With the death of Osama bin Laden, the question arises of what the future holds for jihad, the Islamic holy war against the unbelievers. Three Dutch university professors shed some light on the issue.
According to the Arabist Hans Jansen, Islam is a violent religion which calls for war against the unbelievers. Western academics, Professor Jansen says jeeringly in a recent article, are misleading the public by claiming that Islam is a peaceful religion. And this while most Muslims describe the West as ‘the house of war’.
Dr Jansen is, to put it lightly, no friend of Islam. In his popular books, he warns about the aggressive character of Islam and the threatening ‘islamization’ of Europe. His academic colleagues don’t take him too seriously, but the broader public does. And it is generally assumed that he was an important source of inspiration for Dutch anti-Islam MP and Freedom Party (PVV) leader Geert Wilders.
September 2001
One of the Western academics Dr Jansen complains about is the University of Amsterdam’s emeritus professor of Arabic, Ruud Peters. His dissertation on the Islamic doctrine of holy war (jihad) was for years considered the authoritative book on the subject. In it, Dr Peters concludes that the concept of jihad has become outdated in the contemporary world. Since the New York attacks of September 2001, Dr Jansen has been pleased to point out how far off the mark Dr Peters was with this conclusion.
However, yet another Dutch emeritus professor, the Islam expert Sjoerd van Koningsveld, says Dr Jansen has missed an important recent development. “Al-Qaeda is just a small marginal group which is not taken seriously by the majority of Muslims. That majority has over the last years modified its view of jihad, precisely as Dr Peters predicted.”
Dr Van Koningsveld explains that, in Islam, there is no central authority such as the pope in Rome. Religious teaching is agreed upon through debate among the scholars. In recent years, increasing numbers of prominent Islamic scholars have rejected the idea of jihad as an aggressive war. By way of example, Dr Van Koningsveld mentions Yusuf Qaradawi, an influential cleric based in Qatar. “Qaradawi says jihad is only permissible as a defensive war, in the case of Muslims being attacked.”
War outmoded
Europe’s Muslim immigrants constitute an important source of inspiration for this new way of thinking about jihad, says Dr Van Koningsveld. Their residence in non-Muslim countries has led to a completely new branch of sharia rules developing over recent years. This ‘minority jurisprudence’ deals with questions such as: Can a Muslim become a citizen, join the army, or participate in the politics of a non-Muslim nation? “It is of course pointless to formulate solutions for such questions if you see the West as a war-zone.”
Traditional Muslim scholars call the Islamic World ‘the house of Islam’ and everything beyond it ‘the house of war’. But contemporary scholars, says Dr Van Koningsveld, increasingly view the idea of the ‘house of war’ as outdated. “It is replaced by new concepts such as ‘the house of propaganda’ and ‘the house of the profession of faith’.
Postscript by Michel Hoebink
In the comments below, Mr Jansen asked for references to the views I attribute to him in my article. That seems a fair request. Considering the delicate nature of the subject, I should perhaps have given these references in the article. It surprises me, however, that Mr Jansen in his reaction to my article seems to distance himself from views he expresses with great clarity in his books and articles. Whatever may be the reason for that, I hope that with the references below I release him from the oppressive thought of being misrepresented.
The ‘recent article’ I refer to is titled (in translation from Dutch) “The Gap between Islam and the West" and published in: Sam en Wim van Rooy (eds.), Islam; critical essays abouyt a political religion. (ASP, Brussels, 2010) pp. 204-14.
Other views I attribute to Hans Jansen in the article I have found in: Prof. Dr. Hans Jansen, Islam for pigs, monkeys, donkeys and other beasts. (Van Praag, Amsterdam, 2008). Below is a small compilation of quotations I have translated from that book.
“Most western university professors like to take sides with the Muslims, the more reactionary and multicultural the better. Often it has nothing to do with science anymore. It is pure deception, whereby malice cannot always be ruled out although ignorance is as usual more common.” (152)
“The Qur'an preaches peace. True or untrue? [Answer:] Yes it does, but that peace only comes after everyone has submitted to Islam. Then there will be peace. Until that day, evil and unbelief must be fought in practice. If necessary also with violence.” (113)
“What percentage of Muslims in the Netherlands considers the violence of terrorists calling themselves Muslim combatants as contradicting the laws of Islam as prescribed in the Koran? [Answer:] Most probable, this percentage is not very high.” (243)
“Muslims usually do not view Bin Laden as a fool but as a super activist who draws the ultimate consequence from the Islamic rules regarding the struggle against the unbelievers. When the state does not conduct that struggle, individuals will have to do it.” (244)
“The problem is not that Islam calls for struggle against unbelief. It does. The problem is the question how many Muslims are in fact prepared to join the struggle against unbelief. Under the influence of missionaries and recruiters this number seems to increase.” (115)
”Bin Laden´s followers have plans for the whole world, particularly for the arrogant West. The Netherlands are part of this and very suitable as an experimenting ground.” (187)
About Wilders’ film Fitna: “Many professional Muslims and imams in the Islamic world will be pleased to see that such a compilation will once more draw attention to the true prescriptions of Islam, and how truly these prescriptions find their origin in the Qur'an.” (116)
(mw/rk/mh)
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
I should have said this when I first read the article a couple of weeks ago, but the articles author has a pretty rudimentary understanding of the term Jihad and overlooks the other positive forms of personal struggle.
