To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Gunshots and blood stains are seen on a door and walls of a house where civilians were killed on October 7, 2023 by Hamas militants on a kibbutz near the border with Gaza in Kfar Aza, Israel.
The brutal and unspeakably gruesome attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, which should rightly be condemned, was not an act of religion.
I’m often asked, as a woman with a degree in Islamic law who speaks about Islam and Muslims, about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s painful to discuss on multitudinous levels, but perhaps the most important (yet misunderstood) fact about this conflict is this: it is a modern political and territorial conflict, not a religious one. One of its terribly heartbreaking consequences is that it has spilled over into the wide world and increased both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.
Why is this not a religious conflict? Before the 20th century, for thirteen hundred years or so, Muslims and Jews got along pretty well, and Jews lived in Muslim lands for centuries. The “they’ve always been at each other’s throats” is lazy nonsense that attempts to rewrite history in light of Israel-Palestine. Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as part of Islam and therefore Jews were considered to be people who had received an earlier revelation from God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are therefore, in the Islamic view, religious cousins. Remarkably, the Qur’an explicitly says that it’s not just Muslims who will go to heaven, but that “the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good—will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve” (2:62). When, in 1492, over 50,000 Jews fled the Spanish Inquisition (from which Muslims also fled), they fled to the Ottoman Empire, which welcomed them. Traditionally, the physician to the Ottoman Sultan was always Jewish.
Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is not motivated by religion, both sides use religious language to advance their agendas. Hamas, though it couches its language in the language of the religious texts, is a nationalist organization, not interested in world dominance but in resisting the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has invoked the biblical reference to Amalek and referred to the bombing of Gaza as a “holy mission.”
Hamas’s brutal and unspeakably gruesome attack on Oct. 7, 2023, which should rightly be condemned, was not an act of religion. Hamas would probably characterize its attack as jihad, but Islamic law is very clear on the rules of jihad, and Hamas violated them.
Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is not motivated by religion, both sides use religious language to advance their agendas.
Islam contains many types of jihad, which means “struggle.” Military jihad is the taking up of arms only in self-defense or to overthrow an oppressor.
But here’s the really critical bit: even in a legitimate jihad to overthrow an oppressor, never are those undertaking jihad ever allowed to kill non-soldiers. Never are they allowed to commit rape or kill civilians. In fact, never are those undertaking jihad ever allowed to kill non-combatants, poison the water supply, kill children or the elderly, kill anyone taking refuge in a holy building (including churches and synagogues), uproot trees, arbitrarily destroy property, commit terrorism (defined as the clandestine use of force), cheat or use treachery, or use torture on anyone (including animals).
These rules, established in Islam a thousand years ago, are stricter than our modern rules of warfare.
Therefore, Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7 was not jihad, because it clearly violated these rules. Suppose Hamas had publicly announced that they were waging war on Israel and then marched in plain sight to attack Israel and limited their attack to only armed soldiers and didn’t destroy any property or kill or injure anyone else. Would that have been jihad? Possibly, under medieval Islamic law, but not under modern Islamic law, because the old rules of military jihad applied to a historical world that had no nation-states or international law, which is not our world today.
Yes, many people on all sides are angry and frustrated and horrified. But cannot we try for compassion in addition to whatever advocacy we are undertaking?
Military jihad is only one kind of jihad. The greater jihad in Islam is the jihad to make oneself a better person. To resist an oppressor, the preferable jihad is the jihad of patient forbearance, which is nonviolent resistance. There’s also jihad by the hand (like doing good works to help people) and jihad by the word (like writing articles like—I hope—this one to try to build bridges and deepen understanding).
Therefore, the tension on university campuses and elsewhere and the rise in hate crimes against both Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans (as well as Muslims and people who “look” Muslim and even Jews advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza), is tragic. Our communities are not enemies. We shouldn’t allow political conflicts to tear us apart. Yes, many people on all sides are angry and frustrated and horrified. But cannot we try for compassion in addition to whatever advocacy we are undertaking?
