What is Jihad?

We all know that Islam gets a bit of a bad rap in Western discourse and coverage. And because of this, many

coverage. And because of this, many people who aren't familiar with the religion associate it with things like violence, oppression, and conflict. And

in all of this, one word that often comes up is jihad. A word that is often taken to

jihad. A word that is often taken to mean something like holy war. But this

is a word and a concept that is often very misunderstood.

In fact, many Muslims around the world are quite frustrated that people like these jihadist groups have sort of hijacked the term and turned it into something that it shouldn't be or that

it hasn't been previously. So, what is actually jihad? What does this term

actually jihad? What does this term mean? And how have Muslims understood it

mean? And how have Muslims understood it historically?

[Music] [Applause]

[Music] First of all, we need to get rid of the most obvious and common

misunderstanding, the Arabic word jihad.

does not mean holy war. Rather, it means something like struggle or striving. And this becomes important for

striving. And this becomes important for our understanding of the concept and to broaden our understanding of what it means. For most Muslims in the world,

means. For most Muslims in the world, jihad is indeed an important concept and part of the religion. But this doesn't mean that they are referring to the military jihad that that so many of the

rest of us associate with it. It can

mean any kind of jihad or struggle that is spiritual or connected to religion in some way. Jihad is a struggle or

some way. Jihad is a struggle or striving in the cause of religion. And

this can mean striving to be a kind person, striving to fight against injustice, struggle to fight climate change, something that has become known as green jihad and much else. in the

Quran which is the earliest source that we have for Islam and its history. Jihad

in other words to write from the same root jada so jimal is mentioned several times and here they can take both military and

non-military meanings. So the word jihad

non-military meanings. So the word jihad and its and its cognates is used in the Quran. Uh and sometimes it's used as in

Quran. Uh and sometimes it's used as in a sort of military and and violent way other times not. Right? So it can mean both. The same is true of hadiths which

both. The same is true of hadiths which are the sayings of the prophet Muhammad and reports of his actions and proclamations. Indeed, one of these

proclamations. Indeed, one of these hadiths has become very famous in this regard. It is told that when returning

regard. It is told that when returning from a battle, the prophet Muhammad said that quote, "You are now returning from the lesser jihad, jihad also to the

greater jihad, jihad alkbar."

And the greater jihad here refers to the inner jihad, the fight against the self and the ego to be a better person. And

the lesser jihad is the actual exterior military jihad. Now, some have argued

military jihad. Now, some have argued and will argue that this particular hadith is inauthentic, that it's chain of transmission, for example, is less than ideal and therefore that is not an

authentic hadith of the prophet. This

doesn't really matter for our purposes here because Muslims across history have seen it as authentic and used it as such. Right? That's all that really

such. Right? That's all that really matters for our discussion. Indeed, the

major Muslim scholar from the 17th and 18th century, Abdel Nablusi, writes in one of his letters that the major jihad, defined as the struggle against the

internal enemies, is more important than the lesser military jihad. Since, quote,

"The faithful is in a constant struggle against himself in order to avert his corrupting tendencies until he dies, whereas his struggle against the infidels is different. It is on at

certain times and off at others.

Moreover, the famous medieval scholar and polymath Iban Hassim conceives of four kinds of jihad. The jihad of the heart, jihad, combating the devil and

one's own evil inclinations. There is

the jihad of the tongue, jihad bis, which is speaking the truth and spreading the religion through words and the tongue. There is jihad of the hand,

the tongue. There is jihad of the hand, jihad, to do right in the world, to give to charity and to combat injustice. And

then lastly, the jihad of the sword, jihad bil safe, which is fighting against the exterior enemies of the religion. And that last point is

religion. And that last point is important because with all of these disclaimers so far out of the way, you know, we should keep all this that we've said in mind, which should nuance the

discussion, the understanding of jihad in the more broad sense, which is very important for the understanding of jihad within Islam. Uh at the same time there

within Islam. Uh at the same time there is no denying that for example when we read the earliest manuals of Islamic law, the earliest uh writings of Islam,

when it refers to jihad, it primarily refers to military jihad, refers to warfare, right? This has been a reality

warfare, right? This has been a reality in the religion and has been a very important part of the religion and there's no turning away from that. So

with all that said, how has this particular form of jihad, what IBM calls the jihad of the sword, the exterior jihad in form in the form of warfare and

and and uh you know violence so to say.

How has this been understood and conceived by Muslims historically? We

can begin by looking at the earliest sources and origins of Islam, namely of course the Quran and the stories about the prophet Muhammad and his community.

As we said, the word jihad and its cognate can be found in plenty of places in the Quran, but here the type of struggle is varied. Sometimes clearly

not referring to war or violence and at other times being ambivalent. But there

are at least a few cases where it certainly seems to refer to military war and conflict. And in general, such

and conflict. And in general, such verses in the Quran are definitely there. Part of the revelation that

there. Part of the revelation that Muhammad is said to have received and the actions of him and his community included using force as part of the wider struggle in the way of God.

Reading the Quran, we can conclude at the very least that the early believers, so the followers of Muhammad were allowed to use force and violence/war in self-defense in order to protect

themselves against foreign aggression.

for example, fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Indeed, God does not love aggressors. And many Muslims will

aggressors. And many Muslims will basically stop here and say that this is the only kind of violence that is actually allowed within Islam, the kind that is in self-defense. Now, some might

object here and point to many other verses of the Quran that point to more offensive warfare. But usually when

offensive warfare. But usually when these are quoted by critics as well as some Muslims who want to justify war, they will ignore the verses that follow which usually nuance the previous

statement. So for example, the famous

statement. So for example, the famous sword verse in surah uh 9, it says, "But once the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheist who violated their

treaties wherever you find them. Capture

them, besiege them, and lie and wait for them on every way." So that's often quoted by by critics of Islam, for example. But they often neglect to also

example. But they often neglect to also include the the next verse which says, "But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms tax, then set them free.

Indeed, Allah is all forgiving and most merciful. And if anyone from the

merciful. And if anyone from the polytheist ask for your protection, oh prophet, grant it to them so that he may hear the word of Allah, then escort them to a place of safety, for they are a

people who have no knowledge."

