Category: Jihad

In the light of the growing interest over whether the United States Administration is faulting with the rights and freedom of several hundred unlawful combatants still detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it is imperative to critically evaluate if the notion of “jihad” has been overhyped by policy makers, the media and other stakeholders interested in the fight against global terrorism, and if majority of the detainees still held in the facility are indeed radical extremists or disaffected and confused men.

The knowledge that many of detainees still held in Guantanamo bay are Islamic terrorists focused on carrying out “holy war” under the banner of “jihad” is in public domain (Aaron, 2008).

To comprehend the US Administration’s attitude in the Guantanamo Bay case, one only needs to remember the brute and unwarranted killings of innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Since that date, the U.S. considers itself to be in a constant state of war against international terrorism which is largely perpetrated by jihadis and other terrorist organizations. To therefore assume that the notion of jihad has been hyped is to miss the point.

The jihadis have avowedly sought “…the destruction of western democracy and the conversion of the world to their concept of Islam” (Aaron, 2008, p. 1).

It is important to note that not only do the jihadis perpetrate their murderous killings based on a largely misplaced notion of the ‘holy war’ as described in Islam (Aaron, 2008), but it is increasing hard for the U.S. to wage war against a common stateless enemy scattered throughout the world.

In addition, jihadis are extremely dangerous since they come from a culture and religious orientation that is largely incomprehensible to the U.S., not mentioning that they do not speak with one voice (Aaron, 2008).

Consequently, all necessary measures need to be put in place to guard against these extremists and to stress the real dangers posed by these stateless groups.

On this account, it is strategically wrong and politically irresponsible to assume that the concept of jihad has been overhyped since this amount to conferring on jihad terrorists’ greater legitimacy and will to attack than they already have.

There exist many reasons and influences as to why many unsuspecting young Muslims leave their homes and volunteer to join jihad.

Indeed, Curcio (2005) cites influence of imams, devotion to Islam, indoctrination with untenable religious beliefs and unemployment as some of the factors that influence young men to join the movement.

But however much one would want to sympathize with these unsuspecting minds, the damage they cause cannot escape mention.

What is perplexing is the fact that the adherents of jihadism believe that they can achieve their goals, especially the creation of a global fundamentalist Islamic State, through violent means (Aaron, 2008).

It is therefore of immediate necessity to put in place strong measures to quell this utopian line of thought, which is in essence not supported by mainstream Islam. In this perspective, the question of hyping the notion of jihad does not even arise; states must at all times be prepared about the possibility a terrorist attack.

Due to increasing globalization, jihadis are now able to plan and implement suicide bombings from the confines of Sovereign states if real-life accounts of some terrorists recorded by Aaron (2008) are anything to go by.

It is important to note that whether these terrorists are accepted by Sovereign states that sponsor terrorism or whether they impose themselves on the sovereign territory as was the case with Taliban in pre-9/11 attacks, it is impossible to dissuade these entities from striking a perceived enemy since they have nothing to lose and are effective in concealing the origin of their attacks.

On the contrary, the attacked states have everything to lose as was demonstrated by the sharp decline of the U.S. economy immediately after 9/11.

The situation is further worsened by the fact that no individual can negotiate with the jihadis since in most cases they are not interested in compromising with the perceived adversary, but its annihilation (Aaron, 2008).

In this regard, adequate preemptive measures are necessary to curb any eventuality of a terrorist attack. It cannot therefore be said that the notion of jihad has in any way been hyped.

From the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it is evidently clear that terrorism has assumed a new dimension. Today, more than ever, instances of international terrorist networks of a military nature, including some that claim to perpetuate the “holy war” under the banner of jihad, have been on the increase (Aaron, 2008).

To therefore argue that these terrorist networks have been overhyped in policy forums and in the media is tantamount to creating a new frontier for them to strike at will.

In my view, the U.S. Administration and other like-minded partners need to come up with additional and more stringent instruments that could be used to counter these new and real threats to international peace and security.

