How Terror Groups Weaponize Religious Doctrine for Political Control

Introduction: The Many Meanings of Jihad

Jihad, a term meaning "struggle," encompasses a range of interpretations depending on its context. When paired with "military," it becomes "military jihad," referring to the use of armed force. Though rare in its original intent, this form has increasingly been appropriated in modern times for political and ideological purposes. Terror groups have relied on it to coerce ordinary people into submission. Hamas, for example, has employed jihadist tactics not only against external adversaries but also against its own people to consolidate power and silence dissent. Those who speak out against Hamas or support Israel and the secular West face severe repercussions within Gaza. These actions often prioritize political objectives over the broader principles of jihad.

Does Islamic jihad, said to promote peace, justice, and self-improvement as rooted in the Qur'an, truly reflect these ideals in practice, or are these noble claims merely a façade for more complex realities? In Gaza, Hamas has invoked Islamic jihad that starkly contrasts with the Quran’s teachings. Rather than implementing Islamic jihad to foster peace, Hamas applies jihad as a weapon to generate fear among the people of Gaza. Reports indicate that jihad has been used as a means to consolidate political and military dominance, relying on aggression and coercion tactics such as shooting in the legs, torture, imprisonment, and even death. This involves targeting individuals, groups, or even civilians, including supporters of the Palestinian Authority or Fatah, who criticize Hamas or its leadership.

The distinction between "military jihad" and "Islamic jihad" is pivotal. Deciphering the intricacies of military jihad and Islamic jihad enables one to identify which Islamic societies exhibit heightened radicalism in wielding military authority and exerting dominance over their citizenry. Islamic societies, particularly those acting upon Islamic jihad—though they may present themselves as democratic in theory and showcase themselves through publicized elections—as well as factions positioning themselves as Islamic, including groups like Hamas that profess to be democratic, frequently rationalize their invocation of jihad both to their adherents and to the secular world. Delving into the essence of military and Islamic jihad, alongside the disparity between their ideological interpretations and practical implementations, uncovers the profound afflictions endured by societies practicing Islam.

Military Jihad vs. Islamic Jihad: Understanding the Terms

The persuasive strategies employed by the Muslim Brotherhood, military jihad, and Islamic jihad demonstrate a convergence of shared ideologies regarding the Islamic State, its foundational principles within a faith-driven society, the elimination of Israel, and the methods of enacting their interpretations of military and Islamic jihad. Societies that adopt these doctrines align on a mutual conviction, branding the West as "kufr"—denoting disbelief—and perceiving Western nations as proponents of irreligion, working to corrupt their communities through the imposition of Westernization. Thus, they assert a collective obligation for all Muslims to conduct a counterinsurgency against secularism and Western encroachment of kufr.
Palestine, once the steward of the land housing Islam's third holiest site, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, positions this sacred space as a core symbol in efforts to eradicate Israel. For many, this mission stems from a belief that "true Muslims" must readily "sacrifice lives and money" to reclaim every inch of what they regard as holy land and free it from perceived Western "occupation." This conviction ultimately leads those in power to morally justify tactics like using human shields as a means of defense against occupiers in order to gain ground. Still, the interpretations and implementation of military jihad and Islamic jihad reveal key differences in their context and scope and the modus operandi behind Islamic extremists

Military Jihad
The Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt, integrated military jihad into its ideology as a means to resist oppression and pursue political objectives, as explicitly outlined in its founding charter. At the same time, the Brotherhood emphasized transforming society from within, advocating for change through education, social services, and medical care. These grassroots efforts were not merely acts of goodwill but strategic tools to cultivate public trust, secure popular support, and ultimately gain political power through “democratic” means.
After achieving their objective, Hamas adopted a strategy echoing the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which prioritized grassroots influence and institutional transformation. However, unlike the Brotherhood’s approach of working within established systems to gain authority, Hamas sought to dismantle the existing Palestinian government entirely. Their aim was to create their own governing body, tightly aligned with their ideological framework. This new regime, designed to centralize control, suppresses the possibility of future elections, ensuring that Hamas retains its grip on power indefinitely, reflecting a departure from the Brotherhood’s more gradualist tactics.

The Muslim Brotherhood publicly advocates for a deliberate and conditional approach to military action, maintaining that it should only be pursued after the successful implementation of Islamic social reform within a society. While the group has participated in Egypt’s government by holding seats, it has refrained from dismantling the nation’s governing structures. They frequently emphasize that military jihad must adhere to Islamic principles and is not a tool for the immediate suppression of secular ideologies or establishment of an Islamic state. Instead, they claim such measures are only justifiable once a society is entirely governed by Islamic law. Yet, the inner workings of the Brotherhood remain enigmatic, leaving many to question how they truly determine when a society meets these prerequisites—or whether this stance serves as a façade for alternative strategies.

