This “Muslim American” letter-writer is angry that Trevor Bickford’s attack on two cops in Times Square was described as a “jihad.” Zane Chowdhry says that “commentators should avoid co-opting Islamic terms like jihad without nuance.”
However, Bickford himself may have used the word. We know that he left behind a manifesto which was not published in full, in which he calls upon his family members to convert to Islam and refers to his Marine brother as having joined the “enemy.” The term “jihad” may have come from this missive. Also, this writer Zane Chowdhry completely ignores the martial understanding of jihad in Islam’s tradition and history.
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that the Islamic State (ISIS) and other jihad groups are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
Despite the misleading and incomplete nature of this explanation of jihad, it is accepted far beyond the scope of one letter to the editor in one paper.
“Letter: Word ‘jihad’ often misused,” by Zane Chowdhry, The Columbian, January 12, 2023:
As a Muslim American, I was deeply upset to hear about the New Year’s Eve knife attack by Mr. Trevor Bickford in Times Square. In the days following the violence, news agencies began to report that Mr. Bickford was inspired by “Islamic extremism” and wanted to “carry out jihad.”
Contrary to its popular use in the media, jihad simply refers to a “struggle.” Muslims use the term foremost to discuss a spiritual struggle against one’s passions and vices. The physical version of this struggle is limited in the Quran to only defensive measures to “fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress” (2:191). The actions that Mr. Bickford took on New Year’s Eve were far from either of these definitions of the struggles that jihad entails. Commentators should avoid co-opting Islamic terms like jihad without nuance. Cavalier use of these terms distorts their connotations and makes the religion that millions of Muslims practice peacefully seem like a grave threat….
Gary Fouse says
“The physical version of this struggle is limited in the Quran to only defensive measures to “fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress”
If that were true, Islam would still be confined to present-day Saudi Arabia. How do they explain the wars of conquest that spread Islam to Europe, the Holy Land, the Far East, Central Asia etc?
gravenimage says
Gary, in Islam “defensive” can mean just fighting against non-Muslims who do not convert to Islam.
Michael Copeland says
“the religion that millions of Muslims practice peacefully” – an old chestnut.
Those “millions of muslims”, the “vast majority”, are irrelevant.
Islam is not a Trade Union.
Islam’s rules are not decided by a show of hands.
Islam’s rules come from its source texts.
Islam’s rules cannot be changed, because this amounts to blasphemy, a capital offence.
cardbank16 says
Yasser Arafat didn’t scream: ‘Go to the gym. Go to the gym’. ‘Repent. Repent’ in his speeches.
gravenimage says
+1
mg says
And those 42,000 plus attacks just since 9/11 across the globe, do indicate that slaughter non muslims and serial murdering are indeed asserted by these muslims whose mosques are almost never examined for what was taught to them about ‘Jihad’. Indeed the existence of attempted feloneous assault of ‘others’ seems indeed to be the example of Jihad so very often demonstrated by ‘believers’ across the globe.
gravenimage says
*Exactly*, mg. If Zane Chowdhry *really* believed this, he should be preaching to his Jihadist coreligionists, not to Infidels.
Don McKellar says
Amazing that they still try and sell infidels on this lie. I guess there must still be wokesters who buy it and ignore everything else so they aren’t “racist”.
tgusa says
“a spiritual struggle against one’s vices”
It is best to keep ones vices on the down low lest the rest of the village finds out you have vices. When that occurs the struggle will go from spiritual to all out run for your life struggle against the angry mob. The mob, you know, the offenders family friends and neighbors. It is spiritual right up until it isn’t.
I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor.
ME Infidel says
In “Modern Day Trojan Horse” by Sam Solomon & E Al Maqdisi, they provide this: The 5 Pillars of Islam, The Shahada (Testimony to Allah & the ProMo), Salat (prayer), Sawm (fasting), Zakat (tax), and Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca). These are the familiar religious components of the doctrine trotted out to declare that Islam is a religion and that it’s peaceful.
Less familiar are The 5 Responsibilities (Charges) of Islam which are more political in nature: To Assemble, To Listen, To Obey, To Migrate [colonize and proselytize for Islam] (Hijra), and To Wage Jihad. See: Sura 2:216. Migration is a form of jihad.
Dr. Bill Warner breaks down Jihad into stealth and violent jihad. If you’re unable to wage war, you can perform Jihad through donations, letter writing, making demands and filing lawsuits (Think CAIR). “All sane and able bodied men who have reached puberty are obligated to perform it.” 09.8
One should also consider that 31% of the “Trilogy” (Quran, Sira, Hadith) are devoted to Jihad.”
How is it a we non-scholars and members of the great unwashed know this? Yet, the elite “journalists” with their credentials don’t? Could it be they do and are using “Taqiyya”?
James Lincoln says
ME Infidel says,
“One should also consider that 31% of the “Trilogy” (Quran, Sira, Hadith) are devoted to Jihad.”
“How is it a we non-scholars and members of the great unwashed know this? Yet, the elite “journalists” with their credentials don’t? Could it be they do and are using “Taqiyya”?
The non-muslim elite “journalists”, by and large, get their thoroughly whitewashed information about islam from so-called muslim “scholars”.
And these elite “journalists” feel that they already know what is in the “trilogy” islamic source texts – without doing a primary source verification.
tgusa says
Oh they know, yes they do. But they know that you know what they know is bs. What they hope for is for you to un-know what you know and then know what they want you to know. I call all of it the contemporary media crap sandwich report.
BTW. Thanks for the info.
gravenimage says
“Jihad simply refers to a ‘struggle.’ Muslims use the term to discuss a spiritual struggle against one’s vices.”
…………………………………….
Uh huh–one’s “vices”, like not murdering enough Infidels. Taqiyya at its finest.
commonsense says
Zane Chowdhry – a typical lying Muslim, presumably living in the West and prospering as a result of its attendant freedoms. His actual name is probably Zain, not Zane; this change in spelling being a deceptive measure to make him appear more mainstream and hence more credible. Sadly, there are still many who believe his grotesque nonsense.
zanechowdhry says
Dear commenter,
I have never denied that I live a privileged life in the West. The freedoms that I have in the United States are an immense blessing, and I would argue that this level of religious freedom and freedom to speak openly on issues. I am highly critical of those that use Islam’s name to call people to violence. I have written against these violent interpretations of Islam consistently and have called on Muslims and non-Muslims alike to critically analyze whether violence has any place in religion. I am an Ahmadi Muslim. The founder of my community noted that Jihad should not be a violent endeavor, especially in the modern age. We are committed to non-violence. There are millions upon millions of Muslims who do not believe in violence should ever be committed in the name of religion.
I would appreciate if you would not start attacking my name. Zane is the name my parents gave me and I love it dearly (spelled in that way).
zanechowdhry says
**I would argue that this level of religious freedom and freedom to speak openly on issues has allowed me to practice a more authentic version of Islam.
gravenimage says
Mr. Chowdhry, *surely* you realize that orthodox Muslims do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslim at all. This is codified in Pakistan; an Ahmadi just calling themselves Muslim faces prison time.
You wrote:
I have written against these violent interpretations of Islam consistently and have called on Muslims and non-Muslims alike to critically analyze whether violence has any place in religion.
………………………………….
What non-Muslims are saying that violence is an intrinsic part of their faiths? Citations, please.
But the Qur’an, Hadiths, and Sira constantly preach violence, and the “Prophet” Muhammed is described in Islam as being a warlord, pedophile, caravan raider, slaver, kidnapper, rapist, and mass murderer. This is sadly mainstream Islam.
Then there is the history of Islam–spread by the sword, and frequently violent today. And violent Jihad is affirmed by high-ranking clerics in the mainstream sects of Islam, including the largest, Sunni and Shia.
To simply pretend that this does not exist, and that it is Infidels who have gotten it all wrong, is just dishonest.
More:
**I would argue that this level of religious freedom and freedom to speak openly on issues has allowed me to practice a more authentic version of Islam.
………………………………….
I was wondering what you had initially been trying to say there.
So you say that Muslims cannot really practice Islam where Islam is widely practiced–and enforced. Well, this is true, in that actual Islam is violent, and its devotees hate those who say it is not.
