Secularism in India: A Society Facing Itself

Secularism in India:
A Society Facing Itself

By

B.E.N.

December 15, 2004


While the Republic of India is fairly young, only 56 years old, the civilization of India goes back at least 5,000 years9. When viewed in this perspective, the “recent” independence of India from British rule on August 14, 1947 further complicates and diversifies a society that is already a collage of humanity and culture. The splitting of British India into two separate states, Muslim Pakistan and secular India created a quagmire of issues and an Identity crisis for millions. Even after all the bloodshed and the movement of nearly 11 million Hindus and Muslims over the border, almost half of the subcontinents Muslim population still remains in India.

Today as India’s largest religious minority it accounts for 12% of the current population of 1,045,845,226 (July 2002 est.). India is also the home to other religions such as Christians (2.3% of population), Sikh’s (1.9% of population), and other groups including Buddhists, Jain, and Parses which total 2.5% of the population. These groups, while very large in physical size, are tiny when compared as a percentage and accentuate the largeness of the Hindu’s who comprise 81.3% of the population5.

To content with this staggering diversity, India's Constitution sought to shape an overarching Indian identity while acknowledging the reality of pluralism. This was done by guaranteeing fundamental rights, in some cases through specific provisions for the protection of minorities. These included the freedom of religion in Articles 25-28; the right of any section of citizens to use and conserve their "distinct language, script or culture" with Article 29; and the right of "all minorities, whether based on religion or language," to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice with Article 30. The problem of caste was addressed in the Constitution by declaring the practice of untouchability as unlawful per Article 17. To compensate and open up some opportunity, a percentage of admissions to colleges and universities along with government positions were reserved for the Scheduled Castes (untouchables) and Scheduled (aboriginal) Tribes in Article 335. Also to ensure adequate political representation, Article 330 gives the Scheduled Castes and Tribes reserved seats in the Lok Sabha, the Lower House of Parliament, and in state legislatures proportionately to their numbers. These reservations were to have ended in 1960, but they have been extended every ten years by a constitutional amendment6.

India may be an officially secular state, but Indian society is controlled by religious identities and plagued by communal mistrust and hatred. The term communal, in India, refers mainly to the Hindu-Muslim conflict, and with memories of the “recent” partition still perpetuated, Hindu-Muslim tensions are constantly sustained by jealousy and fear. Year after year, several hundred incidents of communal violence and rioting are officially reported, with the number and intensity of late growing. December 1992’s destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya by Hindu fanatics led to rioting across the country and left some 1,200 people dead. In January 1993, Mumbai suffered a nine-day anti-Muslim campaign, which resulted in the death of more than six hundred people.

The radical Hindu political movement demands an official end to the secularism that India currently enjoys and wishes to replace it with a recognition of a Hindu state. This is a change in the basic principles of the Indian Constitution, which is a dramatic change from the original Indian ideal of a pluralist, tolerant and secular state.

Anti-Secularists contend that the problem with secularism is that it assumes that a secular state is essential for different religions to peacefully coexist within a nation. This premise contends that all religions are based on the idea of exclusivity and therefore will be hostile to one another. On top of this, they contend that the concept of organized religion is foreign to India. The English word religion does not have a literal translation in any Indian language. The closest Indian word is Dharma, which does not connote exclusivity. Even the term Hindu is a Persian word that refers to people living east of the Indus (Sindhu) river showing that the term Hindu in its original sense refers to all Indians. Therefore, Hinduism is not a homogenous religious group.

Secularism is a more comprehensive idea of a pluralist country compromising various religions, castes, languages and social cultures. Secularism allows a very important aspect of identity, that of a heterogeneous one.

With the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in India since the early 1980s, the Hindu consciousness has been heightened and has led Hindu nationalists to project India's massive Hindu majority as threatened. This nationalist movement is rooted in the late nineteenth century and is recently represented by a formidable list of organizations and parties. On this list is the powerful paramilitary Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), its revivalist associate Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the leading opposition political party. With a combined vision of a revitalized Hindu India, they content that India’s Hindu’s are treated unfairly by India's secularism2.

