Chapter 2

Regarding the Children of Israel, in the words of the Almighty: 'Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel after Moses when they said to a prophet of theirs, Send to us a king, [that] we may fight in the way of Allah...' (Surah Al-Baqarah: 246). Similarly, the accounts narrated concerning David (peace be upon him) fighting Goliath, and the expeditions of Solomon (peace be upon him) to liberate people from the worship of others than Allah, and to guide them into the vastness of faith and the blessing of Islam. The Holy Quran records from Solomon (peace be upon him) this motive that spurred him to combat, in the letter he sent to Bilqis, the Queen of Sheba in Yemen: 'She said, O eminent ones, indeed, to me has been delivered a noble letter. Indeed, it is from Solomon, and indeed, it reads: In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. Be not haughty with me but come to me in submission [as Muslims].' Also, how he (peace be upon him) was concerned with the density of the troops for this purpose: '...We will surely come to them with soldiers that they will be powerless to encounter...' (Surah An-Naml: 37). And how the Queen of Sheba responded to Solomon (peace be upon him) without war: 'She said, My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, and I submit with Solomon to Allah, Lord of the worlds.' Among these types of religious wars are the accounts narrated by the Holy Quran regarding the expeditions of 'Dhu al-Qarnayn' in Surah Al-Kahf. ¶

13 - Struggle for Power: This is exemplified in the history of the 'Roman Empire' during the period when a military force, led by 'Marius', arose to support the demands of the commoners. It seized control of 'Rome', killed the leaders of the 'Senate', and elected its leader as 'Consul' of 'Rome'. ¶

Then, another military force arose, opposing the first military force to support the policy of the 'Senate' under the leadership of 'Sulla', and its head was appointed 'Dictator'. Subsequently, a massacre of the commoners' party took place, and their wealth was confiscated. ¶

Likewise, what is narrated in the Seerah of Ibn Hisham regarding two tribes of the Arabs that emerged from Yemen and settled in 'Mecca'. There was a tribe in the upper part of Mecca led by 'Mudad ibn Amr', and a tribe in the lower part of Mecca led by... ¶

“Al-Sumayda’,” and each of them would collect the tithe (ushr) from those entering Mecca from their respective sides—that is, they would impose a ten-percent tax on the goods of merchants entering Mecca. Then, a rivalry for kingship and a struggle for power broke out between them, and intense fighting took place between them. ¶

14 - Struggle for “Strategic” Territories: An example of this is the struggle over the “Land of Palestine,” which was a battlefield where the armies of expansionist states met in ancient history. This was due to its significant location between its two powerful neighbors, “Egypt” and “Mesopotamia,” as it served as a bridgehead between Asia and Africa. Consequently, “Egypt” occupied it for hundreds of years. Then, the “Hebrews” entered it and fought its people. Shortly after, the “Assyrians” took over its northern part, followed by the “Chaldeans,” who seized its southern part under “Nebuchadnezzar.” Later, “Persia” sent armies and occupied it, followed by the invasion of “Alexander the Great,” and then the “Romans,” until the Islamic conquest arrived! ¶

15 - Suppressing Rebellions within the Country and in Peripheral Provinces: Among the examples of suppressing internal rebellions is the slave revolt in “Sicily” during the history of the Roman Empire, which resulted from the mistreatment practiced against them. 60,000 slaves revolted, killed their masters, seized cities and villages, and established a kingdom of their own. “Rome” dispatched a Roman army against them, which engaged them in wars for several years. ¶

As for an example of suppressing rebellions in peripheral provinces, there is the army led by “Nebuchadnezzar,” the King of the Chaldeans, from “Babylon” in Mesopotamia to quell rebellions in the Levant and Palestine, at a time when “Egypt” was inciting the inhabitants to revolt against the authority of “Babylon” to weaken it and keep it preoccupied with internal problems. However, “Nebuchadnezzar” punished the inhabitants of these lands, particularly the “Jews,” destroying “Jerusalem” in 586 B.C. and exiling many of them to “Babylon.” ¶

