Violence and Jihad in Islam: From the War of Words to the Clashes of Definitions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting and  addresses an argument of considerable importance in the Academic debate. The article deserves to be published, however, in the tentative to avoid a too easily approach, it should also be able to consider the historical evidence that emerged, sometimes in contrast with the article "narrative". 

1. Since the second half of the 8/2 century, with the framing of clear dar al-Islam, dar al-Harb borders, the meaning and the adoption of Jihad became synonymous of Harb and Qital. Anas ibn Malik, Shaybani, Maghazi literature etc. active support this kind of parallelism which, I am completely agree with the author is far away from Jihad's morality, even if initially, early Islamic jurisprudence tries to preserve a sort of military ethics in war and battles. However, since al-Ma'mun/ al-Mu'tasim reforms of the army in the 9th century, this kind of original jihad rapidly disappears from reality and from military essays on the topic.
2. The problem of the general Islamic sources incoherence in relation to rebellion against an unjust rulers, even if nominally muslim (vv.197-207) which is a never-ending story in the Islamic history from the early age to contemporary.
3. Ibn Khaldun's political and religious vision is particularly interesting, however, it is also based on its personal rhetorical approach: the establishment and balance of powers has been usually in contrast with the conceptualization of the da'wa, as the mobilization of the values and beliefs of people in utopically bringing back the detentor of power under public legitimacy. According to it, the risk to emphasize fitna in the "Islamic" society has usually been a detractor of change (as you reports in relation to Sunni and Shia division in 646-654). Nevertheless, the narrative on Sunni and Shia division is clearly far away from the historical reality of Muhammad's succession as the role played by the inner conflict between the early Believers community and those who, only at last, supported the prophet's understanding (Umayyad, Amr ibn al-'As, Khalid ibn al-Walid etc.).

I personally think that the article is meritorious and it need to be published, however, I would like to suggest to insert the entire methodological approach in a more historical framework to give at the same Islamic "narratives" of violence, the correct referring milieu. 

Author Response

1. I fully agree with the rapporteurs on this point. This is also the direction of my reflection, that of confining the use of jihad in the lands of Islam to specific circumstances. Muslims, like all other peoples, have used force, through wars and qitals, to extend their domination, beyond the religious fact. Reasonably, we cannot call these wars jihad.
2. Concerning the remark N°2, I did not wish to investigate in detail the sources, since it does not constitute the direction of my analyses. 
3. For point 3, I thought it important to reserve a short section on the meaning of da'wa in Islam and the way Ibn Khaldun presents it in his writings. The idea for me is to demonstrate that not all actions undertaken by Khaldun can be described as purely religiously inspired. The da'wa is an example of this. It is primarily a political motive and argument.

I didn't completely understand the comment about the historical methodological approach. Am I being asked to rewrite (a) particular section(s)/part(s) of my work? 

It is true that my work does not relate the history of the conquests and expansion of the Muslims from the early Qualifs who succeeded the Prophet through the medieval period and onward. The guiding principle of my work is based more on the different interpretations attached to the notion of Jihad.  Concerning this notion, I have tried in particular to present the multiple and contradictory readings that can be made of the Qur'anic texts and the diversity of social and cultural practices that have resulted from them, since the death of the Prophet. The question underlying my analyses was to grasp the fundamental polysemy of jihad and to ask the following question: is Islam really an ideology of violent protest? While observing the place of the Muslim religion in the field of politics, the idea was to trace the displacements made by the different interpretations of jihad in order to carry out political wars in favor of a properly eschatological violence. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very good paper which deals admirably with the highly confusing notion of jihad.      The author/authors should be commended for their clear and concise presentation.

The paper can profit from one small addition.   in 1979 Brigadier General S. K. Malik, an Islamist officer in the Pakistani High Command, wrote a book called The Koranic Concept of War, which was the first systematic adaption of the Koran  to a modern war written from the perspective of a serving military officer, in contrast to  the ideologists   such a al Bana,  Qutb or Azzam (who are mentioned).   It is important to add Malik ( who is little known  in the discourse on jihad) to the list of those who instrumentalized  the concept of jihad. 

Author Response

I thank very much my collegue for his reading and comments.

I added a note on the suggest book by Abdoul Malik AL-QÂSSIM, The Quranic Concept of War, in page 3, footnote 8.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf