You write: "In point of fact, no, I do not accept Goldhizer as definitive. His particular interpretation of jihad is consistent with Mahdist or Qutbist views, among others, but is by no means universal."
Well, Goldhizer died in 1921 long before Qutb wrote his rants. Goldhizer's view has exactly nothing to do with Qutb - if you have actually read Goldhizer. You might consider examining Goldhizer's well known book Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. As William Montgomery Watt, also considered, until his recent death, rather enamored of Islam, notes in his book Islamic Philosophy and Theology: An Extended Survey, that the breadth of Goldhizer's scholarship is boundless.
Moreover, Goldhizer considered himself a champion of Islam, having been the first non-Muslim ever to have permitted to study at Al-Azhar. More than that, he was known to pray with Muslims, notwithstanding the fact that he never converted.
As for Mahdism and Goldhizer, you are mistaken. Consider that the famed historian and sociologist Ibn Khaldun wrote tracts in opposition to Mahdism (See Timothy Furnish's recent book Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, their Jihads and Osama bin Laden) - and, in fact, Khaldun's arguments are still asserted today by Sunnis who oppose Mahdism - yet, at the same time, he had this to say about spreading Islam:
In the Muslim community, holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united (in Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them (religion and politics) at the same time.
Khaldun, a non-Mahdist of great brilliance and fame - to say the least -, evidently agrees more with Goldhizer than with you. Bernard Lewis, in his masterful work The Muslim Discovery of Europe, also agrees with the more apologetic Goldhizer. Explaining the basic Islamic conception, Lewis writes:
"In the Muslim world view the basic division of mankind is into the House of Islam (Dār al-Islām) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb). The one consists of all those countries where the law of Islam prevails, that is to say, broadly, the Muslim Empire; the latter is the rest of the world. Just as there is only one God in heaven, so there can be only one sovereign and one law on earth. Ideally, the House of Islam is conceived as a single community, governed by a single state, headed by a single sovereign. This state must tolerate and protect those unbelievers who are brought by conquest under its rule, provided, of course, that they are not polytheists but followers of one of the permitted religions. The logic of Islamic law, however, does not recognized the permanent existence of any other polity outside Islam. In time, in the Muslim view, all mankind will accept Islam or submit to Islamic rule. In the meantime, it is a religious duty of Muslims to struggle until this end is accomplished.
The name given by the Muslim jurists to this struggle is jihād, an Arabic word meaning effort or striving. One who performs this duty is called mujāhid. The word occurs several times in the Qur'ān in the sense of making war against the unbelievers. In the early centuries of Islamic expansion, this was its normal meaning. Between the House of Islam and the House of War there was, according to the sharī‘a, the Holy Law as formulated by the classical jurists, a state of war religiously and legally obligatory, which could end only with the conversion or subjugation of all mankind. A treaty of peace between the Muslim state and a non-Muslim state was thus in theory juridically impossible. The war, which would end only with the universal triumph of Islam, could not be terminated; it could only be interrupted for reasons of necessity or of expediency by a truce. Such a truce, according to the jurists, could only be provisional. It should not exceed ten years and could, at any time, be repudiated unilaterally by the Muslims who, however, were obliged by Muslim law to give the other side due notice before resuming hostilities."
Lewis goes on to indicate that the Shari'a law's requirements (and its attendant theology) did not always match the reality of what occurred and that other arrangements, supplementing the House of War and House of Islam, such as the House of Covenant, eventually arose.
As for Jihad, Lewis notes that the classical conception came to be seen, for a while, as a more millennial view (perhaps akin to one-time classical Jewish tradition, pre-Israel, of next year in Jerusalem - with next year being some distant future time). Such view was prevalent during the latter time of the Abbassid dynasty, when Muslims were under threat from all sides so that the notion of spreading the faith was rather unrealistic. However, the millennial view did not persist long, especially but not only with the rise of the Gazis - known more to history as the Ottoman Turks - who rekindled Jihad to conquer, most specifically, Europe.
In any event, the view regarding the basic theological and legal requirement to spread Islamic rule is still taught in places like al-Azhar. So, I cannot imagine the basis for your opinion.
You will note, further, that Goldhizer does not quite speak about forced conversions of Jews and Christians - only of people who lacked a revealed prophesy. Interestingly, historian Patricia Crone notes that, notwithstanding the commonly asserted view that Muslims did not force Jews and Christians to convert, the record shows rather plainly that such did sometimes occur.
You may say - which is correct - that Islam has no Pope or the like who states what is and is not Islam but some elements of Islam are rather well established and beyond much question. In this regard, you might consider that classical Judaism does not have a Pope or the like but during the classical period it would be rather foolish to claim that there Kashrut laws are not part of it.
And, notwithstanding your protest to the contrary, Islam is about as evangelical a faith as has ever existed. And, its teachings are rather blunt regarding the justification to use force in order to spread Muslim rule from the black to the red.
Note also that Goldhizer did not say that everyone must convert, as your comment suggests. Nor did he indicate that Jihad has only one meaning. He was writing about the religious command to spread Muslim rule. That, frankly, is the Jihad which, to non-Muslims, matters.
You write: "I do not disagree that the idea of inclusion of all within the dar il Islam is theologically desirable"
What do you mean? Are you saying that you would like to live as a non-Muslim in a Muslim country under Islamic rule? I really do not follow what you have in mind.
So far as understanding Jihad fi sabil Allah (i.e. Jihad war or, literally, Jihad in the path of Allah), I would recommend two books that might cure your naivety. The first is David Cook's brilliant Understanding Jihad. It is a masterful survey of the origins and development of the Jihad war and its ongoing significance. The second, which is not good history but which, within the book, includes a section that consists of translations of tracts by dozens of famed Islamic scholars on the issue of Jihad - from writers such Avicenna to al-Ghazali to, while probably not as great a thinker, the Ayatollah Khomeini -. It is called The Legacy of Jihad and it is by a professor of Medicine named Andrew Bostom. Some of the tracts included in the book have there own surveys of the views of their predecessors.
Now, you are correct that not all Muslims favor war to spread the faith. But, such is clearly the dominant view over the course of the religion's history. I might add, Islam is certainly not alone in holding itself the one true faith that is the property of mankind. That is also basically the classical Christian view. Where Christianity differs from Islam, I think, is that the view opposing the use of force to spread Christianity has strong support in the religious writings and in actual practice - most especially after the Crusade period - while, in Islam, the view to spread Muslim rule by force, as David Cook notes, takes up around 20% of all ahaditha - an astounding amount of religious writing on war - while the Koran itself is rather emphatic of the command to use force generally speaking (and not merely in connection with a specific circumstance) and, most especially, during the latter - and, hence, more important, so far as Islamic theology is concerned - period of the Prophet's life. And, in practice, the view opposing Jihad as war has not had great significance over the course of Islam's history.
by N. Friedman on November 30, 2006 at 5:07 PM