Ella Landau-Tasseron. Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an. Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Volume 3, Brill Academic Publishers, 2003.
The Root J-H-D and its Derivatives in the Qurʾan
The root j-h-d does not have bellicose connotations in pre-Islamic usage. Judging by linguistic criteria alone, without having recourse to qurʾanic exegesis, only ten out of the thirty-six relevant qurʾanic references can be unequivocally interpreted as signifying warfare. The rest are unspecified, some of them clearly denoting efforts or struggles other than fighting. The following guidelines help determine whether or not the term j-h-d in a given verse refers to warfare:
(a) when the term is juxtaposed with a military idiom, such as “shirkers” (mukhallafun, qaʿidun, Q 4:95; 9:81, 86) or “go on raids” (infiru, Q 9:41). Verses in which j-h-d is connected to “asking leave/finding excuses” (istiʾdhan) also seem to be dealing with warfare (Q 9:44; cf. 9:86, which combines both “ask leave” and “shirkers”);
(b) when the content of the verse discloses its military significance (Q 5:54, where there is a linkage between harshness towards unbelievers, fearlessness and j-h-d; Q 60:1, where “enemies” [q.v.] and departing for jihad are mentioned);
(c) when the context of the verse indicates a military significance. Textual context is difficult to use because of the methods of assembling the text to which the history of the collection of the Qurʾan (q.v.) attests. As indicated in this history, verses that were revealed on different occasions were placed in sequence. Sometimes, fully contradictory verses were placed together, apparently because they deal with the same topic (e.g. Q 2:190-3; 8:72-5). Occasionally, however, the continuity between sequential verses is clear and the textual context may be used to clarify the warlike intention of a verse (Q 9:41, the context being 9:38-41; Q 9:44, the context being 9:44-6; these two verses also fall under category (a) above; Q 9:88, the context being 9:87-92);
(d) when j-h-d in the third form is followed by a direct object. It denotes, literally, two parties, each trying to exhaust the other, hence the notion of combat (Q 9:73 = 66:9; but cf. Q 25:52, wa-jahidhum bihi jihadan kabiran, where the Prophet is instructed to combat by peaceful means, namely, by the Qurʾan).
In sum, there are only ten places in the Qurʾan where j-h-d definitely denotes warfare. To these may be added four verses that establish the status of “those who believed, emigrated and exerted themselves” (inna lladhina amanu wa-hajaru wa-jahadu, Q 8:72, 74; 9:20; cf. 8:75). Since warfare is strongly advocated in the Qurʾan, it stands to reason that references to the high status of the “strugglers” (mujahidun) are, in fact, references to warriors. It is clear, however, that in these verses the reference is to the Emigrants (muhajirun). It may be pointed out that sometimes j-h-d occurs as the counterpart of hijra, “emigration,” presumably the Muslims’ emigration to Medina (q.v.; Q 2:218; 8:72-5; 9:20; 16:110, cf. 9:24). Strangely, there is no qurʾanic reference to the military contribution or warlike attributes of the Helpers (anṣar, i.e. those Medinans who helped the émigrés; such references do, however, abound in the historical and ḥadith literature).
There is one case where j-h-d is applied to an impious struggle, namely, the struggle of disbelieving parents (q.v.) to prevent their offspring from adhering to the true religion (q.v.; Q 29:8). But in many verses it is not possible to determine the kind of effort indicated by j-h-d. There are many commentators who leave the terms unspecified in these instances, whereas others interpret also these ambiguous cases as warfare against infidels (see commentaries to Q 2:218; 3:142; 5:35; 9:16, 19, 20, 24; 16:110; 29:6, 69; 47:31; 61:11). Still others understand the doubtful cases in one or more of the following ways: (a) combat against one’s own desires and weaknesses, (b) perseverance in observing the religious law, (c) seeking religious knowledge (ṭalab al-ʿilm), (d) observance of the sunna (q.v.), (e) obedience (q.v.) to God and summoning people to worship him, and so on (see e.g. Khazin, Lubab, v, 200; Ibn Abi Ḥatim, Tafsiri, ix, 3084). All these meanings, however, are never explicit in the Qurʾan. Also, the phrases denoting the “greater” jihad (i.e. one’s personal struggle to be a better Muslim) that are common in later literature, namely, “struggle of the self” (jihad al-nafs) or “struggle with the devil” (jihad al-shayṭan), do not occur in the Qurʾan.
