What Is Meant Here
The point is not that every jihad is combat, nor that jihad means initiating war or conquest. The available evidence presents it as a moral, peaceful, or defensive act; therefore, its meaning is not confined to combat.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The evidence states: “He affirms that jihad in the path of God, in his view, is essentially a moral/peaceful or defensive act; it does not mean initiating combat or conquest.”
Atlas Explanation
Within the limits of its wording, this statement distinguishes jihad from initiating combat and conquest. This does not mean denying every connection between jihad and combat, but rather rejecting the reduction of the former to initiating war.
Conclusion
The atom’s function in constructing the argument can be summarized as resisting a reading that makes “jihad” a name for initiating war alone. This is an inference from the contrast stated in the evidence, not a comprehensive, detailed definition of every use of the term.
Open Question and Limits
The evidence alone does not specify the conditions of combat or all forms of jihad, nor is it sufficient on its own to establish the stronger claim that combat is a “specific and constrained form” of jihad. That requires a primary passage or additional explicit evidence.
Reading Links
- Muhammad Shahrur, Drying Up the Sources of Terrorism
- Jihad, Combat, and the Critique of Violence
- jihad
- combat
- Lawful combat is defensive and constrained by the aim of freedom
Drying Up the Sources of Terrorism · Lawful combat is defensive and constrained by the aim of freedom