Islamic jihad, a doctrine etched in the blood-soaked annals of history as a divine mandate for violent warfare to propagate Islamic supremacy, has been subjected to a radical and insidious transformation in Western academic discourse.
I’ve been reading and listening to a lot of Raymond Ibrahim. I’ve wondered how we got from the bloody history of Islamic expansion through jihad to college kids defending jihadis. Thanks for explaining it.
Quality stuff, Dan. Separate matter but something I’m pondering over is the interaction between cultural Islam and Islamism. Related to that is the role that moderate Muslims can play as a bastion against Islamism. And whether it can ultimately be trusted.
Impossible, Jihad and political Islam is baked into Islam itself. The only way to get rid of them is to get rid of Islam. Or at the very least Islam as a religion.
I am sure all those Islamic scholars were writing after the formation of the Islamic brotherhood. I am sure Ibn Khaldun, when commenting on how expansionist Jihad is unique to Islam, was being influenced by an organization that won’t exist for another half a millennium.
I understand the sarcasm but you have misunderstood my point. I am not denying that scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah or al-Qurtubi wrote about jihad centuries ago, that is well known and not in dispute. They were writing within specific legal and political frameworks that were very different from those of the twentieth century.
What I am referring to is the modern reinterpretation of jihad by ideological movements in the twentieth century, especially the Muslim Brotherhood and figures like Sayyid Qutb. They shifted the concept from a legally regulated, state-directed function into a revolutionary and permanent mission. That is a significant change in both tone and intent, and it has had real-world consequences.
So the issue is not whether jihad existed before, but it's reinterpretation of it in the 20th century as an unending battle encumbent on all muslims - an idea that a minutely small and almost extinct fringe group adheres to
I'd invite you to engage but it seems you are only concerned with writing ideologically motivated and intellectually disingenuous slop
There is so much wrong with this "article" that I don't know where to begin
It isn't Fardh ul 'Ayn, it is Fard Kifayah, and only when declared by the ruling caliph or imam.
We live in a time without a caliphate, and so with no central islamic authority, there are no declarations of jihad by non-state actors which can be considered compulsory
Naive one, this “radical idea” of Jihad has always been at the heart of Islam, seen as a communal obligation (Fardh Kifayah). Whilst it is true that an individual inner struggle is also recognised albeit not based upon scripture as the Hadith is nearly recognised universally as weak and some even outright claimed it was fabricated, it does not negate this communal obligation.
I agree with you here, however jihad has always been with regards to specific military campaigns
What I am trying to argue is that the concept of a perpetual, ongoing violent and political struggle is a modern conception of jihad by the muslim brotherhood that eventually evolved into taliban and al-qaeda schools of thought, is a contrived and novel concept that has only come about in the 1900s
Omg. Such a load of crap. I can debate and write a complete rebuttal. But knowing who this guy is, I'm pretty sure he's gonna remain on his paymaster's leash! Lol.
Such using sophistry, pointless semantic arguments, being purposely obtuse, claiming that your opponent is oversimplifying without providing a shred of evidence, etc.
Calling something “sophistry” is not an argument, it is a rhetorical escape hatch used when one cannot address the actual substance of the point. What you label as “semantic” is in fact the core of Islamic jurisprudence — the usul of fiqh, the difference between obligation and recommendation, the role of state authority, the conditions attached to action. That is not wordplay, that is how classical jurists reasoned.
You accuse me of not providing evidence, yet I have consistently cited the legal frameworks of Ibn Rushd, al-Mawardi, Ibn Taymiyyah, and al-Ghazali, referenced the conditions they attach to jihad, and explained how they were writing for a political structure, not issuing a metaphysical call for expansion at all times. Meanwhile, your method has been to isolate one clause from a classical manual, universalize it, and then accuse anyone who provides nuance of being dishonest.
What you call “being purposely obtuse” is actually refusing to let you reduce centuries of legal tradition to a single phrase. I am not being vague, I am refusing to flatten juristic reasoning into an ideological slogan.
This entire time you have avoided engaging with the fundamental point: that these rulings are legal, not dogmatic. That they are contingent, not absolute. That they were tied to the state, not to every individual. You do not get to accuse someone of oversimplification while you are the one arguing that an entire legal tradition is reducible to “if they refuse the call, fight them.”
You are not defending classical Islam, you are parroting a politicized reading of it. And when that reading is challenged with the actual tools of legal reasoning, you call it “sophistry” and retreat behind tone-policing
Omg. Such a load of crap. I can debate and write a complete rebuttal. But knowing who this guy is, I'm pretty sure he's gonna remain on his paymaster's leash! Lol.
