The Word "Irhab"

[TaimiKhan]

The word irhab as mentioned in the Koran

As known to Muslims, the words of praise mentioned in the Koran have a distinguished place. In particular, words mentioned only in the context of praise and honor have a very special significance. The word irhab, is an example to such words. The verse in which this word is mentioned in the Koran is as follows:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike fear into (the hearts of) the enemies of God, and your enemies and others besides, whom you may not know, but whom God does know. Whatever you shall spend for the sake of God shall be repaid unto you and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Anfal 8:60)

Therefore, those who believe in the Koran and hold it as their reference must approach this word with the respect and dignity which it deserves.

The literal meaning of the word irhab mentioned in the verse is "to frighten." However, this is a natural "fright" which arises against the possibility of harm and which acts as a deterring force; it is not harming oneself.[21]

Mufassirs (the Islamic scholars who are proficient commentators on the Koran) have interpreted the word irhab mentioned in the verse as meaning to be equipped with the necessary weapons (such as steeds of war) against the enemy in order to create a deterring force in accordance with the conditions of the day.[22]

Rashid Rida states that the word irhab means not to wage a war, but on the contrary, to prevent war; thus, implying the protection of society, not the destruction of it. He also interprets the aforementioned verse as "preparing the weapons of war to the greatest degree possible, in order to prevent the enemies—known or not—from waging a war or attacks."[23]

In hadiths, the word irhab denotes deterrence,[24] and in the commentaries of the hadiths it is interpreted as such.[25] An-Nihaya, which compiles uncommon words (garib) in the hadiths, explains the word irhab as one's being so powerful that one is able to deter the enemy from attacking and to deter the enemy altogether.[26]

The Companions interpreted this verse as being prepared for warfare, and having a deterrent power. For example, during the reign of 'Umar, there were forty thousand thoroughbred Arabian horses maintained at the ready on one of the farms near Madina; these horses did not go to war, even though there had been confrontations on several fronts. Likewise, near Syria, forty thousand more horses were kept at the ready on reserve. These horses, which were among the most important weapons of war in that time, were being maintained as reserve forces just in case.[27]

As another meaning of the word ribat denotes devoting, dedicating, or assigning some members, either human or animal, to some places, it is possible to interpret the word ribat mentioned in the verse as being prepared and prudent in such ways. Thus, the Koran sets a goal for us as if it were ordering us "to defend and protect our religion, honor, reputation, dignity, our homeland, and all sacred values against the enemies who have malicious intentions; to take all the measures necessary to maintain such power that enables us to do so; and not to give any chance to the enemy."[28]

The scholars of Islamic law also used the word irhab to mean being a deterrent.[29]

As a result, when we examine the structure of the word irhab, its usage, and the meaning that has been given to it in hadith books and commentaries, in the books of Islamic law, and in dictionaries, the following facts come to light:

1) The word irhab as mentioned in the Koran is related to the issue of i'dad; this is a word that means being ready to defend one's sacred values. It aims at preventing transgressions, at precluding tyranny, and at reprimanding the perpetrators of crimes. This issue has been recognized and accepted among societies and nations since the beginning of history, and does not contradict humane values. Who can deny the need for deterrents to daunt criminals, tyrants, aggressors, and invading enemies?

2) Muslim scholars use the word irhab in their works to mean "to discourage the enemy before or during the war, to daunt, and to demoralize spiritually and psychologically."

In the past, these deterrents took on different forms, such as dressing oneself in silk, dying gray hair black, putting on ornaments and jewelry, decorating the sword and its sheath with gold embroidery and designs, confronting an army by oneself, and preparing and training many horses for war. All of these were in accordance with the realities of the conditions of warfare at that time.[30]

Other than the two forms mentioned above, there is no other usage of the word irhab in either the Koran or in the Sunna, nor can it be found in other written works that originate from the Koran or the Sunna. Thus, it would not be correct to interpret the word irhab that is mentioned in the Koran to mean killing innocent people in public areas by tying bombs to one's body, the shedding of blood, the setting of fires, causing damage to houses or property, spreading horror in order to introduce chaos into society nor the use of the Koran as proof supporting these actions.

