جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "جهاد ابتدایی" در نشریات گروه "علوم قرآن و حدیث"

Jihadi Ibtidayi is one of the most challenging topics in Islamic culture. Commentators of the Holy Qur'an, along with other Muslim researchers, have studied the verses related to this kind of Jihad and explained its various components. Among these, the viewpoints of contemporary commentators can be classified into four groups: stating the general points of the verse and not referring to the general rule of jihad or its types; Limiting the rule of jihad to defense. Remembering the provisions of the primary jihad and its components with other interpretations. Using the term "Primary Jihad" and explaining its components. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli believes that the primary jihad, although it actually refers to the defense of the right to the spiritual life of man, but the right of apparently aggressive and primary wars is proved for Muslims in the age of ghaybah. Based on his point of view, it can be said that the arrogance of infidels and polytheists, the necessity of divine motivation for jihadists, the development of Islam based on rationality and discretion, and the necessity of the permission of a fully conditioned jurist, are among the most important influencing factors in ruling and explaining the aspects of the Jihadi Ibtidayi discussion. Paying attention to these points will answer many doubts in the field of this divine ruling.

The problem of initiating a war in Islam is important from two aspects; On the one hand, a document has been issued for extremist groups to tarnish the face of Islam by promoting violence, and on the other hand, suspicions have been raised, especially by Orientalists, to challenge the truth and success of the Islamic religion. This article examines two recent and effective interpretations in a descriptive-analytical way. Al-Manar and Al-Mizan discussed this and came to the conclusion that both interpretations are in a way indicative of the war-initiating phenomenon in Islam, but at the same time, in response to doubts, they mentioned some conditions for it to find its real case and show its defensive nature. In the criticism of these two approaches, by following the use of the words Jihad and Qital and the like in the Holy Qur'an, it becomes clear that though the principle is not to initiate a war, and in the case of spreading religion and the supporting the monotheistic government, the principle is peace and agreement of the people, but as the legitimacy of the government, from the perspective of the Holy Quran, comes only from God and the only Divine rule should be dominant, in the case of the power of the monotheistic community and the fronting of the leaders of disbelief and tyranny against the spread of religion and the achievement of a global monotheistic government, initiating Jihad is lawful and as it is clear, its nature would be defensive.

Jihad is one of the important Islamic pillars that to be noticed in Quran and Traditions of Imams. Therefore commentators and lawyers write about this very much. Lawyers and many primitive commentators approve 2 kinds of jihad even some of them behoove 2 kinds of jihad. Elementary jihad and defensive jihad. In 2 recent century for important subjects that humans encounter with them for example freedom of opinion, a group of commentator deny elementary jihad and another group accept that implicitly then analyze the fact of elementary jihad because they want to solve the contrast between elementary jihad and freedom of opinion and explicate elementary jihad to 4 kinds of defensive jihad. . 1- Elementary jihad for defensive of humanities nature. 2- Elementary jihad as advance far. 3- Elementary jihad for removing of obstacles in guidance way or Liberator jihad. 4. Elementary jihad as denying superstition.This research deals with for views or theories in descriptive an analytical method and don’t know any of them completely. Because they could not solve the mention contrast comprehensively.

One of the most challenging issues in the Qur'an is the debate over "fighting", which has always been a battleground for different and conflicting views. In the verse: "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you!" The present study aims to infer a Analytical Comparison of the Commentators' Opinions correct interpretation of "fighting" in this verse by using a librarian method in collecting materials and documentary methods in quoting views and the a qualitative and descriptive way of content analysis in evaluating data, it seeks to study the opinions of famous commentators comparatively and analytically at first and then, present the preferred view. The conclusion of this article is that among the studied views, that viewing the verse as being on the case of spread of Islam through primary jihad with the opponent governments in the borders of Islamic society is the most appropriate interpretation.