16- Intervention in the Internal Affairs of Other States: This cause is evident in the history of wars between Assyria and Egypt. Egypt constantly incited the western nations in Asia, who were under Assyrian rule, to revolt. These nations, lured by the desire to rid themselves of the imposed tribute, would respond to Egypt and rebel against their subservience to Assyria. Assyria realized that Egypt was a thorn in its side that had to be disciplined, so it sent army after army toward Egypt, eventually succeeding in conquering Lower Egypt and maintaining control over it for a period of time. ¶

17- Global Domination: Every expansionist state seeks to dominate the world if international conditions allow and the balance of power tilts in its favor. Hence, Assyria sought world domination. This was also the ambition of Alexander the Great; when the Persian king Darius sent him an offer of peace, proposing the Euphrates River as the boundary between them—with the west of the river belonging to Alexander and the east to the Persians—Alexander rejected this offer, dismissed his advisors who had suggested he accept it, and resolved to conquer the entire world, continuing his wars toward this end. ¶

Similarly, the wars between Rome and Carthage over 120 years were a conflict between two giants vying for global hegemony. Later, the Sassanid kings in Persia emerged, viewing themselves as peers to the Romans and rivals for global dominance; consequently, the wars that occurred between them were motivated by this factor. ¶

18- Differences in Lifestyle: The reason why this difference causes war is that when people in a society continue for a long time to follow a specific pattern of life, this pattern becomes part of their nature, and they cannot conceive of life without it. Thus, when they encounter another society living in a different manner, a natural, mutual aversion arises. ¶

In the human soul, when friction occurs between these two societies, aversion evolves into hostility, and hostility into war. Such was the situation between the Kingdom of Israel in northern Palestine and the Kingdom of Judah in the south. ¶

The society in the north possessed a degree of wealth, progress, industry, and commerce, while the society in the south lived in a state of poverty, backwardness, barren land, and a nomadic lifestyle for many. Hatred took root in the hearts of the same people due to the difference in their way of life. It appears that religious concepts also differed between the two societies, as the people of the north were influenced by the religion of the ancient Canaanites, worshipping their gods and betraying the covenant of 'Yahweh,' the God of the Jews. The idea arose among them that the gods of the Canaanites were the protectors of the affluent city-dwellers who oppressed the poor, and that 'Yahweh' was the guardian of the simple, poor, nomadic shepherds. Thus, the difference in the way of life became entrenched between the two societies, accompanied by differences in religious concepts that facilitated this disparity in lifestyle. For this reason, several wars ignited between the two societies.(1) ¶

19. Establishing unity in the people and the state, and eliminating factors of fragmentation: We see this cause of war in the actions of Ardashir ibn Babak in Persia, when he waged war against the petty kings among whom Alexander the Great had fragmented the Persian Empire, following the policy of 'divide and rule.' Ardashir succeeded in restoring unity to the people and the country.(2) ¶

20. Liberating the country from foreign occupation: This reason constitutes a chapter of ancient history regarding the bloody conflict between Persia and Greece in the fifth century BC. The Persians were able to occupy many Greek lands, leading the Greek armies to form from Athens, Sparta, and other allies, and they fought several wars against the Persian army. ¶

(1) Ancient Times: 225. (2) Tarikh al-Tabari: 2/ 38-44. ¶

to liberate the land, until this liberation was achieved and the Persians were defeated and forced into retreat, and the Greeks pursued them as far as the Dardanelles (1). ¶

21 - The Greed for Inheriting States: This is the motive underlying the bloody wars that took place between the commanders—the successors of Alexander the Macedonian—for each wanted to seize the entire Macedonian Empire. Many of those who coveted power perished in those wars, and subsequently, the empire was divided into three kingdoms in Europe, Asia, and Egypt (2), in the manner previously described. ¶

22 - Restoring Balance with Adversaries: This cause constitutes a chapter of Carthaginian expansion through wars. When the power of Rome, the enemy of Carthage, extended to the slopes of the Alps, Carthage felt an imbalance of power between itself and Rome, and realized that if it did not act quickly to correct this balance, its survival would be threatened. Therefore, Carthage waged war on southern Spain and occupied it under the leadership of Hannibal. The commander felt that the balance between his country and Rome had been restored; in fact, the balance of power had shifted in favor of his country, which led him to contemplate surprising Rome in its own home by descending upon it from the north (3). ¶

