Notion of Jihad in the Bhagavad Gita

[Hyperborean]

Between Asgard and the Western Paradise » Blog Archive » Jihad in the Earliest Hindu Texts

I will post an article from my blog. Please tell me what you think about it either here or over at my site.

Here, we refer to Jihad as meaning "struggle" or "striving", not in the contemporary sense of "Holy war". although the manifestations of Jihad may involve physical combat. The Bhagavad Gita tells of Arjuna's despondency at having to kill his own kinsmen. But Krishna tells him that he need not be worried, for if the Kauravas are ignoble, then there is no harm done to the world in the battle them. Likewise, if the Pandavas are fighting for the sake of Dharma (or, more generally, rta), then there is no sense in expressing grief for righteous conduct, for “in death [they] will gain heaven” (Bhagavad Gîtâ 2.37).

According to the earliest Hindu texts, fighting for the sake of higher causes was definitely permissible, and even obligatory. Through the physical act of battle, they fufill the martial aspect of the warrior, and in in striving to enjoin the righteous and preserve moral harmony without involving personal concern, they fufill the spiritual aspect of the ascetic.

[zenzero]

Friend hyperborean,
Krishna tells Arjuna to fight against the *WRONG* even if the body belongs to his blood relations.
Jehad as understood is *Holy War* who ever does not believe in Islam are not holy and therefore should be killed. Which means all non -islam beleivers are non -beleivers and so not fit to survive?
Mahabharata the Pandavs killed their own broethrs because they represented what was *WRONG*.
Love & rgds

[Hyperborean]

Originally Posted by zenzero

Friend hyperborean,
Krishna tells Arjuna to fight against the *WRONG* even if the body belongs to his blood relations.
Jehad as understood is *Holy War* who ever does not believe in Islam are not holy and therefore should be killed. Which means all non -islam beleivers are non -beleivers and so not fit to survive?
Mahabharata the Pandavs killed their own broethrs because they represented what was *WRONG*.
Love & rgds

This is exactly the point i was trying to make. Krishna tells Arjuna that he needs to prevent the wrong and enjoin the good. There is no wrong in killing the enemies of the Dharma.

The real meaning of "Jihad" is "to struggle". This means to struggle against evil. It does not say, specifically to go and kill anyone simply because they are not Muslim, but rather to defend Islam from those wrongdoers who undermine it.

[Mjolnir]

In the Bhagavad-gita it also describes the three forms of action. Physical struggle is a lesser form of action than the sagely pursuit. People who follow the way to struggle will still come back to earth, but if they follow the higher form of action they will achieve moksha. (Sorry I forgot the two sanskrit words for the forms of action)

[Don Penguinoini]

Islam isnt in a struggle. So the need for Jihad in none.

[zenzero]

Friend Hyperborean,

The real meaning of "Jihad" is "to struggle". This means to struggle against evil. It does not say, specifically to go and kill anyone simply because they are not Muslim, but rather to defend Islam from those wrongdoers who undermine it.

Once again; Mahabharat war was not against others doing WRONG against a particular religion.
It is between broethrs who were on the side of the wrong.
There is nothing good or bad even in killing. The purpose [desire] is what matters.
Pandavas did not go about killing anyone or eveyone connected with the Kauravas but only those on the battle field as it was DECIDED to fight between BOTH the parties.
In Jihad one is killing innocent people who did not even wrong anyone forget Islam besides they [THE TWO PARTIES] did not decided that they will settle the matter by fighting a war.
Jihad operations are simply back stabbing and where innocent people are getting killed.
Islam cannot say this country is wrong. Mahabharat pinpointed the people involved in wrong doing and told them that they need to fight to settle the matter.
In jihad the pawns are getting killed as they are poor and need money for their families but the real generals never come in the picture.
There is no way One can use Mahabharata as an excuse for Jihad.
Love & rgds

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by Hyperborean

According to the earliest Hindu texts, fighting for the sake of higher causes was definitely permissible, and even obligatory.