It is possible to advocate in this situation without dehumanizing and demonizing the other side. Let us not rely on our corporate media to inform us properly, either—this is a complicated situation that deserves cool-headed study. And above all, despite our anger, let us exert ourselves in the difficult jihad of endeavoring to understand the opposite point of view and treating one another like human beings who deserve compassion.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
I’m often asked, as a woman with a degree in Islamic law who speaks about Islam and Muslims, about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s painful to discuss on multitudinous levels, but perhaps the most important (yet misunderstood) fact about this conflict is this: it is a modern political and territorial conflict, not a religious one. One of its terribly heartbreaking consequences is that it has spilled over into the wide world and increased both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.
Why is this not a religious conflict? Before the 20th century, for thirteen hundred years or so, Muslims and Jews got along pretty well, and Jews lived in Muslim lands for centuries. The “they’ve always been at each other’s throats” is lazy nonsense that attempts to rewrite history in light of Israel-Palestine. Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as part of Islam and therefore Jews were considered to be people who had received an earlier revelation from God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are therefore, in the Islamic view, religious cousins. Remarkably, the Qur’an explicitly says that it’s not just Muslims who will go to heaven, but that “the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good—will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve” (2:62). When, in 1492, over 50,000 Jews fled the Spanish Inquisition (from which Muslims also fled), they fled to the Ottoman Empire, which welcomed them. Traditionally, the physician to the Ottoman Sultan was always Jewish.
Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is not motivated by religion, both sides use religious language to advance their agendas. Hamas, though it couches its language in the language of the religious texts, is a nationalist organization, not interested in world dominance but in resisting the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has invoked the biblical reference to Amalek and referred to the bombing of Gaza as a “holy mission.”
Hamas’s brutal and unspeakably gruesome attack on Oct. 7, 2023, which should rightly be condemned, was not an act of religion. Hamas would probably characterize its attack as jihad, but Islamic law is very clear on the rules of jihad, and Hamas violated them.
Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is not motivated by religion, both sides use religious language to advance their agendas.
Islam contains many types of jihad, which means “struggle.” Military jihad is the taking up of arms only in self-defense or to overthrow an oppressor.
But here’s the really critical bit: even in a legitimate jihad to overthrow an oppressor, never are those undertaking jihad ever allowed to kill non-soldiers. Never are they allowed to commit rape or kill civilians. In fact, never are those undertaking jihad ever allowed to kill non-combatants, poison the water supply, kill children or the elderly, kill anyone taking refuge in a holy building (including churches and synagogues), uproot trees, arbitrarily destroy property, commit terrorism (defined as the clandestine use of force), cheat or use treachery, or use torture on anyone (including animals).
These rules, established in Islam a thousand years ago, are stricter than our modern rules of warfare.
Therefore, Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7 was not jihad, because it clearly violated these rules. Suppose Hamas had publicly announced that they were waging war on Israel and then marched in plain sight to attack Israel and limited their attack to only armed soldiers and didn’t destroy any property or kill or injure anyone else. Would that have been jihad? Possibly, under medieval Islamic law, but not under modern Islamic law, because the old rules of military jihad applied to a historical world that had no nation-states or international law, which is not our world today.
Yes, many people on all sides are angry and frustrated and horrified. But cannot we try for compassion in addition to whatever advocacy we are undertaking?
Military jihad is only one kind of jihad. The greater jihad in Islam is the jihad to make oneself a better person. To resist an oppressor, the preferable jihad is the jihad of patient forbearance, which is nonviolent resistance. There’s also jihad by the hand (like doing good works to help people) and jihad by the word (like writing articles like—I hope—this one to try to build bridges and deepen understanding).
Therefore, the tension on university campuses and elsewhere and the rise in hate crimes against both Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans (as well as Muslims and people who “look” Muslim and even Jews advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza), is tragic. Our communities are not enemies. We shouldn’t allow political conflicts to tear us apart. Yes, many people on all sides are angry and frustrated and horrified. But cannot we try for compassion in addition to whatever advocacy we are undertaking?
It is possible to advocate in this situation without dehumanizing and demonizing the other side. Let us not rely on our corporate media to inform us properly, either—this is a complicated situation that deserves cool-headed study. And above all, despite our anger, let us exert ourselves in the difficult jihad of endeavoring to understand the opposite point of view and treating one another like human beings who deserve compassion.
I’m often asked, as a woman with a degree in Islamic law who speaks about Islam and Muslims, about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s painful to discuss on multitudinous levels, but perhaps the most important (yet misunderstood) fact about this conflict is this: it is a modern political and territorial conflict, not a religious one. One of its terribly heartbreaking consequences is that it has spilled over into the wide world and increased both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.
Why is this not a religious conflict? Before the 20th century, for thirteen hundred years or so, Muslims and Jews got along pretty well, and Jews lived in Muslim lands for centuries. The “they’ve always been at each other’s throats” is lazy nonsense that attempts to rewrite history in light of Israel-Palestine. Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as part of Islam and therefore Jews were considered to be people who had received an earlier revelation from God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are therefore, in the Islamic view, religious cousins. Remarkably, the Qur’an explicitly says that it’s not just Muslims who will go to heaven, but that “the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good—will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve” (2:62). When, in 1492, over 50,000 Jews fled the Spanish Inquisition (from which Muslims also fled), they fled to the Ottoman Empire, which welcomed them. Traditionally, the physician to the Ottoman Sultan was always Jewish.
Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is not motivated by religion, both sides use religious language to advance their agendas. Hamas, though it couches its language in the language of the religious texts, is a nationalist organization, not interested in world dominance but in resisting the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has invoked the biblical reference to Amalek and referred to the bombing of Gaza as a “holy mission.”
Hamas’s brutal and unspeakably gruesome attack on Oct. 7, 2023, which should rightly be condemned, was not an act of religion. Hamas would probably characterize its attack as jihad, but Islamic law is very clear on the rules of jihad, and Hamas violated them.
Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is not motivated by religion, both sides use religious language to advance their agendas.
Islam contains many types of jihad, which means “struggle.” Military jihad is the taking up of arms only in self-defense or to overthrow an oppressor.
But here’s the really critical bit: even in a legitimate jihad to overthrow an oppressor, never are those undertaking jihad ever allowed to kill non-soldiers. Never are they allowed to commit rape or kill civilians. In fact, never are those undertaking jihad ever allowed to kill non-combatants, poison the water supply, kill children or the elderly, kill anyone taking refuge in a holy building (including churches and synagogues), uproot trees, arbitrarily destroy property, commit terrorism (defined as the clandestine use of force), cheat or use treachery, or use torture on anyone (including animals).
These rules, established in Islam a thousand years ago, are stricter than our modern rules of warfare.
Therefore, Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7 was not jihad, because it clearly violated these rules. Suppose Hamas had publicly announced that they were waging war on Israel and then marched in plain sight to attack Israel and limited their attack to only armed soldiers and didn’t destroy any property or kill or injure anyone else. Would that have been jihad? Possibly, under medieval Islamic law, but not under modern Islamic law, because the old rules of military jihad applied to a historical world that had no nation-states or international law, which is not our world today.
Yes, many people on all sides are angry and frustrated and horrified. But cannot we try for compassion in addition to whatever advocacy we are undertaking?
Military jihad is only one kind of jihad. The greater jihad in Islam is the jihad to make oneself a better person. To resist an oppressor, the preferable jihad is the jihad of patient forbearance, which is nonviolent resistance. There’s also jihad by the hand (like doing good works to help people) and jihad by the word (like writing articles like—I hope—this one to try to build bridges and deepen understanding).
Therefore, the tension on university campuses and elsewhere and the rise in hate crimes against both Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans (as well as Muslims and people who “look” Muslim and even Jews advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza), is tragic. Our communities are not enemies. We shouldn’t allow political conflicts to tear us apart. Yes, many people on all sides are angry and frustrated and horrified. But cannot we try for compassion in addition to whatever advocacy we are undertaking?
It is possible to advocate in this situation without dehumanizing and demonizing the other side. Let us not rely on our corporate media to inform us properly, either—this is a complicated situation that deserves cool-headed study. And above all, despite our anger, let us exert ourselves in the difficult jihad of endeavoring to understand the opposite point of view and treating one another like human beings who deserve compassion.