23 - Protecting External National Interests: This is because when a nation possesses interests beyond its borders and bears responsibilities that depend on matters outside its territory, it must inevitably clash with other nations that have similar interests and similar responsibilities. When interests collide, there is no known limit to the conflict; rather, it may lead to a war that triggers subsequent wars. Thus, the island of Sicily was the spark for the long wars that raged between Rome and Carthage from the moment Rome's interests became linked to it. ¶

It was part of Carthage's possessions, and through this island, it was able to control the Strait of Messina, situated between Italy and Sicily—a vital strait for Rome. Rome became increasingly frustrated by this, and a war broke out for control of Sicily, spanning 23 years, which ended in 264 B.C. with Rome's victory and the annexation of Sicily into its territories. Thus, Rome began to have interests abroad, as it had gained control over territories outside Italy. With this move, retreat was no longer possible, and it continued to fight Carthage to protect its foreign interests for 120 years, ending with the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C. ¶

24 - Breach of treaties between states: An example of this cause for bloody conflict between states is the war that erupted between Rome and Carthage on the borders of Spain. There was a treaty between the two states that Carthaginian military forces would not cross beyond the Ebro River to the north. Carthage violated this treaty and crossed the 'red line'—as is said these days—which became the cause for the war that took place between them on the Spanish borders. ¶

25 - Coercion to join alliances: We can observe this cause in the history of Greece after the era of Alexander the Macedonian, when an alliance was formed between small states in an attempt to strengthen themselves against their adversaries and to compensate for the individual weakness of each. This alliance was akin to a military pact, headed by an annual commander tasked with leading the army, while several officers were assigned to oversee defensive matters and foreign relations. ¶

It happened that the government of Sparta refused to join this alliance, so the allies declared war on it to force its inclusion. Sparta won this war, so the allies sought help from Macedonia, resulting in Sparta's defeat; it lost its independence and became a vassal state. ¶

26. Entrapping signatory states in a manner that compels them to breach the treaty, and using that as a pretext to declare war against them: This cause of war is exemplified in the final military confrontations that brought an end to Carthage in 146 BCE. After Hannibal’s army was defeated in the Battle of Zama by the Roman forces, a treaty was concluded between Rome and Carthage stipulating that the latter pay a heavy financial indemnity over 50 years and refrain from waging war against anyone without Rome’s permission. Once the 50 years concluded and the requested sum was paid, Rome incited the Numidians—Carthage’s neighbors to the west—to attack Carthage. They complied, and Carthage rose to defend itself. This was exactly what Rome had intended; it declared that Carthage had violated the treaty by warring against Numidia without its permission, subsequently declared war on Carthage, and brought about its final destruction. ¶

27. Fear of an opponent’s future power and striking them before they become strong: 'Preventive War': This cause is manifested in the war Rome ignited against Philip, King of Macedon. Rome had learned a lesson from its long, 120-year wars with Carthage: never to allow a power overlooking the Mediterranean basin to emerge as a threat. Thus, when it learned that Philip of Macedon had agreed with Antiochus III, the Seleucid King of Asia, to partition the territories of Egypt, Rome perceived an impending danger with the growing power of neighboring Macedon. Consequently, Rome decided to crush Philip before he grew stronger. That is what happened, and Macedon was annexed into the Roman state. ¶

28. Eliminating separatist movements and usurpers of authority on the periphery of the country: This constitutes another cause of war that has driven the masters of great empires. ¶

To plunge into battle for the sake of preserving the unity of their empires and crushing any attempt to fragment or tear apart their states. For instance, in the third century AD in the history of the Roman Empire, Tetricus, a member of the Roman Senate, seized Gaul (modern-day France), Britain, and Spain, separating them from the body of the Roman Empire, and became the lord of the Western lands. ¶

Other separatist movements also occurred on the fringes of the Roman state. Emperor Aurelian rose up, led an army to fight the rebellious separatists, and restored matters to their proper order and the empire to its unity.(1) ¶

29 - Internal Cleaning: Meaning, purging the country of elements of discord and corruption, or those greedy for power: ¶