The qurʾanic concept of jihad was not originally connected with antagonism between the believers and other people. The semantic field of the root j-h-d as well as its use in the Qurʾan suggest another provenance. It may be an expression of the ancient and ubiquitous notion that the believers must prove to the deity their worthiness for divine reward. This proof is achieved by enduring various kinds of hardships and self-mortification. Fasting and pilgrimage belong to this category as do celibacy and poverty. Conversely, hardships that befall the believers are understood as divine tests designed to provide the believers with opportunities to prove themselves worthy. These ancient religious ideas found expression in the Qurʾan. God announces many times that he subjects the believers to tests and he reprimands those who are not able, or not willing, to endure (e.g. Q 2:155-6, 214; 3:142; 4:48; 47:4). In Islam, in addition to giving the believers the opportunity to prove themselves, the tests also help establish the distinction between the true believers on the one hand, and the pretenders and the unbelievers on the other. The tests also help determine the relative status of the members of the community. One of the means of testing is jihad. In this capacity jihad may mean participation in warfare, but also any other effort made in connection with adherence to the true religion (see Q 3:142; 9:16; 47:31; cf. Q 9:24, 44, 88. Only Q 9:44 and 9:88 certainly refer to warfare, judging by the context. See also Q 4:76-7, 95-6; 9:90-4; 29:10-1; 47:20; 49:14-5; 57:10, 25.). Sometimes not jihad but death or battle (qital) “in the way of God” are explicitly mentioned as a test (Q 3:166-7; 47:4; cf. 3:154-5; 4:66; 33:11, 23-4).
Very little of the peaceful sense of j-h-d remained in Muslim culture and the understanding of jihad as war became predominant. Nevertheless, there are verses in the Qurʾan that attest to other significations. The best example is Q 22:78. By linguistic and contextual criteria, the phrase “exert yourself in the way of God as is his right” (wa-jahidu fi llahi ḥaqqa jihadihi) clearly does not refer to warfare, but to other forms of effort made by way of obedience to God. The verse is part of the doctrine of the “religion of Abraham” (millat Ibrahim), which regards the patriarch as the first, original Muslim (see Q 2:125-36). Q 22:78 instructs Muslims to perform the religious duties originally prescribed to Abraham. While asking the believers to exert themselves and to do their utmost to this end (jahidu), the verse points out that the requirement should not be deemed too much to ask, since God “has laid no hardship on you in your religion.” The theme of war is not touched upon at all in this verse. In the same vein, Q 49:15 deals with definitions of belief and the phrase “those who strive” (alladhina… jahadu) apparently refers not to warriors but to those who perform all the divine ordinances (cf. Bayḍawi, Anwar, ii, 277). Yet many commentators (including al-Ṭabari, d. 310/923) insist that in these two cases the term refers to participation in warfare.
The warlike meaning of jihad thus predominates, to the extent that q-t-l, “kill,” was sometimes glossed by j-h-d (e.g. Bayḍawi, Anwar, i, 105, ad Q 2:190). This predominance is perhaps to be explained by the fact that in this sense of “war,” jihad was given a legal definition, legal categories and regulations, aspects which were discussed at length by the jurists (who often, however, used the term siyar instead of jihad). Also the parallelism between the qurʾanic phrases jihad “in the way of God” (fi sabili llah) and qital “in the way of God” may have contributed to the equation of j-h-d with terms of warfare. In fact the phrase “in the way of God” itself came to mean “warfare against infidels,” although it is not necessarily so in the Qurʾan (see e.g. “emigration in the way of God” in Q 4:100; 16:41; 22:58; 24:23).