Additionally, there is another significant issue that must be focused on: all of the classical Arabic dictionaries provide only the word ihafa (to frighten) as the definition of the word irhab. Nevertheless, it has been noticed that in some dictionaries compiled in the second half of the twentieth century the definition of the word irhab has been changed and modified. Intentionally or not, in particular in dictionaries prepared by non-Muslims, the word irhab has been defined as "terrorism."[31] However, it is quite clear that there is an obvious difference between the word irhab, which means "frightening with a deterring power before engaging in a war" and the word "terrorism" which denotes killing, bombing, arson, spreading horror, and committing acts of violence that drive society into chaos.

http://www.mlife.org/content/view/87/71/

 

[waraich66]

The notion of terrorism (irhab) in traditional Islamic thought and its significance today



Alexey Khismatulin



The use of the word ?terrorism? has become a regular phenomenon not only in modern mass media but also in everyday life. Moreover, the notion of ?terrorism? today is often considered to be inseparably connected with Islam. And the need to investigate whether or not the notion of terrorism is rooted in traditional Islamic thought, is obvious. Here I would like to present in a whole just etymological and partly historical point of view on this issue.


The Arabic language mass media use for terrorism the term of irhab which derives from the root of ra-ha-ba. In its verbal form ? rahiba ? the root means ?to fear? or ?to dread?, and irhab means ?to put fear into somebody?. Derivatives of the root occur in the Quran 12 times. The Quranic context clearly shows that nearly in all cases the root and its derivatives indicate a so-called pre-Islamic fear of God (or in front of God). And, strictly speaking, even the Christian fear of God. Everybody can trace it, using any printed concordance of the Quran. Hence, the one who is fearful of God, is called rahib (plural form: ruhban), a term traditionally translated into English as ?Christian monk.? In Persian language, the term of tarsa ? most likely to be a word-for-word translation from the Arabic rahib ? is solely used to denominate a Christian, not the Christian monk. One more Quranic derivative of the root, namely rahbaniyya is usually understood as Christian monkish life, or monkhood. But in the Quran, there is no mention of irhab at all, in this particular form. However, due to the definite Quranic meaning of its root, irhab could have been comprehended by a medieval Muslim as ?to put the Christian fear of God into a Christian?. Hence one is inclined to ask: whether or not this would also be meaningful for the former to do so with the latter or, in other words, to act as a terrorist?


To answer this question we have to fully realize that the notion of ?terrorism? relates to peace times only. Conversely, under the war conditions, it looses its meaning. And if we follow up this line of thought to its logical outcome, everybody would even become a terrorist under war conditions, imposing fear onto the enemy in order to overcome the enemy and to win battle or war. The negative connotation implied in the word ?terrorism? would be lost indeed; instead, it would signify now ?heroism? and ?self-sacrifice.? There are thousands samples of such behavior in any war, including the First and the Second World War.


While speaking about self-sacrifice, traditional Islamic thought takes into consideration the same two states: war and peace. For the state of peace, a Muslim can put the fear of God into another Muslim even by force and even being threatened with death in order to fulfill amr bi-l-ma?ruf wa nahiyy ?an al-munkar if this other Muslim does anything against Islamic commandments. What for? To get an afterlife?s reward. There are many samples of such behavior between Muslims under peace conditions, noted by written tradition throughout the Islamic history. But the term being in used in such case for fear is takhwif and khawf deriving from the root of kh-a-fa which means ?to fear Allah?. This root is likely to be hardly valuable for non-Muslims, or rather isn?t applicable to non-Muslims at all. So, the sphere or field of using takhwif is limited with the context of amr bi-l-ma?ruf wa nahiyy ?an al-munkar which means ?an imperative to the declared postulates and a prohibition against the rejected things?.


Being in this context, we face two important facts: the first one, any Muslim should fulfill amr bi-l-ma?ruf wa nahiyy ?an al-munkar; and the second one, only imam, or the leader of a Muslim community has the full right to change the peace conditions for those of war, or, in other words, to declare the war between two Muslim communities. As we told above, terrorism looses its meaning under the state of war; therefore we?ll consider just the first case. According to the Sunni tradition, there are several general regulations for a Muslim to put fear of Allah into another Muslim in order to curb or to stop the rejected things. Such action has its own juridical term ? hisba.


The first pattern of behavior: when he knows that he would be certainly beaten by sinners, and they wouldn?t recant to sin. In this case he is allowed to stop them by words or by hands and to suffer from their beats, but this is not obligatory for him to do so.