Hindu nationalists point out that unlike the Christians or the Muslims, they do not consider themselves to be the chosen race anointed by God to spread His Word. They do not think that all non-believers have been misled by Satan and will be damned to spend eternity in Hell. In fact, just as the concept of religion is alien to India, so too is the concept of Satan.
Secularism in India, however, does not separate church and state, instead it seeks to recognize and promote all religious communities. The Constitution guarantees freedom of worship and to establish and administer its own schools and traditions. The issue is to establish a fair democratic balance between the Hindu majority’s preference and the protection of the minority.
On the other hand, the anti-secularist movement contends that the fundamental problem with the idea of secularism is that it does not address the root problem of religious violence, which is religious bigotry. They point out that secularism has hardly made a dent in reducing religious bigotry. Case in point is that the Pope frequently states that all religions are not the same and that Christianity is the one true religion. Because of its failure to address the issue of religious bigotry, anti-secularists believe that secularism has not been successful in creating a society in which all religions can truly peacefully coexist7.

However, Hindu nationalists tend to project a majority that is in denial of the diversity that makes Hinduism, and India, what it is. The ideals of Hindutva, or Hinduness, would impose an oppressive conformity to individual Hindus as well to the other minorities. To achieve this political power, the Hindutva movement uses religion as its medium and claims that all Indians, regardless of their religion, are part of a Hindu nation. Whether by passing bills through the parliament to restrict mixed faith marriages, state sponsored reconversion campaigns or a movement to rewrite the history of India as a single Hindu utopia.

The movement has ambitions of political and cultural reform. Its rhetoric of Hindu supremacy, full of statements that foster the demonization of minorities and exaggerated threats to national identity, falls on sympathetic ears among many members of the conservative upper and middle classes8. This support has emboldened the movement and gained its ideologies into places of public office, from local government to Parliament.

The Muslim and Christian religions are coined as Semitic per the Hindutva theory of history and are foreign faiths introduced from outside of Hindu India by foreign aggressors. This isolationism of these faiths makes the Hindutva movement, philosophically, more than nationalistic but rather supremacist. This ideological definition of nationhood by membership in a specific race, culture, or religion is tantamount fascist4.

There are also some specific political characteristics that are associated with fascist movements. These characteristics include the use of violence, the victimization of a specific community within the population and the use of unconstitutional strong-arm tactics against certain groups for political gain.

Bal Thackeray, the leader of Shiv Sena and a Hindutva proponent, has explained that the use of mobs for extorting money for political use was understandable and stated that if Muslims, “behaved like Jews in Nazi Germany [there would be] nothing wrong if they were treated as Jews were in Germany1.”

The RSS (National Volunteers Union) is an ideological organization that has influence upon domestic conservative politics. During the Gandhi era, the head of the RSS, Madhav Golwalkar, once praised Hitler for demonstrating to the world, “how well nigh impossible,” it is for different races and cultures, “having differences going to the root,” to be assimilated into a national whole. Germany’s removal of the “Semitic Races,” Golwalkar goes on to say, “[is a] good lesson for us in Hindusthan [India] to learn and profit by3.”

While this is not widely publicized, Golwalkar is still a highly respected individual in Hindutva circles. The RSS continues to assert that in an India free of secularism, Muslims and Christians will return to their ancient faith and traditions of Hinduism. Those without the wisdom to do so would be suspect, and thus worthy of second-class citizenship. This unwillingness to accept Hindutva therefore would label those individuals not only as apostates but also as traitors.

The Hindutva activists try to recreate the past with a combination of fact and fantasy. Many contributions to Indian culture have been made from Islamic writers, musicians, painters and their works have all become completely integrated with those of the Hindus. This mixture of cultures is even evident in that Islamic theory and practice have influenced Hindu religious theory and practices. Islam has been practiced in India for so long that it must now be considered an Indian religion.

With the intensification of Hindu-Muslim antipathy, secularism in India will find itself challenged at all levels of society. India must face this challenge as a secular state to secure democracy, justice, and equality in a multicultural society. The political culture of mutual distrust and ever intensifying violence between Muslims and Hindus is an enormous danger for the state. Secularism as well as democracy is under attack in India by the communalism, excessive caste consciousness, and separatism that constantly threatens it. The state, in its response to this challenge, must not weaken the values of individual liberties that are at the core of its Constitutional commitment.