It is unwise to buy the claim suggested by Curcio (2005), that majority of the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay are a bunch of merely disaffected and confused people, not radical extremists.

The reasons that made the young Muslim men to rally behind the call to join Jihad are, in my view, valid; but the author needs to realize that the indoctrination and training that commenced afterwards are more than enough to change young innocent minds into killing machines.

Additionally, it can be argued that the author’s findings are largely subjective based on the fact that he relied on information gathered from the incarcerated lot. Such opinions cannot in anyway be relied upon to guide policies that aim to guard against the very people who provided the opinions.

Real life experiences as demonstrated by Aaron (2008) reveals that these indoctrinated minds will go to any length to kill and maim their perceived enemies.

As such, buying into the notion that these detainees are not in fact radical extremists is to provide a framework through which all efforts aimed at curbing terrorism will be defeated. Rigorous examinations and assessments, rather than mere opinions, need to be undertaken before buying into Curcio’s idea.

Reference List

Aaron, D. (2008). In their own words: Voices of jihad. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Web.

Curcio, S. (2005). Generational differences in waging jihad. Military Review. Web.

The article Jihad vs. McWorld, written by Benjamin R. Barber, explores the two possible political models that may emerge in the future. Both of them are non-democratic but promote slightly different values and approaches towards the distribution of power among the countries. They are called the McWorld model and the Jihad model. They may exist separately in different societies and, at the same time, coexist in one country.

McWorld is empowered by the four imperatives: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an ecological imperative. These four constituents of the system will enable the countries to create a universal rational society but in a homogenized, depoliticized, commercialized, and bureaucratized manner. The Jihad model regards war not as a political instrument but as an emblem of identity and a way to express the community’s will. Though both systems have natural politics, each of them appears to have traits that are typical of antipolitics. McWorld prioritizes laissez-faire market principles as a guiding force for society. The Jihad model, however, appears to vote for the dictatorship, military government, or theocratic fundamentalism. Both models deny democracy and do not consider its guiding principles and forces appealing or beneficial for society.

That is why neither of these two systems is beneficial for the democratic world of today, but there are slightly noticeable tendencies towards the transition to these models in some countries. However, if the democratic powers still have the opportunities to prevent such a dark future for the whole system and the world in general. It is possible because the desire for self-government, expression of participation, and representation exists even in the most traditionalized and hierarchical countries and societies.

The article The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington deals with the phenomenon of possible global conflicts that may inflame in the future, not between the countries but between the whole civilizations. The author stresses that the conflict of civilization will be the latest phase of the evolution of conflicts that exist or existed in the world throughout the course of history. However, despite the fact that the majority of the conflicts in the modern world are characterized by ideological or economic reasons, the future conflict of civilizations will inflame due to culture-related ones.

There exist several reasons for this supposition. They concern the religious, cultural, historical, language, and traditional differences that are typical of various civilizations. At the same time, the overpopulation of the Earth, the processes of social changes, and economic modernization contribute to people’s losing their local identities. The final reason is the increasing influence of the West and its opposition to other civilizations that exist. In other cultures, the West is regarded as the most influential, powerful, and invincible force. Its role and influence on the international community may be regarded as dual because it is the most powerful ally in peace and the most dangerous opponent at war. The phrase the world community has already been perceived by many people as only the Western European countries and the United States. Hence the world may soon face more apparent opposition between Western and non-Western countries that will finally lead to a high-scale conflict of interests. However, instead of the struggle against each other, the civilizations may move towards mutually beneficial cooperation that is better for all of them and for the world in general.

