The Jihad
Muhammad’s emigration to Medina, known as the hijra, marked a change in his religion from being a loose group of followers from various tribes to a political entity. The constitution devised at Medina established the new body politic, the umma. While individual clans did not loose their individual identity, they were drawn into the broader umma upon which communal solidarity was to be based. The implications of this would be that the umma would stand firm and united against unbelievers. The Muslim community would become the normal political entity. Non-Muslims could be incorporated into the community, but only on the fringes. The initial impact on this for the Jews in Medina was that they were allowed to retain their religious beliefs, but were required to render mutual assistance to the umma, including military service. This openness did not last long, as it became clear to Muhammad that the Jews were not committed to his cause. This was not helped by Muhammad's incorrect representation of Jewish stories as contained in Jewish scriptures. He claimed that his versions were a direct revelation from God, and therefore the Jewish scriptures had been tampered with by man.

The hijra effected a close link between the religious and secular/political in Islam. The umma had become both a religious group and a political body. The Medinan pattern of subsuming smaller groups into the larger religio-political group became part of the fundamental paradigm in Islam. However, it was jihad, which literally means ‘striving’ which defines the political outreach of Islam to the outside world. It was customary among the Arabian tribes for raids to be made on unfriendly groups for booty. Expeditions were mounted against outsiders, although they were not always bloody encounters, with weaker opposition often allowing their booty to be plundered and would abandon a caravan to a superior force. It seemed necessary for the Medina community to engage in jihad on economic grounds. Despite this, Jihad was always more than an economic activity. Jihad has a religious and political motivation which ensures that it is an integral part of the complex of Islam. Those killed during Jihad are considered to be martyrs, and unlike the rest of the Islamic community, are assured of immediate salvation.

The major expeditions were against the lucrative caravans of Mecca. The weaker groups in the area could see what was happening, and they would ask for protection, which would be given on condition of accepting Muhammad and Islam. It is from this that we get the phrase associated with Jihad ‘Islam or the sword.’ While it does not connote the imposition of religion by force, that was it’s normal effect. This choice was the only possibility for the tribal Arabs who followed their own tribal religion. Those who accepted the security of Muhammad’s protection needed to accept Muhammad’s religious system.

Meanwhile, there were groups of Christians and Jews on the Arabian peninsula. These groups could become part of the umma by accepting the status of ‘protected minority’ without defecting from their own religion. This was permitted because Muhammad recognised followers of other legitimate prophets. Jihad respected these religious minorities and the umma was able to cope with this diversity. However, the choice between Allah and tribal gods had political consequences. The Islamic umma had, using both hijra and jihad, politically united the tribes on the Arabian peninsula by the acceptance of Allah and Muhammad as his prophet.

However, once the tribes of the Arabian peninsula had become part of the umma, they were unable to conduct jihad against one another. At this stage we see the overlap between economic motivations and religious motives. They had to look beyond the now interrelated Arabian tribes to areas able to provide a quick return of booty. At this stage we see a distinction brought about by the concept of Jihad; the sphere of Islam (dar al-islam) and the sphere of war (dar al-harb). Within the sphere of Islam the ruler was Muslim and the way of life organised under Islamic law. Expansion was only possible only with the sphere of war. The very rapid success of jihad beyond the Arabian peninsula was possible as the Islamic form of conquest allows the land to be retained but for the armies to continue their advances. Land was not dished out to soldiers (as was often the case in other forms of striving). Rather, the local population would be left their either as converts or protected minorities, and they would pay taxes that would be subsequently split up among the Muslim soldiers. They formed part of the expanding sphere of Islam. The land became part of the Islamic state with the original inhabitants.

