It would be easy to label last week's bombings in Jakarta as the work of jihad. Certainly, the media is reporting it under this headline. But even supposing that Islamic militants detonated those bombs in Jakarta, does this prove that jihad must be violent?
Much writing about Islam today supports the view that Islam and the Qur'an allow and even urge violence. For example, in the Sydney Catholic magazine, Annals Australasia, the writer states:
'Islamic literature is full of bellicose terms ... especially when describing Jihads. It has persisted down to today - with consequences like September 11, 2001, and continuing radical Islamist terror against the much-mocked 'People of the Book', on the grounds of their alleged faithlessness and polytheism. There is an all-out war declared on 'unbelievers', and this term includes Christians and Jews.'
However, when we examine verses such as those mentioned by this author in the light of their proper historical context, we find that this 'all-out war declared on 'unbelievers'' is not directed to Jews and Christians at all.
This call to jihad was revealed in relation to a specific group of people, the idolaters of Mecca, and within a specific context, a context of persecution and the driving of Muslims from their homes in Mecca because of their religion.
Although some verses from the Qur'an do speak of 'fighting in the way of God', they also urge believers not to transgress the 'limits'. Islamic sources give many examples of the nature of these 'limits'.
In his well-known commentary on the Qur'an, Muhammad Asad says that the fundamental condition, which alone justifies physical warfare, is a defence of the faith and of freedom. In other words, when 'those who are bent on denying the truth' try to deprive the Muslims of their social and political liberty, thereby making it impossible for them to live in accordance with the principles of their faith, a just war (jihad) becomes permissible and even a duty.
However, the first jihad in Islam was not martial and had nothing to do with violence. The Muslims were encouraged 'to strive' (or to do jihad) against unbelievers by preaching the message of the Qur'an, but under no circumstances were they permitted to compel people to accept the message of Islam.
Many early commentaries refer to the fact that jihad is to be understood as a means to protect and preserve 'monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques' (to quote a phrase from the Qur'an). The call to jihad was not for the destruction of faiths other than Islam but rather for the preservation of places of worship belonging to the monotheistic faiths, protecting them against those polytheists — in this case, the idolaters of Mecca — who might endanger them.
It is clear that verses from the Qur'an that advocate jihad cannot be used to apply to fighting all polytheists in the modern world or in the West in general. The sole purpose of all such jihad is to secure freedom for the Muslims to practice their religion.
Some Islamic militants do use verses from the Qur'an to justify open warfare against the West and to inspire Muslims to fight America and her allies who threaten the Muslim lands in particular. However, these verses cannot be understood correctly without considering the conditions in which they were revealed. Such verses can only be understood by remembering that, even after the Prophet had made his migration to Medina, some Muslims remained in Mecca and were not free to practice their religion.
Besides, some of the Meccans were not free to convert and become Muslims because of fear of their fellow tribesmen. It is for these reasons that the Qur'an called the Muslims of Medina to a two-fold jihad: firstly, to free their brethren who were left behind in Mecca from religious oppression, and secondly, to give those Meccans who desired to become Muslims the ability to do so without fear of reprisals from the enemies of Islam.
None of the verses about jihad can be understood as a general invitation to fight oppression in every place and in every circumstance.
When we understand the verses of the Qur'an that advocate jihad in their proper historical context, we will notice how the Qur'an expresses acceptance and respect for non-Muslims. Since the early Islamic community was characterised not by militancy but primarily by moderation and restraint, those who find unqualified provocation to violence and war in the Qur'an have misread it.
The mistake made by those who find 'bellicose terms' in the Qur'an is the result of a failure to examine the specific historical context in which the verses of the Qur'an were revealed. Both the followers of Islamism and the many militant schools of Islamic jihad operating in the world today make this mistake. Much of the current language about jihad in the media also tends to make this mistake.
Herman Roborgh SJ lived in Pakistan for eight years before going to India where he completed a PhD in Islamic Studies at Aligarh Muslim University. He currently resides in Australia.