Proponents of the idea of ​​the Principalness of peace, in order to prove their point of view, have criticized the Qur'anic arguments of the opponents (who believe in elementary jihad). Among the verses criticized by this group are verses 191-193, and 216 of Surah Al-Baqarah, and verse 5 of Surah Tawbah. According to this conflict, the questions of this research are: Who is the audience of the obligation of jihad in verse 216 of Surah, and is the notion of Muqatilah applied in Defense Jihad or not? In verses 191-193, what is meant by "polytheists"? What are the reference of "Fa in Intahaw" and also the meaning of "Fitnah" in these verses? In verse 5 of Surah Tawbah, is it meant "polytheists who violate the covenant" or absolute polytheists? The present article uses ijtihadi-exigetic method to investigate and answer these questions and doubts, focusing on the views of Ayatollah Fāḍil Lankarāni. The findings of the research are as follows: From the point of view of Ayatollah Fāḍil Lankarāni, verse 216 of Surah Al-Baqarah, first, according to the agreement of jurists and interpreters are among the initial verses implying the existence of primary Jihad and its audience are not just some disciples of the Prophet, rather it addresses all the Muslims; Second, the word "Qital" in most Qur'anic uses appears in the case of primary fighting. Also, this verse does not make the obligation of fighting conditioned to the confrontation of infidels and polytheists with Muslims, so that the position can only be justified for the Prophets and messengers. Therefore, claiming the legitimacy of the people's vote on these verses will be an example of the negation of the argument in the absence of the subject.

Jihad or jahada (struggle or effort) is one of the practical commands of God, meaning the sacrifice of wealth and life for the spread of Islam, whose concept, quality, and scope have always been the source of conflicting opinions among the commentators of the Islamic sect, and some of these reactions have been influenced by the principles and foundations of the commentators' religion. Some of the interpretations of religions have caused Islam to be attacked by enemies, and on the other hand, in the present era, the opposition and takfirist groups, citing some verses and interpretations of religions, have attempted to kill the followers of other religions in the name of Jihad and created a violent image of Islam to the world. This article is trying to answer the question of how the two commentaries "Al-Kashif" by Mughniyeh from the Shia and “Fi Zilal al-Qur'an” (In the Shade of the Qur'an) by Sayyid Qutb from the Sunnis have interpreted the verses of Jihad and what interpretations they have presented about these verses. The descriptive and analytical examination of this issue shows that the common point of view of Mughniyeh and Sayyid Qutb on the verses of Jihad is to show the pacifist face of Islam and fight against aggressors and colonialists. By dividing Jihad into two types of defensive Jihad and primary Jihad, they have expressed its purpose to defend Islam and Muslims and to remove obstacles to the spread of Islam. Also, in expressing the difference in the interpretative view of these two commentators, it is indicated that Mughniyeh proved the Prophet's infallibility by using some provisions of the verses and considers the initial Jihad valid only with the permission of the infallible. He presents the Zionist regime and America as examples of the current enemies of Islam. But Sayyid Qutb concluded from the contents of some verses that the Prophet is infallible and considered the existence of a believing leader as the only condition for Jihad. He mentions the communist regimes as examples of contemporary enemies of Islam.

One of the most important jurisprudential and interpretive categories of Islam is jihad. The need for defensive jihad is obvious; Because defense is a natural right; However, the legitimacy of the initial jihad and its conditions, especially in the era of continuous absence, has been controversial, and due to which widespread accusations have been leveled against Islam by some Orientalists and opponents. Hence, the importance and necessity of addressing this issue is becoming more apparent at the present time. Some Shiite and Sunni scholars have denied the basic jihad in Islam, including the late Salehi Najafabadi. He has rejected the primary jihad for various reasons, including the denial of the absolute verses of jihad in the Holy Qur’an, the application of the principle of absolute rule in such verses, and the citation of the Prophet’s biography. This research, while examining general views in this field, has explained his theory. The method of data collection in this research is library and the research method is descriptive-analytical.

With its textual-contextual approach and by emphasizing on the text and also historical context, this essay tries to challenge the popular understanding of the primary verses of surah Tawba, which permits waging war against all of the pagans. Although the majority of the interpreters of the Qur’an and also the Islamic jurists justify the command of fighting as a result of the pagans’ polytheism, this essay shows that the command of fighting is a result of their enmity, breaching the agreement, violation and waging war. The pagans are divided in these verses into two groups: those who broke the covenant and others who remained committed. The verses threaten only those pagans who insisted on breaking the agreement and give them another chance and show them the possibility of converting into Islam. Nevertheless the command of fighting does not include the committed pagans to the covenant. So fighting is merely commanded as a reaction against the pagan’s enmity and waging war, regardless of their polytheism. These verses prove no evidence for waging war. On the contrary, they prove strict standards for permitting defensive war. Historical evidences point out that no pagan was killed by the revelation of these verses and some pagan tribes continued to exist after these verses, but the verses withdrew the last resistances of the pagans.