Some will argue for this view of self-defense, but not everyone, of course. And many of the early believers

course. And many of the early believers certainly seems to have held that part of the wider Islamic movement and religion included a struggle to spread the rule of Islam, what would later

become known as the dar Islam, the abode of Islam to the rest of the world. Some

of the actions of Muhammad's community during his life indicate that they had a kind of expansionist tendency, although counterarguments can and have certainly been made. But certainly in the periods

been made. But certainly in the periods after the prophet's death with the early caiffs, we see an expansionist policy being put into practice as the Arabs went on to conquer an impressively large

portion of the world at the time. And

when the early sources talk about jihad in the military sense, it usually includes a collective call to spread the rule of Islam, which they saw as a just society basically to the rest of the

world. Worth pointing out here is that

world. Worth pointing out here is that there really wasn't any emphasis at all really on spreading Islam as a religion.

In fact, for the early um caliphates and the early decades and centuries of Islam, the idea of of of other peoples other than Arabs becoming Muslims seems

to have been outright um disliked. They

didn't want people to convert to Islam.

It was seen as an Arab religion, at least by some uh in the early leadership of of Muhammad's community and and successors. And indeed in the Quran it

successors. And indeed in the Quran it very emphatically states that there shall be no compulsion in religion. And

the early taps commentators on the Quran all seem to interpret this in the the clear sense that it seems to uh to have

in that religion including Islam is not allowed to be forced on anyone. No one

is supposed to be forced to convert.

Right? So this was a very important part of that early community. Now even though it was uncommon and seemed to go against the basic ideas of the Quran and the

early community, of course it still did happen in certain uh circumstances and there were also certain circumstances where you know there were certain like

loopholes like even though no one was forcibly converted they were still put in a certain position to where converting would have been most beneficial to them etc. Right? So there

are there are nuances even to this question but this was uh parts of of this early uh Islamic policy right and

this fact can be very much seen in the fact that um the majority of people living in Islamic lands living in the Islamic caliphates the um caliphate the

Abbasic caliphate were still majority non-Muslim for centuries after the Muslim conquest right these areas did not become majority Muslims until maybe

the 900s, right? It was many centuries before that happened. So conversion to Islam of the local peoples were very gradual process and it wasn't especially

in the early period wasn't really pushed on anyone and there were clear political and economic reasons behind this as we will see and this is also an essential

part of the very character of Islam especially as it appeared in this early period in the Quran and the policies of the early believers especially it becomes clear that the wider category of

Islam as a social system and religious worldview included and embraced other religions as part of that wider phenomenon and the scope of Islam so to

say. The Quran talks about other

say. The Quran talks about other religions especially Christianity and Judaism and even though it criticizes them on a number of points, it still includes them as existing religious

groups within an Islamic framework. The

Quran seems to indicate that churches and synagogues are forbidden to be destroyed. For example, quote, "They are

destroyed. For example, quote, "They are those who have been expelled from their homes, and for no reason other than proclaiming, our Lord is Allah." Had

Allah not replied the aggression of some people by means of others, destruction would have surely claimed monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah's name is often mentioned.

Allah will certainly help those who stand up for him. Allah is truly all powerful, almighty, which many Islamic scholars have interpreted in this precise way. if it hasn't even

precise way. if it hasn't even supposedly argued based on this that it was obligatory for Muslims to fight to help protect such religious buildings from attack by others. And the Quran

even seems to indicate of course depending on who is interpreting and who you ask that at least some Christians, Jews and other quote unquote believers will end up in paradise. Even if we don't follow the more quote unquote

radical interpretation of someone like Fred Donner, there is no denying that Islam had this general characteristic at the very least in the very earliest phases of its development. This

semi-perennialist tendency and scope of Islam as a whole is very significant for its time. And while it's certainly true

its time. And while it's certainly true that these non-Muslims were forced to pay the Jazia tax in order to practice their religion freely, this is still profoundly inclusive for its historical

context. Compared to other empires at

context. Compared to other empires at that time who sometimes outright forbade religious minorities from existing altogether. It was convert or die.

altogether. It was convert or die.

Whereas in Islam, this was at least in theory not really on the table, even if it definitely did happen from time to time. This is getting us a bit off

time. This is getting us a bit off topic, but it shows you that this idea of spreading Islam um as a religion forcing people to convert was really not on the table at least in the early

period and really for most of history even though again it did happen. uh in

the early period uh they were actively against this idea especially the Umiad caliphate seems to have been actively against non-Arabs converting and and

aside from whatever reasons you want to highlight for this I think one of the main reasons was of course economical because when the Muslims conquered the

land non-Muslims and non-Arabs in the early days were forced to pay the Jiza the tax which did allow them freedom to practice their religion uh and to go

about their day basically uh while they sort of pay tax and and answered to to the kiff. If a bunch of people converted

the kiff. If a bunch of people converted to Islam, they didn't have to pay the tax anymore. That would significantly

tax anymore. That would significantly impact the economy of the state. Now

there wouldn't be as much income to the state. Right? So they actively did not

state. Right? So they actively did not want people to convert for that reason.

And we see this for example in the fact that uh during the early omay caliphate when non-Arabs converted like say persians would have converted to Islam

they still had to pay the the jazia even though they were now Muslims they were non-Arab Muslims they still had to pay the jiza right so you see that this this income from this tax was very important

to the state which is one of the reasons why people weren't really encouraged to convert to the religion but my point is that that when the the Islamic religion

was spread often through military conquest. Uh it was to spread the rule

conquest. Uh it was to spread the rule of Islam, the the data Islam as we'll get into this term later on. This this

uh abode of Islam which included within itself Christian, Jews, other religions were included within the wider scope of this Islamic

um framework. This is this this abode of

um framework. This is this this abode of Islam. uh not everyone was to convert to

Islam. uh not everyone was to convert to Islam but but certainly military action was taken to spread this wider rule of Islam. So war was part of the early

Islam. So war was part of the early Muslim story. There is no denying that

Muslim story. There is no denying that the prophet participated in wars whether only defensively or not and his followers would use military means to expand their rule over vast parts of the

world. So how did these Muslims actually

world. So how did these Muslims actually think about conducting war then? Well,

here the early Muslims are very significant as they developed some of the earliest examples of what is called just war theory, a systematic conception

of when war is justified and perhaps more significantly how war is to be conducted in a just way. In Latin, the official terms for this is adbellum,

right to war, and juinbellum, right or justice in war. Even before these traditions became more firmly established in the law schools and early jurists of Islam, we find their sources

and the earliest expressions of core ideas already in the stories about the prophet and his companions. For example,

before they would go out into a battle, the prophet spoke to his companions and instructed them on how war should be conducted. Quote, "Set out for jihad in

conducted. Quote, "Set out for jihad in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah. Do not lay hands on the old

