Question asked by E. Gamel from USA:

I recently converted to Islam, which I had hoped would be whole hearted. I suppose I was counting on my partner to provide the stability to enter smoothly, if this is ever possible. Of course what I have learned is that I must take time. In doing so and in doing a little reading here and there, I have lately had a question on how the law of Islam, Shari`ah, regards suicide when someone kills themselves for there belief, i.e. suicide bombers or what the west views as terrorism. As I myself am an American and also formerly Jewish it is difficult for me to wholeheartedly embrace the annihilation of the Jewish state, which implies also the Jewish people, as my own family continues to worship this way.

I base my question on recently read articles which states the claim that yes, the Koran does look at these acts as praiseworthy and such. I'm just wondering if this belief is held by all of Islam or just part and if it is wholly felt, perhaps you can explain this to me in better light.

Thank you



Answer:
There can be instances where such an act may be considered as allowed. However, such allowance can only be in the battlefield, while fighting a war. For instance, a suicide mission to destroy the ammunition store of the enemy - while in a state of war - or a suicide mission to defend one's people against the onslaught of the enemy may be considered as allowed. Nevertheless, a suicide mission - carried out in a covert fashion - to disrupt the civic life and to terrorize a society can by no means be considered as allowed.

Because of the fact that suicide bombings and other terrorist activities - in the absence of a war being declared by the state - against civilian targets is generally carried out in the name of 'Jihad' (generally translated as 'The Holy War'), it is therefore imperative to understand the meaning and implication of the Islamic term 'Jihad'.

The Islamic term 'Jihad' has generally been misused in our present times to imply 'killing the opponent using any means, whatsoever'. This is the reason why in the present times, many terrorist activities are carried out in the name of 'Jihad'. However, this implication of the term 'Jihad' is far from being correct. 'Jihad', on the contrary, is governed by strict laws and rules - derived from the Qur'an and the teachings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). For instance, 'Jihad', according to the Qur'an and the teachings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) - after the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) - is a declared warfare against injustice and oppression carried-out by an organized Muslim state.

Keeping the foregoing definition of 'Jihad' in mind, it can safely be said that no terrorist activities can fall within the ambit of 'Jihad', even if such an activity is sponsored and silently backed by an organized state.

Besides the above definition, there are also some moral rules and ethical teachings regarding 'Jihad'. These moral rules and ethical teachings are also based on the fundamental teachings of the Qur'an and those ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). For instance, if a Muslim nation has entered into a no-war pact with another nation, 'Jihad' cannot be carried-out against that other nation - even against injustice and oppression - until the appointed time of the pact expires or until the Muslim nation openly declares its withdrawal from such no-war pact. Furthermore, even in case of a declared warfare, women, children and the elderly can in no case be made a target of aggression.

In view of the above explanation, it should be clear that suicide bombings in some situations may be considered as allowed, while in another situation it may be considered as taking the life of individuals without a just cause.

Fahad,

I am not really qualified to answer your question, not being particularly learned in the Islamic Faith. Just how the actual Islamic Law - the Shari 'ah as you call it - answers I am unable to say. Yet I do take an interest in what individual "believers" may think, as for me, it is how each single and unique person appropriates their chosen faith for themselves that seems important.

Soon after the Twin Towers atrocity in the USA, I saw the following in an English newspaper, written by the Muslim writer Ziauddin Sardar. His words were an inspiration, particularly amid all the immediate shock and anger.......

Anyway, I kept a copy, and share his words here....

Creating the Kingdom of God on earth, as it is in heaven, is the basic message of Islam. This is the true meaning of Jihad...........Acts of terror are not Jihad. They violate the explicit word of God, Prophet Muhammed and the reasoned concensus of all believers. The greatest jihad is the war on injustice in one's own soul, the injustice that can conceive of terror tactics and lose all restraints and respect for the sanctity of a human life. Jihad is the reasoned struggle of each individual to work within the bounds of moral action, to extend the protection of justice equitably to every human being, irrespective of colour, creed or place of origin. Jihad is the obligation to make peace a lived reality for all human beings..........The faith I hold, the faith of Muslims, the justice we seek is an obligation to promote and make real in each life freedom from tyranny, neglect, need, dearth and suffering. The justice we yearn for is the life blood of a humane society with dignity and freedom for all. It cannot be found by blasting innocents apart in an inferno of twisted metal and concrete. When the innocent are murdered, we all go into the dark with them. When the innocent suffer, their suffering is our own.

__________________
When the bird and the book disagree, always believe the bird.

Fahad:

I'm afraid that the definition you posted was too limited in scope to cover the more complete meaning of "jihad". Essentially it involves "struggle", and a great deal of the time (probably most of the time) it deals with the internal struggle to understand and act morally against both ignorance and our own compulsion to be selfish.

However, the implication of jihad also extends to struggles outside of our own personal struggles. When one looks at that, the Qur'an, as I mentioned in another post, can be interpreted differently as we see currently with the struggles between Sunni and Shi'i and "radical Islam" versus seemingly everyone else.

As you well know, Islam is not monolithic.

Shalom,
Vern

i would refer you brother to this book of Dr. Zakir Naik read it and remove your all misconceptions about islam, Terrorism, and Jihad
http://www.irf.net/islamandterrorism.zip

Metis, I am interested to know what definition of Jehad you know and pls share it with us.

According to General Arabic Lexicon and Islamic Terminology, "Jihad" means "to struggle" or "to strive". Where does it say to "struggle or fight against non-muslims"?

As far as the interpretation of Qur'an is concerned, pls note that if you take the verses of Qur'an out of context then you can give it any meaning you want to support your desires and preconcieved ideas and beliefs.

There are different types of "Jihad".

1) Jihad with Nafs(your desires).

2) Jihad with mal(using wealth to support fight against enemies of Islam).

3) Jihad with kalam(fighting against the enemies of Islam by writing and speech).

4) Jihad with arms (Fighting enemy of Islam with weapons)which is the last option when your enemy doesnot cool down and is bent on distroying you.

At 4th option we are required to defend our people, land and ourselves, we are not ordered to directly attack the enemy neither for our personal gains and we shouldnot attack an enemy to justify our hatred towards him because we muslims are required to fight for Islam, not for ourselves.

I do believe you misread my post as I used the same definition you did and I never said "struggle or fight against non-muslims". I also used some of your examples.



The trouble is that the "correct" context can be quite conjectural and subjective. I'm quite certain you've been involved in the study of the Qur'an, and you're probably well aware of the fact that two people can read the same verse but honestly interpret it differently. I do agree more with your interpretation, but there are Muslems who simply do not agree with you (and I), and I'd be (at times) reluctant to categorically state that it was they who have taken it out of context. In other words, interpretation is always a bit on the subjective side.

Shalom,
Vern