It could be said that jihad only really made sense within the context of the period of rapid expansion in the early period of Islam. Jihad did not directly entail any obligation to spread the religion of Islam, though it was certainly used that way in its early days as Islam spread across North Africa to Spain and into France. Islam followed a natural progression from Hijra and the establishment of the umma, to the jihad and the recognition of dar al-islam and dar al-harb. In 732 AD jihad was greatly wound back on the basis that it had realistically gone as far as it could go. The booty was not worth striving for. Jihad could not be the basis for the foreign policy of an Islamic empire, and by the ninth century AD, jihad had taken on a much less central role in the politics of Islam. Since that time, jihad has remained alive as a dormant political idea that could be actualised when needed, particularly in military situations. The twentieth century has seen a marked upturn in the use of jihad in the political processes of the Middle East. It has been used by groups wishing to reclaim land from the State of Israel. It is regularly used by the Shi’ite government of Iran to muster support against Israel and the U.S. Saddam Hussein labelled the 1991 Gulf War a ‘holy war’ giving it jihad status.
 

The rise of Fundamentalism.
Images of terrorist activities conducted in the name of Islam has helped the term ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ into wide circulation. ‘Fundamentalist’ is not a term the Arabs use to describe themselves, as it is a western term that has no equivalent in Arabic languages. We can distinguish features within a specific religious system that help give it fundamentalist characteristics.

Firstly, there is always a strong attachment to a central symbol. Typically, this will be the law codes contained in the Qur’an. It is not the attachment itself that marks a group out as fundamentalist, rather it is what is done with the attachment. Groups will pick out certain ‘fundamentals’ from these symbols that they wish to take hold of and project them into the future. This means that they have found absolutes to live by that are easy to identify. As it is not possible to keep all the laws contained in the Qur’an, these groups will pick out certain laws they wish to emphasise.

Secondly, there is a degree of non-negotiability. If absolute truth comes from a central symbol, then for a fundamentalist group, the ‘absolute truth’ does not need to be worked out as it has been fully revealed to them. There is only one ‘absolute truth’ and being completely known, it is non-negotiable. There is no middle ground. It is all black and white. Members of the religious group who do not hold to these truths might as well be the enemy.

These groups are also militant. If a non-negotiable truth is known, then it is important that others know this truth. Therefore, fundamentalist groups tend to place a high emphasis on the act of evangelism at all costs. This has caused the western media to portray the typical Islamic fundamentalist group as a terrorist organisation. It must be noted that this aspect is not isolated to Islam. Some ‘Christian fundamentalists’ have displayed similar tendencies, such as the sixteenth century Swiss reformist, Ulrich Zwingli, who believed that his views should be spread by whatever political or military means necessary. This militant element of fundamentalism often takes on a restorationist nature. Fundamentalist groups in their opposition to modernity, often desire to restore the world to a state which they believe once existed. This is often to a time of a perceived ‘golden age’ when life was free from such evils as modern technology and critical thinking.

Fourthly, there is strong agreement among members. If the truth is revealed to a fundamentalist group, then an individual’s membership of the group entails agreement with this truth. The fundamentals will be aspects that will best keep the group together and keep opposing forces out. This agreement among members enables groups to offer a united front to the outside world, and facilitates the militant nature of the groups.

Finally, fundamentalism is reformist in nature. It opposes current directions in religious thought, and attempts to return to the pristine clarity, simplicity and appeal of the religion’s founder. For the Muslim fundamentalist this nature is likely to be seen in the call for a strict implementation of Islamic norms and values (the Shari’ah or Islamic ‘religious law’) throughout all areas of Islamic society.
Particularly since the second world war there has been a strong Islamic backlash against the process of westernisation. Many Muslim countries have undergone a process of westernisation, followed by a period of social and political disruption, followed by anti-western sentiment. The bankruptcy of the west is clear to Muslims in its lack of humanitarian ideals before and after the wars, its economic exploitation of underdeveloped countries, the use of scientific and technical advances to create weapons of destruction, and public immorality particularly in the sexual arena. Events during the 1950’s such as the victory of the Democratic Party in Turkey, The Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt (the Suez Canal crisis) and the Iran oil crisis all served to discredit the west. This gave fundamentalist groups the prestige to become important forces in the Muslim world. Overall, we can say that fundamentalist groups tend to rise as a result of a to perceived threats, such as Western influences penetrating Islamic society. If an event occurs, such as a land for peace deal, fundamentalist groups on both sides will attempt to derail the process on account of it be contrary to the true nature of their religion.
 