Allah. Do not lay hands on the old verging on death, on women, children, and babies. Do not steal anything from

and babies. Do not steal anything from the booty and collect together all that falls to your lot in the battlefield and do good. For Allah loves the virtuous

do good. For Allah loves the virtuous and the pious. Collecting all the statements from different sources of hadiths, one can find a couple of different recurring rules for warfare

according to the prophet. Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elderly or sick person. Do not practice treachery

sick person. Do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not uproot or burn palms

mutilation. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not

slaughter a sheep or cow or a camel except for food. A direct quote, "If one fights his brother, he must avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam. Do not kill the

monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. Do

not destroy the villages and towns. Do

not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.

Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy. Pray to God to grant you

enemy. Pray to God to grant you security. But when you are forced to

security. But when you are forced to encounter them, exercise patience. No one may punish with fire

patience. No one may punish with fire except the Lord of fire. Accustom

yourselves to do good if people do good and to not do wrong even if they commit evil. These are pretty significant

evil. These are pretty significant points that he's making and I'm sure some of you will be surprised. But this

is not exclusive to the prophet himself either. We can confirm that these ideals

either. We can confirm that these ideals were upheld as important by his companions and followers as we find very similar statements made by some of the early caibs. For example, there was a

early caibs. For example, there was a report about Abu Bakr saying, quote, "Stop, O people, that I may give you 10 rules for guidance on the battlefield.

Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Do not kill a woman, a

dead bodies. Do not kill a woman, a child, or an aged man. Do not cut down fruitful trees. Do not destroy inhabited

fruitful trees. Do not destroy inhabited areas. Do not slaughter any of the

areas. Do not slaughter any of the enemy's sheep, cow, or camel except for food. Do not burn down date palms, nor

food. Do not burn down date palms, nor inundate them. Do not embezzle,

inundate them. Do not embezzle, misappropriation of Buddha or responsive war, nor be guilty of cowardliness. You

are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services. Leave them alone. And when we

services. Leave them alone. And when we look at the historical and archaeological evidence for the early Arab expansion, there is a lot to support the idea that these general

rules were followed for the most part.

It's often claimed that Islam was quote unquote spread by the sword. But what

does that actually mean? If we mean that in the sense that Islam as a polity, Muslims as rulers so to say, were spread through military expansion, then there's certainly a truth to this claim. But as

we also saw, the populations of the Middle East and beyond were generally not forcibly converted, but sometimes actively discouraged from it. The nature

of the conquest themselves are hard to pin down with any certainty, and historians and scholars will debate and disagree on how to portray them. And

this is partly because of the variety of our sources and the evidence. We often

hear that it was a bloody conquest full of destruction, but this is often based on hostile sources from much later in history. Instead, if we look at

history. Instead, if we look at contemporary sources as well as archaeological evidence, the situation is a lot more complicated. On the one hand, we have

complicated. On the one hand, we have sources like Thomas the Prespiter.

Quote, "In the year 945, so 634 CE, indication 7, on Friday the 4th of February, at the 9th hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the nomads

of Muhammad in Palestine, 12 miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind

of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patriarch Brennan, whom the Taya killed. The Taya is the word used for

killed. The Taya is the word used for the the nomads of Muhammad. Some 4,000

poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews, and Samaritans.

The Thaya ravaged the whole region. This

is in fact one of the earliest references to Muhammad in any non-Muslim source and it depicts a raid accompanied by great violence and killing. On the

other hand, other sources as well as the archaeological record shows a very different picture as well. Indeed,

historians will often note that the Islamic conquests are basically entirely invisible archaeologically. In all the cities and

archaeologically. In all the cities and places that were conquered, we see evidence of continued use of churches and synagogues throughout the conquest period and afterwards, as well as

continuity in general worship and way of life. In other words, while battles

life. In other words, while battles certainly took place between Arab forces and that of the Romans and Cisanians, these were mostly battles of you know two armies on the countryside on on the

fields. But when the Arabs then went to

fields. But when the Arabs then went to conquer actual cities, there is basically no evidence for any major destruction of buildings, any mass killings or really any disruption of

everyday life. They seem to have been

everyday life. They seem to have been kind of accepted maybe because the the people in the cities had realized that the sort of battle was already lost. So

they just sort of accepted their new rulers. Regardless, archaeologically,

rulers. Regardless, archaeologically, these conquests are basically invisible.

Now, given the rules of war that seemingly had been laid down by the prophet and his successors, this does make a lot of sense and follows these general principles. Christians and Jews

general principles. Christians and Jews and most the Zorastians in Iran were allowed to continue practicing their religion as part of the wider Islamic framework as long as they of course paid

taxes to the new rulers which some have argued were sometimes even less harsh than the taxes that they already paid to the Romans prior to the conquest.

Indeed, there is evidence that the borders between religious affiliations weren't all that strict either in the early period as has been argued by scholars like Fred Donner. We know that

Muslims and Christians shared common worship spaces in the early days. For

example, Muslims would pray in churches by installing a mehab in a church such as in the cathema church in Jerusalem.

Some sources also seem to indicate that the first governor of Jerusalem appointed by the Muslims was in fact a Jew. Although the evidence for this

Jew. Although the evidence for this isn't really totally reliable or certain, but that is a common thing that is claimed. The so-called Islamic

is claimed. The so-called Islamic armies, such as the ones that carried out the raids mentioned before, weren't exclusively made up of quote unquote Muslims either, but were accompanied by

Arab Christians and others, as is evident from sources. Fredona notes that an East Syriak Christian text written in northern Mesopotamia in 687 or 688 notes

that the believers referred to in the text as the kingdom of the Taya, the nomad, demanded tribute but allowed people to stay in whatever faith they wished. It also notes that among the

wished. It also notes that among the believers who engaged in widespread raiding parties in these years were many Christians. The notorian patriarch Ishu

Christians. The notorian patriarch Ishu Yadab III in Iraq writing a letter to one of his bishops in 647 or 648 notes that the new rulers not only do not

fight Christianity that they even commend our religion, show honor to the priests and monasteries and saints of our Lord and make gifts to the monasteries and churches. This paints a

quite different picture than what many of us are used to, but it does align with at least one certain interpretation of the ideals of the Quran and the the actions of the prophets and the early

successors that we saw from before.

Indeed, this question of Christians serving in the military is also important for the wider discussion of Jiza. This pole tax that was imposed on

Jiza. This pole tax that was imposed on non-Muslim populations was one that exempted them from military service. It

was basically only the men who had to pay the tax as they were fit to serve in the army but chose not to. If one didn't pay the tax, you instead had to take

part in the military campaigns of the caliphate. Now, we do see a bit more of

caliphate. Now, we do see a bit more of a restrictive attitude being enforced from the time of the Umayad Khaif Abdul Malik whose rule marks a very important point for the development of Islam as we

know it. He seems to have much more

know it. He seems to have much more clearly drawn the boundaries between Muslims and non-Muslims, streamlined the government to be more privileged for Muslims in particular, and made Arabic a

more official universal language. We're

getting a bit off topic in terms of war here, but these are nuances and aspects that will play a role as we continue the discussion on the legal discussions on war in Islamic law. And in order to

understand how war/jihad and its conduct was further developed in the field of fick or juristprudence this is the process of deriving sharia basically let's turn to a few examples in the

early history of the topic including important figures like Abdman al-I and Muhammad al- Shaani as we get into the period when Islamic law and practice was really

becoming established and as we read the early manuals and works of fik or Jewish prudence we can confirm a few things.

Firstly, that jihad was definitely seen as part and as an important part of the wider Islamic religion. I mean the fact that the original and most common title

for the early kiffs was amid mine or commander of the faithful an essentially militaristic uh military title tells us as much too, right? But what also

becomes clear was that when it comes to military jihad, there were very strict and important rules and restrictions on how war should be conducted and when war

was justified. And this is where some of

was justified. And this is where some of those prominent jurists and scholars become relevant. The most influential

become relevant. The most influential and important early source for this topic is probably aani, the student of Abuhanifha and one of the foundational

figures of the Hanafi school. But this

of course long before that school existed as such as a proper school. But

he's one of the early originating figures of that school. Shabbani

famously wrote a work called Kitab Aar the book of Sar. Now Sar is usually translated as something like international law. And this work is a

international law. And this work is a significant historical document on this topic which includes warfare of course and for the study of of ethical contemplations about how such law is to

be conducted. But of course he wasn't

be conducted. But of course he wasn't the only one writing on this topic. And

another very early figure whose writings on seat and war has been very significant both historically and today is the affforementioned alahi the Umaya

jurist and judge who lived primarily in Damascus and Lebanon. No surviving

school or madhab from Azai survives in the same way as the hanafi derived from shabbani circle for example but he's nonetheless very influential among other things because of his treatment of sear

and rules of war. So these are two of the main early sources that we will use for understanding of how this um um

these policies and ideals around uh war in Islamic law developed in this period.

So first of all and once again jihad is certainly part of the religion of Islam to these jurists but they importantly point out that is a collective duty or

obligation not a universal one inbat the much later great philosopher and malik jurist says quote its imposition is a communal obligation that

is when some undertake it the rest are absolved of it. What this means on a practical level is that military jihad is something that is carried out by an army with dedicated soldiers and led by

a caiff. It's similar in other words to

a caiff. It's similar in other words to how many nations would conduct offensive or defensive war. It is not a universal obligation in the sense that every

Muslim is obliged to make jihad on their own so to say. Jihad is performed in a context of an army who fights as representatives of all Muslims.

This is one example among many others on why so many Muslims today will argue that modern terrorist groups are directly contradicting classical Islamic law and ideals as they look at jihad as

a universal or individual obligation that it can be carried out by anyone.

And this is really the result of certain 20th century developments and thinkers like say kutub more than it is an actual traditional aspect of Islamic law. Quite

the opposite actually. Now we will be quoting from Ibn Rush in his mushed quite a lot and he as I said he's a much later thinker uh from the 12th century very the very famous philosopher also

known as asoiz uh but he was a Maliki judge a Maliki jurist uh not one of the great most authoritative ones but I I'll be using

this book of his theat the distinguished the jurist primer uh because it's a very useful book in the sense that he presents not only his own malaki

positions on on all these topics, but presents also all the other arguments of the other schools. Not just their positions, but the way that they argued.

So, it's an incredibly useful source for understanding even some of the earliest debates and discussions in Islamic law.

But what was the reason for fighting?

What was a just cause for war according to the Muslims?

Well, in simple terms, it was to spread Islam, but not in the sense of spreading Islam to convert everyone. Indeed, we

saw before that the earliest Muslims were actually opposed to this idea, but rather to spread the rule of Islam to spread what was known as d Islam or the abode of Islam. This is also sometimes

used synonymously with a term called dalam or the abode of peace. And thus

what was outside of this realm of dam or dal Islam was the dal har or the abode of war. The way the Muslims themselves

of war. The way the Muslims themselves saw this was thus that by spreading the dal Islam they were spreading and assuring peace and justice in society and the world. Helmmy M Zawati argues

accordingly jihad in Islamic legal theory is a temporary legal device designed to achieve the ideal Islamic public order and to secure justice and equality among all

peoples. One of the legal discussions

peoples. One of the legal discussions that we find regarding the reasons behind waging war and the resulting just actions and treatment of the enemy is the one regarding the very cause of

fighting. And there was again some

fighting. And there was again some disagreement. For example, were the

disagreement. For example, were the unbelievers fought because of their unbelief, their kufur in Arabic. In

other words, was their unbelief itself the reason that they were to be fought or were they fought because they fought back? So essentially in self-defense

back? So essentially in self-defense inbushed he argues again by presenting the positions and arguments of different jurists and schools that the majority of

Muslim scholars agreed that the cause of fighting was not unbelief in itself but in the ability to fight. This is what allowed them to justify and hold to the rules and conduct during war. As we've

discussed earlier, for example, that women and children aren't killed.

Neither are the elderly or the blind or the monks or anyone that doesn't fight because they aren't fought because of their unbelief. It's only those among

their unbelief. It's only those among the enemy who actively fight us that it is permissible to kill. This can be seen directly in the writings of Ashani too

who significantly says quote although also associating partners to Allah is the utmost offense it is in the jurisdiction of God alone and God postponed the trial for such crime to

the day of judgment. As for the offenses that he prescribed punishment for in this life, it is in the interest of a subject to prevent fighting. This

prevention cannot be achieved by killing those who do not fight. Therefore, only

those who fight Muslims should be the subject of fighting. The only one who disagreed with this according to Iban's account was Imam Shafi who instead argued that it was unbelief itself that

was the cause for fighting and for killing. But Shabbani's more quote

killing. But Shabbani's more quote unquote humanitarian position that we just quoted above seems to have been more the norm. And this probably leads to a lot of new questions, right? If

Muslims are only allowed to fight those who fight them, this seems to support the idea that Muslims are only allowed to fight in self-defense and never to conduct any kind of jihad war

offensively. But this was not

offensively. But this was not necessarily the position of even someone like Abani. Indeed, there was still this

like Abani. Indeed, there was still this kind of expectation that any Muslim kaiff for polity still had a sort of responsibility to spread the data Islam,

the abode of Islam, the rule of Islam, even if by military means. So how did this work? How did they work this out?

this work? How did they work this out?

This seems to be paradoxical. Shibani in

the Kitaba essentially argues that war is only permissible under three different circumstances or for three different reasons. Number one, in

different reasons. Number one, in self-defense. When a foreign state

self-defense. When a foreign state invades, it is obligatory for the Muslims to defend the state, which is of course justified very clearly in the Quran. Another reason is something

Quran. Another reason is something that's sometimes been called humanitarian intervention. So, for

humanitarian intervention. So, for example, Muslims who have been captured and are held in enemy territory or even non-Muslims under the protection of Muslims who have been captured in the

same manner, then war can be uh justified in order to aid and rescue these prisoners. And thirdly, defense of

these prisoners. And thirdly, defense of the freedom of religion. And this is often where it gets interesting and a bit more complex. Indeed, freedom of religion involved that Muslims were

allowed to practice their religion. And

for that to happen, the place essentially had to be ruled by other Muslims. The Islamic religion also made a point of allowing other religions to exist within the state and under its

protection. So this is one of the main

protection. So this is one of the main reasons that it was legitimate to spread the d Islam or d salam. The whole

purpose behind war was to bring peace.

And according to the Muslims of this period, true peace and freedom of life and religion could only become a reality under the Islamic State, so to say. This

becomes quite clear in the discussions that revolve around conduct ahead of a battle. The rule of Islam is to be

battle. The rule of Islam is to be spread into new areas as we saw, but the Muslims should always attempt to do so peacefully. There are certain

peacefully. There are certain requirements to be followed ahead of a battle. Before the Muslims are to engage

battle. Before the Muslims are to engage in any kind of battle, it is basically required according to this aspect of Islamic law that they extend an invitation to the enemy to resolve

things peacefully and diplomatically.

uh this will often involve uh certain terms or options for the other party.

They can either accept the rule of Islam so to say and thereby pay the Jezia tax and for that reason they are free to

practice their religion. They have in theory equal rights to Muslims in society. They can go about their lives

society. They can go about their lives in whatever they way they want. they

just accept the Muslims as rulers. Uh secondly, they can convert to

rulers. Uh secondly, they can convert to Islam. Uh and they then they won't have

Islam. Uh and they then they won't have to pay the tax. Sometimes there's also a third

tax. Sometimes there's also a third option that they can come to terms some sort of treatis peace treaty or whatever. If none of these terms are

whatever. If none of these terms are met, if they refuse all of them, then that is interpreted as a declaration of war that they are now fighting against

the Muslims and now the Muslims can then engage in battle. Another question that often arises is whether all people are allowed to pay the jaza and thus to keep their religion or if it is only the so-called people of the book that is

Jews and Christians. The scholars

disagreed on this, but the pragmatic solution of most scholars, including, for example, Imam Malik, was that all polytheists except for the ones in Arabia in particular, were allowed to

pay the jaza. Thus, the extending of of allowing people to keep their religion was universal for any other religion than Islam except for polytheists in

Arabia in particular, which had been the enemies of Muhammad historically. uh

other scholars only allowed Jews, Christians and Zorastians to pay the Jaziah, but um at least according to Ben Rush, this seems to have been the the

minority position. And history also

minority position. And history also shows that most people that the Muslims encountered were generally allowed to keep their native religion, even though of course

um circumstances of oppression and persecution certainly took place historically.

The general policy seems to have been this. These general rules are often

this. These general rules are often based on a very popular hadith regarding this topic which is quoted by Shabbani and others. For example, in

and others. For example, in Shabbani's it is quoted as such.

Whenever the messenger of Allah peace be upon him sent an army or a group of troops, he used to admonish its leader to fear Allah in his personal behavior and to be pleasant to the Muslims who accompanied him. Then he would say,

accompanied him. Then he would say, "Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight only those who disbelieve in Allah. Do not

misappropriate. Do not commit treachery.

Do not mutilate the dead. And do not kill a child. When you meet the polytheist who are your enemy, invite them to Islam. If they accept Islam, accept it from them and hold yourselves

back from them. If they refuse to accept Islam, invite them to pay Jiza. If they

do that, accept it from them and hold yourselves back from them. Moreover, our

friend Iban Rush as always gives us a great overview of the different positions and how the topic has been tackled. Quote, the condition for the

tackled. Quote, the condition for the declaration of war by agreements is the communication of the invitation to Islam. That is, it is not permitted to

Islam. That is, it is not permitted to wage war on them unless the invitation has reached them. This is something upon which the Muslim jurist agreed because of the words of the exalted, "We never

punish until we have sent a messenger."

They disagreed on whether the repetition of the invitation was required on the recurrence of war. Some of them made this obligatory, some considered it desirable, while some of them neither

considered it obligatory nor desirable.

So technically, at least according to most of the scholars, Muslims can only fight in self-defense. But at the same time, the requirement to spread Islam includes them giving their enemies the

opportunity to surrender peacefully through either, you know, accepting their rule and paying their ja and practicing their religion freely or converting to Islam. And only if they

refuse these terms, thereby deciding to pick up arms and fight back, then it is legitimate to fight them. Now, you might think this is the biggest loophole ever, but it is indeed the way that the Muslim

jurist argued for what proper conduct in war meant. The basic idea was that

war meant. The basic idea was that peaceful solution was always to be sought first. Some of the prominent

sought first. Some of the prominent early Muslim jurists seem to have held that fighting non-believers was only obligatory when the enemy had already started to fight. And as Shabbani quotes

Sufyana as holding this opinion as a basis, they often use the following Quranic verse that we also quoted before. Fight in the way of God against

before. Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Indeed, God does not

not hostilities. Indeed, God does not love aggressors. It's also important to

love aggressors. It's also important to point out the historical context in which these discussions were taking place. This was a context historically

place. This was a context historically where war was basically the norm. Right?

This is you know had the Byzantines and the Cisanians and now the the early Muslim caliphates. They come into a

Muslim caliphates. They come into a world where warfare is the sort of standard state of things. there's a sort

of perpetual war and peace is sort of this in between states between battles and so these ideas uh

were born out of that context. The

Muslims came into that world and had to adopt that world and they very much participated in that world. I'm not

saying anything other than that. But the

Islamic jurists when they put forth these ideas, it was very much in response to that reality at that time where war was the norm, which is very different from today. And we'll get to

that later on. But this is why this is where a lot of this comes from. And this

wasn't very different at all really from other religions and their representatives at that time. The very

idea of a sort of holy war had been developed very much by the Bzantine or the East Roman Empire prior to the rise of Islam for example. And so uh these ideas were in the air. Representatives

from other religions like Christianity also saw military expansion of the religion as a legitimate thing. For

example, the great Christian figure Augustine said, "To carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seem to bad men to be felicity, to good men

necessity." But let's say none of these

necessity." But let's say none of these peaceful means actually work out and now we are in a battle so to say. What are

the just conducts during a war? Now that

war is happening, how does one do war?

and jihad properly according to Islamic law. Much of this is directly based on

law. Much of this is directly based on many of those hadiths and reports that we've already encountered. And what many of these juries did was simply to restate some of those hadiths and some

of those rules that the the the prophet and Abu Bakr for example already laid down. uh but still people like Shabbani

down. uh but still people like Shabbani and Aai and others still give some important um additions. Again in the Kabar Ashibani very clearly outlines

that in a situation of war only combatants are allowed to be killed. It

is never permissible to kill or hurt women and children. Religious

functionaries like monks and priests although Abhanifa seems to have had a different opinions on this according to Shabbani's writings. uh the elderly, the

Shabbani's writings. uh the elderly, the insane or the sick or generally any non-combatant at all. So no one who no one who doesn't fight actively is

allowed to be fought or killed unless of course they did start fighting the Muslims, right? So if a woman or maybe

Muslims, right? So if a woman or maybe even a child picked up a sword and started fighting the Muslims, then they were combatants and now they could be fought, right? You you get the idea.

fought, right? You you get the idea.

Shabbani also adds that it is not allowed to destroy any fruitbearing trees, to kill any animal except to use for food, to steal anything from the

spoils of war, or to become too proud when victorious. Shabbani says in

when victorious. Shabbani says in his the shorter version of the kitaba that he Shabbani says I asked Abuhanifh about the killing of women children such

old men who do not have the ability to fight those suffering from chronic illness and are unable to fight. He

forbade their killing and detested it.

Alzai held basically the same opinions entirely. Regarding some of the latter

entirely. Regarding some of the latter points such as burning down crops or killing animals, he said it is unlawful for Muslims to perform an act of destruction in enemy territory for that

is corruption and God loves not corruption on non-combatants specifically farmers and workers. He

says do not kill those who work in the fields if it is known that they are not combatants. As you can see, this very

combatants. As you can see, this very directly followed those hadiths and the conduct of the early caiffs when they instructed their armies for war. And

this really was the norm for most Islamic scholars. They would disagree on

Islamic scholars. They would disagree on a few points here and there. So some

scholars would allow like the elderly and the sick to be fought and killed but never women and children uh and so on.

There were certain little points like that that they could disagree on but generally they held the same positions.

Once again these different positions are well outlined by Iban Rush. Quote,

"There is no dispute among them, the jurists, that it is not permitted to slay minors or women as long as they are not waging war. They disagreed about the case of hermits cut off from the world,

the blind, the chronically ill, the old who cannot fight, the idiots, and the peasants and serps." Malik Anus said, "Neither the blind nor idiots nor hermits are to be slain, and enough of

their wealth is to be left to them by which they may survive." Similarly, the old and decrepit are not to be slain. in

this view and this was also the view of Abuahhanifa and his disciples.

Ai said that only the old are to be spared. Even someone like Iben Tamia who

spared. Even someone like Iben Tamia who is often considered a foundational figure for so-called Salifism and an inspiration for many modern jihadist and terrorist groups basically held the same

opinion saying those who do not constitute a defensive or offensive power like women the children should not be fought. There were of course some

be fought. There were of course some caveats and specific situations where some of these rules could be nudged like if the Muslims were besieging a city, it

was allowed to cut off food and water and supplies to the city to sort of starve them in order to to help with the siege even if this meant obviously

hurting uh you know women and children as well. So, you know, certain of the

as well. So, you know, certain of the necessities of war could make these questions a bit more complex and and difficult. There also many other details

difficult. There also many other details and complexities regarding rules for just conduct of war/ jihad. And there

really isn't enough time to go through all of it here. Um, Islamic

international law, for example, generally forbade certain common practices in war, such as displaying the bodies of killed enemies as trophies or sending severed head as messages to enemy leaders. Although, this of course

enemy leaders. Although, this of course doesn't mean that stuff like that never happened. And this was still, you know,

happened. And this was still, you know, the norm of the actual law. A modern

example of this is the 19th century Algerian freedom fighter and Sufi mystic Abdul Khad Ali, also known as Abdul Khadr, who very strictly forbade his fighters from any mutilation of failed

enemies as a result of his strict following of Islamic law. Of course,

although women and children and other non-combatants weren't allowed to be fought or killed, it was still permitted to take them as prisoners and sometimes into slavery even. But here's another

topic where Islamic law and figures like Shabbani and others have contributed significantly to rules regulating the treatment of prisoners of war. As

always, there are certain disagreements, but generally when it comes to captured men in battle, it is the decision of the imam or leader in question whether he can execute them. For example, it seems

in writers like Ashani that executing prisoners, even men, is strongly disliked, but it is not an illegal act as such. There is, for example, a

as such. There is, for example, a principle that prisoners need to be fed properly and if there isn't enough provisions to care for the prisoners, it might be better to execute them. Right?

