#28 Warning: The Truth About Jihād

A widely debated term in modern religious and political discourse is the Arabic word jihād. Popular discussions often flatten its meaning into either purely spiritual striving or past militant actions. A careful examination of standard Arabic lexicons alongside primary Islamic texts, however, reveals a more complex picture.

——————————

I. Lexical and Qur’anic Foundations

1. What Arabic Dictionaries Actually Say

The triliteral root j-h-d etymologically means:

• to strive, to exert effort, to struggle

The standard reference work Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic defines jihād as:

“fight, battle; jihad, holy war (against the infidels, as a religious duty).”

Three features of this definition are noteworthy:

• It explicitly includes military action

• It specifies the object of that action as “infidels”

• It is not optional, but an Islamic duty

——————————

2. The Meaning of “Infidel”

The English term “infidel” translates the Arabic kāfir, from the root k-f-r, meaning:

• to cover, to conceal, to reject

In Islamic theology, a kāfir is:

one who rejects or disbelieves in the message of Islam.

Thus, when lexicons define jihād as directed “against the infidels,” they are not introducing a foreign category—they are translating a native theological classification.

——————————

3. The Qur’an on Unbelief (Kufr)

The Qur’an repeatedly employs the category of kufr (unbelief).

Distinction Between Belief and Unbelief

• “Indeed, those who disbelieve (kafarū)… they will not believe.” (Qur’an 2:6)

Conflict Contexts

• “Fight those who do not believe in Allah…” (Qur’an 9:29)

These passages demonstrate:

• The category of unbelievers is explicit and central

• Certain contexts include conflict directed toward them

——————————

4. Are Christians Included?

The Qur’an directly addresses Christian doctrinal claims:

• “They have certainly disbelieved (kafara) who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah…’” (5:72)

• “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the third of three.’” (5:73)

From a textual standpoint:

• Though theologically imprecise, Christians are categorized using the language of kufr

• Jews and Christians are also identified as People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitāb), indicating a distinct legal category

Thus:

• They are distinguished from polytheists

• Yet are not included among believers in the Islamic sense

——————————

5. What does this mean?

Bringing these strands together:

1. Arabic lexicons define jihād as including fighting

2. These definitions specify the object as unbelievers

3. “Infidels” corresponds to kuffār

4. The Qur’an defines unbelievers as those who reject its message

5. Certain Christian doctrines and their adherents are explicitly classified as kufr

Therefore:

The dictionary definition reflects categories already embedded in the Qur’anic framework.

——————————

II. Influential Thinkers and Movements

The following figures are selected not as representatives of all Islamic thought, but as historically influential voices whose writings treat armed jihād as a continuing or recurring obligation.

—————

1. Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328)

A reforming theologian calling for return to foundational texts

Primary Source:

Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28

Ibn Taymiyyah ruled that jihad against the Mongol rulers was obligatory, despite their nominal profession of Islam, because they governed by non-Sharia law.

Influence:

Widely influential within later Salafi and reform movements

Indirect influence on hundreds of millions of Sunnis through later movements.

—————

2. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792)

A restorationist reform movement emphasizing doctrinal purity

Primary Sources:

Kitāb al-Tawḥīd

Mu’allafāt, vol. 7 (al-Jihād)

His writings frame jihad within a broader theological system emphasizing strict monotheism and opposition to practices classified as shirk (idolatry).

Influence:

Foundational to later reform movements associated with the Arabian Peninsula. Wahhabi/Salafi influence: 50–100 million globally.

—————

3. Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966)

A totalizing religious worldview applied to modern political structures

Primary Source:

Ma‘ālim fī al-Ṭarīq (Milestones)

“Jihad… is a name for striving to make this system dominant in the world.”

Qutb rejects limiting jihad to defense, presenting it as part of a broader struggle to establish divine sovereignty.

Influence:

Major intellectual influence on modern Islamist movements. Influences tens of millions through the Muslim Brotherhood and global Islamist thought.

—————

4. Abul A’la Maududi (1903–1979)

Comprehensive religious worldview applied to governance

Primary Source:

Jihad in Islam (1939)

“Islam wishes to destroy all States… opposed to the ideology of Islam…”

Maududi presents jihad as part of a global ideological struggle to establish a political order.

Influence:

Foundational for movements in South Asia and beyond. Jamaat‑e‑Islami + global influence: millions.