Secession: Sunni, Shi’ite and Sufi
In 632 AD Muhammad died, according to the best supported view, without having designated any successor. As the greatest of all the prophets he could not be replaced. However, under a theocracy that does not distinguish between church and state, a leader is required to enforce the rule of God, lead into war, and guide at time of peace. There was much disagreement on how a successor should be appointed, or whether Muhammad had actually appointed a successor. Muhammad’s father-in-law Abu Bakr took control of the umma and gave himself the title Caliph (or khalifa) meaning ‘deputy’. Under his leadership Islam spread into Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Persia and Egypt. Despite this success, there was much disagreement within the community, and much blood was shed.
The fourth Caliph, Ali, was a cousin of Muhammad was forced into a power struggle with the governor of Syria. Ali was indecisive and submitted the question of the Caliphate to arbitration. This humanly consideration of a divine office was considered by some followers to be a betrayal of Islam and seceded. Ali was assassinated and Mu’awiya became caliph after Ali’s son abdicated. This took the rule of Islam away from the Quraysh tribe to the Ummayad tribe.

A split developed amongst the Muslims as a result of these events. There were those who accepted the Ummayad rulers and there were others who thought that the caliph should be a direct descendant of Muhammad’s family. At Mu’awiya’s death one of Ali’s sons al-Husain, sought to regain the caliphate but was murdered. Ali’s party then broke away and it became known as the Shi’a or ‘following’. What had begun as a political division took on a religious character.
Al-Husain’s death has been of major importance in the Islamic Shi’ite group. Both he and his brother died in battle against the Ummayads in Iraq. Al-Husain rode a white horse and was pierced by arrows and then beheaded. Shi’a Islam regarded him as the true successor to Ali and a supremely pious Muslim upholding the ideal of Islam against the worldly Ummayads. Every year the Shi’ite community celebrated the Martyrdom of al-Husain. After several days of mourning there are passion plays representing his death. This is a major festival during their year and his shrine at Karbala is regarded as sacred ground.

Two major groups have thus emerged in Islam. The majority follow a religious path based on the Sunnah or the tradition handed down from the past, principally in the Qur’an but also in the collection of Islamic traditions derived from Muhammad. They are called the ‘people of the Sunnah’ or Sunni Islam. The minority group is call Shi’a Islam or the Shi’ites. This group represents around ten percent of the Muslim population. Sunni Islam has maintained that all revelation from Allah ceased with Muhammad’s death and the writing of the Qur’an, but the Shi’a hold that divine guidance is still available through the descendants of Muhammad, known as imams. These people could reveal the inner meaning of the Qur’an, or could add to the revelation of Allah.

Most Shi’ites belong to a group known as the Twelvers. They recognise twelve imams following on from Ali to a young boy who disappeared in Iraq in 878 AD. Twelvers believe that he will reappear one day as the Mahdi or ‘guided one’. Other Shi’ite groups acknowledge seven imams or sometimes only four, and there are innumerable sub groups.

A mystical trend also developed within Islam. In the period after the Ummayads assumed the caliphate, many Muslims became more and more disenchanted with the worldliness and luxury of the court of the caliphs and reacted against the political and religious dissension. They were not satisfied with the arid piety then being practised. Accordingly, from about the first century after the establishment of Islam, certain Muslims sought within their religion a more personal and spiritual way of life.

An ascetic renunciation of worldly values began in Iraq. Its members were known as sufis because they originally wore a coarse suf or woollen garment. They showed contempt for the world and its pleasures and they repeated litanies of phrases such as ‘There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet’ or used other devices to attain union with God. Such a device was called a dhikr or ‘remembering’. Communities of these mystics sprung up, particularly from the twelfth century. They revived a religious sensitivity and feeling within Islam. Eventually an uneasy alliance was forged between the Sufis and the majority of Sunni Islam. In recent times one of the features of Islam more attractive to Westerners has been the Sufi way of life. Sufi groups are now well established in many Western countries.