The Doctrine of Warfare in the Qurʾan
Islam is a system of beliefs, ritual and law and its legal system covers all spheres of life, including warfare. Many rulings and attitudes relating to warfare are scattered throughout the Qurʾan, mainly in the Medinan suras. Yet, derivatives of the root j-h-d are absent from the majority of these verses. Forms of the root q-t-l are used forty-four times in relation to warfare (although derivatives of this root are also used in other contexts). In addition, there are many verses relating to this subject in which neither j-h-d nor q-t-l occur.
The qurʾanic rulings and attitudes regarding warfare are often ambiguous and contradictory so that there is no one coherent doctrine of warfare in the Qurʾan, especially when the text is read without reference to its exegetical tradition. These contradictions and ambiguities resulted from historical developments and were later amplified by differences of opinion among exegetes. The Prophet led a dynamic career, having been at war for years with various enemies and under changing circumstances. Such variations and developments are doubtlessly reflected in qurʾanic verses and account for some of the contradictions. The course of these developments, however, is not clear, for the same reasons that obstruct a decisive reconstruction of the Prophet’s biography. In addition, differences of opinion eventually arose due to the various possibilities of interpretations. The language of the Qurʾan is often obscure and, even when not so, many terms, phrases and sentences have more than one possible meaning or implication. For example, the sentence “we have our endeavors (aʿmal), you have yours” (Q 2:139; 42:15; cf. 10:41; 109:6) may be interpreted in several ways: (a) it enjoins tolerance towards other religions, (b) it merely states a fact, (c) it constitutes a threat, or (d) it employs “endeavors” but means “reward for the endeavors,” in which case it is also merely a statement of a fact, not an implied imperative. The first of these interpretations contradicts the qurʾanic order to initiate war against the infidels (Q 2:191, 193, 244; 8:39; 9:5, 29, 36 etc.; see e.g. Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawasikh, 175-6, 440; Ṭabari, Tafsir, xi, 118-9). Another example is Q 2:190 (cf. 2:194). It contains the seemingly clear phrase “fight in the way of God those who fight you and do not trespass”. This may be taken either as prescribing defensive war or as an instruction to refrain from harming non-combatants (see e.g. Jaṣṣaṣ, Aḥkam, i, 257). The former contradicts the above-mentioned qurʾanic order to initiate war. These are only two of a multitude of examples.
Commentators developed special techniques to deal with qurʾanic contradictions, chief among them abrogation (q.v.;naskh) and specification (ʿamm wa-khaṣṣ, literally “general versus specific”). Abrogation seeks to replace the rulings of certain verses by others, on the grounds that the latter were revealed to the Prophet later than the former. Specification is designed to restrict or ban certain injunctions and prohibitions. This is done by establishing that the verse in question only applies to a definite group or to a specific event in the past. In contrast to abrogation, specification often occurs without the use of the technical terms ʿamm and khaṣṣ.
A rarely applied, but very significant device, is the assignation of differing qurʾanic rules to different situations. Whereas the techniques of abrogation and specification aim at distilling one absolutely binding rule out of a number of possibilities, the technique of assignation leaves open a number of options and allows the authorities the power to decide which of the mutually-exclusive qurʾanic rules applies in a given situation. There are other exegetical devices used in order to resolve contradictions, such as denying linguistically possible implications (e.g. for Q 2:62), “supplementing” verses (taqdir, e.g. for Q 10:41) and assigning appropriate contents to qurʾanic words (e.g. equating the term silm/salm, “peace,” with Islam, for Q 2:208 and 8:61, see Ṭabari, Tafsir, ii, 322-5; x, 34).