We can discern this cause of war in the dialogue that took place between Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan, one of the leaders of Yemen, and Chosroes (Kisra), the King of Persia, after Ethiopia had seized Yemen at the instigation of the Roman Empire. Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan said: "O King, the 'aghruba' (meaning the blacks, whom he likened to crows, the plural of crow) have overcome us in our land, so I have come to you so that you may help me, and the kingdom of my land shall be yours!" ¶

Chosroes said: "Your land is too far, and its bounty is little! I would not want to entangle an army from Persia in the land of the Arabs." Then, Chosroes presented the matter to his advisors, and one of them said: "O King, there are 800 men in your prisons whom you have imprisoned for execution. If you were to send them with him, if they perish, that is what you intended for them, and if they are victorious, it will be a kingdom you have added to your own!" ¶

And so it happened. The army marched to Yemen, those who were to join from the Arabs of Yemen joined it, and the fighting took place between this army and the army of the Abyssinians. God willed that the Persian army should win this war, and thus Yemen became a kingdom added to the Persian realm.(2) ¶

-------------------- (1) Al-'Usur al-Qadima (Ancient Ages): 634. (2) Sirat Ibn Hisham: 1/66-73. ¶

30 - Proxy War: We observe this cause among the reasons for wars in the policy of both the Romans and the Persians towards their neighboring Arabs. The Romans adopted the Ghassanids as their 'agents' on the frontiers of the Syrian desert, seeking their help to repel Bedouin raids on civilized regions, while the Persians adopted the Lakhmids (Manadhira) on the borders of the Sawad as their 'agents' for the same purpose. Thus, these groups—the Ghassanid Arabs in Syria and the Lakhmid Arabs in Al-Hira—waged wars against Arab tribes on behalf of the Romans and Persians. Furthermore, wars between the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids themselves did not cease for the very same reason. Al-Tabari reports that the Persians struck a deal with Al-Harith ibn Amr al-Kindi, King of Al-Hira, to discipline the raiding Arabs on the borders of Persia. When some Arabs raided the Sawad, Qubad, the King of Persia, learned of it and informed Al-Harith, as if holding him responsible for these raids. Al-Harith replied: 'They are the robbers of the Arabs, and I cannot control the Arabs except with money and soldiers.' Consequently, the King of Persia granted him what he requested so that he could wage war on his behalf against the Arab tribes neighboring Persia. I say: These are some of the causes that ignited wars—large and small, comprehensive and limited, internal and external—in the ancient world before Islam. One might ask: Is it not possible to reduce these causes and motives to a smaller number than those mentioned? The answer is: Yes! For there is some overlap, generality and specificity, or synthesis and analysis between some of these causes. However, I preferred to present them in this manner because I believe this method of presentation makes those wars easier to understand in this era, and it makes their causes closer in many respects to the causes of modern warfare. Summary of the Previous Causes: Furthermore, one of the contemporary Islamic thinkers has summarized the causes of wars, including the ancient ones... ¶

And the modern [wars] are due to two causes: 1 - The pursuit of material benefits. 2 - The love for supremacy, whether it is the supremacy of a nation or a people, as was the case with Germany, or the supremacy of an ideology, as was the case with the Islamic State(1). ¶

After this introduction, in which we have traversed a long and swift journey that began with what is called the 'era of history' four thousand years before the birth of Christ (peace be upon him)(2), and ended at the threshold of the Islamic era, and in which we have examined some of the wars that used to ignite between states, nations, and peoples, and we observed their consequences and the motives and causes hidden behind them... ¶

I say: After this journey through the fields of those wars... we arrive at the field of Islamic Jihad, and we stand at its gates... ¶

So, with the blessings of Allah, we proceed to address the first chapter. ¶

(1) Mafahim Siyasiyya (Political Concepts) by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani: 75. (2) Al-Usur al-Qadimah (Ancient Eras): p. 38. ¶

Chapter One: The Definition of Jihad. ¶

Chapter Two: Types of Combat in Islam, and which of them does the definition of Jihad apply to? ¶

31 ¶

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon our master Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions. ¶

To proceed: This is a concise treatise explaining some of the rulings on fasting and the numerous related issues that every fasting person needs. Some of my brothers asked me about these matters, so I responded to their request, hoping for Allah’s acceptance and benefit. ¶