1. “The Threats to Secular India,” Amartya Sen, www.nybooks.com/articles/2621.
2. “International Religious Freedom Report,” US Department of State, www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5685.htm.
3. “The Danger of Hindutva to Secular India,” S.R. Welch, www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/welch1.html.
4. “Is India Going the Way of 1930s Germany?” Arun Swamy, www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/2002/0203indhind_body.html.
5. CIA World Factbook 2002, www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html.
6. “India: The Dilemmas of Diversity,” Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr., www.menic.utexas.edu/asnic/countries/india/Hardgrave.html.
7. “Why India Should not be Secular,” Raju Agarwal, www.indiapolicy.org/lists/india_policy/2000/Dec/msg00104.html.
8. HinduUnity.org homepage with general statement and Hindutva agenda, www.hinduunity.org/aboutus.html.
9. Encyclopedic discussion on India, www.wikipedia.org/wiki.India.

The Shade of Swords: Jihad in Islam

Note: The comments in GREEN are various qoutes spread troughout the article referencing Jihad.

The Shade of Swords:
Jihad in Islam

B.E.N.
March 15, 2004

Jihad- A holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; a bitter strife or crusade undertaken in the spirit of a holy war. - Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary

Few words in the last twenty years have raised as much emotion- both positive and negative- as the word jihad. It carries with it the mystique of ancient dedication as well as the notion of intolerance and hate. While the importance of this word is undeniable, the manner in which it has been used has generated much controversy. Both sides of the political front of Islam have used the word and both have pointed to Qur`anic verses for support, yet the conflict over its intended meaning still exists. Is the semantics of this word open to that much interpretation or is there a more clear intention and meaning to the word? And based on this answer, what influence will jihad have on the region and the world?
Defining a Term
Jihad has been defined in a variety of ways by a motley list of characters. Some offer a real intention of fairness while others show an obvious bias to the word and its institution. The Qur`an defines the word as, “holy fighting in the cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s word (i.e. Islam) superior[1].” It is also considered as one of the fundamentals of Islam. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as, “struggle, contest, specifically one for the propagation of Islam. A religious war of Mohammedans[2] against unbelievers in Islam, inculcated as a duty by the Koran and traditions[3].”

Jihad, from an Arabic verb meaning to struggle and persevere, denotes, in the history of Islamic civilization, religious war waged against heretics, unbelievers, and the enemies of the state or the community of Muslims. In early Islamic history “jihad” meant holy war, and, as a strictly Islamic phenomenon, it bears a strict relation to the spread of the faith by Muslim arms…among the descendants of the Kharijits…it was ranked as a sixth pillar of religion. – Collier’s Encyclopedia

In the Arabic language, Jihad literally means, “to strive,” and, “to struggle.” It has also been further sub-categorized into five other classifications: 1) jihad an-nafs or jihad against one’s self, 2) jihad ash-shaitaan or jihad against Satan, 3) jihad al-kaffar or jihad against the unbeliever, 4) jihad al-munafiqeen or jihad against hypocrites, and 5) jihad al-faasiqeen or jihad against corrupt Muslims.
This defining of jihad has led to two main interpretations of the term. One is that the term is intended as a peaceful resistance, resulting in force strictly for self-defense and is intended as an internal struggle rather than an external one, commonly referred to as the Greater Jihad.

“Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth- not just a portion, but the whole planet.” And that God’s Law (Shariah) should be enforced in the world “by force of arms.” Truth cannot be confined within geographical borders. “The allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his, but on the faith to which he belongs…wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. - S.A.A. Maududi “Jihad in Islam”

Dr. Robert Crane, former Deputy Director for Planning in the National Security Council under President Nixon and U.S. Ambassador to the United Arabs Emirates under President Reagan and current Chairman of the Center for Understanding Islam, points out that the Qur`an only refers to jihad in terms of, “intellectual effort to apply divine revelation in promoting peace through justice[4].” Crane continues that the media and Western polemists have attached themselves to the “phraseology” of extremists who distort mainstream Islamic teachings. This attachment of jihad with holy war is connected only with fringe elements rather than with the whole of Islam.
Submission.org, an Islamic site that attempts to bring understanding to the world in regards to Islam states that, “Jihad particularly involves change in one’s self and mentality. It may concern the sacrifice of material property, social class, and even emotional comfort solely for the salvation and worship of God alone[5].”