The importance of jihad stems from the Quran’s instructions to the believers of Islam to struggle for the way of God and the example set by Prophet Muhammad and his followers. The general concept of jihad refers to the responsibility of all Muslims to obey God’s will. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam¹ whose concept of struggle on the way to God can be traced back to the prophet and his men in the early days of Islam. According to this practice, all Muslims have an obligation to follow and fulfil God’s will, i.e. to live with virtues taught in the Quran and to spread the tenets and doctrine of Islam by way of preaching, educating, writing, and other ways to effectively spread the word. Jihad also means to fight against injustice and cruelty, to spread and defend the Islamic doctrine, and create a fair and just society. This can be done through preaching and teaching, by peaceful means or through armed resistance. Ever since Islam was founded, Muslims have rallied to defend their religion. (Esposito, 2010)

There are two other meanings of Islam which can be violent or non-violent. It has been told through tradition that once when Muhammad and his men arrived from battle, he told them about the lesser and the greater jihad. The greater jihad is the nonviolent one which is about fighting one’s ego, selfish desires, greed and covetousness and above all evil. The greater jihad is the fight against the enemy inside; it is an ‘internal struggle’ (Kelsay, 1993).

Contrary to beliefs of those who don’t really know and haven’t studied Islam, jihad is not the same as “holy war”. Some Muslim rulers use it, with the connivance of religious scholars, in legitimising expansion of empire. Terrorists and extremist groups use the concept of jihad to mislead people and their followers to legitimize terroristic acts, rebellion and killing. In the present times, terrorists use jihad as a way of God’s tolerance to terminate lives and opponents of Islam. False Islam preachers promote jihad to help them establish a global Islamic government.

The earliest years of the Muslim tradition on the concept of jihad referred to the time when Muhammad and his people crossed from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution. Muhammad and the early Muslims had to defend themselves from aggressors.² Even in the actual conduct of war, there are guidelines for jihad. The Quran specifies who must fight and who are exempt from fighting, when the fighting has already stopped, and how to treat prisoners of war.

Criteria for the “Lesser Jihad”

Jihad is not just fighting for the spread of Islam. It must be justified and that it is for the defense of Islam. Some guidelines about jihad include: jihad cannot be promoted for material and personal gain; the rights of jihadists must be respected by all; the rights of the minority and vulnerable, such as women, children, and the disabled, should also be respected; prisoners of war must be respected; places of worship should not be destroyed; and religious people and priests should not be harmed. (Esposito, 2010)

The “lesser jihad” refers to what they call “holy war” but the aim of jihadists is to unite countries of the world into one Islamic state. According to Hizbullah’s interpretation of the Quran, the concept was derived from Quranic verses: verse 193 of Baqara (which asks followers to fight in the name of Allah) and verse 33 of al Tawba (which sets Islam above any other religion). These verses legitimize the will to go in the way of jihad to spread the religion Islam over the entire world. (Hamzeh, 2004, p. 38)

In the past, we have Sadam Hussein who proclaimed that the Arab people were great because of their being the first witness to Islam. Sadam told Muslims to be an example for others to follow. He reminded people of the need for war against evil and injustice (Kelsay, 1993). These themes were Sadam’s reasons for jihad and he gained some successes. Many of his followers opposed the Allied forces who invaded Iraq and up to now there is still dissention in the occupation of Iraq.

Every Muslim has the right to defend himself: if a Muslim is attacked he/she can react and do what is necessary to defend himself/herself. Everyone has a right to protect his own life, his hard-earned property and wealth, and to have equal protection along these lines. Muslims may have waged wars and conquered nations but this only proved that they have not waged first the greater jihad which is fighting against their evil desires.

Jihad is also used to fight injustice – this is one of the most relevant meanings of jihad in relation to its role in society today. However, in a jihadist’s fight against injustice, jihad must not be related to violence over which it is now correlated with. Jihad can be connected with social justice, an advocacy for many including other religions, to protect communities and people in order to establish a fair, just and prosperous society. This is one of the great challenges of modern Islam, to fully understand the contexts of the Quran and the Prophet’s vision in the midst of the world’s injustice towards developing nations. For example, Prophet Muhammad advocated that a good neighbour should share his blessings with others³. It is a responsibility and not just a mere occasion. Muslims have to share their wealth or feed those who have nothing to eat.

