Posted by
Dawnsblood on Monday, January 15, 2007 6:31:24 PM
The first essay
on the page is the one I am talking about. LTC Myers attempts to look at our enemies through the prism of their religion. It is about 10 pages long and is the most informative I have read thus far on the topic.
Brohi places jihad
in the context of communal if not imperial obligation; both controversial formulations:
When a believer sees
that someone is trying to obstruct another believer from traveling the road that leads to
God, spirit of Jehad requires that such a man who is imposing obstacles should be
prevented from doing so and the obstacles placed by him should also be removed, so that
mankind may be freely able to negotiate its own path that leads to Heaven.” To do
otherwise, “by not striving to clear or straighten the path we [Muslims] become
passive spectators of the counter-initiatory forces imposing a blockade in the way of
those who mean to keep their faith with God.19
This viewpoint
appears to reflect the classic, collective duty within jihad doctrine, to defend
the Islamic community from threats—the concept of defensive jihad. Brohi is
saying much more than that; however, he is attempting to delineate the duty—the
proactive duty—to clear the path for Islam. It is necessary not only to defend the
individual believer if he is being hindered in his faith, but also to remove the obstacles
of those counter-initiatory forces hindering his Islamic development. This begs the
question of what is actually meant by the initiatory forces. The answer is clear to Brohi;
the force of initiative is Islam and its Muslim members. “It is the duty of a
believer to carry forward the Message of God and to bring it to notice of his fellow-men
in handsome ways. But if someone attempts to obstruct him from doing so he is entitled as
a matter of defense, to retaliate.”20
This formulation
would appear to turn the concept of defense on its head. To the extent that a Muslim may
proclaim Islam and proselytize, or Islam, as a faith, seeks to extend its invitation and
reach—initiate its advance—but is unable to do so, then that represents an overt
threat justifying—a defensive jihad. According to Brohi, this does not result
in the “ordinary wars which mankind has been fighting for the sake of either revenge
or for securing . . . more land or more booty . . . [this] striving must be [is] for the
sake of God. Wars in the theory of Islam are . . . to advance God’s purposes on
earth, and invariably they are defensive in character.” In other words, everywhere
the message of God and Islam is or can be hindered from expansion, resisted or opposed by
some “obstruction” (a term not clearly defined) Islam is intrinsically entitled
to defend its manifest destiny.They defiantly have a different concept of defense over there.