A good primer for those who haven't listened to ex-muslims at all. The "right side of history" adherents are set on automatic, meaning they automatically accept and repeat, like the Khaybar Khaybar Ya Jahud chant. They have no idea what it means or care as long as western civilization is denounced.
You left out the Islamic capture of Sicily by the Fatamids.
Danny, weren’t Buddhist slaughtered throughout India too?
Grok:
Yes, historical records indicate that Buddhists were killed, and their monasteries and institutions were destroyed during some Muslim invasions of India, particularly between the 8th and 13th centuries. However, the extent, motivations, and context of these events are complex and debated among historians.
Key points from historical accounts:
1 Early Invasions (8th-10th centuries): The Arab conquest of Sindh (711 CE) by Muhammad bin Qasim involved conflicts with local rulers, some of whom were Buddhist. While there were instances of violence, the impact on Buddhist communities was limited compared to later invasions, as Sindh had a mixed religious population, and some Buddhists were integrated into the new administration under Muslim rule.
2 Ghaznavid Invasions (10th-11th centuries): Mahmud of Ghazni’s raids targeted wealthy temples and monasteries, including Buddhist centers. His campaigns were driven by economic motives (plundering wealth) and establishing political dominance, but religious rhetoric was also used. Buddhist monasteries, being repositories of wealth and learning, were looted, and monks were sometimes killed or displaced. For example, the sacking of cities like Mathura and Kannauj impacted Buddhist sites.
3 Ghurid Conquests (12th-13th centuries): The most significant destruction of Buddhist institutions occurred during the campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor and his generals, notably Bakhtiyar Khalji. The destruction of Nalanda University (c. 1193 CE) and Vikramashila Monastery is well-documented in Persian sources like the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. Nalanda, a global center of Buddhist learning, was burned, and monks were massacred or fled. Odantapuri and other monasteries faced similar fates. These events are often cited as a major blow to organized Buddhism in India.
4 Context and Motivations: The attacks were not always exclusively anti-Buddhist. Muslim invaders targeted wealthy institutions, regardless of religion, including Hindu and Jain temples. Buddhist monasteries, being less militarized and often patronized by local rulers, were vulnerable. Some historians argue that the decline of Buddhism in India was already underway due to internal factors (e.g., integration into Hinduism, loss of royal patronage), and Muslim invasions accelerated this process rather than being the sole cause.
5 Survivors and Adaptation: Not all Buddhist communities were eradicated. In regions like Bengal and South India, some Buddhist groups survived for centuries, and others fled to Nepal, Tibet, or Southeast Asia, preserving Buddhist texts and traditions. Additionally, some Buddhists converted to Islam or Hinduism over time.
Primary Sources:
• Persian chronicles like the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri by Minhaj-i-Siraj describe the destruction of Buddhist sites.
• Buddhist texts, such as the Kalachakra Tantra, allude to external threats from “mlecchas” (foreigners), possibly referring to Muslim invaders.
• Archaeological evidence, such as the ruins of Nalanda, corroborates the destruction.
Historiographical Debate:
• Some modern historians, like Romila Thapar, argue that the destruction was part of broader political and economic conquests, not a systematic religious genocide.
• Others, like Koenraad Elst, emphasize the religious dimension, citing the targeting of Buddhist institutions as part of a broader pattern of iconoclasm.
• Exaggerations in both colonial-era and nationalist narratives have complicated the discourse, with some accounts inflating or downplaying the violence.
Conclusion: Buddhist communities did face significant violence and destruction during Muslim invasions, particularly at major centers like Nalanda. However, the slaughter was not a uniform or singular event but part of a broader pattern of conquest affecting multiple religious groups. The decline of Buddhism in India resulted from a combination of these invasions and pre-existing socio-religious shifts.
Kind of funny that 3 of the mentioned “intellectuals” trying to reinterpret Jihad are all Christians for some reason. They spit on the memories of their brethren in the Middle East.
I’ve been reading and listening to a lot of Raymond Ibrahim. I’ve wondered how we got from the bloody history of Islamic expansion through jihad to college kids defending jihadis. Thanks for explaining it.
Quality stuff, Dan. Separate matter but something I’m pondering over is the interaction between cultural Islam and Islamism. Related to that is the role that moderate Muslims can play as a bastion against Islamism. And whether it can ultimately be trusted.
Impossible, Jihad and political Islam is baked into Islam itself. The only way to get rid of them is to get rid of Islam. Or at the very least Islam as a religion.
He has it the wrong way round, Jihad was rebranded by the muslim brotherhood as an expansionist idea. "Jihad" has never been inherently expansionist
I am sure all those Islamic scholars were writing after the formation of the Islamic brotherhood. I am sure Ibn Khaldun, when commenting on how expansionist Jihad is unique to Islam, was being influenced by an organization that won’t exist for another half a millennium.
They were but the article is framing it as though there is some modern push to rebrand jihad in a softer manner.
In reality it was only the muslim brotherhood after the fall of the ottoman empire that tried to push for this radical idea of jihad
The muslim brotherhood is a fringe movement across the muslim world, with it's supporters being imprisoned and executed in many arab countries
Sure, Altabari, Alqortobi, Ibn Taymiya, all of them were contemporary scholars lived in the 1950s.
I understand the sarcasm but you have misunderstood my point. I am not denying that scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah or al-Qurtubi wrote about jihad centuries ago, that is well known and not in dispute. They were writing within specific legal and political frameworks that were very different from those of the twentieth century.
What I am referring to is the modern reinterpretation of jihad by ideological movements in the twentieth century, especially the Muslim Brotherhood and figures like Sayyid Qutb. They shifted the concept from a legally regulated, state-directed function into a revolutionary and permanent mission. That is a significant change in both tone and intent, and it has had real-world consequences.
So the issue is not whether jihad existed before, but it's reinterpretation of it in the 20th century as an unending battle encumbent on all muslims - an idea that a minutely small and almost extinct fringe group adheres to
I'd invite you to engage but it seems you are only concerned with writing ideologically motivated and intellectually disingenuous slop
There is so much wrong with this "article" that I don't know where to begin
Hadrian appears to read Drop Site News.
Of course he will spout this ahistorical nonsense.
Worst still, for those participating in an offensive expedition, it is Fardh ul ‘Ayn. It is as important to them as their daily prayers.
It isn't Fardh ul 'Ayn, it is Fard Kifayah, and only when declared by the ruling caliph or imam.
We live in a time without a caliphate, and so with no central islamic authority, there are no declarations of jihad by non-state actors which can be considered compulsory
Naive one, this “radical idea” of Jihad has always been at the heart of Islam, seen as a communal obligation (Fardh Kifayah). Whilst it is true that an individual inner struggle is also recognised albeit not based upon scripture as the Hadith is nearly recognised universally as weak and some even outright claimed it was fabricated, it does not negate this communal obligation.
I agree with you here, however jihad has always been with regards to specific military campaigns
What I am trying to argue is that the concept of a perpetual, ongoing violent and political struggle is a modern conception of jihad by the muslim brotherhood that eventually evolved into taliban and al-qaeda schools of thought, is a contrived and novel concept that has only come about in the 1900s
There are many factual inaccuracies here
Omg. Such a load of crap. I can debate and write a complete rebuttal. But knowing who this guy is, I'm pretty sure he's gonna remain on his paymaster's leash! Lol.
I share similar sentiment
Such using sophistry, pointless semantic arguments, being purposely obtuse, claiming that your opponent is oversimplifying without providing a shred of evidence, etc.
Calling something “sophistry” is not an argument, it is a rhetorical escape hatch used when one cannot address the actual substance of the point. What you label as “semantic” is in fact the core of Islamic jurisprudence — the usul of fiqh, the difference between obligation and recommendation, the role of state authority, the conditions attached to action. That is not wordplay, that is how classical jurists reasoned.
You accuse me of not providing evidence, yet I have consistently cited the legal frameworks of Ibn Rushd, al-Mawardi, Ibn Taymiyyah, and al-Ghazali, referenced the conditions they attach to jihad, and explained how they were writing for a political structure, not issuing a metaphysical call for expansion at all times. Meanwhile, your method has been to isolate one clause from a classical manual, universalize it, and then accuse anyone who provides nuance of being dishonest.
What you call “being purposely obtuse” is actually refusing to let you reduce centuries of legal tradition to a single phrase. I am not being vague, I am refusing to flatten juristic reasoning into an ideological slogan.
This entire time you have avoided engaging with the fundamental point: that these rulings are legal, not dogmatic. That they are contingent, not absolute. That they were tied to the state, not to every individual. You do not get to accuse someone of oversimplification while you are the one arguing that an entire legal tradition is reducible to “if they refuse the call, fight them.”