This would be the argument. Uh when it comes to women, children and the elderly, the non-combatants, it seems that the general position has been that executing such people is not allowed at

all even if they had actually participated in the fighting at some point. But again, this still left them

point. But again, this still left them open to be for example put into slavery or or other um kinds of treatment. But

uh you know, killing executing was not allowed. Quote, "The majority of the

allowed. Quote, "The majority of the jurists maintained that the Imam has different types of choices regarding the prisoners of war, including their pardon enslavement execution demand

for ransom, and the imposition of Jazza on them." A group of jurists maintained

on them." A group of jurists maintained that it is not permitted to execute the prisoners. Al Hassan ibn Muhammad at

prisoners. Al Hassan ibn Muhammad at Tamimi has related that there's consensus isma of the companions on this. The reason for the disagreement

this. The reason for the disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meanings of the verses in this context.

The conflict of the acts of the prophet and the conflict of the apparent meaning of the Quranic text with the acts of the prophet. Execution is permitted in cases

prophet. Execution is permitted in cases where the guarantee of safe conduct a man is not available. There is no disagreement among Muslims on this.

However, they differ as to who can grant safe conduct and who cannot. We can once again use as a modern example of this the famous 19th century Abdulad al- Jari

who fought against French colonialism. During his wars with the

colonialism. During his wars with the French he captured many prisoners and became famous and later even awarded medals by the French among other things for how well and justly he treated his

prisoners. All of which was to him a

prisoners. All of which was to him a direct reflection of and a strict following of Islamic law regarding just action and war and treatment of prisoners.

Some of his former prisoners even came to visit him in France when he himself was imprisoned to pay their respects and to thank him. This is not to state that this has always been the case or that

having prisoners of war as is a good thing to begin with, but it's a good way to show how nuanced questions like this can be. So, that's a general outline of

can be. So, that's a general outline of the uh positions of the earliest at least Sunni Muslim jurists and scholars

on the question of jihad and and war. uh

when war is justified, how it is to be conducted in a just way etc. Um and and we can see that is a topic that is very

complex, very complicated and nuanced and I think in a way that might be surprising to a lot of people whose image of Islam especially in relation to

this topic is very different based on you know contemporary circumstances and coverage and we will get into the contemporary situation uh very soon but

this is important to point out that this things are quite complicated. and and

complex. Another important question that we can ask is like is jihad always active so to say? This seems to be a common understanding among some non-Muslims that Islam teaches some

inherently perpetual state of war against all non-Muslims. Is this true?

Well, as you have probably guessed, there are different answers. In the

middle ages and during the great caliphates, there was often this perception that the Calebs had a duty to always at least try to expand the data Islam and fight against

unbelief. But even here, this wasn't

unbelief. But even here, this wasn't necessarily seen as an eternal thing.

One quite common idea historically, at least symbolically, has been that jihad is active until the Roman Empire has been defeated. The Roman Empire at this

been defeated. The Roman Empire at this time was, of course, the Eastern Roman Empire, often called the Bzantine Empire. So based on this understanding,

Empire. So based on this understanding, this offensive jihad would have stopped being relevant after 1453 when the Ottomans conquered the great city once and for all. Secondly, as I said, we've

mostly been talking about Sunni thinkers in this video. But in Shiism, the situation is even more different because the Shis have such an emphasis on the doctrine of the imams that the political

and spiritual leadership of the prophet Muhammad was inherited by his descendants in the line of Ali and Fatima. This strongly affects their

Fatima. This strongly affects their ideas on jihad. Jihad can only be called and

jihad. Jihad can only be called and performed under the leadership of one of the imams. And in 12 Shiism, which is the largest branch of Shiism today,

there hasn't been a present imam since the 10th century. The 12th Imam, Muhammad al- Mai, went into occultation at that time and is expected to return

at the end times. At that point, jihad will once again become relevant. But

since his going into occultation until this day, no offensive jihad is legitimate according to the sheis. Of

course, historically the sheis have ruled certain empires like the Safavidids and the Ka. So they have been forced to find ways of

still, you know, justifying certain offensive wars clearly, but this is the general official positions of the she.

And this gets us to another very important point that many people forget, which is that things change over time and place. Of course, the positions of

and place. Of course, the positions of Muslim jurists on things like jihad today aren't necessarily the same as they were back then. When I hear many people who are critical of Islam, they

really love to quote medieval Muslim authorities on these matters while ignoring contemporary Muslim scholars that have very different opinions and positions that have changed because of

the different historical and political circumstances. This is true all across

circumstances. This is true all across history and especially today.

For example, even though the Sunnis don't share the doctrine of the Imm with the Shis, as we saw before, the traditional position is that jihad is a collective duty and must thus be led by

a legitimate kaiff that leads the community. Most Muslims today would

community. Most Muslims today would argue that such a kaiff doesn't exist and hasn't existed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, this was one of

Ottoman Empire. In fact, this was one of the arguments used by the great Seneagalles Muslim reformer, Sufi master and nonviolent freedom fighter Ahmed Bamba who said that because there is no

caiff for the Muslim community, offensive jihad is illegitimate. And

also in a famous fatwa shows precisely what I am talking about that Muslim scholars and jurists take historical circumstances into account when interpreting and reinterpreting these

doctrines. quote, "Oh my Muslim

doctrines. quote, "Oh my Muslim brothers, do not get involved in this so-called jihad, which only would result in human losses and material destruction, not to mention the havoc it

would wreak in the country." If you say to me that jihad is prescribed by Islamic law and sunnah, my response is that it was so in times and circumstances that are different from

yours and for people who are different from you. We should treat Christians the

from you. We should treat Christians the way that they were treated by the prophet Muhammad. They lived in a

prophet Muhammad. They lived in a peaceful cohabitation without any hostility nor content. And he isn't alone in this. Most of the major scholars of Islam today have nuanced

positions on the question of jihad as well as its connected topics like slavery.

