The term jihad in Islam is often misunderstood, particularly in Western contexts where it’s frequently misinterpreted as “holy war.” However, the Arabic word jihad actually translates to “struggle” or “effort,” denoting a meritorious striving or exertion. In essence, jihad, especially within a religious and ethical framework, fundamentally refers to the human endeavor to advocate for what is right and to resist what is wrong.
Within the Qur’an, Islam’s holy book, jihad encompasses a range of meanings. During the early Meccan period of Islam (approximately 610–622 CE), when the Prophet Muhammad received revelations in Mecca, the emphasis of jihad was primarily on its internal dimension. This is known as ṣabr, signifying “patient perseverance” practiced by Muslims when facing life’s challenges and dealing with those who wish them harm. The Qur’an also mentions performing jihad “by means of the Qur’an” against the pagan Meccans during this period (25:52), indicating a verbal and intellectual struggle against those who rejected the Islamic message.
As Islam transitioned to the Medinan period (622–632 CE), following Muhammad’s migration to Medina, a new facet of jihad emerged: qitāl, which is fighting in self-defense against the persecution from Meccan opponents. Later Islamic scholarship, including the Hadith (accounts of the Prophet’s sayings and actions), mystical interpretations of the Qur’an, and broader spiritual writings, further elaborated on these dimensions. Ṣabr and qitāl were subsequently reclassified as jihād al-nafs (the greater jihad, representing the internal, spiritual struggle against one’s base desires) and jihād al-sayf (the lesser jihad, referring to physical combat or “struggle with the sword”). These became known respectively as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad) and al-jihād al-aṣghar (the lesser jihad).
These extra-Quranic texts broaden the understanding of jihad fī sabīl Allāh, meaning “striving in the path of God,” to encompass various ways of promoting good and preventing wrong. A well-known Hadith outlines four primary modes of conducting jihad: through the heart, tongue, hand (physical actions short of warfare), and sword.
Classical Muslim jurists, when defining international law, were largely concerned with state security and the military protection of Islamic territories. Consequently, their focus predominantly rested on jihad as a military obligation. This interpretation of jihad as a military duty became the prevalent understanding in legal and official Islamic literature. It is crucial to note that the Qur’an (2:190) explicitly prohibits initiating hostilities, permitting combat solely against aggressors (60:7–8; 4:90). However, influenced by political realities, numerous pre-modern Muslim legal scholars broadened this to permit wars of expansion aimed at extending Islamic governance into non-Muslim lands. Some even considered the refusal of non-Muslims to embrace Islam as an act of aggression, potentially warranting military response from the Muslim ruler.
Jurists gave special consideration to “People of the Book”—those who believed in divine revelation, specifically Christians and Jews, as recognized in the Qur’an. These communities were to be protected under Muslim rule and were presented with options: embrace Islam, or submit to Islamic rule while paying a special tax known as jizyah. Rejection of both could lead to conflict, unless treaties existed between these communities and Muslim authorities. Over time, other religious groups, including Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists, were also included as “protected communities” with similar rights to Christians and Jews. Military jihad could only be declared by the legitimate leader of the Muslim polity, typically the caliph. Furthermore, Islamic legal scholars prohibited attacks on civilians and the destruction of property, referencing the teachings of Prophet Muhammad.
Throughout Islamic history, conflicts against non-Muslims, even those driven by political or secular motives, were often framed as jihads to legitimize them religiously. This trend began during the Umayyad period (661–750 CE). In more recent history, the 18th and 19th centuries in Muslim Africa witnessed religio-political conquests portrayed as jihads, most notably the jihad of Usman dan Fodio, which led to the establishment of the Sokoto Caliphate (1804) in present-day northern Nigeria. The Afghan wars of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, against the Soviet Union and later the United States, were also perceived by many participants as jihads.
Since then, extremist Islamist groups have exploited the concept of jihad to justify violent actions against both non-Muslims and Muslims they accuse of apostasy. Conversely, many contemporary Muslim intellectuals advocate for a holistic interpretation of the Qur’an. They emphasize the Qur’anic restriction of military action to self-defense against external aggression. This perspective leads them to question the applicability of many classical rulings on warfare from pre-modern jurists, viewing them as historically specific and not relevant to the modern era. These modern thinkers emphasize that the true essence of jihad lies in the broader struggle for social justice, personal piety, and the betterment of society, aligning more closely with the concept of greater jihad.