Jihad is a divinely ordained institution in Islam. By many authorities it is counted as one of the pillars of Islam. Theologically, it is intolerant idea: a tribal god, Allah, trying to be universal through conquest. Historically, it was an imperialist urge masked in religious phraseology.- Ram Swarup Understanding Islam through Hadis

Furthering this argument are the verses of peace within the Qur`an. For example, the Qur`anic verse 8:61 states, “but if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower[6].” Another example is the verse 4:90, which states, “Except those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty, or those who approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allah willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them[7].”
But this is by far the least accepted definition of jihad among most Western scholars as well as by the Ulama. There are over a hundred verses in the Qur`an that associate jihad with qitaal or fighting[8]. Bernard Lewis, the renowned Islamic scholar and Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, supports this argument pointing out that the Qur`an itself as well as many different hadith connect jihad with the military function of the word[9]. The Qur`an says, “Jihad is ordained for you though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing for which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know[10].”

Those who emphasize the personal meaning of Jihad as ‘the struggle against one’s evil inclination’ rather than its political definition as ‘the Holy War against infidels’, are simply perverting history by minimizing the primary significance of the concept.- Professor Walid Phares, Miami University

Dr. Al-Hilali, former Professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings, and Dr. Khan, former Director of University Hospital Islamic University in Medina, explain that jihad in Allah’s Cause is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). They continue that Islam is established through jihad and that this is how Allah’s word is made superior and his religion spread. “By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. In Sahih Al-Bukhari, Hadith number 2782 the importance of jihad is made very clear. The hadith states, “’O Allah’s Messenger! What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To offer the Salat at their early stated fixed times.’ I asked, ‘What is next in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To be good and dutiful to your parents.’ I further asked, ‘What is next in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad in Allah’s cause.’ I did not ask Allah’s Messenger anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more[11].” And finally, “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers[12].”

“Jihad has been decreed to repel aggression and to remove obstructions impeding the propagation of Islam in non-Islamic countries.” As Lt. Col. M.M. Qureshi points out in his “Landmarks of Jihad”, “only a war which has an ultimate religious purpose can be termed as jihad.”- Shayk Muhammad Abu Zahra, Egyptian member of the Academy of Islamic Research.

The Rules of Engagement
With the definition of jihad complete, let us now move on to the specific guidelines that have been associated with the term. First of all, jihad is technically a war against non-Muslims, specifically jihad al-kuffar (unbeliever) and jihad al-munafiqeen (hypocrites), as Muslims are forbidden to fight one another. The only exception to this rule is jihad al-faasiqeen (corrupt Muslims), which is intended to purify the ranks per say. An example of the latter rests in the assassination of Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, following the signing of a peace treaty with Israel. His assassins used jihad al-faasiqeen in their defense at their trial[13].

“We- with Allah’s help- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.”- Osama bin Laden’s fatwa for jihad against Americans

The fighting was to be limited, “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors[14].” Sohail H. Hashmi, Alumnae Foundation Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, further explains that jihad is also limited in the months of the year that it can be carried out. “Verily, the number of months with Allah is twelve months, so was it ordained by Allah on the day when He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are Sacred (the 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th). That is the right religion, so wrong not yourselves therein, and fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, unbelievers, etc) collectively as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (pious)[15].”
Time is not the only limit to jihad. The limits are listed in the practices of the Prophet and the first four caliphs for whenever the Prophet sent out military forces, he placed certain restraints on the commander. This practice was continued by his successors, and the first caliph, Abu Bakr, listed them: “do not act treacherously; do not act disloyally; do not act neglectfully; do not mutilate; do not kill little children or old men, or women; do not cut off the heads of the palm-trees or burn them; do not cut down the fruit trees; do not slaughter sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. You will pass by people who devote their lives in cloisters; leave them and their devotions alone. You will come upon people who bring you platters in which are various sorts of food; if you eat any of it, mention the name of God over it[16].”

“Each Muslim should have an ambition for martyrdom, be a lover of death. (Every martyr shall have seventy deer-eyed houris as his consorts.) ‘Jihad shall continue until the Day of Judgement.’ (Muhammad)”- S.A.A. Maududi & A.H. Siddiqi Jihad in Islam

In essence, Muslim combatants are not allowed to kill non-combatants. But there does exist a limit to the restrictions on a Muslim army. While the Muslim force is not allowed to completely raze a town for say, they are allowed to inflict enough damage to overcome the resistance. Abu Hanifa, founder of one of the four Sunni legal schools, then expanded this in the 8th century and allowed the use of catapults and flooding to defeat an enemy. He argued that if Muslims stopped attacking their enemies in fear of killing non-combatants, then they would not be able to fight at all because, “there is no city in the territory of war in which there is no one at all of these [non-combatants] … mentioned[17].” However, reciprocity is not allowed. If an enemy holds complete disregard for humane treatment of non-combatants [Muslim non-combatants] the Muslim force is not permitted to respond in kind.