The right to practice religion is one of the fundamental issues at the present time. This study seeks to examine how, if a person is free to choose a religion, this right corresponds with the rulings such as apostasy or primary jihad? The interpretation of some verses, especially the verse «لا إِکْراهَ فِی الدِّین‏» "La ikrah fi al-din…" indicates that from the perspective of the Holy Qur'an, the right to practice religion is one of the basic human rights. The present study shows that God the Almighty has not forced human to accept a particular religion rather he has given them the right and freedom to choose a religion. There is no contradiction between the freedom of conscience [and the right to exercise religion] and the ruling of apostasy or Primary Jihad. However, a misunderstanding of the real life, in some cases, may seriously stop one from accessing the right to exercise religion.

One of the human rights that has been taken into account in most of the moral and legal schools is "the freedom right", according to which one cannot impose a belief on anyone. This right is also emphasized in a number of Quran verses, such as the verse of ‘‘La 'ikraha fi al-din’’. However, some argue that "freedom of opinion" is in conflict with the verdict of "offensive jihad". The present study, based on three points, has criticized the conflict between the freedom of opinion and offensive Jihad, which includes: 1. The incorrectness of considering the Islamic conquests in the analysis of offensive jihad as a touchstone; 2. Paying attention to removing the barriers to religious belief as the primary goal of offensive Jihad; 3. Independency of offensive jihad with compulsion in being religious. The research method is descriptive and analytical, and our findings show that since the goal of Islam from the order of offensive jihad is to eliminate the domination of the rulers of the people for the free admission of religion, and on the other hand, it leaves the audience free to maintain their religion, there is no doubt left for the conflict between "freedom of opinion" and the verdict of "offensive jihad".

The only queen mentioned in the holy Quran is the queen of Saba`. Researchers have taken two approaches on the queen`s deed toward people. Some have viewed her as a cruel meeting people as slaves and causes Saba` society to be retarded and sun-worshiper. On the contrary, some believe that one may not find any critique in the holy Quran against her rule and, therefore, her rule is divinely agreed with. Surveying the proofs of the two parts leads us to the fact that the parts have not studied the Quranic verses of the field exactly. While exact survey of the verses would play a considerable part in analyzing Solomon`s threat against the queen and, in some fiqhi problems as proving legality of the pure`s primary jihad and women`s rule. It should be stated that on the basis of the former approach, the queen`s deed carries a negative effect in legality of women`s rule and Solomon`s threat in the form of primary jihad is due to analysis. On the basis of the later, however, given other grounds, one may use of the research in the two fiqhi problems. As explained in the paper, the former lacks of any reasonable support.

While studying Islam and the historical character of the Prophet (S.A.W.), many of the Western thinkers and Islamologists have concluded that Islam and the Prophet (S.A.W.) have carried out their mission through wars and violence and followed their objectives through wielding swords. It could be said, however, that this kind of impression about the mode of the Prophet’s (S.A.W.) foreign affairs is more a reflection of legal reasoning and interpretation of the Middle Ages scholars than the Prophet’s (S.A.W.) political conduct and discourse. In these interpretations, the interpreters have unconsciously superimposed the spatio-temporal exigencies of their own age on the Holy Scriptures, which in some instances resulted in some equivocations in understanding the real intentions of the Scriptures. In addition to the impressionability from historical straits faced by interpreters, the interpretations and legal reasoning have also been subject to the political demands of the caliphs and rulers of the Islamic Middle Ages, because in a short while after the demise of the Prophet (S.A.W.), tendency toward conquest of other lands demanded theoretical and intra-textual pretexts from the Scripture and tradition. To fulfill this political need, the theoreticians affiliated to caliphate have fabricated some hadith and traditions concerning preemptive jihad as per the case. Along the same line, using the lever of abrogation and with a selective look at the Qur’an, they also invalidated the verses of peace and tolerance that were in contrast to the spirit of conquests.