Suicide bombing can be traced to Lebanon’s Hizbullah, or to militants fighting for Palestinian liberation, and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers. The Iraqi suicide bombers have been conducting their attacks against occupation forces in Iraq. There is a puzzling situation in the suicide bombing in Iraq against the U.S. forces. According to Mohammed Hafez (2007), suicide bombing in Iraq is conducted by suicide bombers from other countries, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, etc. Hafez asked why foreigners wanted to become martyrs in Iraq. Was it because they loved Iraq like their own home country? Hafez linked ‘individual motivations, organizational strategies, and societal conflicts’ in his theory about the suicide attacks. Social conflicts become opportunities for organizations to mobilize martyrs from other countries and who also come from marginalized areas. These groups have connections with informal jihadi networks and they can mobilize attacks for enemies who are found in strategic locations.

Jihad means Muslims have the duty to commit themselves to fight in many fronts in order to follow the teachings of the Quran. These are the moral, spiritual and political fronts, which society has imposed on Muslims and Christians. Naturally, the Muslims were the minority at that time. But for any given time, Muslims must fight for the poor and vulnerable and to make society just and a decent place to live with. Fighting might be needed at times, but it is only a tool and a small portion of the whole struggle to make life just and worthy for all and to follow the words and phrases in the Quran. Muslim rulers commit unscrupulous acts and atrocities; selfish rulers only want power, wealth and selfish ambitions but they do not follow the Islamic Code of Conduct. For example, Mahmood of Ghazni was a Muslim who attacked the Hindus and also planned to attack the Islamic Caliph of Basra. Many Muslims committed acts of atrocities in India, as described by Pandit Nehru in his vivid account of Muslim rulers in the book Discovery of India. Nehru argued that those Muslims were acting not according to religious doctrine but by selfish motives.

The “Greater Jihad”

Greater jihad is an important form of struggle which refers to the inner struggle taking place within our very soul. This refers to the internal and spiritual; it is about an individual’s fight against evil in the mind or imagination. Greater jihad is fighting the ‘animal inside’. Humans have some characteristics they share with other animals that when uncontrolled can make them fiercer than wild beasts. This is what happens to those who conduct lesser jihad without first overcoming the greater jihad. If a Muslim first practices greater jihad, i.e. the Muslim learns to control and fight the evil inside, he/she will be able to fulfil the true and real tenets of jihad as contained in the Quran.

Jihad can be used to defend the community and for the rights of others. Ayatollah Mortaza Motahhari wrote that the holiest form of jihad is that which is fought to defend humanity and the rights of peoples (Noorani, 2002, p. 47). Prophet Muhammad preached the religion Islam while being persecuted. He was forced to go to Medina for fear of his life, and for this reason, Muhammad was known as a preacher brandishing sword. In truth, he was fighting for his life along with his followers. He was born amidst war in seventh-century Arabia where people had no more values. When he went to Medina, he was a refugee escaping the fangs of death. (Noorani, p. 48)

In Medina, the Muslims were asking the people to participate in the jihad which was not about fighting and bloodshed. Jihad means an act of spiritual and intellectual transformation. But there were some Muslims who misunderstood its true meaning and context.

Jihadists abound in the remote mountains of Afghanistan. They were one of the first to be organized by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam during the Soviet invasion. These motivated extremists came from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries in the Middle East, concerned of their brothers in Afghanistan. When their mission in Afghanistan ended, they went home to their countries of origin but only to be persecuted by their governments. They went back to Afghanistan feeling safe with the Taliban who ruled the country at that time. These people knew nothing except to wage war and train combatants; and so, they built training camps and trained jihadists and would-be suicide bombers. Their goal was to make them fight the western countries. These jihadists became trainers and parts of terrorist cells across the Middle East and other parts of the world. They helped some cells mount terrorist activities against their own governments. (Hafez, 2007, p. 165)

At the height of the U.S. invasion in Iraq, suicide bombers counter-attacked the U.S. occupation forces. They penetrated heavy populated areas and detonated themselves. Suicide bombing is the new effective tool of so-called jihadists against their enemies. There is no logical explanation why young people submit themselves to jihad and commit suicide. Suicide is not promoted in jihad, and in fact, suicide is not permitted in Islam. But leaders of these suicide bombing contend that it is the highest form of martyrdom.

