April 23, 2004
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Many Islamic leaders are distorting the meaning of "jihad" to justify an aggressive ideology, according to a Muslim scholar who presented a paper to a worldwide gathering of clerics.

Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, former dean of the Faculty of Islamic Law at the University of Qatar, said in an article in London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that the fatwas, or religious legal opinions, issued by modern clerics confuse what should be "considered jihad and what should not, in light of contemporary applications," according to the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Al-Ansari issued a paper at a meeting called to discuss "Islam and Regional and Global Cooperation," sponsored by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Religious Endowments and Islamic Affairs.

The scholar said his views of jihad sparked controversy among the participants and presenters.

Al-Ansari declared, "Jihad, in its true sense as defined in the Quran and as implemented by the prophet [Muhammad] and his noble companions, is a means of defending differences, pluralism, and diversity."

He contended it is a means "of defending freedom of choice, citing the Quranic verse, "There is no coercion in Islam."

The scholar claimed,:

From the beginning, jihad has been defined by two goals: The first was a response to aggression and oppression [as told in the Quran 22:39]: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight], because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is most powerful in assisting." The second [goal] is the liberation of the persecuted peoples from tyrannical regimes, as happened to the Persian and Byzantine peoples."

The first people to distort the meaning of jihad, he asserted, were the ancient Khawarij who rose up against Caliph 'Ali Ibn Abi Taleb and "against the virtuous society of the companions of the prophet," Muhammad.

"The companions of the prophet were not deceived by these shows of piety and numerous ritual acts; they called them Khawarij and saw their actions as insurrection and rebellion," he said.

"In contrast, [today] the Muslim public has been deceived by the deeds of the new Khawarij, and considers [Osama] bin Laden a jihad warrior, and his deeds as required by jihad," he continued. "Even if [Muslims] ostensibly condemned terrorism – the shows of rejoicing were universal and they believed that America deserved what happened to it, as a result of its subjective policy."

In the modern era, he said, the concept of jihad has been distorted by groups borrowing ideas from Islamic thinkers such as Sayyed Qutb and Abu A'la Al-Mawdoudi, whose views "emerge from the assumption Muslims are the guardians of the human race, that Allah has charged them with liberating it from the tyrants on earth, and that jihad is the only means of establishing an Islamic government that will rule the world."

He cites four cases showing how jihad has been distorted politically.


1. "In the war to liberate Kuwait: The position of most of the Islamic circles was mistaken. Some saw the aggression [of Iraq against Kuwait] as jihad for the sake of uniting the nation and liberating Jerusalem. Others, even if they condemned this aggression, thought that obtaining help from a foreign [party] is not permissible, and demanded [that there be] an Islamic Arab solution, which was impossible, and which would have turned the problem of Kuwait into something like the problem of Palestine.

2. "In liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban: Fatwas appeared calling on the youth to wage jihad together with the Taliban – even though the Taliban were an oppressing group that shed blood, damaged Islam, and turned the towns into terrorist garrisons. How can jihad be waged together with them?

3. "In the war on Saddam's regime: Many Fatwas appeared calling youth to jihad. Many youth were deceived [by them] and went to Baghdad [to fight alongside Saddam's supporters] and the Iraqis themselves took vengeance upon them. How can the defense of a criminal regime that is unlike any other in history be jihad? What will these sheiks say tomorrow in front of [Allah] about their pushing innocent youths into the abyss, knowing that the forces were not equal? And if their perception is correct, why don't they send their own sons to wage jihad?

4. "The bombings in Saudi Arabia: There is a group of jihad sheiks who are professors of Islamic theology in the most veteran Islamic universities inciting Saudi youth to carry out these acts of terror on the pretext of Jihad. Jihad is innocent of this. This is the very essence of terrorism."

Al-Ansari said his paper raised the question of how "this distortion of the meaning of the concept of jihad" came about.

"There were those who said that it was out of ignorance," he said. "But can the great sheiks teaching the creed of the faith in distinguished universities be ignorant?

"There were those who said that it was due to oppression and lack of freedom. But these people are not interested in human freedoms, and in most Islamic societies there are reasonable margins in which it is possible to express an opinion. So why turn to violence?

"There were those who said that it was due to few work opportunities and high unemployment. But how does this correspond with the fact that [those who carried out the operations] had money and weapons, besides living in rich societies?

"There were those who said that [the reason for the distortion of the concept of jihad] is the failure to implement sharia [Islamic law] and the violation of Islamic law. But sharia is implemented to varying degrees in our societies. Additionally, [if this is true], what is the explanation for their rebellion against Saudi society, which implements sharia?

"There were those who said it was due to America's pro-Israel bias. But the jihad organizations have only recently [begun] to wave the banner of Palestine. Similarly, the ideology of the [jihad] movements maintains that [the world] is [now in] Jahiliyya [i.e. pre-Islamic era of ignorance]. Society, a tyrannical ruler, and the Arab regimes are considered 'the near enemy' against whom Jihad must be waged first, [prior to waging Jihad against] 'the distant enemy' – Israel and America."

Finally, he concludes, "The truth is that there is no explanation for the distortion of the concept of jihad, except for the fact that there is an aggressive ideology embedded in the hearts of some people."

Where did this aggressive ideology come from?

"The explanation [lies] in an examination of the educational system, and in the religious, cultural, and media discourse," he said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38171