You are not defending classical Islam, you are parroting a politicized reading of it. And when that reading is challenged with the actual tools of legal reasoning, you call it “sophistry” and retreat behind tone-policing
Omg. Such a load of crap. I can debate and write a complete rebuttal. But knowing who this guy is, I'm pretty sure he's gonna remain on his paymaster's leash! Lol.
A good primer for those who haven't listened to ex-muslims at all. The "right side of history" adherents are set on automatic, meaning they automatically accept and repeat, like the Khaybar Khaybar Ya Jahud chant. They have no idea what it means or care as long as western civilization is denounced.
You left out the Islamic capture of Sicily by the Fatamids.
Danny, weren’t Buddhist slaughtered throughout India too?
Grok:
Yes, historical records indicate that Buddhists were killed, and their monasteries and institutions were destroyed during some Muslim invasions of India, particularly between the 8th and 13th centuries. However, the extent, motivations, and context of these events are complex and debated among historians.
Key points from historical accounts:
1 Early Invasions (8th-10th centuries): The Arab conquest of Sindh (711 CE) by Muhammad bin Qasim involved conflicts with local rulers, some of whom were Buddhist. While there were instances of violence, the impact on Buddhist communities was limited compared to later invasions, as Sindh had a mixed religious population, and some Buddhists were integrated into the new administration under Muslim rule.
2 Ghaznavid Invasions (10th-11th centuries): Mahmud of Ghazni’s raids targeted wealthy temples and monasteries, including Buddhist centers. His campaigns were driven by economic motives (plundering wealth) and establishing political dominance, but religious rhetoric was also used. Buddhist monasteries, being repositories of wealth and learning, were looted, and monks were sometimes killed or displaced. For example, the sacking of cities like Mathura and Kannauj impacted Buddhist sites.
3 Ghurid Conquests (12th-13th centuries): The most significant destruction of Buddhist institutions occurred during the campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor and his generals, notably Bakhtiyar Khalji. The destruction of Nalanda University (c. 1193 CE) and Vikramashila Monastery is well-documented in Persian sources like the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. Nalanda, a global center of Buddhist learning, was burned, and monks were massacred or fled. Odantapuri and other monasteries faced similar fates. These events are often cited as a major blow to organized Buddhism in India.
4 Context and Motivations: The attacks were not always exclusively anti-Buddhist. Muslim invaders targeted wealthy institutions, regardless of religion, including Hindu and Jain temples. Buddhist monasteries, being less militarized and often patronized by local rulers, were vulnerable. Some historians argue that the decline of Buddhism in India was already underway due to internal factors (e.g., integration into Hinduism, loss of royal patronage), and Muslim invasions accelerated this process rather than being the sole cause.
5 Survivors and Adaptation: Not all Buddhist communities were eradicated. In regions like Bengal and South India, some Buddhist groups survived for centuries, and others fled to Nepal, Tibet, or Southeast Asia, preserving Buddhist texts and traditions. Additionally, some Buddhists converted to Islam or Hinduism over time.
Primary Sources:
• Persian chronicles like the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri by Minhaj-i-Siraj describe the destruction of Buddhist sites.
• Buddhist texts, such as the Kalachakra Tantra, allude to external threats from “mlecchas” (foreigners), possibly referring to Muslim invaders.
• Archaeological evidence, such as the ruins of Nalanda, corroborates the destruction.
Historiographical Debate:
• Some modern historians, like Romila Thapar, argue that the destruction was part of broader political and economic conquests, not a systematic religious genocide.
• Others, like Koenraad Elst, emphasize the religious dimension, citing the targeting of Buddhist institutions as part of a broader pattern of iconoclasm.
• Exaggerations in both colonial-era and nationalist narratives have complicated the discourse, with some accounts inflating or downplaying the violence.
Conclusion: Buddhist communities did face significant violence and destruction during Muslim invasions, particularly at major centers like Nalanda. However, the slaughter was not a uniform or singular event but part of a broader pattern of conquest affecting multiple religious groups. The decline of Buddhism in India resulted from a combination of these invasions and pre-existing socio-religious shifts.
There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin, if you would like to debate me on this topic, respond or send a message.
Thanks Dan! Clear and thorough as always.
Kind of funny that 3 of the mentioned “intellectuals” trying to reinterpret Jihad are all Christians for some reason. They spit on the memories of their brethren in the Middle East.
Thanks, very clear