These volunteers were recruited by religious but charismatic leaders who convinced them that martyrs are promised of eternal bliss in heaven. Religious leaders also excommunicate people who are non-believers and who do not submit to their will. Some terrorist organizations are trying to get hold of a nuclear bomb, or an anti-ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, so that they can create as much casualty as they can. Islamists believe that the more people they kill, the more they are admitted in heaven. (Rosenberg, 2009, p. 137)

I believe this is the worst radical (or cruel) belief man can ever have. No matter how oppressed an ethnic minority or a country can be, there is no valid reason to terminate innocent lives. And this is not jihad, as what we have explained in the early section of this paper. Jihad promotes love for one’s neighbour and peace for mankind. There are reasons for jihad and it is not holy war, it is not violent, and it is not killing innocent people. There are valid jihadists who do not resort to violence. These are people who promote peace instead of war. They fight back only to defend themselves from aggressors.

References

Esposito, J. (2010). The future of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Hafez, M. (2007). Suicide bombers in Iraq. Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Hamzeh, A. (2004). In the path of Hizbullah. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

Kelsay, J. (1993). Islam and war: A study in comparative ethics. Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press.

Noorani, A. (2002). Islam & Jihad: Prejudice versus reality. New York: Palgrave.

Rosenberg, J. (2009). Inside the revolution: How the founders of jihad, Jefferson, and Jesus are battling to dominate the Middle East and transform the world. United States of America: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Footnotes

1 Some scholars argue that jihad is not one of the pillars of Islam.

2 Quran speaks of a legitimate defense against aggressors. Muhammad received special instructions or revelations from God about conducting jihad. (Esposito¸2010)

3 “he is not a good neighbour if he eats while his neighbour goes hungry” (Noorani, 2002, p. 47).

Meanings of the “Greater Jihad” and the “Lesser Jihad” as Summarized by Kelsey

According to Kelsey (1993), the “greater jihad” means personal struggle with the heart to do God’s will while the “lesser jihad” means waging war for religious purposes. The “lesser jihad” fights enemies of Islam and God, while “greater jihad” fights for an individual’s ego through prayers and reading the Quran to know God. Thus, “lesser jihad” is allowable when staged for self-defense and aims at fighting against injustice and evil.¹ Another name for “greater jihad” is a struggle with the tongue and “lesser jihad” is a struggle with the sword (Kelsey, 1993).

These definitions originated from interpretations of Prophet Muhammad. After Muhammad and his followers arrived from combat, he told them that they went through with the lesser jihad, but they still had to handle the greater jihad. Jihad may thus also represent efforts by Muslims to form a fair structure of political administration.²

Initially, Muslims considered acknowledging the oneness of God, judgment and the need to live according to God’s rules as favorable ways to expand Islamic territories (Kelsey, 1993). At that time, Muslims considered forcing people into religion as unethical and sought to spread Islamic values without the sword. However, Sunni theorists eventually realized that force was an excellent way of extending Islamic territories. Since then, jihad took the violent form of the sword, and not the nonviolent form of the tongue.

Jihad was a communal obligation of every Muslim. The greater task that the Muslims were to engage in may have started separately, although, it was clear that personal morality had a great impact on communal association as well. The middle age Muslims, who studied the works by Aristotle in an effort to separate between Greek and Islamic thoughts, realized a close association between political society and personal ethics. Thus, this relationship might have contributed to a call for the greater jihad.

Four Criteria for the Lesser Jihad

Sunni theorists discovered that Islamic territories could expand using force. They considered using force, in this perspective, as a vital tool in a quest for peace. Although they did not suggest that violence could be the first resort, they gave several conditions under which it was justifiable.