I have titled it: 'Tuhfat al-Sa'im fi Ahkam al-Shahr al-Karim' (The Fasting Person’s Gift regarding the Rulings of the Blessed Month). ¶

I have organized it into an introduction and several sections: Introduction: On the virtue of fasting and its wisdom. First Section: On the conditions for its obligation and validity. Second Section: On the pillars of fasting and its nullifiers. Third Section: On matters that are permissible and those that are disliked for the fasting person. Fourth Section: On the excuses that permit breaking the fast. Fifth Section: On making up for missed fasts (Qada) and the expiation (Fidya). Sixth Section: On some of the Sunnah practices related to the month. ¶

And Allah is the Granter of success to what is correct. Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Husayn ¶

Chapter One: The Definition of Jihad Lexically, Legally (Shari'ah), Conventionally, and Terminologically. ¶

Preliminary to the definition: - Sources of definition. - The meanings of terms in the Arabic language: 'Linguistic reality, legal (Shari'ah) reality, general convention, and specific convention.' - Jihad: In the linguistic context. - Jihad: In the Shari'ah context. - Jihad: In the general conventional context. - Jihad: In the specific conventional context, i.e., 'the jurisprudential (fiqhi) terminology'. ¶

All rights reserved to Maktaba Qadriya, Lahore. No part of this book may be published or stored in any form (by photocopying, recording, or any electronic or mechanical means) without the written permission of the author or the publisher. Publisher: Maktaba Qadriya, Opposite Data Darbar Mosque, Lahore. Phone: 042-7247330 ¶

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. ¶

Chapter One: Defining Jihad linguistically, in Shariah, by custom ('Urf), and as a technical term. ¶

Before the Definition: Sources of Definition ¶

The sources we have referred to in defining Jihad in its various meanings are of two types: - The first type consists of sources originally compiled by their authors to address vocabulary from a linguistic perspective. Through them, we identified the meanings assigned to these terms in the Arabic language. These sources may also touch upon other meanings that these terms convey metaphorically, or through Shariah, conventional (customary), or technical usage. Examples of such sources include linguistic dictionaries like 'Al-Qamus al-Muhit', 'Lisan al-Arab', and 'Mukhtar al-Sihah'. - The second type consists of sources originally compiled by their authors to address terminologies from a thematic perspective. These clarified the meaning of a term as it relates to specific concepts, not limiting it merely to its linguistic definition, although they do indicate the linguistic meaning of the terms being addressed. Many of the authors of these works are also considered linguistic scholars, even if they did not restrict their scholarly output to linguistic discussions or dedicate specific works solely to these topics. Examples of these sources include 'Al-Nihayah' by Ibn al-Athir, 'Al-Ta'rifat' by al-Jurjani, and many books of Usul al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), Fiqh (jurisprudence), Tafsir (exegesis), and Hadith. ¶

I state: We rely upon these two types of sources in our definition of Jihad in its various nuances. ¶

Meanings of terms in the Arabic language: Scholars of Usul al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence), following the linguists, divide terms based on the meanings derived from them into four categories: Haqiqah (literal/truth), Majaz (metaphorical), Sarih (explicit), and Kinayah (metonymy). In our research regarding the meanings of 'Jihad', we are concerned with the category of Haqiqah and what deviates from it into Majaz. Scholars have defined Haqiqah and its divisions by stating: 'It is a term used for that for which it was originally coined; this includes linguistic, shariah-based, customary, and technical coinage.' We will define these categories of Haqiqah and then determine which one the word 'Jihad' belongs to. 1. Linguistic Haqiqah: A term used for what it was originally coined for in the language, such as: 'insan' (human) and 'faras' (horse). 2. Shariah-based Haqiqah: Terms used by the Lawgiver (Shari') for meanings that the Arabs did not originally coin them for. For example: 'Salah' (prayer), which the Arabs coined for the meaning of 'supplication' (du'a), but the Shariah transferred it to a new meaning, which is: 'the actions and words beginning with Takbir and ending with Taslim.' 3. Customary Haqiqah: A term that has shifted from its linguistic denotation to another due to general usage in the language, such that the former meaning is abandoned. It has two divisions: First: That a name was coined for a general meaning and then became specific by the custom of the linguists to some of its denotations, such as the term 'dabbah' (beast/creature) becoming specifically used for four-legged animals in custom, even though in the origin of the language it applies to everything that moves on the earth, thus including humans and animals. Second: That a name in the origin of the language has a certain meaning, then becomes famous in customary usage for a meaning outside its linguistic subject, such that nothing else is understood when the term is used. For example, the term 'gha'it'; in its original linguistic coinage, it refers to a depressed area of land, but it became famous in... ¶