Earlier or later texts, all require a hindu to fight when 'dharma' requires it. But there is a finer obligation that you have missed. Would the person who fights should be angry and hate his adversary? That is against the spirit of 'dharmic' fight. You must remember that you and your adversary are not different. That you and your adversary, both, are parts of the same Brahman. It is like soldiers of Indian and Pakistani army fighting each other. They fight because it is their duty and not for any personal enemity. That means that if one is captured in battle, he should be treated humanely. Taking prisoners is better than killing. Your purpose is served. Remember the more than one hundred thousand Palistani soldiers who were handed back to Pakistan after Bangla war. It also involves burying the killed enemy soldiers according to their faith and full military honors. They died for their country, they died for their duty. They should be respected for that. During the Mahabharata war, adversaries would mingle freely after sunset when according to traditions the war must stop for the day. What muslims think of 'jehad' is none of our concerns, they will answer to their God. Regards.

[michaelm]

I agree the most important point is that it is done with a cool mind, not exactly easy in wartime!! We all want clear answers...war should be wrong, full stop, but it isnt like that. we sometimes have to make a judgement as to which is the better thing to do. This is very difficult - thus warfare should be very much last resort, and not done due to ego, passion, anger.

It must also be remembered that Krishna sought compromise all the way. He gave the others every chance to have peace, even on very favourable terms. War became necessary only to prevent much greater harm to many others. It would have been wrong for Arjuna to not fight. That would have meant he would leave the nation to be ruled by cruel unfair rulers. It was his duty to fight for their protection and salvation and selfish to refuse.

As to Islamic jihad...the concept that it involves killing non-Muslims is a very narrow, extreme and unfair representation. It can mean fighting 'evil' or wrongdoing, not necessarily against non-Muslims. It is often defined as an internal stuggle, in a similar way to Gandhi's interpretaiton of the Gita. As a pacifist and also lover of the Gita, for Gandhi the Gita was not about warfare at all, purely about the internal struggle. From what I have learnt this is perhaps not correct, but I hesitate to contradict Gandhi!

[Aupmanyav]

Don't hesitate if it is wrong, be it Gandhi or Buddha. Gandhi said my God is Truth (or something like that), Buddha said don't believe just because it is in the books or some renowned person says so, Rama says in Valmiki Ramayana 'no position higher than truth' (Satyen Nasti Param Padam). Rama's kiling of Bali was wrong, Rama's sending off Sita to forest was wrong, though there are arguments for it.

[Suraj]

Hyperborean,

I can see how you would interpret the Mahabharata war as a jihad. It was indeed a holy war. However, the philosophy of dharma in the Mabharata and the philosophy of Jihad in the Quran are diametrically opposite. The Mahabharata was the culmination of several transgressions by the the Kuruvs against the Pandavas and several attempts of diplomacy by the Pandavas and Krishna to make peace. Every effort was made to make peace with the Kuruvs, the Pandavas even accepted a deal from the Kuruvs where Duryodhana would rule Hastinapur, and Padavas were given a small barren land, Indraprastha. They transformed that barren land into a magnificent palace and flourishing kingdom and attracted once again the envy of Duryodhana. Then Duryodhana conspired to take Indraprastha off them as well and challenged them to another game of dice, which they lost and were exiled for 14 years and 1 year of disguise, and if they were caught, they would be sent for another 14 years exile. Even after that, Duryodhana did not leave them alone, and despite their last effort to ask for peace by sending Krishna as their messenger to court, they still were snubbed. It was only then that it became necessary for the Mahabharata to take place. All the peaceful options were exhausted, and now this war had to be fought not only for the interests of the Pandavas, but for higer ideals like righteousness and truth.

In comparison, Jihad as I understand it is it not fought for righteousness and truth, but it is fought for to safeguard the interests of Islam. Historically it has been used for expansion through conquest to kill the infidels and today it is used to spread terrorism. And it seems that most of the time war is not a last resort but a first resort in Islam.

Hence, there is a world of a difference between the Mahabharata war and Jihad wars.