The verses relating to warfare may be classified under the following headings: (a) the order to fight, (b) exhortations (q.v.), (c) the purpose of warfare, (d) conscription, (e) permission to retreat, (f) the treatment of prisoners, and (g) booty (q.v.). There are also miscellaneous practical and tactical instructions. The first topic is covered by a large number of verses, whereas the rest are confined to a few verses each.
The order to fight involves the issue of attitudes towards the other. Muslim scholars considered more than one hundred verses as relevant to this topic. Even an address to the Prophet such as “you are merely a warner” (q.v.; Q 11:12) was sometimes understood as an implicit instruction to leave the infidels alone. Thus the verses expressing attitudes towards the infidels include explicit or implicit instructions to the Prophet, or to the Muslims, which may be defined as follows: (a) to be patient and to stay aloof from the infidels (Q 2:139; 3:20, 111; 4:80-1; 5:99, 105; 6:66, 69, 70, 104; 7:180, 199; 10:99, 108-9; 11:121-2; 13:40; 15:3, 94-5; 16:82; 17:54; 19:84; 20:130; 22:68; 23:54; 24:54; 25:43; 27:92; 29:50; 30:60; 31:23; 32:30; 33:48; 34:25; 35:23; 37:174; 38:70; 39:15; 40:55, 77; 42:6, 48; 43:83; 44:59; 46:35; 50:45; 51:54; 52:31, 45, 48; 53:29; 54:6; 68:44, 48; 70:5, 42; 73:10-1; 74:11; 76:24; 88:22), (b) to forgive them or treat them kindly (Q 2:109; 5:13; 15:85; 43:89; 45:14; 60:8-9; 64:14), (c) to tolerate them (Q 2:62, 256; 5:69, but cf. 3:19; 5:82), (d) to preach or argue with them peaceably (Q 3:64; 4:63; 16:64, 125; 29:46; 41:34), and (e) to fight them under certain restrictions (Q 2:190, 191-4, 217; 4:91; 9:36, 123; 16:126; 22:39-40). There are also qurʾanic references to treaties with infidels and to peace (Q 2:208; 4:90; 8:61; cf. Q 3:28; 47:35). All these are in conflict with the clear orders to fight, expressed in Q 9:5 and 9:29 (cf. Q 2:244). Q 9:5 instructs the Muslims to fight the idolaters (mushrikun) until they are converted to Islam and is known as “the sword verse” (ayat al-sayf). Q 9:29 orders Muslims to fight the People of the Book (q.v.) until they consent to pay tribute (jizya), thereby recognizing the superiority of Islam. It is known as “the jizya verse” (ayat al-jizya, occasionally also as “the sword verse”). The Qurʾan does not lay down rules for cases of Muslim defeat, although there is a long passage discussing such an occurrence (Q 3:139-75, see also 4:104).
A broad consensus among medieval exegetes and jurists exists on the issue of waging war. The simplest and earliest solution of the problem of contradictions in the Qurʾan was to consider Q 9:5 and 9:29 as abrogating all the other statements. Scholars seem sometimes to have deliberately expanded the list of the abrogated verses, including in it material that is irrelevant to the issue of waging war (e.g. Q 2:83, see Ibn al-Barzi, Nasikh, 23; Ibn al-Jawzi, Muṣaffa, 14; id., Nawasikh, 56-8; Bayḍawi, Anwar, i, 70; Ṭabari, Tafsir, i, 311; other examples: Q 3:111; 4:63; 16:126; 23:96; 25:63; 28:55; 38:88; 39:3). The number of verses abrogated by Q 9:5 and 9:29 is sometimes said to exceed 120 (Ibn al-Barzi, Nasikh, 22-3 and passim; also Powers, Exegetical genre, 138). Several verses are considered as both abrogating and abrogated, in turn, by others. The Muslim tradition, followed by modern scholars, associated various verses with developments in the career of the Prophet. It is related that, in the beginning, God instructed the Prophet to avoid the infidels and to forgive them. The Prophet was actually forbidden to wage war while in Mecca (q.v.). After the emigration to Medina (hijra) the Muslims were first permitted to fight in retaliation for the injustice done them by the Meccans (Q 22:39-40). Then came the order to fight the infidels generally, yet certain restrictions were prescribed. Eventually all restrictions were removed and all treaties with infidels were repudiated by Q 9:1-14, and the ultimate divine orders were expressed in Q 9:5 and 9:29. (There are many versions of this scheme, see ʿAbdallah b. Wahb, Jamiʿ, fol. 15b; Abu ʿUbayd, Nasikh, 190-7; Bayḍawi, Anwar, i, 634; Khazin, Lubab, i, 168; Shafiʿi, Tafsir, 66-73; Jaṣṣaṣ, Aḥkam, i, 256-63; cf. Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawasikh, 230.) This evolutionary explanation relies on the technique of abrogation to account for the contradictory statements in the Qurʾan. Although details are disputed, this explanation is not a post-qurʾanic development constructed retrospectively (see Firestone, Jihad, esp. chaps. 3-4). In addition to its obviousurationality, this evolution is attested in the Qurʾan itself (Q 4:77). Many exegetes, however, avoided the technique of abrogation for theological and methodological reasons, but achieved the same result by other means (e.g. Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawasikh). Thus, in spite of differences of opinions regarding the interpretation of the verses and the relations between them, the broad consensus on the main issue remained: whether by abrogation, specification or other techniques, the order to fight unconditionally (Q 9:5 and 9:29) prevailed. Some commentators, however, argued that the verses allowing peace (Q 4:90; 8:61) were neither abrogated nor specified, but remained in force. By the assignation technique, peace is allowed when it is in the best interest of the Muslims (e.g. in times of Muslim weakness, see e.g. Jaṣṣaṣ, Aḥkam, ii, 220; iii, 69-70). In fact this was the position adopted by the four major schools of law (see Peters, Jihad, 32-7).
Exhortations to battle occur many times in the Qurʾan and the Prophet is told to urge his followers to fight (Q 4:84; 8:65). In addition to the verses that contain various instructions, there are those that promise reward to warriors and reprimand shirkers, threatening them with God’s wrath (Q 2:154; 3:195; 4:74, 104; 9:38-9, 88-9, 111; 22:58-9; 33:23-4; 61:10-3; see also Q 3:139-75, which encourages the Muslims after a defeat). The verses that establish the distinction between true believers and hypocrites (see above) may also serve the same end.
In a few verses, the cause or purpose of Muslim warfare is mentioned as self-defense, and retaliation for aggression, for the expulsion from Mecca and for the violation of treaties (Q 2:217; 4:84, 91; 5:33; 9:12-3; 22:39-40; 60:9, cf. 4:89). In one case, defense of weak brethren is adduced (Q 4:75). On the basis of the “sword verse” (Q 9:5) and the “jizya verse” (Q 9:29) it is clear that the purpose of fighting the idolaters is to convert them to Islam, whereas the purpose of fighting the People of the Book is to dominate them. Many commentators interpret Q 2:193 and 8:39 (“fight them until there is no fitna”) as an instruction to convert all the polytheists to Islam by force if need be (e.g. Khazin, Lubab, ii, 183; Jaṣṣaṣ, Aḥkam, i, 260). It appears, however, that fitna originally did not mean polytheism, but referred to attempts by infidels to entice Muslims away from Islam. Such attempts are mentioned in many qurʾanic verses (e.g. Q 3:149; 14:30; 17:73-4; for Q 2:193 see e.g. Ṭabari, Tafsir, ii, 254). Thus the purpose of war in Q 2:193 and 8:39 would be not conversion of infidels, but the preservation of the Muslim community. Conversion as the purpose of Muslim warfare is also implied by some interpretations of Q 2:192 and 48:16. In later literature the formulation of the purpose of war is “that God’s word reign supreme” (li-takuna kalimatu llahi hiya l-ʿulya), but in the Qurʾan this phrase is not associated with warfare (Q 9:40; cf. 9:33 = 61:9; 48:28).