Muslim Brotherhood Relationships and Jihad Strategy by Eliza Glass

Islamic Jihad
By contrast, Islamic jihad encompasses a much broader spectrum of meanings. It comes from the Arabic root "jahada," which means "to strive" or "to struggle." At its heart, jihad is about striving in the way of God—be it through personal improvement, societal betterment, or, in rare and specific cases, armed conflict. The Brotherhood makes clear that not until society abandons its "secular ideas" and is reformed from the ways of the Western world can an "armed struggle (jihad)" take place. However, under the broader definition of Islamic jihad, there is a hyper-focus on Palestine as a central issue, with voices promoting armed struggle in nations where the reform and Islamization of society are seen as a means toward political action.

Hamas: Jihad as a Tool of Power

• Al-Aqsa Mosque and Its Protection
  Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is one of the most important holy sites in Islam. It is under the protection of King Abdullah II of Jordan, who has been tasked with preserving its sanctity. On March 31, 2013, King Abdullah II and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signed an agreement that confirmed the King’s role in looking after Jerusalem’s holy sites. This includes all of Al Haram Al Sharif, giving the King the legal right to take actions to protect it. This form of jihad focuses on defending religious landmarks rather than engaging in direct conflict.

• Iran’s Military Approach
  Iran’s interpretation of jihad diverges sharply. It bypasses the premise of societal reform, channeling its focus instead toward militaristic and authoritative dominance to secure its objectives. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exhibits not only outward hostility but also severe domestic repression. It imposes rigid Islamic doctrines, employing brutal tactics such as torture and capital punishment against dissenters. Women advocating for expanded freedoms or failing to comply with mandated hijab practices are among those severely punished. This illustrates a form of jihad that intertwines internal subjugation with external aggression.
  

Another example took place in April 2024, when Iran launched rockets at Israel after Israel had killed Generals belonging to the IRGC meeting in Syria. In retaliation, Iran released a barrage of missiles over Israel resulting in the death of a Gaza citizen working in the West Bank.
There was a comment made by a local Isralie that Israel contacted Iran to inform them of their “stupidity,” suggesting that Iran’s actions could have blown up the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which would not have looked good for Iran in the eyes of the Islamic world.

The Human Cost: Repression and Fear in Gaza

Beyond orchestrating assaults on Israel, Hamas also targeted its political adversaries within Gaza. One harrowing instance involved members of Fatah, the preceding ruling party, who were reportedly hurled from the rooftops of three-story buildings with their wrists bound, as detailed by an anonymous Israeli. Back in 2009, Human Rights Watch documented that "Hamas security forces reportedly executed individuals opposed to Hamas rule in Gaza, particularly those who had openly supported Israel’s offensive." For those who resisted Hamas's grassroots propaganda or aligned themselves with the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, or even Israel, the consequences were brutal—ranging from gunshot wounds to the legs, imprisonment marked by torture, or outright execution.
Hamas's capacity to implement such measures is enhanced by enlisting its citizens to act as informants against those dissenting publicly. “We call them drones,” disclosed a man who was abducted from his residence by 12 individuals clad in "black masks and red kaffiyehs." He recounted being transported to a secluded location where he was repeatedly shot in the "lower leg." He firmly believes his persecution resulted from publicly criticizing a Hamas leader. This culture of surveillance and intimidation underscores the oppressive mechanisms through which Hamas consolidates authority in Gaza.

Key Patterns and Differences
These examples show how Islamic jihad is understood and practiced in many ways. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood claim they emphasize societal reform before jihad, but others, like Iran and Hamas, use Islamic jihadist violence mixed with political mechanisms to create a form of hybrid warfare against their own people, shifting focus to direct conflict and gaining power. The protection of Al-Aqsa Mosque reflects a more peaceful and protective side of jihad, with an agreement between Jordan and Israel, which is very different from Iran and Hamas, who have become reliant on force and aggression as a means of deterrence and control.

Conclusion: Navigating the Complexities of Faith and Power

This mix of approaches that jihadist use raises questions about the intenet behind their actions. They all have the same intent. To submit modern society under the authority of Allah. Should it come only after a society is reformed, or can it be used right away for political and religious goals? These examples show how jihad can be both an idealized belief and a tool for real-world power, leaving many to debate its true purpose.

The complexities surrounding military jihad and Islamic jihad reveal a stark divergence between their ideological intent and their real-world applications. While jihad, at its core, signifies a struggle for self-improvement and societal harmony, the term has often been weaponized to serve political and authoritarian agendas. Groups like Hamas and states such as Iran have redefined the concept, employing coercion, intimidation, and armed tactics to impose their authority, both internally and externally. These actions challenge the fundamental teachings of jihad, transforming it from a call for spiritual and social justice into a tool for dominance and control.

At the same time, contrasting examples, like Jordan’s stewardship of Al-Aqsa Mosque, demonstrate a more protective and constructive interpretation of jihad, one that seeks to uphold peace and sanctity rather than provoke conflict. This divergence underscores an essential question: Can the principles of jihad coexist with contemporary political ambitions, or has the word itself been irrevocably altered by those who wield it for power?

Unraveling these dual interpretations—the spiritual ideal versus the militant force—invites deeper reflection on how societies use religious tenets to justify their actions. It also urges us to examine where faith ends and politics begin in the shaping of modern Islamic identities. Only by confronting these truths can we discern the potential paths toward a more just and empathetic future for all those impacted by this struggle