the greatest Qur'anic scholars from the West). This is the chronological order of the last Medinan Suras listed in their work: 

Weil: 2, 98, 62, 65, 22, 4, 8, 47, 57, 3, 59, 24, 63, 33, 48, 110, 61, 60, 58, 49, 66, 9, 5.

Noldeke and Blachere: 2, 98, 64, 62, 8, 47, 3, 61, 57, 4, 65, 59, 33, 63, 24, 58, 22, 48, 66, 60, 110, 49, 9, 5.

[NOTE: Traditional Western dating breaks the chronological order of the Qur'an up into 3 or 4 groups. The last group (sometimes called "late Medinan") is presented above. There are earlier suras in both lists above, however, for space's sake, and editing time, only the last sura grouping is presented. Note that sura 9 is the second to last in all these three scholar's groupings.]

Canon Sell in "The Historical Development of the Qur'an", page 204, details that Jalalu-d-Din as-Syuti (a great Muslim Qur'anic scholar) lists chapter 9 second to last, and Sir William Muir (a great Western Islamic scholar) lists chapter 9 as last. All of the above-mentioned references also list chapter 5 near the chronological end, if not at the very end. The Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, volume 6, book 60, # 129 (or 5.59.650), Hadith states: "The last Sura that was revealed was Bara'a-" So Sura 9 was considered by him to be one of the last, if not the last revealed chapters of the Qur'an. Therefore, the works of six top scholars, (3 Muslim, 3 Western), all agree that chapter 9 is either the last or second to last chapter to be spoken or revealed by Muhammad. Consequently, since this chapter

So, here we see that sura 2 has been revealed at an earlier period of Muhammad's life time when he didn't have adequate power to be aggressive, but in contrast, sura 9 has been revealed at a time close to his death when he was powerful enough to be aggressive.

Do Muhammad's later revelations contradict the earlier ones? (2) The answer is yes.

His earlier verses which were much more tolerant were replaced by his later verses which were aggressive and intolerant. And the irony is that the Koranic verse Q 4:82 rules out this discrepancy. Now the question is do the muslims accept this? Yes, they do.

In "Islam: Muhammad and His Religion", page 66, the great Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery wrote: "The Qur'an is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to the Qur'anic science known as "Nasikh wa Mansukh", i.e.: "the Abrogators and the Abrogated".

The revered work "al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) deals in great detail with many subject matters addressed in the Qur'an wherein there appears to be some conflict or contradiction. The book goes through every sura (chapter), pointing out in full detail every verse which has been canceled, and the verse(s) which replace it. The author notes that out of 114 suras, there are only 43 which were not affected by this concept. If there no contradiction why was such a branch of science ever needed?

So, it is clear that a lot of the earlier verses have been abrogated by the later ones and verse 2:256 we are analyzing is one among them.

Now on to our third query, what happens in that case?

Ibn Warraq summarizes the Muslim concept of abrogation as follows:

"Contradictions do abound in the Koran, and the early Muslims were perfectly well aware of them; indeed they devised the science of abrogation to deal with them. It is a very convenient doctrine that, as one Christian unkindly put it, 'fell in with that law of expediency which appears to be the salient feature in Muhammad's prophetic career'. According to this doctrine, certain passages of the Koran are abrogated by verses revealed afterward, with a different or contrary meaning. This was supposedly taught by Muhammad himself, at Sura 2, verse 105: 'Whatever verses we cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' -Now we can see how useful and convenient the doctrine of abrogation is in bailing scholars out of difficulties- though, of course,

it does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the passages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early suras), and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-called Sword Verses are Medinan (i.e., later); 'tolerance' has been abrogated by 'intolerance'. For, the famous Sword verse,

Sura 9, verse 5, 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,' is claimed to have canceled 124 verses that promote tolerance and patience."

Now as our three most important questions regarding the context of passages have been answered we will go into the historical context of the verse 2:256

An analysis of verse 2:256:

Here is the verse 

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."- Koran 2:256

This is the verse that is often shown to us, when we say Islam is not a religion of peace.

Now look at the verses that have been highlighted in bold. It says there is no compulsion in religion because Truth stands out clear from Error.  That is, Islam is true and other religions are false. Then onto the line that follows this one, whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold.  i.e. those who reject other religions and embrace Islam. Many apologists may argue that what Allah is talking about (as error and evil) need not necessarily be about other religions, in that case, those who say this must also accept that other religions are also true and they are not evil. If they do accept that how can they justify Allah when he says "Allah is the only true god"? And why does he need to send a prophet to guide people who are already in the course of truth?

