meaning from a segment of the early Muslim community in Medina (after the Hijra) who earned the name from their deliberate support and assistance for the Prophet in engaging various factions in Medina. Various organizations have adopted the term in their formal titles, beginning more recently in the nineteenth-century Mahdist movement in the Sudan. There the Ansar continued to function well into the twentieth century even after Sudan’s independence in 1955. They were influential among tribal groups in Darfur (a large western region of the Sudan), and they supported the ongoing struggle against the central government in Khartoum. Still other groups far from Sudan have adopted the name more recently, as in one Ansar ash-Sharia (Partisans of Revealed Law), which rose as a faction in the post-Kaddafi Libyan revolution, and another based in Yemen. Both are extremist Salafi groups bent on eradicating “un-Islamic” beliefs and practices by violent means if necessary.
What are the factions called Hamas and Hizb Allah (Hezbollah)?
Hamas is an acronym for an Arabic expression meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement” (harakat al-muqawamat al-is-lamiyya). Originating, and still based, in the Palestinian region of Gaza, Hamas was in effect an activist offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not satisfied with the Brotherhood’s relative passivity during the 1987 Palestinian intifada (in-ti-FAA-da, uprising), Hamas mobilized for the express purpose of resisting Israeli occupation. It continues to refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a state and advocates engaging with Israel through military means. Hezbollah, the “Party of God,” is in itself a generic title for a variety of factions in various regions that adopt the name to distinguish themselves from enemies of Muslim community labeled as “Parties of Satan” (Hizb ash-Saytan). Political parties by this name exist, for example, in Iran, Libya, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. But by far the most publicized in recent events is the Lebanese Hezbollah, which arose to prominence during Lebanon’s protracted civil war, and especially during the years after the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in 1983. Whereas membership in Hamas is largely (if not exclusively) Sunni, Hezbollah’s religious affiliation is Twelver Shi’i, with direct connections to Twelver Shi’i Iran. As such, the organization espouses the “political theology” of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, according to which true “Islamic” governance centers on the “rule of the [Islamic] jurisprudent”—vested, in this instance, in the Ayatollah Khomeini and his current successor, Ali Khamenei.
A Hezbollah flag is draped on a wall behind a praying Lebanese woman sitting next to the grave of her family, victims of an Israeli bombardment.
Are there any other analogous “parties” or “factions” active today? Are they all politically oriented? Do any espouse explicit use of violent means of protest or political engagement?
There are in fact dozens of such organizations in the Middle East alone, and many more across the globe in nations and regions with predominantly Muslim populations. Various organizations dedicated to “reformist” movements, from Morocco to Indonesia, go by a variety of monikers: front (jabha, JAB-ha), progress/revival/reawakening (nahda, NAH-da), renewal (tajdid, taj-DEED) mission/proselytization (dawa, DA-wa), revolution (thawr), assembly or group or association (jamaat, ja-MAA-at, jamiyyat, jam-EE-yat), struggle (jihad—including “inward” as well as “outward”), and union (ittihad, it-tee-HAAD), to name only the more common designations. By far the majority of these organizations reject violent means except in genuine instances of self-defense, and the “platforms” of most are largely if not exclusively oriented to engagement in the political arena. That is not to say their engagement both individually and corporately does not include religious concerns and agendas—any more than one might encounter, for example, in contemporary American politics.
One often hears the term “holy war” associated with certain groups who call themselves Muslims. Are their motives genuinely religious and are such groups representative of Muslims in general?
Muslims and non-Muslims alike have unfortunately been using the term “holy war” for generations. The expression is an inappropriate rendering of the Arabic term jihad (ji-HAAD), whose root meaning is “striving” or “struggle.” What Muslims mean when they use the term to describe external military and political activities is something like “religiously justifiable struggle against injustice and oppression.” In other words, in its classical meaning the term jihad is roughly analogous to Christian “just war theory.” Most of the time the call for a jihad is 90 percent rhetoric, involving little or no serious reflection on what the tradition in its considerable depth and sophistication stipulates about criteria and conditions for waging a “just war.” Political and economic considerations invariably intrude.
While the word jihad means “struggle” or “striving” toward a spiritual goal, the use of the word by radical Islamists has equated it with “Holy War.”
Why is the expression “holy war” such a hot-button term?
Many non-Muslims express misgivings about what appears to be the Islamic idea of “holy war.” They are often frankly afraid because they have formed the opinion that Islam is a violent religion. Many people have unfortunately and most unfairly come to expect that behind every episode of hostage-taking or large-scale terrorism there lurks a band of swarthy, bloodthirsty Arab or Iranian Muslims. Every time journalists use the term “jihad,” either as part of a faction’s name, or to describe the “holy war” a Muslim leader has allegedly called for, millions of listeners or readers have their worst fears confirmed. “There they go again!” one hears people say too often, citing such examples as Khomeini’s death sentence on writer Salman Rushdie and Saddam Husayn’s attempts during the Gulf War to galvanize Islamic support for a jihad against all infidels defiling sacred Arabian soil. In short, “holy war” is a term too often tossed around loosely, and questions in several chapters here will address specific aspects of the term and its implications.
Does Islamic tradition insist on specific limits to the use of violent means?
Questions abound concerning the conditions for religious sanctioning of violent means, which Islamic tradition shares with more than one other major religious tradition. There is no doubt that it is an important issue about which understanding several complex aspects is important. First, Muslims regard Muhammad as model; second, the actual aspirations of many millions of Muslims are for a life of peace; third, conditions governing authentic jihad are numerous and demanding; and finally, Americans and Europeans must try to appreciate the pain that the western domination of the Middle East and other parts of the world over the past century has caused in populations across the globe.
What is Muhammad’s role in Muslim views about using violence?
Muhammad stands out as the prime exemplar of the ideal mode of fostering peaceful relations among interest groups and communities that are defined by overlapping or otherwise conflicting claims. The story of the Prophet’s replacing the Black Stone in the Kaba suggests, along with other traditional accounts, that Muhammad developed a public reputation very early as a trustworthy person and an effective negotiator. When envoys came south from Yathrib (later Medina) to offer Muhammad and the Muslim community a new home, part of what they wanted in return was that Muhammad act as arbitrator in various factional disputes then troubling their city. Tradition cites prominently Muhammad’s diplomacy in forging treaties and alliances. It emphasizes especially Muhammad’s preference for peaceful means and the centrality Muhammad accorded to the reconciliation of hearts.
