Every time a terror attack occurs, sections of the Muslim ulema rush to the media to insist, “This is not real jihad. The real jihad is the struggle against one’s own self."

This narrative is quickly reinforced online. Muslims on social media begin offering explanations that jihad does not mean killing innocents and that such violence has nothing to do with Islam. Rather than confronting the underlying doctrine, these responses function as deflection, not clarification.

At the other end of the spectrum, some preachers advance an entirely different—but equally problematic—framework. Figures such as Zakir Naik divide terrorists into two categories: “good terrorists," who terrorise so-called anti-social elements, and “bad terrorists," who kill innocents. This distinction traces back to the writings of Syed Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood.

What unites these divergent narratives is a shared premise: for every jihadi, the opponent is always defined as an enemy. Any non-Muslim who does not believe in Allah becomes expendable. This logic was articulated explicitly by US-based Mufti Nadeem Wadji in a recent podcast that went viral and raised widespread concern on social media.

Some Muslims argue that a “true Muslim" can never be a terrorist. Yet Sunni militants themselves offer elaborate justifications for violence, drawing primarily from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Shiite militants, meanwhile, ground their legitimacy in historical narratives of resistance against oppression from Koofa and Basrah. These parallel justifications expose a deeper problem—not the absence of theology, but the absence of consensus.

At the centre of this confusion lies an unresolved question: who defines “oppression"?

For Iranian protesters, the Khamenei regime is oppressive. For Iran-backed Hezbollah, Western powers represent oppression. For many Syrian Muslims, Khamenei is oppressive and the late Qasem Soleimani was a mass murderer; for Shiite Muslims, however, Soleimani was a mujahid—a holy warrior defending the religion of the Masumeen.

Such radically divergent moral frameworks, drawn from the same religious tradition, have produced enduring theological and political confusion.

This confusion is compounded by the fact that the Qur’an explicitly addresses jihad. It does so without apology or euphemism. The text is direct and unambiguous about when jihad is permitted, when it is forbidden, and even which months prohibit it.

Classical Islamic exegesis often presents jihad as a manifestation of divine wrath against non-believers. After the nine signs shown to Pharaoh and the........

© News18