First, a just cause, which could not only be justified by the need to expand the boundaries of the Islamic territories, had to exist. Such a cause could be due to the refusal of the involved territory to comply with Islamic politics and acknowledge the supremacy of Islam through paying tribute.

Second, an invitation or proclamation of the intentions of Muslims had to occur. The leader of Muslims had to communicate with opposing rulers in a bid to make them accept Islamic practices. The message was to ask these rulers to either pay tribute, or to convert to Islam. Muslim leaders also had to inform the opposing rulers that if they fail to comply, the Muslims would stage a war against them.

Third, the message of war declaration had to go through the right authority. In the event that rulers failed to comply with Islamic requirements, ³the right authority was the head of Islamic state. This leader had to assess the abilities of his military and chances for success, as well as make sure that all necessary procedures had been observed.

Fourth, Islamic values had to be the leading ideology of the war. The aim of the war needed to appear just and performed in the path of God. They had to use least force and promote peaceful values. They had to differentiate between the guilty and innocent and not fight for personal glory.

Understanding of Jihad to Formulate a Credible Justification for their Position on the War in their Country

Saddam Hussein was the Iraq President between 1979 and 2003. He started to declare open power over the regime in 1979 and emerged the president following Bakr’s resignation. Saddam also was the head of the Revolutionary Command Council. During his reign, he killed and tortured many residents. He developed a widespread personality cult among the Iraqi nationals and used police force to repress any interior resistance to his government. His ambition as the head of state was to get dominion over the Persian Gulf and succeed Egypt as head of the Arab countries.

In 1982, some militants in Dawa shot Saddam’s convoy during his visit to Dujail town. The whole town was punished in retaliation for that assassination effort. Over 140 adults and youths became detained before getting killed. Children and about 1, 500 women went through torture and others were imprisoned. In 1983, many prisoners were exiled. Dawa town was also destructed, and all houses were demolished.

From 1987 to 1989, Saddam conducted the Anfal crusades in opposition to Kurdish inhabitants at the north of Iraq. The goal of the movement was apparently to get power in the region. Nevertheless, the authentic aim was to eradicate the Kurdish population permanently. The crusade comprised of eight phases of attack, where over 200,000 Iraqi soldiers assaulted the region, captured residents and burnt communities. Many men lost lives while women and children found themselves in replacement camps that had awful conditions. In some regions, particularly in regions that created any form of opposition, everybody was killed. Many Kurds left the region. However, records show that almost 200, 000 Kurds lost lives during the Anfal movement. According to many people, the Anfal campaign was an attempt of genocide.

Saddam’s cousin called Ali led the chemical attacks in opposition to the Kurds, in 1987. He used chemical arms to annihilate Kurds from their communities in northern Iraq in the course of the Anfal crusades. Chemical arms became used on about 40 communities in northern Iraq, and the largest attacks against the Kurds took place in March 1988. In those attacks, people from Iraq attacked the town of Halabja using bombs filled with mustard gas. As a result, many people from Kurdish origin experienced immediate effects of vomiting, blindness, seizures and wounds. Estimations show that over 5,000 people lost lives after few days of the attack. Some long-term impacts caused by the attacks were cancer, birth anomalies and permanent blindness. Besides, about 10,000 people who survived the attack experienced regular body sickness.

In 1990, soldiers from Iraqi attacked Kuwait. The cause of the attack was oil and a massive debt by Iraq to Kuwait. In 1991, the war on Persian Gulf drew Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait. While the Iraqi soldiers were leaving, they were commanded to burn all oil wells. They lit about 800 oil wells, and this led to burning of many oil barrels. Besides, this act led to emission of harmful pollutants to the air.