That you can only freely and safely practice this unorthodox strain of Islam in a largely Infidel land *should* tell you something–but sadly I doubt you will take that lesson.
tgusa says
Very good gravenimage. I suspect Mr. Chowdary doesn’t have an answer to what you have written.
gravenimage says
Thank you, tgusa. I’m sure you are right.
zanechowdhry says
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I appreciate that your response to my article contained some research. I would note that my letter was restricted by a hard word limit, so I was not able to fully express my thoughts.
Mr. Bickford absolutely should be condemned for his violent actions. I argue that his conception of “jihad” is erroneous and dangerous if that is what he believed. I do note that you picked some sayings from scholars of the four major schools of Sunni Islam to support your view. I acknowledge them as true and concerning. I argue that violent wars waged in the name of Islam to force people into accepting a religion were wrong. While you have picked the selected sayings of a few scholars to support your point, the truth is that there are dozens of scholars that say the contrary for each school of thought.
I would also argue that these selected scholarly interpretations are not accurate to actual practice. Religion is practiced by people, and millions of Muslims do not support or believe in a “violent Jihad.” And, contrary to your selected pieces, here is a list of dozens of scholars and prominent Muslims condemning the use of violence against non-combatants, including statements signed by hundreds of Muslim scholars.
https://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/
I just would like anybody that finds this article to be aware that Islam is not practiced as a monolithic. For example, my Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has consistently declared that violent Jihad is completely impermissible. This interpretation of Jihad is not exclusive to Ahmadi Muslims. There are dozens of schools of thought, and the vast majority of Muslims want all to live peacefully.
gravenimage says
zanechowdhry wrote:
Mr. Bickford absolutely should be condemned for his violent actions. I argue that his conception of “jihad” is erroneous and dangerous if that is what he believed.
…………………………………………………..
It is not just Bickford (I wonder what his Muslim name is?) who supports Jihad–this is mainstream Islam, as you surely know. There have almost 43,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11.
More:
I do note that you picked some sayings from scholars of the four major schools of Sunni Islam to support your view. I acknowledge them as true and concerning. I argue that violent wars waged in the name of Islam to force people into accepting a religion were wrong. While you have picked the selected sayings of a few scholars to support your point, the truth is that there are dozens of scholars that say the contrary for each school of thought.
…………………………………………………..
These are not “a few scholars”–these are the orthodox positions of the schools of Sunni Islam, the largest sect in Islam–85% of Muslims world-wide are Sunni.
Then, the second largest sect in Islam–Shia Islam–also affirms violent Jihad. This sect makes up about 15% of Islam.
In contrast, Ahmadis make up less than 1% of Muslims–and orthodox Muslims don’t even consider Ahmadis to be Muslim. This is codified in Pakistan’s laws, where Ahmadis calling themselves Muslim face three years in prison.
More:
I would also argue that these selected scholarly interpretations are not accurate to actual practice. Religion is practiced by people, and millions of Muslims do not support or believe in a “violent Jihad.” And, contrary to your selected pieces, here is a list of dozens of scholars and prominent Muslims condemning the use of violence against non-combatants, including statements signed by hundreds of Muslim scholars.
…………………………………………………..
Lots of Taqiyya here. Not all Muslims practice violent Jihad, but a disturbing number *support* it, and *very* few actually condemn violent Jihad. Many Muslims say they would not turn a Jihadist in to Infidel law enforcement.
Then, often when Muslims *do* say they oppose terrorism, it turns out that they are actually talking about Israel or the West taking steps to *prevent* violent Jihad.
For instance, those supposedly against violent Jihad in the list you cite include *the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas*. You are either ignorant of this–or else hope that we are.
Note the reference in many quotes here–that no *innocent* people should be attacked–without mentioning that no unbelievers are considered innocent in Islam.
Then, the Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i makes it clear that his initial condemnation is of the US fighting against fascism in WWII.
Then, Yusuf Islam–the former Cat Stevens–has called for Salman Rushdie to be murdered and said that he would point him out to Jihadists. Presenting Islam as a peaceful Muslim is grotesque–again, you either don’t know about this or else hope that we do not know.
More:
I just would like anybody that finds this article to be aware that Islam is not practiced as a monolithic. For example, my Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has consistently declared that violent Jihad is completely impermissible.
…………………………………………………..
Well, that’s less than 1% of Muslims–and a sect so outside the mainstream of Islam that it is widely rejected by all orthodox Muslims.