One famous example is the open letter sent by some of the major Muslim scholars around the world to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, basically condemning the organization's actions and arguing that they had

misappropriated and misinterpreted Islam and Islamic law to justify those actions. Among the things that they

actions. Among the things that they brought up in the letter are precisely these traditional rulings about the protection of non-combatants and the just reason for war, all of which ISIS

broke. According to them, a selection

broke. According to them, a selection from the summary section says, "It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings. It is forbidden in Islam

legal rulings. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats. Hence, it is forbidden to

and diplomats. Hence, it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers. Jihad

and Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose, and without the right rules of conduct."

The fifth point and the first one here shows you exactly what I'm saying that contemporary Muslim scholars while never consciously changing any of the fundamentals of the religion still

consider it part of the wider scope of the law that certain aspects can be adjusted according to changing situations the reality of contemporary times mentioned here for the same reason

many scholars today have abandoned the whole framework of Dal Islam versus Dalhar because they argue the geopolic political situation today is so much different from back then. We live in a

time of nation states and organizations like the UN that at least try to protect the rights of people and their freedom of religion. So the same policies from

of religion. So the same policies from medieval times are not really relevant in the same way anymore. Major Muslim

scholars today like Shehikh Abdullahbin Bay have emphasized this idea of that Jewish prudence must uh take into consideration the current situation

in context and argues that the modern reality of citizenship and its requirements and obligations renders the medieval division outdated and almost obsolete. He says quote the issue of the

obsolete. He says quote the issue of the abote is this most people think that the world is divided into two abodess the abode of peace and the abote of war. The

abote of peace is the land of the Muslims d Islam and the abode of war is everywhere else. So the central aspect

everywhere else. So the central aspect of international relationships with the Muslims is aggression. It is one of war.

This idea is wrong. Instead, the modern contextual reality of citizenship uh freedom of religion and human rights makes any place where Muslims are free

to practice their religion either as a the abote of treaty or the the abode of peace a category that also existed in medieval times or

even that such a place of freedom of religion falls under the data Islam itself. One fatwa which refers to the

itself. One fatwa which refers to the authority of people like the affforementioned bin baya states first the term dal Islam or the territory of Islam and dal har or the territory of

war and al or territory of peace treaty are Jewish prudence terms that did not occur in Quran and authentic sunnah.

Second apparently evidence and the opinions of jurist scholars demonstrate that the essence of the terms ded Islam and kufur is about security and fear. In

this view, if Muslims are able to practice their religious rights and enjoy religious freedom, then this territory is dotted Islam or a territory of Islam. With all of this in mind, you

of Islam. With all of this in mind, you can probably understand why so many Muslims around the world were horrified when groups like Ala or the Islamic

State did what they did and saw them and their actions as non-Islamic because based on traditional Islamic law, they were very clearly violating

and and breaking with going against many of the uh the most fundamental aspects of Islamic law when it comes to conduct during or and some of the rules that come with it. Right now, as a neutral

observer, I'm not here to to sit here and say that either position is right.

Of course, those groups had their own way of interpreting the Quran and the and the law and the Sunnah in ways that they felt justify these actions. These

arguments are perhaps for another time in another episode.

But still many Muslims of a more traditional bent uh see this as directly going against the traditional positions on Islamic law. We see this for example in in the scholars and their letter to

Albaghdadi where they condemn many of those actions precisely based on what we've been talking about today. In the

sense it is important to keep in mind that almost all cases where we find these kinds of acts of violence and terrorism this comes out of a specific

group of of Muslim of Islam that is often referred to as Salafism or Salafia. Uh now even within Salifism

Salafia. Uh now even within Salifism this is a small minority. This does not represent all of Salifism very clearly.

But what salopism is is a kind of modernist uh reform movement that that turns against tradition, right? It rejects a lot of

tradition, right? It rejects a lot of the tradition of of the established schools of law uh and that has been developed over the centuries and aims to go directly back to the sources to read

the Quran and the hadith and sort of reinterpret directly based on on the hadith without resorting to this long tradition of scholarship. uh this is a caricature and a very simplified version

of Salapism, but that is generally uh their position and the actions and interpretations of some of these modern jihadist and terrorist groups is only really

possible through that perspective through that sort of reform rejection of tradition. Hopefully you can now

tradition. Hopefully you can now understand some of the backgrounds for some of the debates and discussions within Islam today um regarding this topic. And that's certainly things like

topic. And that's certainly things like jihad and war can be a very thorny issue because of it as a very significant aspect of Islamic law and Islam

generally. The topic of sar

generally. The topic of sar international law and and war/jihad is a very complex topic with a long history of a

lot of scholarly debates and development and discussion. most of which is very rarely

discussion. most of which is very rarely taken into consideration when this topic is discussed today in public discussions and debates. So I hope that this episode

and debates. So I hope that this episode has given you um some new things to think about and to incorporate into those discussions. Uh things are a lot

those discussions. Uh things are a lot more complex than we are often led to believe and that deserves uh to to be brought to attention. So I hope this

episode has been helpful in that sense.

I would like as always to thank you all for watching and listening and to thank especially my patrons on patreon.com who keep this channel going monetarily. It

really is true that none of this would be possible without your support. So

thank you so much. Uh if anyone else wants to become a patron and really again I I want to expand what I do on this channel. I want to hit a new gear

this channel. I want to hit a new gear on this channel and that is really only possible with your support. you know,

the the income from Google AdSense and and ads is very nice and appreciated, but it's it's uneven, so it's hard to budget. It's hard to plan plan ahead,

budget. It's hard to plan plan ahead, right? So, Patreon is really the best

right? So, Patreon is really the best way to support me if you want to do that. I will leave links to that in the

that. I will leave links to that in the description. You can also leave a

description. You can also leave a onetime donation through PayPal or on Patreon. It's also possible nowadays. Uh

Patreon. It's also possible nowadays. Uh

but of course it is highly appreciated and and and amazing that you just keep watching that you you subscribe to the channel that you engage in the comments.

I really appreciate all of the support uh and this beautiful community that we have here. So thank you all so much

have here. So thank you all so much again. If you want to follow me and my

again. If you want to follow me and my work you can find me on my socials which are on screen right now. You can also find me on my other channel dedicated to music called uh Philip Holm. Um similar

to content here but more dedicated to music. So, if you're interested in that

music. So, if you're interested in that as well as my own music, uh, check that out. For now, thank you again so much

out. For now, thank you again so much

and I will see you next time.

[Music]