—————

5. Hassan al-Banna (1906–1949)

Mass religious revival movement with social and political dimensions

Primary Source:

Five Tracts (trans. Charles Wendell)

“Jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our loftiest wish.”

Al-Banna integrates classical jihad doctrine into a modern activist movement.

Influence:

Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most influential Islamic movements of the 20th century. Muslim Brotherhood: 20–30 million sympathizers worldwide.

—————

6. Abdullah Azzam (1941–1989)

Transnational mobilizer of religious warfare

Primary Source:

Join the Caravan (1987)

Azzam argued that jihad becomes fard ‘ayn (personally obligatory) when Muslim land is occupied.

Influence:

Key figure in the development of modern transnational jihadist networks. Direct influence: tens of thousands.

Indirect influence: foundational for later militant movements.

—————

7. Hamas (1988 Covenant)

Primary Source:

1988 Charter, Articles 13 & 15

“There is no solution… except through Jihad.”

The charter frames jihad as the primary means of resolving the conflict over Palestine.

Note: A revised 2017 document modifies language but does not formally replace the original charter.

Influence Scale: Support in Gaza: 30–40%

Global sympathy: tens of millions.

—————

8. Hezbollah (1985 Open Letter)

Primary Source:

1985 Open Letter

“Each of us is a fighting soldier…”

The document frames armed struggle within a theological framework tied to clerical authority.

Influence:

Major political and military force in Lebanon and the broader region. Members: tens of thousands.

Supporters: millions in Lebanon and abroad.

——————————

III. Statistical Context and Global Attitudes

Global Scale

• 2.06 billion Muslims worldwide — over 1 in every 4 people on earth     (TimesPrayer, “Global Muslim Population,” 2026)

Violence: What Muslims Themselves Say

• 72% (≈1.37 billion) say violence against civilians is never justified

• That Still Leaves 28% (≈532 million) who do not reject it

• 14% (≈266 million) openly say it is sometimes or often justified

    (Pew Research Center, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” 2013)

United States

• 81% reject violence outright

• 19% do NOT— roughly 570,000 people

    (Pew Research Center, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” 2013)

High-Concentration Regions

• Palestinian territories: 40% (~2 million) say violence is justified

• Afghanistan: 39% (~15 million)

• Egypt: 29% (~25 million)

• Bangladesh: 26% (~38 million)

• In some places, nearly half say attacks are at least sometimes justified

    (Pew Research Center, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” 2013)

Unfavorable Attitudes Toward Christians

• Turkey: 68% unfavorable (~58 million)

• Pakistan: 61% (~134 million)

• Egypt: 49% (~42 million)

• Indonesia: 43% (~103 million)

    (Pew Research Center, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” 2013)

Combined total: approximately 337 million Muslims in just four countries are against Christians.

(Pew Research Center, “Chapter 3: Views of Religious Groups,” Global Attitudes Project, 2010)

Important Observations

The numbers cited above require a clarification. Survey data on attitudes toward civilian violence or toward Christians as a group does not establish that every respondent poses a direct threat. Many who express such views will never act on them, as there are many passive and nominal Muslims who have no premeditated intention of harming someone. The point is more modest but no less serious: when even a small percentage of a population numbering in the billions holds ideological convictions that explicitly justify violence — convictions shaped by influential thinkers with documented reach across hundreds of millions of followers — the resulting absolute numbers are not trivial. A fraction of a billion is still a very large number. Prudent assessment of risk does not require pretending that the ideological infrastructure for such violence is marginal or without real-world consequence.

A text-based, historically grounded analysis yields:

• The term jihād includes war against the infidels

• Christians are considered infidels

• These are not isolated gangs but numbers conservatively up in the Hundreds of Millions

Final Christian Response

In light of the preceding analysis, it would not be wise to blindly or indiscriminately accept those into America who have real ideological intentions that justify violence against Christians. Prudence in matters of national security is not immoral, and a nation is not obligated to ignore threats in the name of political sensitivity.

Yet this must be carefully distinguished from the Christian’s duty.

In Luke 9:51–56, the Apostles James and John sought to call down fire from heaven on the Samaritans and consume them. But the Lord Jesus “..turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.”

So it remains.

Individual Christians are not called to violence against Muslims, but “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” —Luke 24:47.