Interesting exchange, odds. Thank for posting.
While his logic is controversial, Brohi is not unique in his extrapolation. His theory in fact reflects the argument of Rashid Rida, a conservative disciple of the Egyptian Muhammad Abduh. In 1913 Abduh published an article evaluating Islam’s early military campaigns and determined that Islam’s early neighbors “prevented the proclamation of truth” engendering the defense of Islam. “Our religion is not like others that defend themselves . . . but our defense of our religion is the proclamation of truth and the removal of distortion and misrepresentation of it.”22
Wars in the theory of Islam are . . . to advance God’s purposes on earth, and invariably they are defensive in character.”
This viewpoint appears to reflect the classic, collective duty within jihad doctrine, to defend the Islamic community from threats—the concept of defensive ji- had. 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 obsta- cles 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 be- liever 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
Brohi recounts the classic dualisms of Islamic theology; that the world is a place of struggle between good and evil, between right and wrong, between Haq and Na-Haq (truth and untruth), and between halal and haram (legitimate and forbid- den). According to Brohi, it is the duty of man to opt for goodness and reject evil.
Brohi then defines jihad, “The most glorious word in the Vocabulary of Is- lam is Jehad,…
/Quranic Concept of War
I’d like to make a few things as clear as i can.
1) the concept & especially meaning of ‘good vs. evil’ in islam is not the same as what it was originally borrowed from.
As islam, chronologically, came after judaism & christianity, islam is commonly known to be the last of ‘abrahamic’ religions.
2) i know ‘haq & na-haq’ have been translated as ‘truth & untruth’, from arabic; translation is correct. Though, the arabic words can also very much mean ‘fair & unfair’. Or ‘right & wrong’, depending on context.
3) in relation to point #1, there is a very clear concept of ‘good & evil’ in zoroastrianism, which tends to confuse those who are either not zoroastrians, or don’t fully understand the differentiation. Nonetheless use the terms ‘good vs. evil’ or ‘truth vs untruth’ as it pleases them.
In zoroastrianism, from which the original concept of ‘good vs evil’ comes from, there is ‘asha and druj’ (avestan language, centuries before islam or any other ‘world religion’).
4) asha means what is obvious, clear, open, not hidden, and order. Druj means lie, subterfuge, deception, and chaos.
The two mentioned *dual* qualities (asha & druj) are & belong to two opposite ‘entities’ in zoroastrianism. One ‘good’ (asha, known as Spenta Mainyu, aka exalted, positive spirit, and druj, known as Angra Mainyu, aka negative, angry or destructive spirit). Both the concept & words were used in Avesta & the Gathas - zoroastrian holy books, literally thousands if years before islam.
5) In zoroastrianism, asha & druj, primaily, refer to one’s mode of thinking (mentality), then words and deeds. Hence the zoroastrian creed of Good Thoughts, Good Words & Good Deeds.
Religions tend to be a continuation of one another over time.
6) Zoroastrianism set the basic foundation for following religions to borrow elements from it. BUT, it does not mean, over time, those religions following zoroastrian teachings did not corrupt, convolute original meanings, or add their own ideas or practices.