It's just one interpretation of a multi-faceted and complex concept. The terrorism/fighting iteration of Jihad is just one, and to be honest, I dont see if fading away anytime soon.
The best comment I read in this section is that it targets all Muslims with the violence - but its a-priori that the vast majority of muslimin and muslimah are not suicide vest packing ak-47 brandishing warriors. Just moms and dads, brothers and sisters trying to make their way through what can be sometimes a very unjust world.
In peace.
Started by Mohammed in the early 7th century, Jihadism will be with us until Islam rules the world. Allah demands it.
re postscript: Perhaps you ought to have spent some time chewing van Koningsveld out for giving shitty references and retracting your blunders instead of writing more garbage.
I see nothing untoward in the statements made by Mr. Jansen in the examples you’ve given. They are fairly common justifiable criticisms of Islam echoed by many critics within Islam.
Compare his statements with this one made by your poster boy of moderation, Yusef Quaradawi:
“Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler.”
Now this is what I would define as offensive. Here are more gems from Yusef:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQdkLSO_l-8&NR=1
Notice the affirming reaction of the congregation. Is pointing this out offensive, or just a painful truth?
Why is there no link to the offensive statements I am assumed to have made? Perhaps because (although offensive to some) the contents of my statements are not what this article claims them to be? How difficult can it be to add those links? This is journalism in the best traditions of totalitarian state media. All the best, HansJansen
Dear Dr Jansen,
Thank you for your comment. We have now included a link to your list of publications in English, at the point in the article where your name is first mentioned.
I do hope readers will follow the link you made to one of the pages of my website. However, the link as it stands now (May 12, 14h00) will not bring you to my list of publications. Why be fair indeed. Best greetings & all the best, HansJansen, www.arabistjansen.nl
Dear Dr Jansen,
As a matter of policy, we only link to pages with English-language content. This website is targeting Anglophone readers, for whom a link to a list containing mainly titles in Dutch would be not very helpful.
I give up. Long before 9/11 I wrote about how Dr Peters and Dr Van Koningsveld underestimate the dark side of Islam. See, e.g., my The Dual Nature of Islamic Fundamentalism, Cornell University Press 1997, p. 14. Painful to read, I agree. And no, your link did not connect to my list of publications or even the list of my books in English. But what to expect. All the best, HansJansen, www.arabistjansen.nl
This bit of nonsense looks like a smokescreen for a poorly executed attack on someone whose opinions differ.
Mr. Hoebink, to put it lightly, is no fan of Arabist professor Hans Jansen or Mr. Wilders.
Jansen recently caused Judge Schalken to be removed from the Wilders trial after the judge tried to influence him prior to his giving testimony.
Mr. Hoebink says Jansen “jeeringly” dismisses academics who claim Islam is a peaceful religion. (clue: What is the only religion to which multiple daily terror attacks can be attributed?)
One of these academics is Dr. Peters, who, prior to 9/11 had concluded that the concept of jihad had become outdated within Islam. (He was wrong.)
The other scholar, Sjoerd van Koningsveld admits that traditional Islamic scholars call everything outside Islam “the house of war”, but also claimed that the majority of Islamic scholars have softened their views. Van Koningsveld’s one example of this softening is Yusuf Qaradawi of Qatar who accused ‘“heretical” Shias of “invading” Sunni countries’.
Here Quaradawi praises Hitler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStliOnVl6Q
One problem with blaming all terrorism on religion is that doing so ignores the more pertinant circumstances and motivations. Like poverty, greed, and lust for power. It also and ignores the fact that most Muslims are indeed peaceful, just like most of everyone else.
Of course there are Muslims who are complete assholes like Quaradawi. But that's true for any group anywhere you go. An example: it's not hard to find Christians on YouTube denouncing Jews or denying the Holocaust: www (edit: I'm not going give a broader audience to idiocy. Look it up if you want.)
Anyways, here's hoping that those who would bring people together will hold sway over those who would divide us.
One of my points is that a “complete asshole” like Quaradawi is being held up as the only example of moderation in Mr. Hoebe’s article.
I missed the part where Quaradawi is being held up as an example of moderation in Mr. Hoebink’s article.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.