“The only way to find out if it (Islam) teaches Jihad and what that word means is to examine reference works and official statements made by its representatives.
But what if you meet a Muslim who denies that Islam teaches Jihad or who gives a novel interpretation of it? His personal opinion has no logical or legal bearing on what the religion of Islam officially teaches concerning jihad. He may disagree with what Islam teaches but this cannot alter the fact that Islam teaches it.”- Dr. Robert Morey The Islamic Doctrine of Jihad

But before a Muslim army can attack another non-Muslim force, it must first call them to Islam. If they refuse to convert, then the Muslim army must then call them to pay the Jizya and submit to Sharia law. Again if they refuse, then the Muslim for may declare war on them and attack.
This brings us to another question of jihad- is it defense in nature, offensive, or a combination of both. The evidence of a defensive jihad can be found in the Qur`an. “But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower[18].” Or in the verse, “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors[19].”

We will be willing to die as martyrs until our flag flies over Jerusalem. No one should believe they can frighten us with weapons. We have much stronger weapons, the weapon of belief, the weapon of sacrifice, the weapon of jihad…We shall continue the jihad, the long jihad, a complex jihad, a jihad of attrition, of holy death. Warfare is our only way to victory. The path of glory, the path of jihad.”- Yasir Arafat, October 21, 1996

Rashad Ali, a journalist and contributor to Khilafah.com, comments that these two verses do not annul the 119 other verses in the Qur`an that allude to a more offensive nature to jihad. This long list of verses indicates a wide range of jihads listed primarily as follows: defensive war, offensive war, limited war, unlimited war and protective war[20]. Fir instance, “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the scripture, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued[21].” Or in the verse, “O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell, - and worst indeed is that destination[22].”

“So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost endeavor with it.”- Surat Al-Furqaan 25:52

Conclusion
Whether the jihad is of an offensive or defensive nature, who can actually authorize it? This is a rather complex question considering several factors. For one, jihad is defined within the Qur`an and in the hadith, which would lean towards the religious aspect of it. Furthermore, jihad is a tool to be used to spread Islam to Dar Al-Harb or the non-Muslim world. However, Islamic states rule by Sharia, which is Islamic law- the same law that defines jihad. And the state is the institution that has an army, therefore, the states control of jihad would make sense.
To complicate matters more, does the Sunni community have to support a Shiite call to jihad or vice versa? And what impact does Sufi Islam have on the call to jihad, are all Muslims required to pursue the Sufi’s call for Greater Jihad? Obviously this paper is not going to be able to answer these questions as the Muslim community in general is still struggling over the questions let alone the answers.
But with the threat of global terrorism, the answers to these questions become extremely important. Does Osama bin Laden have the power to issue a fatwa to call forth jihad on America? It is difficult to know the answer to this question, and therefore places great strain on the religion of Islam. From examining the Qur`an and some hadith, a sense of conquest does exist within the definition of jihad. Syed K. Mirza, a fierce opponent to Islam, claims that to change this perspective, “they [Islamic community as a whole] had better change the Qur`an, hadiths and all those Islamic history books available in the library throughout the world[23].”

“Let those who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward.”- Surat An-Nisa 4:74

This concept of jihad has been harnessed by fringe elements of the religion to justify certain actions. Obviously, the attacks on 9/11 in New York and more recently in Madrid show complete disregard for the limitations of jihad as set forth in the Qur`an and in hadith. But what is the world at large to make of the call to jihad considering the frequency that it is made?
Michael Knapp, a Middle East/African analyst for the US Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, Virginia, quite succinctly puts it, “there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, but there have always been Muslim terrorists.” He continues, “Today there are many extremists who rely on their own resort to violence in protest against perceived injustice, rather than relying on the jihads of akbar, saghrir, and kabir, with the help of Allah and ecumenical cooperation in peacefully building a better world[24].”
These groups are guilty of two crimes. One is arrogance as they worship their own rhetoric rather than what is actually propagated from the Qur`an and through hadith. The second is harabah, which is legally defined as ‘spreading mischief through the land.’ Dr. Crane explains that it is used to describe public terrorism in a war against society and is precisely defined by Professor Khalid Abu el Fadl as, “killing by stealth and targeting a defenseless victim in a way intended to cause terror in society[25].” This is in essence the Islamic definition of terrorism and is in direct opposition to jihad.