Towards the end of the war in Persian Gulf, the Kurds and Shiites revolted against the rule of Saddam. In retribution, Iraq depressed the rebellion leading to deaths of many Shiites. Besides, Hussein’s regime ordered the killing of the Marsh Arabs as punishment for backing the Shiite uprising in 1991. He also demolished their communities and destroyed their lifestyle. The Marsh Arabs had inhabited swamps of Southern Iraq for a long time, until Iraq constructed a system of dykes, waterways, and dams to redirect water from the swamps. This group had to leave the region, and their way of life suffered great changes. In already 2002, only 7 percent of the marshlands existed and environmentalists blamed Saddam for making this environmental calamity.

Justification of Saddam’s Position on the War in Saudi Arabia

The war in Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein was just. ⁴Saddam staged wars for self-defense, which was allowable according to criteria of the lesser jihad. For instance, Saddam announced a jihad after American and European troops invaded Saudi Arabia (Kelsey, 1993). These troops, in his argument, were out to destroy the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Thus, Saddam’s call for a jihad in the country was in defense of the Islamic faith and territory.

Besides, in 1982, Saddam punished the entire town of Dawa after a failed assassination by some militants. At this time, Saddam was visiting this town when his convoy got attacked. In retaliation, he staged a war that led to deaths of over 140 adults and youths, as well as imprisonment of about 1, 500 women and children. Saddam also ordered his men to demolish the entire town. Despite the losses, Saddam was justifiable according to the law of jihad as he was acting in self-defense. Besides, Saddam’s actions could be justified as he was fighting against the evil act of assassination.

Also, Saddam’s act of staging a war against the Kurds and Shiites towards the end of the war in Persian Gulf was justifiable. The two groups revolted against the rule of Saddam, and in defense, he depressed the rebellion cruelly leading to deaths of many Shiites. He also ordered the killing of the Marsh Arabs as punishment for backing the Shiite uprising in 1991 and demolished their communities. Similar to the first situation, Saddam acted suitably as he was acting both in self-defense as well as fighting the evil act of rebellion towards his government.

Finally, Saddam’s involvement in the attack of Kuwait was justifiable as he was trying to expand the Islamic territory to Kuwait. Jihad allows actions that led to expansion of Islamic territories. ⁵ It claims that Islamic territories are usually territories of justice as Islam offers the greatest serenity presented to humankind (Kelsey, 1993). Thus, humankind cannot secure full peace unless they are under Islamic empires. This justifies why Muslims are always struggling to expand their boundaries to other nations.

In the Same Place as Saddam Hussein

If I found myself in the place of Saddam Hussein, I would act both similarly and differently from him in some areas. First, I would stage wars for self-defense, just like he did. Jihad allows acts of self-defense and thus, I would not hesitate to stage a war against any group that seems to attack me. For instance, I would start a war against the people of Dawa if they attempted to assassinate me or my people. Similarly, I would stage a war against the Kurds and Shiites if they attempted to rebel against my rule.

On the other hand, I would not stage a war against the Kurds like Saddam did between 1987 and 1989 as this act did not correspond to the criteria of jihad. Saddam conducted the Anfal crusades in opposition to the Kurdish inhabitants at the north of Iraq with the aim of eliminating them utterly and occupying their land. However, he did not follow the right criteria. If I were him and wanted to rationalize my actions, I would have sent a message to the rulers of Kurds asking them to either accept Islamic practices, or pay tribute to Islamic religion. Although, most Kurds are Muslims, I would address the letter to the few non-Muslims and make them aware of any possible attack if they failed to comply.

Reference

Kelsey, J. (1993). Islam and war: A study in comparative ethics. Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Footnotes

1. Muslims seek to command good acts and fight evil to create social order in the world.
2. Jihad traditions and just war relate to the political order.
3. The right to authority was implicit.
4. Just war involves maintenance of peace, order and justice in the world.
5. Saddam argued that he sought to struggle for Arab-Islamic rights to territory.

Benjamin Barber’s work “Jihad versus McWorld” illuminated him as a leading thinker and a political science scholar. Barber’s ideology is almost three decades old, but it provides useful insights into the conflicting forces of tribalism versus globalization. The author’s main argument is that democracy is at cross-purposes with both the concepts of globalism and tribalization. According to Barber, these two concepts function in equal strength but in opposition to each other.

