Jihad

By Ibraheem A. Waziri

Lately, I have been reflecting deeply on Islam and its legacies, particularly in light of the growing rhetoric against democracy by some Northern Nigerian Islamists. Among them are both young and experienced clerics, such as the recently banned Muhammad Muhammad of Niger State and Shaykh Dr Idris of Bauchi, who appeared to endorse the same ideals. 

My reflections have led me to conclude that there is little justification for condemning democracy and the freedoms it provides, nor for advocating or mobilising for physical jihad in today’s world.  

When we examine the origins of Islam, we find that during the early days of Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) mission in Mecca, his primary focus was the establishment of a peaceful society where his message could be conveyed freely. Allah states in the Qur’an:  

“So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not over them a controller.” (Qur’an 88:21-22).  

This underscores that Islam flourishes in environments of peace and freedom, where individuals can practice their faith openly without coercion. Such conditions allow Allah’s promise to manifest naturally:

“Indeed, Allah will fulfil His purpose. Allah has set a measure for all things.” (Qur’an 65:3).  

The first instances of physical jihad in Islamic history were acts of self-defence prompted by aggression against the early Muslim community. Even the campaigns against the Persian and Roman Empires were primarily preemptive, aimed at securing the survival of the nascent Muslim polity against formidable adversaries.  

Closer to home, the renowned 19th-century jihad of Shaykh Uthman Bin Fodio in Hausaland was not launched until his students faced severe threats and persecution from the rulers, who sought to prevent them from freely practising their religion. This historical context highlights that jihad has historically been reactive, not offensive, and born out of necessity rather than choice.  

Similarly, the historical example of the Mongol Empire, which conquered large parts of the Muslim world, demonstrates Islam’s transformative power. Despite the initial devastation, peace was eventually restored. As the Mongols settled and engaged with Islamic teachings, they embraced Islam. This illustrates the enduring strength of Islam’s principles when conveyed in a peaceful and conducive environment.  

In contemporary times, a comparable trend is evident. While the colonial era brought conquest and turbulence, democracy and freedom of choice have facilitated a relatively peaceful global environment. This peace has enabled a surge in the appreciation of Islam’s teachings, as seen in the increasing number of reverts worldwide. Allah reminds us:

“When the victory of Allah has come, and the conquest and you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes, then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance.” (Qur’an 110:1-3).  

Today, Islam is the fastest-growing religion worldwide, a testament to its universal appeal and the truth of Allah’s promise. In light of these realities, is there any justification for militant jihadist movements in the modern era? Especially now, with social media and other platforms offering unparalleled opportunities to spread knowledge, values, and Islamic teachings globally?  

I firmly believe that the focus of our time should be on intellectual and spiritual jihad — investing in research, education, and content creation that addresses the challenges and opportunities of our era. Allah emphasises the power of wisdom and thoughtful persuasion in spreading His message:  

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.” (Qur’an 16:125).  

This is the jihad of our age: to understand and teach Islam in ways that resonate with the modern world, using peaceful means to inspire hearts and minds toward the truth. 

May Allah guide us on the best paths and strengthen our resolve in this noble endeavour, amin.

By Muhammad Mahmud 

My fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, I think you will not support the US government’s atrocities meted on the Afghans over the years. However, I know that some of you see nothing wrong with anything western and nothing good with anything the West abhors. Therefore, let me address certain misconceptions and, at the same time, point out what some of YOU seem not to take into consideration. 

Of course, people rely on the West to define who a terrorist is. There is no doubt about that. Before the West labelled the Taliban, a terrorist who, in the whole world, regarded them as one? The western media dictates who is to blame and who is to be sympathised with. The Palestinian struggle with the Zionists’ forces of occupation is a prominent example. The Muslim Brotherhood is also labelled a terrorist group even as they chose to follow the democratic way to pursue Islamic sharia. The same happened to Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Front. 

But let’s use some reasons others deploy regarding the Taliban as a terrorist organisation to prove why people rely on the west to define who a terrorist is. Your argument is often that “many of us see them as terrorists because they are deliberately and indiscriminately killing Muslims and other innocent civilian population.” Now the question is, which of these atrocities hadn’t the US army meted to the “Muslims and other innocent civilian population”? So why do you think that the Taliban fighters are terrorists while you regard the US army as liberators? 

On the other hand, why would America’s violation of the practice of Prophet Muhammad’s rule of engagements not bother you people but the Taliban’s violation bother you to the extent of opposing them and (impliedly) supporting America? You are supposed to oppose both sides if that is the case. I think you are probably, struggling with some misconceptions here, and you are not alone. 

1- That Taliban, having declared that they are following the footpath of the Prophet, shouldn’t deviate from his teachings. This is entirely true. But are we only to oppose Muslims who violated Islamic teachings on the sanctity of lives, or is that also applicable to everyone?

2- Having violated the Prophet’s teachings on the rules of engagements by killing the innocents, the Taliban are to be opposed against the Americans who did not claim to be Muslims. Because the Taliban are portraying Islam in a bad image, this is a big misconception. 

First, it should be clearly noted that even if a Muslim group violated Islamic teachings on the rules of engagements, that does not entirely disrobe them of their status as Muslims. On the contrary, we condemn that act and disassociate ourselves and our religion from that very act and continue to consider them as Muslims. A few examples will suffice here. 

During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Khalid Bn Walid (RA) violated the rules of engagements in one of the wars. It was so grave to the extent that when the report reached the Prophet, he openly condemned and disassociated himself from that act and even supplicated that “O Allah, I disassociate myself from what Khalid did.” But the Prophet did not declare him a terrorist or even ostracised him. 

In another incident, some Muslims killed someone during a war after declaring that he was now a Muslim. When the report reached the Prophet, he became outraged and rebuked them. However, he did not declare them as opponents for violating the rules of engagements; instead, he criticised that very act and chastised them for doing that. 

There were many reports of violations of Islamic rules of engagements even during the wars fought by the Ummah’s most pious generations, yet that is put into context, and a larger picture is considered.

During the Jihad of Dan Fodio, Sheikh Muhammad Bello narrated how some people violated the rules of engagements and how Sheikh Dan Fodio chastised them and disassociated himself from that act. Yet, they continued to be part of his army.

Therefore, from the Islamic perspective, we can condemn and accuse the Taliban of violating Islamic rules of engagement, but that doesn’t mean that we should support non-Muslim armies who perpetrated the same or worst atrocities on fellow Muslims. There is a stark difference between the two factions Islamically.

It is almost a consensus among the Muslim scholars that whenever non-Muslim armies invade any Muslim country, it is a wajib [compulsory] for all to fight and chase them out. 

Now a non-Muslim army invaded a Muslim country, some people jubilated, and the Muslim troops chased them out, we jubilated. Then those who jubilated the invasion started accusing us of supporting “terrorism”, how do you think we would respond?

Malam Muhammad writes from Kano. He can be reached via meinagge@gmail.com.