So, what really is jihad?

Often, many people conflate the terms jihad and terrorism. This is in part because many writers use the term “jihadist”^[1] when describing violent Muslim radicals.

To be sure, such radicals have invoked jihad to justify their heinous acts, such as the 9/11 attacks^[2] on the World Trade Center and more recent Islamic State group (also known as ISIS) operations^[3]. But these acts have been strongly condemned^[4] by numerous Muslim clerics and scholars^[5] on Islamic grounds.

And as I show in my own research^[6], violent radicals who attempt to justify terrorism on religious grounds are often misrepresenting the scholarly sources they cite.

The Arabic term jihad literally means a “struggle” or “striving.” This term appears in the Quran in different contexts^[7] and can include various forms of nonviolent struggles: for instance, the struggle to become a better person. This falls under the category of “jihad of the self,”^[8] an important subject in Islamic devotional works^[9].

In the specific context of Islamic law, however, jihad generally signifies an armed struggle^[10] against outsiders.

Medieval scholars of Islamic law delineated two basic forms of armed jihad: defensive jihad, an armed struggle against invaders; and aggressive jihad, a preemptive or offensive attack^[11] commissioned by a political authority.

Not surprisingly, Muslim scholars have long debated^[12] when exactly warfare can be justified^[13].

Much less controversial, however, is the general rule that various categories of civilians must not be targeted^[14].

This rule of civilian immunity is so widely accepted that it is even typically recognized by violent Muslim radicals^[15]. But such radicals also invoke loopholes to get around this rule. When attempting to justify 9/11, for instance, Osama bin Laden argued, among other things, that American civilians could be targeted since, he asserted, American forces had previously targeted Muslim civilians^[16].

To justify this loophole, bin Laden invoked the writings of medieval Muslim scholars such as al-Qurtubi. As I show in a recent book^[17], however, al-Qurtubi actually held the exact opposite view: Civilians should never be targeted as a form of retribution.

This is but one example of why it is critical not to conflate the prevailing interpretations of jihad with Muslim terrorism.

[ Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day.^[18] ]

References

1. ^{^} use the term “jihadist” (www.brookings.edu)
2. ^{^} the 9/11 attacks (www.versobooks.com)
3. ^{^} Islamic State group (also known as ISIS) operations (news.siteintelgroup.com)
4. ^{^} strongly condemned (kurzman.unc.edu)
5. ^{^} Muslim clerics and scholars (www.lettertobaghdadi.com)
6. ^{^} own research (www.cambridge.org)
7. ^{^} different contexts (www.oxfordscholarship.com)
8. ^{^} “jihad of the self,” (www.al-islam.org)
9. ^{^} Islamic devotional works (muslimmatters.org)
10. ^{^} armed struggle (www.palgrave.com)
11. ^{^} offensive attack (classes.stanford.edu)
12. ^{^} long debated (classes.stanford.edu)
13. ^{^} warfare can be justified (www.palgrave.com)
14. ^{^} must not be targeted (www.warda.info)
15. ^{^} violent Muslim radicals (www.cambridge.org)
16. ^{^} targeted Muslim civilians (www.versobooks.com)
17. ^{^} recent book (www.cambridge.org)
18. ^{^} Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day. (theconversation.com)