Linguists have defined 'kharij' (excrement) as the waste matter from a human being that is considered repulsive, to the point that when the term is used, nothing else is understood from it(1). ¶

4 - Specific Customary Reality, also called 'terminology' (istilah): This refers to a word that was linguistically assigned to one meaning, but was utilized by a specific group (ahl al-urf) for a different meaning, and became so common among them that only this intended meaning is understood from it, such as 'raf'', 'nasb', and 'jarr' among grammarians(2). ¶

Furthermore, those who work within any of these four categories of reality, if they use a word in a sense other than the common one among them—accompanied by a context (qarina) indicating the intended meaning—then this constitutes a metaphor (majaz) in their usage(3). ¶

Based on this, if the people of Shariah use the word 'salah' to mean 'supplication' (du'a), this is a metaphor in their usage, even though the word 'salah' meaning 'supplication' is a linguistic reality for the linguists. An example of this is the narration in the books of Hadith: 'Abu Usayd al-Sa'idi, Malik bin Rabi'a, said: While we were with the Prophet (PBUH), a man from Banu Salama came and said: O Messenger of Allah! Is there any goodness remaining from my parents through which I can treat them with kindness after their death? He replied: Yes! Performing salah (supplication) for them, seeking forgiveness for them, fulfilling their covenants after their death, honoring their friends, and upholding the ties of kinship that can only be upheld through them'(4). The word 'salah' in this hadith means 'supplication'. It is a case of metaphor because the Prophet (PBUH), as the conveyor of the Shariah, did not use the word 'salah' in its technical Shariah meaning (prayer), which is the norm for him, but rather used it in its linguistic sense metaphorically. Conversely, if linguists, in their linguistic discourse, were to use the word 'salah'—not in the sense of supplication, but in its technical Shariah sense—due to a context indicating the intended meaning, that would be a metaphor in their usage. And so on. ¶

Now we arrive at the term 'Jihad' to see to which category of reality it belongs, and whether it has metaphorical usages. ¶

A - Jihad in the linguistic sense(1): ¶

'Jihad' is the verbal noun (masdar) of the quadriliteral verb 'Jahada', following the pattern of 'fi'al' denoting 'mufa'ala' (reciprocity) between two parties. For example, 'khisam' means 'mukhasama' (mutual contention), which is the verbal noun of 'khasama'; and 'jidal' means 'mujadala' (mutual disputation), which is the verbal noun of 'jadala'. The triliteral verb of the word is 'jahada'. The author of Al-Qamus defines the triliteral verbal noun and its meaning by saying: 'Al-jahd (with a fatha on the jim): energy/capacity, and it is also read with a damma, meaning hardship'(2). ¶

In Lisan al-Arab: 'It is said: Al-jahd (with a fatha) is hardship, and Al-juhd (with a damma) is energy/capacity; and regarding jihad: it is the exhaustion of one's utmost effort and capacity in speech or action'(3). ¶

The author of Al-Munjid says: 'Jahada, mujahadatan wa jihad: he exerted his utmost capacity... The origin is: each of the two parties exerted his effort to repel the other'(4). ¶

- In Al-Qastallani's commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari: 'Jihad, with a kasra on the jim, is the verbal noun of 'jahadtu al-aduwwa mujahadatan wa jihad'. Its origin was 'jihad', like 'qital', then it was lightened by omitting the ya. It is derived from 'al-jahd', with a fatha on the jim, which is fatigue and hardship, due to the endurance of these in it; or from 'al-juhd', with a damma, which is capacity, because each of the two parties exerted his capacity in repelling his opponent'(5). ¶

- In the Tafsir of Al-Naysaburi: 'And the correct [view] is that Jihad is: the exertion of one's utmost effort in attaining the intended goal'(6). ¶

