2010/03/25 by Nick Chatrath · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Diverse Philosophical and Cultural Studies #Historical and Linguistic Studies #Biblical Studies and Interpretation #Revelation #Islam #Arabic #Viewpoints #Opposition (politics) #Religious studies #Sociology #Relevance (law) #History #Law #Theology #Philosophy #Political science #Art #Politics #Visual arts #Linguistics
paper · doi:10.1080/09596411003687852
openalex publication_date 2010/03/25 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
The words ‘religion’ and ‘violence’ have rarely been as closely associated as they are today and many attempts have been made to understand the theological justification for this association. Many interviews have been conducted about how such violence (or opposition to it) is justified within Islam in the UK today, and numerous articles and books have engaged with pre-modern sources. However, few studies have combined these two approaches. This article reports relevant parts of two interviews, with Anjem Choudary formerly of al-Muhajiroun and Musharraf Hussain of the Muslim Council of Britain, which focused on how each justified his view on whether jihad involved physical violence, and then focuses on the issue best encapsulating differences between them: the relevance of al-nāsikh wa-al-mansūkh and contexts for revelation of Q 9.29. The article then considers Arabic sources of the first three hijrī centuries, reflecting on how ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ viewpoints have arisen, and ends with some observations on the importance of the interaction of modern day and pre-modern historical analysis.