The Jihadi Salafism believing in armed struggle to spread and promulgate Islamic teachings has a special definition of offensive Jihad. It allows fighting unbelievers in the form of offensive Jihad irrespective of whether or not they are waging a war against Muslims. In order to legitimize their action, they have taken recourse to verse 5 of chapter al-Tawbah. They are of the view that this verse abrogates all the verses that recommend peace and forgiveness. According to them, "pagans" in this verse refer to all unbelievers regardless of whether they wage a war against Muslisms or they do not. That is why they insist that based on this verse killing all pagans is permissible. As well, they maintain that offensive Jihad is required to impose Islam upon non-Muslims, whereas in fact, if we look at other verses of the Quran as well as at the normative conduct of the Prophet (S) and the opinions of exegetes from both the branches of faith, it is well inferred that verse 5 of chapter al-Tawbah does not abrogate the verses regarding peace, and that "pagans" in this verse refers to those of them who violated their promise and covenant as well as to those leaders of the unbelievers who denied people access to Islamic teachings. Moreover, if we study the Prophet's conduct in delivering the message of Islam and behaving with the unbelievers, we shall understand that he was kind and merciful to others never ordering his companions to kill anyone for not embracing the path of Islam.

Propagating revelation and calling people to accept it may be regarded as two main duties of prophets. On prophets` manner of invitation with regard to jihad, two groups of verses may be found in the holy Quran: one calling up for jihad and the other recommends lack of obligation and opponents` acceptance of religion. Commentators have taken different positions to harmonize the two groups. The paper has intended to study views of two contemporary commentators Seyyed Qotb and Allamah Tabatabaei in this field critically. The former has viewed the verses as revealed stage by stage and, in this way, attempted to solve the problem. On his solution, jihad is regarded as a primary jihad and a revolutionary combat for destroying human-made governments and establishing Divine sovereignty. The latter, however, emphasizing lack of obligation in religion, has viewed the verses of jihad as mohkamat, entirely clear revelations, and in this way, solved the problem.

The story of Solomon in Sūrat Saba‘ and Sūrat al-Naml is one of the most controversial stories of the Qur’ān, in which the subjects brought up are all astounding and open to many questions. For example, the story of Solomon’s talking to hoopoe, the hoopoe distinguishing the infidelity of the disbelievers, and the rule of Queen Sheba, which were accepted by the Qur’ān, and so forth. However, one of the controversial discourses of this story is the way Solomon treats Queen Sheba by threatening and forcing her toward faith, which has been relied on as a basis for presuming the preemptive jihad. Solomon was a wise and erudite person, but why did he use a hostile approach to force a powerful ruler to either convert and surrender or encounter his mighty army? The Qur’ān tells this story in Sūrat al-Naml and not only does not criticize this approach, but confirms it as well. Various viewpoints have been presented concerning this story; the most common among them is its factuality versus the theory of its being mythical. After giving a concise account of the story, the article goes on to study its major points and concludes that there is no indication of using violence to force an ideology and then the misconception brought up are responded to.

Jihad is a secondary issue of jurisprudence. Jurists have divided it into two: defensive and preemptive, what has been discussed and dealt with mostly in this regard is permission or lack of permission for preemptive jihad in the absence of an Infallible Imam, peace be upon him. The author of this paper does not intend to study the above mentioned permission or lack of permission but he tries to investigate the Quran’s view of preemptive jihad in the light of hadiths narrated from the holy Prophet, may peace and blessings be upon him. He finally concludes the lack of permission for preemptive jihad which is not conditioned with the presence of an Infallible Imam nor even by existence of an appropriate social political and international status quo.

A small group among the orientalists have undertaken to analyze the Islamic history and culture based on conscience and logic; however, most of them have approached this task with an evangelical or colonial motivations. Islamic jihād (holy war) is one of the issues wrongly and begrudgingly analyzed by them, who have attempted to evaluate the expansion of Islam in the shade of warfare and swords. This writing is a detailed response to the orientalist's accusations, explaining that jihād has been more of defensive nature in Islam, even in some instances when it had taken an apparently primitive form.