(1) Those who possess the authority of establishment (wad') in the language are the Arabs whose Arabic is considered authoritative, and they are a people confined to specific boundaries of place and time. Place: It is the Arabian Peninsula. Time: It is the end of the second century for the Arabs of the cities, and the end of the fourth century for the Bedouins of the deserts (Wahy al-Risalah - Al-Zayyat 3/175). (2) Al-Qamus al-Muhit by Al-Firuzabadi - Entry: jahada. (3) Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Manzur - Entry: jahada. (4) Al-Munjid (Entry: jahada). (5) Al-Qastallani 'ala al-Bukhari: 5/39. (6) Tafsir al-Naysaburi: 11/126. ¶

In Bada'i' al-Sana'i', it is stated: 'As for Jihad in the linguistic sense, it signifies the exertion of effort (al-juhd with a damma), which means capacity and strength; or it signifies exaggeration in action, derived from (al-jahd with a fatha).' His statement 'or exaggeration in action...' indicates that the measure 'fa'ala, mufa'alatan' may sometimes come, not to denote reciprocal action between two parties, but for the purpose of exaggeration (mubalagha), such as: da'afa muda'afatan, meaning da'afa tad'ifan, for the sake of intensification and multiplication, although this usage is rare compared to the former. ¶

After all these citations regarding the linguistic meaning of the word 'Jihad,' we can construct a linguistic definition that represents the linguistic reality of the term 'Jihad,' and we say: ¶

'Jihad is the exertion of capacity in defense between two parties, even if only potentially.' By 'potentially' (taqdiran), we mean the human's jihad against his own self, based on the assumption that a human contains two aspects within himself when two contradictory desires clash, each striving to prevail over the other. In this definition, we have combined what was stated in Lisan al-Arab and Sharh al-Qastallani, and added 'even if only potentially' for further clarity. ¶

Based on this linguistic definition, the effort expended can be a material act with a weapon or without one, through spending wealth or without wealth. It may be through speech, or it may be through refraining from action and speech, such as someone who refrains from obeying his parents in a matter involving disobedience to Allah, and shows patience against their insistence on that request. It is also like someone who abstains from satisfying a forbidden desire even when his self has tempted him towards it. On this point, Hashiyat al-Jamal 'ala al-Jalalayn states: ¶

'Jihad is patience in the face of hardship; it may be in war, and it may be within the self.' ¶

Also based on this linguistic definition, the other party against whom a Muslim wages jihad may be the self (nafs), the Devil, the immoral (fussaq), or the disbelievers (kuffar). ¶

Based on this linguistic definition as well: ¶

Jihad can be 'in the way of Allah', such as a Muslim's jihad to seek Allah's pleasure, and it can be 'in the way of Satan', such as the jihad of the disbelievers against others. This is because jihad—as al-Naysaburi says—is: 'Exerting one's utmost effort in the attainment of a desired goal' (1), regardless of the nature of the goal targeted by the person exerting the effort. The Quran has used the verb 'jihad' to describe the activity of disbelieving parents to turn their believing children away from faith: {And if they strive (jahadaka) against you to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them. To Me is your return...} (2). {But if they strive (jahadaka) to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness...} (3). ¶

B - Jihad in the Shariah sense: ¶

Furthermore, the Shariah took the term 'jihad' in the Quran and Sunnah from its general linguistic meaning—as mentioned above—and confined it to a specific meaning: 'Exerting one's capacity in combat in the way of Allah, whether directly, or by assisting with wealth, opinion, increasing the numbers [of the army], or other such means' (4). It appears that this specific meaning of jihad was only established in 'Medina'; as for 'Mecca', the legislation of jihad had not yet been revealed. Therefore, the root of 'jihad' in the Meccan verses denotes its general linguistic meaning. There are three such verses in Surah al-Ankabut: {And whoever strives (jahada), only strives (yujahidu) for the benefit of himself...} (5). {And if they strive (jahadaka) against you to make you associate with Me...} (6). {And those who strive (jahadu) for Us—We will surely guide them to Our ways...} (7). ¶

And in Surah Luqman, there is one verse: {But if they strive (jahadaka) against you to make you associate with Me...} ¶