The Disputed Bounds of Muslim Warfare

The justificatory grounds of Muslim war have long been subject to various interpretive analyses, which have taken customary, literalist, revivalist or reformist modalities of hermeneutics. Although scholars of jihad stand on a broader intellectual terrain, one may identify two major streams of thought: the ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ schools. The principal bone of contention between these schools appertains to the question of whether a legitimate jihad is confined to self-defensive measures alone, or whether it may transcend such measures and be fought in furtherance of political ambitions. This article critically analyses such doctrinal views on Islamic jus ad bellum, arguing that the mainstream depiction of jihad is largely mono-dimensional that fails to capture the overall phenomenon within its contingent framework.