Consequently, the ‘Jihad’ concept is known for propagating partisan dislikes and setting vested interests in stark opposition with global concepts and ideologies. On the other hand, the ‘McWorld’ concept encompasses universal markets and redefines the essence of traditional ethnic and geographical borders. This paper is a critical analysis of Barber’s argument and the resulting interpretation of the changing aspects of Jihad and McWorld.

First, it is important to understand Barber’s argument with regard to the concepts of Jihad and McWorld. The author’s reference to Jihad does not have any relation to the religious intolerance that is often associated with this term. However, the political scientist is alluding to the tribal fundamentalism and intolerance that applies to groups and sub-groups of people. For instance, in recent history, Barber’s interpretation of Jihad might include the reference to the Oklahoma bombing or the stiff opposition of mainstream ideas by religious leaders such as Jerry Falwell.

The concept of McWorld is easier to understand because it refers to the dominating money culture, whereby monetary power is able to create and eliminate historical boundaries. The current world is modeled around consumerism and the subsequent need to be alike and/or compete along these lines. At any given time, the consumer culture is either elevated more than the Jihad concept or subdued by it.

A recent example of this tug of war between Jihad and the McWorld is the recent political policies of President Donald Trump, whereby he seeks to perpetuate the ‘America first’ rhetoric (a form of Jihad) and grow the economy through domestically manufactured goods (that are set to compete in global markets). As a leading global economy, the United States has, in the recent past, acted as the leading champion of the McWorld concept.

For instance, the US has been instrumental in urging China to abandon Jihad concepts in favor of globalism. According to Barber, capitalism and globalism are interdependent. Nevertheless, the author’s argument indicates a general dislike for American capitalism and its reliance on popular culture. In comparison to the events of the recent past, the author’s argument highlights the intense relationship between the US and China.

Democracy and civil societies are said to thrive in a balanced environment. However, both the US and China are at the opposite ends of this argument, but a keen observation indicates that both countries have been trying to emulate each other in one way or another. For example, the emulation of Jihad in China’s recent history involves the expulsion of Western companies that encroach on the country’s interests.

On the other hand, companies in the US continue to seek entrance into the lucrative Chinese market even if the political and economic policies of the two countries do not align. It is also important to note that China remains a leading consumer of American pop culture. Information manipulation within Chinese ranks is also another example of Jihad elements within the country. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the emerging concept of ‘fake news’ and alternative facts in the US is taking the country in a similar direction to China.

Using Barber’s basic interpretation of the McWorld, some of the organizations that fit best to this concept are the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the EU (European Union). These organizations often operate on a transnational scale, and they embody the concept of globalization in their entirety. Nevertheless, they also contradict the argument about having identity and globalization on one side, versus democracy and vested interests on the other.

For instance, most of these global organizations act as ineffective reactors as opposed to the driving forces of globalization. The case of the UE and UK’s recent ‘Brexit Vote’ is an example of how Jihad forces triumph over the McWorld. Although the power of the EU was expected to have a far-reaching impact on global politics, partisan politics carried the day during the recent UK referendum. To a large extent, the McWorld entities appear to be extensions of the partisan interests that are held by nation-states (jihad elements). For example, the IMF is mostly operated by Western elements that are eager to benefit from the monetary constraints of developing regions such as Africa and Asia. Consequently, it is hard to eliminate Jihad elements even within pseudo-McWorld elements.

Although Barber’s concept is a few decades old, its original articulation of Jihad versus McWorld concepts has survived. However, the original description of Jihad appears to have withstood change more than that of the McWorld. The Jihad element, as expounded by Barber, is exemplified by nation-states, sub-national players, and other elements that are in opposition to integration, uniformity, and universal laws. Newspaper headlines across the world often feature Jihad players in the form of individual countries, but their most accurate representation should be as cultures and/or interests.