So we can clearly see even when revealing this sura, which the islamists show to prove the tolerance of Islam. Muhammad and his god didn't stop their torment against the other religions. Hence, Muhammad's tolerance towards other religions in any time in his entire life may well be a myth. That's because some body who says to be a prophet of god had no urge to be tolerant to what he believes to be falsehood and evil, in fact the job of a prophet is to eradicate these from the world.

We haven't still dealt with the context of this verse. So, let's get on with that aspect of it.

The reason why this verse was revealed is clear from this line Hadith (Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2676):

Book 14, Number 2676: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

When the children of a woman (in pre-Islamic days) did not survive, she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would convert it a Jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia), there were some children of the Ansar (Helpers) among them. They said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted revealed; "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error."

So, the reason for this revelation is that when the Banu an-Nadir Jews were expelled from Arabia, they didn't want to leave their children behind and didn't want convert to Islam for which the prophet reveals that "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error"

Now let us hear tafsir Ibn Kathir on this (pages 37, 38):

Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam because it is clear, and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides, blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force.

The reason for the revelation of this verse was that the women of Ansar used to make a vow to convert their sons to Judaism if the latter lived. And when the tribe of Bani an-Nadhir was expelled from Madinah, some children of Ansar were among them, so their parents could not abandon them; hence Allah revealed: "There is no compulsion in religion-" narrated by Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, Abu Dawud and an-Nasa'I, on the authority of Bandar, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Hiban from the Hadith of Shu'bah, Mujahid and others. However Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrated that Ibn Abbas said: it was revealed with regard to a man from the tribe of Bani Salim Ibn Awf called al-Husayni whose two sons converted to Christianity but he was himself a Muslim. He told the Prophet: "Shall I force them to embrace Islam, they insist on Christianity", hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "Fighting": "You shall be called to fight against a people given to great warfare, then you shall fight them, or they shall surrender" (sura 48:16). Allah also says: "O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelieves and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them" (9:73), and He says, "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Pious, (9:123).

Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih (al-Bukhari), the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise.

He clearly says that this verse has been abrogated by verse "FIGHTING". And it must be obeyed. If jihad is not fought with the intent to convert one by force to Islam, then there is no need for the "FIGHTING" verse to abrogate this "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION VERSE".

The internet edition (at www.tafsir.com) of the tafsir Ibn kathir presents an interesting Hadith of Imam Ahmad and says it is authentic. In this hadith Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man, "Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'' The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

When, tafsir Ibn kathir gives a stamp of authority to this Hadith, then I find no relevance to the verse 2:256 because the so called best Muslim and the best human being on earth according to muslims (i.e. prophet Muhammad) didn't follow it. I see know reason why other Muslims will follow it.

Moreover Ibn kathir's tafsir makes it clear this verse was meant to a particular situation and has been abrogated therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed.

I believe this information is sufficient to prove that this verse (2:256) no longer has and had any relevance to today's world and in the Islamic history respectively.

Still have doubts, now here is the stumper.

Koran 3:85

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam,
never will it be accepted of him; and in the
Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have
lost all spiritual good.

After all this any apologetic view that Islam is tolerant towards other religions is nothing but a sham.
 

Allah: "Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World"

Koran 48:28

It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion: and enough is Allah for a Witness.

 Ibn Kathir, says this in his tafsir on the above mentioned vers:.

The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World

Allah the Exalted and Most Honored said, while delivering the glad tidings to the believers that the Messenger will triumph over his enemies and the rest of the people of the earth,

[هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ]

(He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth,) with beneficial knowledge and righteous good deeds. Indeed, the Islamic Shari`ah has two factors, knowledge and deeds. The true religious knowledge is by definition true, and the accepted Islamic acts are by definition accepted. Therefore, the news and creed that this religion conveys are true and its commandments are just,

[لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ]

(that He may make it superior to all religi- ons.) all the religions of the people of the earth, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, whether having certain ideologies or being atheists or idolators.

[وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ شَهِيداً]

(And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness.) that Muhammad is His Messenger and that He will grant him victory. Allah the Exalted and Most Honored has the best knowledge.

[مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّآءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعاً سُجَّداً يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلاً مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَاناً سِيمَـهُمْ فِى وُجُوهِهِمْ مِّنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُودِ ذَلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِى التَّوْرَاةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِى الإِنجِيلِ كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهُ فَآزَرَهُ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوَى عَلَى سُوقِهِ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيظَ بِهِمُ الْكُفَّارَ وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ الصَّـلِحَـتِ مِنْهُم مَّغْفِرَةً وَأَجْراً عَظِيماً ]

Muhammad's religion is set to conquer the entire world and the option we have is to fight back to save ourselves.
 

Are we being told the truth about jihad?

The answer is NO. Allow me to Quote Daniel pipes,   in his article Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning. He deals extensively about this, how we have been cheated into believing jihad is a fight against injustice and human rights violation ( indeed jihad involves both of them)

One can read the entire article here: http://hnn.us/articles/1136.html

Let me quote passages from his article.

"through an examination of media statements by such university-based specialists, they tend to portray the phenomenon of jihad in a remarkably similar fashion-only, the portrait happens to be false.

JIHAD: THE PROFESSORS' VIEW

SEVERAL INTERLOCKING themes emerge from the more than two dozen experts I surveyed.* Only four of them admit that jihad has any military component whatsoever, and even they, with but a single exception, insist that this component is purely defensive in nature. Valerie Hoffman of the University of Illinois is unique in saying (as paraphrased by a journalist) that "no Muslim she knew would have endorsed such terrorism [as the attacks of September 11], as it goes against Islamic rules of engagement." No other scholar would go so far as even this implicit hint that jihad includes an offensive component.

Thus, John Esposito of Georgetown, perhaps the most visible academic scholar of Islam, holds that "in the struggle to be a good Muslim, there may be times where one will be called upon to defend one's faith and community. Then [jihad] can take on the meaning of armed struggle." Another specialist holding this view is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im of Emory, who explains that "War is forbidden by the shari'a [Islamic law] except in two cases: self-defense, and the propagation of the Islamic faith." According to Blake Burleson of Baylor, what this means is that, in Islam, an act of aggression like September 11 "would not be considered a holy war."

To another half-dozen scholars in my survey, jihad may likewise include militarily defensive engagements, but this meaning is itself secondary to lofty notions of moral self-improvement. Charles Kimball, chairman of the department of religion at Wake Forest, puts it succinctly: jihad "means struggling or striving on behalf of God. The great jihad for most is a struggle against oneself. The lesser jihad is the outward, defensive jihad." Pronouncing similarly are such authorities as Mohammad Siddiqi of Western Illinois, John Iskander of Georgia State, Mark Woodard of Arizona State, Taha Jabir Al-Alwani of the graduate school of Islamic and social sciences in Leesburg, Virginia, and Barbara Stowasser of Georgetown.

But an even larger contingent-nine of those surveyed-deny that jihad has any military meaning whatsoever. For Joe Elder, a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin, the idea that jihad means holy war is "a gross misinterpretation." Rather, he says, jihad is a "religious struggle, which more closely reflects the inner, personal struggles of the religion." For Dell DeChant, a professor of world religions at the University of South Florida, the word as "usually understood" means "a struggle to be true to the will of God and not holy war."

Concurring views have been voiced by, among others, John Kelsay of John Carroll University, Zahid Bukhari of Georgetown, and James Johnson of Rutgers. Roxanne Euben of Wellesley College, the author of The Road to Kandahar: A Genealogy of Jihad in Modern Islamist Political Thought, asserts that "For many Muslims, jihad means to resist temptation and become a better person." John Parcels, a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Georgia Southern University, defines jihad as a struggle "over the appetites and your own will." For Ned Rinalducci, a professor of sociology at Armstrong Atlantic State University, the goals of jihad are: "Internally, to be a good Muslim. Externally, to create a just society." And Farid Eseck, professor of Islamic studies at Auburn Seminary in New York City, memorably describes jihad as "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights."

Finally, there are those academics who focus on the concept of jihad in the sense of "self-purification" and then proceed to universalize it, applying it to non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Thus, to Bruce Lawrence, a prominent professor of Islamic studies at Duke, not only is jihad itself a highly elastic term ("being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger"), but non-Muslims should also "cultivate . . . a civil virtue known as jihad":

Jihad? Yes, jihad . . . a jihad that would be a genuine struggle against our own myopia and neglect as much as it is against outside others who condemn or hate us for what we do, not for what we are. . . . For us Americans, the greater jihad would mean that we must review U.S. domestic and foreign policies in a world that currently exhibits little signs of promoting justice for all.