The verses relevant to conscription are Q 2:216; 4:71; 9:39-41, 90-3, 120, 122; cf. Q 48:17. The verses implying that only a part of the community is required to participate in warfare prevail over those that stipulate or imply general conscription (see ʿAbdallah b. Wahb, Jamiʿ, fol. 16a-b; Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawasikh, 438; Bayḍawi, Anwar, i, 405; Shafiʿi, Tafsir, 140-1, 145, 148; Zuhri, Nasikh, 28-9; see also Paret, Kommentar, 215-6; id., Sure 9, 122). In post-qurʾanic legal idiom it is stated that warfare (jihad) is a collective duty (farḍ ʿala l-kifaya).
Permission to retreat occurs three times. In Q 8:15-6 retreat is forbidden unless it is intended to be temporary and is done for tactical reasons. These verses are considered by some scholars to have been abrogated by Q 8:65, which permits retreat only if the enemies outnumber the Muslims by more than ten times. This rule was, in turn, replaced by Q 8:66, which reduces the proportion to two to one (Bayḍawi, Anwar, i, 361; Ṭabari, Tafsir, ix, 200-3; Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawasikh, 15-8; Abu ʿUbayd, Nasikh, 192-3). This issue is sometimes discussed in relation to Q 2:195 as well.
The taking of prisoners is forbidden in Q 8:67 (see also Q 8:70-1). This verse is considered as abrogated by Q 47:4, which allows the Muslims to take prisoners, to free them for no compensation at all or to do so in exchange for ransom (Qurṭubi, Aḥkam, iv, 2884-7; vii, 6047-9; Jaṣṣaṣ, Aḥkam, iii, 71-4; Abu ʿUbayd, Nasikh, 209-16; Ṭabari, Tafsir, x, 42-4). Nowhere in the Qurʾan is there a reference to the permissibility (or otherwise) of executing prisoners. There is, however, disagreement among commentators regarding the apparent contradiction between Q 47:4 and the categorical order to kill the idolaters in Q 9:5 (Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawasikh, 425-7; Ṭabari, Tafsir, x, 80-1; xxvi, 40-3; Qurṭubi, Aḥkam, vii, 6047-8; Jaṣṣaṣ, Aḥkam, iii, 390-2). Booty is discussed in Q 4:94; 8:1, 41, 68-9; 59:6-8 and other practical matters relating to war occur in Q 2:239; 4:101-3; 8:56-8, 60; 61:4.
In the legal literature qurʾanic verses are sometimes cited which appear to be irrelevant to the discussions. Thus Q 48:24-5 were adduced in the discussion of non-discriminating weapons (ballista, manjaniq, e.g. Ibn Abi Zayd, Kitab al-Jihad, 70-1). Q 59:5 was used in the discussion of the permissibility to destroy the enemy’s property (e.g. Ṭabair, Tafsri, xxviii, 32). Q 6:137 was adduced as proof that no enemy-children should be killed (e.g. Shafiʿi, Tafsir, 121).
Finally, the origins of the notion of the sacredness of Islamic warfare should be mentioned. Although jihad and warfare are disparate concepts, only partly overlapping, both are endowed with sanctity. The sanctity of jihad was discussed above. The sacredness of warfare derives, first, from the causative link between warfare on the one hand, and divine command and divine decree on the other. Another source is the association of warfare with divine reward and punishment. The roles of warring as a divine test and as a pledge that the believers give to God (Q 33:15, 23) add another dimension to the sacredness of warfare. Finally, God’s direct intervention in the military exploits of his community sanctifies these exploits (Q 3:13, 123-7; 8:7-12, 17-19, 26; 9:14, 25-6, 40; 33:9-10, 25-7; 48:20-4).