Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Tufts Daily
Where you read it first | Thursday, March 28, 2024

Jalal speaks on contemporary meaning of jihad

    Professor of History Ayesha Jalal spoke in the Coolidge Room yesterday on the historical evolution of the concept of jihad and its implications for modern Islam.
    Jalal couched her largely historical lecture in a modern context, saying that the word jihad "has come to signify the tension between Muslims and the West."
    She added, "There is a popular notion that while not all Muslims are terrorists somehow all terrorists are Muslim."
    Jalal was the keynote speaker for the Dean of Arts and Sciences Robert Sternberg's Faculty Forum, an annual talk that features prominent Tufts professors. Past speakers have included Professor of Philosophy Daniel Dennett.
    Beginning her lecture by explaining that jihad literally means "to strive," Jalal distinguished between an interpretation of the term that focuses on a personal attempt to subdue the ego and the more widely used, contemporary meaning that emphasizes armed struggle against "the enemies of Islam."
    Modern interpretations of jihad break with the fundamental teachings of Islam by focusing on a concept that is not an intrinsic facet of faith, or iman, but is a manifestation of personal belief, or aqida, Jalal said.
    "Jihad in the modern Islamic world has become a weapon with which to threaten believers and nonbelievers alike," which is contradictory to the "high ethical values that derive from submission to Allah," Jalal said.
    Much of Jalal's speech centered on developments in South Asia. She said that although the current conflict between the West and religious extremists plays out on a global stage, and its "spatial center lies in Pakistan."
    Jalal highlighted the town of Balakot, situated in the northwest of Pakistan, as "the epicenter of jihad in South Asia." She called it the site of "the only real jihad ever to be fought on the subcontinent," describing the 1831 Battle of Balakot that pitted Sikhs against Muslims in an armed struggle still meaningful to contemporary militants.
    While Balakot  has been used as a base for the terrorist organization Jamaat-ud-Dawa, when the earthquake of Oct. 8, 2005 struck, factional considerations were cast aside in the name of saving fellow Muslims from the devastation, Jalal said.
    "Where men had failed, could an act of God change the form of jihad in Pakistan?" Jalal asked, painting the incident as analogous to divergent interpretations of the term jihad and one that suggested a "new way to struggle in the name of Allah."
    Jalal said that the persistent difficulty of attaching an absolute definition to the word is representative of a larger split in theology and practice in the world of Islam.
    "The contested and fluid meanings of jihad in Muslim history suggest that the issue is not a settled one," Jalal said, adding that this ambiguity "underscores the imperative of continuing debates in the present and also the future."
    Jalal said that this internal struggle continues to diffuse the aims of contemporary militant groups and foster debates about the validity of movements such as the Taliban.
    The interpretation of jihad as warfare against infidels draws on a "wholly arbitrary distinction" between the concept of dar-ul-Islam, or Islam as "the abode of peace," and a violent concept that has no sanction in the Koran, Jalal said.
    Rejecting a "false dichotomy" between subjective context and immutable textual backing in intellectual history as "untenable," Jalal emphasized the nature of interpretations as varying between regions and eras.
    "It's not merely a question of Muslims diverging from theory in their practice, but even the theory changed in different historical circumstances," Jalal said.
    Jalal said that the concept of jihad as armed warfare became "far less salient" after the resolution of brutal conflicts that shook Islam in its formative years, as the perceived threat of enemies to the faith lessened.
    Focusing on South Asia as a focal point for contemporary debates regarding the nature of Islam and jihad, Jalal said that pre-independence India helped define the boundaries of Indian identity.
    "The revitalized concept of jihad as an ethical struggle" emerged in modern-day India in the 19th century, helping to foment anti-colonial sentiment and in cases draw together India's varied and disparate ethnic groups, Jalal said.
    Jalal said that the current understanding of jihad's meaning issues from the struggle of Afghan mujahideen against Soviet aggressors.
    "The decisive transformation in both the theory and practice in Southeast Asia was triggered by the Soviet invasion," she said.
    Jalal ended by urging a form of Islam that promotes "respect for fellow human beings, regardless of their ideological, or even religious, beliefs."
    Vali Nasr, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School, followed Jalal's talk. Nasr also serves as an adjunct senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations, an online resource on international affairs.
    Nasr cautioned against rigid examinations of complex concepts like jihad as if they are "context-free, as if the historical circumstances have been uniform."
    "We are where we are with jihad ... not because of Muslim certitude about jihad but exactly because of the incertitude that exists," he said.
    Given the mutability of the concept, Nasr said that the Muslim world should be adapting the word to give it a more progressive meaning that could play into the changing nature of the faith as a whole. 
    "The solution for Muslims is not another interpretation in context but a reformation," Nasr said. "They ought to think about these issues very seriously."
    Nasr said that "the modern concept of Jihad was defined against the West in many ways" as a source of both ideological and political opposition and this construction must be rethought.
    Nasr also suggested that the ascension of Osama Bin Laden, whom he characterized as "the son of a Saudi billionaire with no real background in Islam," represents a democratization of the idea of Jihad making it so that "anyone can declare what are the laws and who is the target."
    As a result, the structure of Islamic authority hangs in the balance, Nasr said.
    "You might have a restoration of authority as to who interprets Islam, and you might have a complete breakdown," he said.