The second pattern: when he knows that he can restrain them from a sin without any apprehension and risk. In such circumstances he should do it, otherwise he himself becomes a sinner.


The third pattern: when he knows that they wouldn?t recant to sin but they can?t beat him as well. In such circumstances it?s obligatory for him to curb them just by words in order to glorify the canon of God. I would like to attract your attention to this pattern, since this algorithm of behavior is widespread among modern Muslim leaders, while Western mass media often consider it or at least present such oral statements as a direct threat, in most cases intentionally.


The forth pattern: when he knows that he can eradicate a sin but he would be beaten by sinners for sure, for example, he breaks a bottle with wine in the hands of a Muslim. In this case he is allowed to do it, but this is not obligatory for him.


As you see, each regulation which consists of oral takhwif and accompanying actions depends on a religious environment. It should be added that even if the Muslim who belongs to one juridical school (madhhab) sees something controversial done by a Muslim of another school in accordance with the latter norms and prescriptions, he has no right to put him into fear and to force him to act in a different way. The point is that the above-mentioned regulations don?t lead to self-sacrifice. By the end of the eleventh century, imam al-Ghazali in his famous writing entitled as the Ihya? ?ulum al-din (?Revitalization of the religious sciences?) says about the religious environment more clearly:


?If a Muslim sees the dissolute one having a sword in one hand and a cup of wine in another, and he knows for sure that if he would go for him then the dissolute one drains the cup and wrings his neck, in this case I see no reason to curb, since it looks like the ruination of him. While the reason is that his self-sacrifice should anyhow affect the religion. Otherwise, to doom oneself to be ruined for nothing doesn?t mean anything. Moreover, it should be prohibited?.


I have to remind you that here al-Ghazali speaks about Muslim sinners and Muslim environment. The Shi?a Muslims even came to a principle of takiyya for any hostile environment that is to cover religious affiliation in order to survive. All these ways of behavior correspond to the content of the 195th Quranic verse of surat al-Baqara which in translation sounds like this: ?Expend on the way of Allah, and don?t doom yourself with your own hands to ruin?. It should be noted here that there are many understandings and interpretations (tafasir) of the meaning of this verse, sometimes very and very contradictory. However, elaborations of the main Muslim juridical schools show that the proposed interpretation seems to be closer to the truth than any possible others, wa-Allahu a?lam.


Hence, the religious environment becomes a main condition when the Muslim finds himself in the non-Muslim environment being, for example, on the Christian territory. Then there is no reason for him to put fear into Christians by fulfilling amr bi-l-ma?ruf wa nahiyy ?an al-munkar, for example, to break the bottles with wine, to force the Christian women to put on hijab, and to act more dramatically. All these actions will be useless, since the things rejected by Islam wouldn?t be removed, and therefore the Muslim who sacrifices himself in such circumstances, doesn?t become a shahid. In the opposite case, all Muslim travelers and merchants, visited non-Muslim territories in medieval times, should have been involved there in prohibiting the things that rejected by Islam, or all of them, without exclusion, should have been sinners.


To sum up. Terrorism as a phenomenon which has its sense only under peace conditions can hardly be traced in Medieval Islamic thought. As for the Isma?ili murderers in medieval times, they are considered by me perhaps to have paralleled with some kind of the politically ordered murders which, being distinguished from the acts of terror, often happens nowadays also. The term of irhab, strictly speaking, should have been meaningless for the Muslims, and the Christian fear of God doesn?t make any sense for them, since they have their own fear ? fear of Allah, i.e. khawf. To my mind, the Arabic language has just found a denomination for this unfamiliar notion, belonging to another cultural tradition. Irhab is likely to be some kind of an Arabic neologism, a newly-invented word, which came into being, perhaps, by the second half of the 20th century. This supposition is confirmed by the Persian language where the word ?terrorism? has entered as such.


One question still remains unanswered, that?s: why we see most of the acts of terrorism done by the Muslims? There are two possible answers. The first one. Some political purposes are covered with religious slogans which have nothing to do with Islamic religion. The second one. Some Muslim communities being led by their leaders (imams and mujtahids) are in the state of war due to different reasons. In other words, many things that are shown by mass media from the one side as the acts of terrorism done under peace conditions, from the other side are the acts of heroism and self-sacrifice done under war conditions. Therefore, each case should be scrutinized separately and carefully.