Here we find ourselves returned to the sentiments expressed by the Harvard commencement speaker, who sought to convince his audience that jihad is something all Americans should admire.

THE TROUBLE with this accumulated wisdom of the scholars is simple to state. It suggests that Osama bin Laden had no idea what he was saying when he declared jihad on the United States several years ago and then repeatedly murdered Americans in Somalia, at the U.S. embassies in East Africa, in the port of Aden, and then on September 11, 2001. It implies that organizations with the word "jihad" in their titles, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden's own "International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusade[rs]," are grossly misnamed. And what about all the Muslims waging violent and aggressive jihads, under that very name and at this very moment, in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Ambon, and other places around the world? Have they not heard that jihad is a matter of controlling one's anger?

But of course it is bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the jihadists worldwide who define the term, not a covey of academic apologists. More importantly, the way the jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history.

In premodern times, jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims, then as now the Islamic majority. It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in Arabic as dar al-Islam) at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims (dar al-harb). In this prevailing conception, the purpose of jihad is political, not religious. It aims not so much to spread the Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power (though the former has often followed the latter). The goal is boldly offensive, and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world.

By winning territory and diminishing the size of areas ruled by non-Muslims, jihad accomplishes two goals: it manifests Islam's claim to replace other faiths, and it brings about the benefit of a just world order. In the words of Majid Khadduri of Johns Hopkins University, writing in 1955 (before political correctness conquered the universities), jihad is "an instrument for both the universalization of [Islamic] religion and the establishment of an imperial world state."

As for the conditions under which jihad might be undertaken-when, by whom, against whom, with what sort of declaration of war, ending how, with what division of spoils, and so on-these are matters that religious scholars worked out in excruciating detail over the centuries. But about the basic meaning of jihad-warfare against unbelievers to extend Muslim domains-there was perfect consensus. For example, the most important collection of hadith (reports about the sayings and actions of Muhammad), called Sahih al-Bukhari, contains 199 references to jihad, and every one of them refers to it in the sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims. To quote the 1885 Dictionary of Islam, jihad is "an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the traditions [hadith] as a divine institution, and enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims."

JIHAD WAS no abstract obligation through the centuries, but a key aspect of Muslim life. According to one calculation, Muhammad himself engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch) was defensive. Within a century after the prophet's death in 632, Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in the west. Though such a dramatic single expansion was never again to be repeated, important victories in subsequent centuries included the seventeen Indian campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 998-1030), the battle of Manzikert opening Anatolia (1071), the conquest of Constantinople (1453), and the triumphs of Uthman dan Fodio in West Africa (1804-17). In brief, jihad was part of the warp and woof not only of premodern Muslim doctrine but of premodern Muslim life.

That said, jihad also had two variant meanings over the ages, one of them more radical than the standard meaning and one quite pacific. The first, mainly associated with the thinker Ibn Taymiya (1268-1328), holds that born Muslims who fail to live up to the requirements of their faith are themselves to be considered unbelievers, and so legitimate targets of jihad. This tended to come in handy when (as was often the case) one Muslim ruler made war against another; only by portraying the enemy as not properly Muslim could the war be dignified as a jihad.

The second variant, usually associated with Sufis, or Muslim mystics, was the doctrine customarily translated as "greater jihad" but perhaps more usefully termed "higher jihad." This Sufi variant invokes allegorical modes of interpretation to turn jihad's literal meaning of armed conflict upside-down, calling instead for a withdrawal from the world to struggle against one's baser instincts in pursuit of numinous awareness and spiritual depth. But as Rudolph Peters notes in his authoritative Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (1995), this interpretation was "hardly touched upon" in premodern legal writings on jihad.

IN THE vast majority of premodern cases, then, jihad signified one thing only: armed action versus non-Muslims. In modern times, things have of course become somewhat more complicated, as Islam has undergone contradictory changes resulting from its contact with Western influences. Muslims having to cope with the West have tended to adopt one of three broad approaches: Islamist, reformist, or secularist. For the purposes of this discussion, we may put aside the secularists (such as Kemal Ataturk), for they reject jihad in its entirety, and instead focus on the Islamists and reformists. Both have fastened on the variant meanings of jihad to develop their own interpretations.

