The concept of jihād is a controversial topic of discussion among both Muslim and Western scholars, but it also a widely misused and misinterpreted term that needs to be carefully analyzed. 

Linguistically, the term jihād derives from the Arabic verb “jāhada” which is classically defined as exerting one’s utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability when contending with an object. Such an object is categorized in literature as deriving from one of three sources: a visible enemy; the devil, and aspects of one’s own self. There are therefore many kinds of jihād, and most have nothing to do with warfare. 

Nonetheless, it is the militant form of jihād that is by far the most controversial form of jihād. International jurists assert jihād’s incompatibility with public international law, while Muslim scholars have not yet reached a consensus on the functions of jihād. 

Shaykh Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī, head of the International Union for Muslim Scholars [see:www.iumsonline.net/english/index.shtml], believes that within Islamic circles there are two main readings of the function of jihād: the first reading sees jihād as a defensive tool, and declaring jihād against disbelievers is only allowed in cases of Muslims being attacked by them, otherwise Muslims are not required or even allowed to declare jihād against them. 

According to the second reading, jihād is initiated to go to war against non-Muslims under specific restrictions. Apostasy, according to this reading, is a reason in itself for waging a legitimate jihād. 

Notably, even for those who adopt only the defensive reading, jihād is acknowledged as the initiative for an attack under certain circumstances. These circumstances could include; securing the borders of the Islamic ummah when threatened by its enemies, rescuing Muslim prisoners of war and Muslim minorities if they are suffering from persecution or torture related to their beliefs in a non-Muslim country. 

Regardless of whether jihād is employed as a preemptive or defensive action, war in Islam does not provide any excuse for being unethical for the purpose of achieving victory. The Qur'ān provided Muslims not only with a code of conduct for warriors and the treatment of prisoners of war (which exceeds even the regulations of the Geneva Convention), but also with pre-war rules. 

Still, many questions remain unanswered. What can be considered an 'outside attack' when there is no united Islamic ummah in today's world? The absence of an Islamic caliph as the head of the Islamic ummah as a basic prerequisite for jihād leaves the Muslim community without a leader who could legitimately call for jihād. Is it therefore acceptable – in this context – to legitimize Islamist groups and movements as actors conducting jihād on behalf of the ummah? 

While Islamic scholars and jurists are far from reaching a consensus on these questions, new varieties of jihād are developing. One of the most recent forms is e-jihād. "Cyberspace wars," which can include hacking, cracking, and disruptive technological applications for the purpose of da^cwah. Websites and chat rooms provide a platform for discussions about militant jihād as well as for the transmission of information among Islamic groups. Al-Qā^cidah is one example of such militant groups that utilize the Internet to transmit information and instructions for real operations on the ground. 

A different concept of jihād is represented by Islamic circles that are looking for a more reconciliatory and practicable way of jihād under current international circumstances. Advocates of "civic jihād" perceive jihād as a valuable "historical" act related to a certain period, not as a duty imposed by God. They adduce that in Islamic history when Muslims declared militant jihād, the objective of the struggle was to illuminate injustice and defend the faith; the struggle was not to be considered an aggression especially since it was restricted by a code of ethics and values that are humane in nature. Considering these ethical restrictions, militant jihād in the modern era with the use of the modern weaponry system is incompatible with the Islamic law on war. Therefore, adherents of this concept suggest that civic jihād be conducted by supporting civil society, activating national dialogue, supporting the human rights movement, fostering dialogue between civilizations while avoiding any use of force. 

With so many versions of jihād, so many questions unanswered, so many concepts only vaguely defined, it is obvious to both Islamic and Western scholars that Islamic literature in general, and on the question of war in particular, has to be reread and its ideas made compatible with and adapted to the social, political, and economic circumstances of the 21^st century.