“O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask God for safety, but when you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shade of swords.”- Salih Al-Bukhari 4:165

As we can see, the terminology exists and it is therefore up to the Islamic community to clarify the misuse of the term jihad. However, it is also incumbent on the West to garner a better understanding of the Islamic community. The West will never fully understand the full breadth of the Qur`an or of Islam as a whole, and the Muslim community will constantly have to drive home the semantics and difference of its terminology. But this is not an impossibility. It is unfair to the Muslim world that such a small minority has painted it with such a large brush and in such poor color.

“So enter the gates of Hell, to abide therein, and indeed, what an evil abode will be for the arrogant[26].”


Bibliography
1. Dr. Al-Hilali, M., Dr. Khan, M., Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur`an in the English Language, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1998.
2. The Oxford Dictionary, vol. V, pg. 583.
3. Williams, John Alden, ed., Themes of Islamic Civilization, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1972.
4. Lewis, Bernard, The Political Language of Islam, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois 1988.
5. Rashad Ali in Khilafah Magazine December 2001 edition http://www.khilafah.com/home/lographics/category.php?DocumentID=2817&TagID=2.
6. www.submission.org/muhammed/jihad/html
7. Sohail H. Hashmi, www.elca.org/jle/articles/
8. Syed Kamran Mirza, www.secularislam.org/jihad/exegesis.htm.
9. Michael G. Knapp www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/knapp.htm.
10. Dr. Robert D. Crane http://www.cuii.org/hirabah.htm.

[1] Dr. Al-Hilali, M., Dr. Khan, M., Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur`an in the English Language, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1998.
[2] Mohammedans is a vulgar term used classically in reference to Muslims.
[3] The Oxford Dictionary, vol. V, pg. 583.
[4] Dr. Robert D. Crane http://www.cuii.org/hirabah.htm.
[5] www.submission.org/muhammed/jihad/html
[6] Dr. Al-Hilali, M., Dr. Khan, M., Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur`an in the English Language, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1998, Surat Al-Anfal 8:61.
[7] Ibid. Surat An-Nissa’ 4:90.
[8] Rashad Ali in Khilafah Magazine December 2001 edition http://www.khilafah.com/home/lographics/category.php?DocumentID=2817&TagID=2.
[9] Lewis, Bernard, The Political Language of Islam, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois 1988, pg. 72.
[10] Dr. Al-Hilali, M., Dr. Khan, M., Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur`an in the English Language, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1998, Surat Al-Baqarah 2:216.
[11] Ibid. note 1 to Surat Al-Baqarah 2:190.
[12] Ibid. Surat Al-Baqarah 2:191.
[13] The defense did not succeed, however, this does provide an example to this form of jihad.
[14] Dr. Al-Hilali, M., Dr. Khan, M., Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur`an in the English Language, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1998, Surat Al-Baqarah 2:190.
[15] Ibid. Surat At-Taubah 9:36.
[16] Williams, John Alden, ed., Themes of Islamic Civilization, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1972, pg. 262.
[17] Sohail H. Hashmi, www.elca.org/jle/articles/
[18] Dr. Al-Hilali, M., Dr. Khan, M., Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur`an in the English Language, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1998, Surat Al-Anfal 8:61.
[19] Ibid. Surat Al-Baqarah 2:190.
[20] Rashad Ali in Khilafah Magazine December 2001 edition.
[21] Dr. Al-Hilali, M., Dr. Khan, M., Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur`an in the English Language, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1998, Surat Al-Taubah 9:29.
[22] Ibid. Surat Al-Taubah 9:73.
[23] Syed Kamran Mirza, www.secularislam.org/jihad/exegesis.htm.
[24] Michael G. Knapp www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/knapp.htm.
[25] Dr. Robert D. Crane http://www.cuii.org/hirabah.htm.
[26] Dr. Al-Hilali, M., Dr. Khan, M., Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur`an in the English Language, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1998, Surat An-Nahl 16:29.