Islamists, besides adhering to the primary conception of jihad as armed warfare against infidels, have also adopted as their own Ibn Taymiya's call to target impious Muslims. This approach acquired increased salience through the 20th century as Islamist thinkers like Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), Abu al-A'la Mawdudi (1903-79), and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1903-89) promoted jihad against putatively Muslim rulers who failed to live up to or apply the laws of Islam. The revolutionaries who overthrew the shah of Iran in 1979 and the assassins who gunned down President Anwar Sadat of Egypt two years later overtly held to this doctrine. So does Osama bin Laden.

Reformists, by contrast, reinterpret Islam to make it compatible with Western ways. It is they-principally through the writings of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, a 19th-century reformist leader in India-who have worked to transform the idea of jihad into a purely defensive undertaking compatible with the premises of international law. This approach, characterized in 1965 by the definitive Encyclopedia of Islam as "wholly apologetic," owes far more to Western than to Islamic thinking. In our own day, it has devolved further into what Martin Kramer has dubbed "a kind of Oriental Quakerism," and it, together with a revival of the Sufi notion of "greater jihad," is what has emboldened some to deny that jihad has any martial component whatsoever, instead redefining the idea into a purely spiritual or social activity.

For most Muslims in the world today, these moves away from the old sense of jihad are rather remote. They neither see their own rulers as targets deserving of jihad nor are they ready to become Quakers. Instead, the classic notion of jihad continues to resonate with vast numbers of them, as Alfred Morabia, a foremost French scholar of the topic, noted in 1993:

Offensive, bellicose jihad, the one codified by the specialists and theologians, has not ceased to awaken an echo in the Muslim consciousness, both individual and collective. . . . To be sure, contemporary apologists present a picture of this religious obligation that conforms well to the contemporary norms of human rights, . . . but the people are not convinced by this. . . . The overwhelming majority of Muslims remain under the spiritual sway of a law . . . whose key requirement is the demand, not to speak of the hope, to make the Word of God triumph everywhere in the world.

In brief, jihad in the raw remains a powerful force in the Muslim world, and this goes far to explain the immense appeal of a figure like Osama bin Laden in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001.

Contrary to the graduating Harvard senior who assured his audience that "Jihad is not something that should make someone feel uncomfortable," this concept has caused and continues to cause not merely discomfort but untold human suffering: in the words of the Swiss specialist Bat Ye'or, "war, dispossession, dhimmitude [subordination], slavery, and death." As Bat Ye'or points out, Muslims "have the right as Muslims to say that jihad is just and spiritual" if they so wish; but by the same token, any truly honest accounting would have to give voice to the countless "infidels who were and are the victims of jihad" and who, no less than the victims of Nazism or Communism, have "their own opinion of the jihad that targets them."

-.For usage of the term in its plain meaning, we have to turn to Islamists not so engaged. Such Islamists speak openly of jihad in its proper, martial sense. Here is Osama bin Laden: Allah "orders us to carry out the holy struggle, jihad, to raise the word of Allah above the words of the unbelievers." And here is Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former head of the Taliban regime, exhorting Muslim youth: "Head for jihad and have your guns ready."

IT IS an intellectual scandal that, since September 11, 2001, scholars at American universities have repeatedly and all but unanimously issued public statements that avoid or whitewash the primary meaning of jihad in Islamic law and Muslim history. It is quite as if historians of medieval Europe were to deny that the word "crusade" ever had martial overtones, instead pointing to such terms as "crusade on hunger" or "crusade against drugs" to demonstrate that the term signifies an effort to improve society-."
 

Conclusion

Here we clearly find jihad as offensive war carried out against the non-Muslims when they reject Islam and follow the religion or philosophy of their wish. Jihad is performed to convert these infidels to Islam by force or accept humiliation by paying poll tax, jizya.

No justification what so ever can be given to what Muhammad & his companions did in the name of jihad. Muhammad's Islam knows no tolerance. All it knows and wants is complete dominance.

Though jihad around us is going on unabated, there is a serious and dangerous conspiracy going around us to give to a normal person "a renovated and civilized" view of Islam and jihad. These apologetic views which are being spread are more dangerous than Jihad which we are talking about. These apologists prevent people from understanding the real threat, and when they will understand that on their own, it will be too late.

Jihad is knocking at the door steps of the civilized world disguised as renaissance with the help of those whom Respected Ali Sina rightly quotes as "useful idiots" and it trying to enter our homes spelling doom to Mankind. But Dr. Sina, may be wrong they aren't "useful Idiots" but "Useless Idiots" they don't do justice to their job or neither to mankind.

It is high time we realize the threat of Islamic Jihad and stand up strong against it for our own survival.