Jihadi Etienne and the Downfall of Superficiality

Together with Etienne Vermeersch in one of our many TV debates

At first, I thought about not responding to Etienne Vermeersch's latest reply to me in the DM of January 22. Mainly because I did not see any new substantive arguments in it. He still doesn’t get it and keeps coming back with half-truths based on Google searches and a single book on his shelf.
Vermeersch still fails to understand that my argument regarding the concept of jihad in the Quran—as being open to multiple interpretations—cannot be refuted by writings outside the Quran. However, because his claim is not only false but also dangerous—especially given that many young Muslims and non-Muslims are following this discussion and may come to the conclusion that jihad as aggression to spread the faith is a mainstream position in Islamic doctrine, when it is not—I have decided to once again clarify a few key points.

 ​Yes, of course, I am aware that interpretations of jihad in various theological books—both old and new—can be extremely rigid and maximalist. There are also many interpretations that are absurdly minimalist, reducing jihad to nothing more than spiritual purification or self-discipline. In reality, there are as many interpretations of jihad as there are Islamic schools of thought. There is no ijma’ (consensus). Ijma’ is a myth propagated by every theological school to legitimize its own doctrine as orthodoxy. In reality, Islamic tradition is a rich tradition of debate and diversity. Muslims do not even agree on the characteristics of God or the Quran itself, let alone on the concept of jihad.
Yet Vermeersch continues to cite a single book, which he treats as the definitive reference, as if it represents some mythical Islamic consensus. He disregards the vast and diverse body of Islamic hermeneutics, reducing it to insignificance compared to that one book. But ultimately, none of that really matters. I will simplify things further—perhaps that will help.
Imagine, Mr. Vermeersch, that instead of just one book on Islamic theology in your library, you had, like me, a collection of nearly a hundred books. Imagine, like me, you were fluent in Arabic and Classical Arabic, so you did not have to rely on translations of the Quran or theological texts. And imagine that, after reading all these books, you could demonstrate that there was only one interpretation of jihad—one that is purely offensive, aggressive, and expansionist. Even then, it would remain just an interpretation.
Because—and I repeat this for the last time—my argument in that dual interview with Boudry, which sparked your initial response, was that in the Quran itself, jihad is a broad, flexible concept open to interpretation.
In my reply to you, I further clarified that in the Quran itself, jihad is always defensive because it depends on a legitimate casus belli initiated by the enemy. Only after such an act of aggression can jihad escalate into an offensive response within the context of open warfare. Initiating jihad to spread the faith is not a Quranic concept. It was never practiced during the Prophet’s lifetime. Every battle the Prophet fought was initiated by his opponents—specifically, the Meccans.
The only military expedition beyond the Arabian Peninsula during the Prophet’s lifetime was in response to the killing of emissaries by a Roman governor. As you undoubtedly know, the killing of emissaries is universally recognized as a legitimate casus belli. An aggressive jihad—one without a legitimate cause—does not exist in the Quran.
The fact that Arab rulers built an empire and waged wars after the Prophet’s death was not motivated by a desire to spread religion but by the pursuit of power and expansionism. In this, the Arabs were no different from the Romans or the Persians. Islam, during that period, was interpreted in ways that justified expansion—just as Christianity served as a tool of conquest for the Byzantines and later the Crusaders. Religion functioned as a mobilizing narrative to legitimize conquest, but it was not the true motive behind it.
The Quranic verses about fighting against disbelievers refer specifically to the Meccans in that historical period and in the context of their ongoing aggression against the Prophet and his followers in the 7th century. That you extrapolate this to all non-Muslims today, and that some Islamic traditions have done the same, is well known. This is what we call jihadism.
When I referenced Yusuf al-Qaradawi and his 1,400-page book The Theology of Jihad, and you responded by translating jihad al-talab as offensive jihad and equating offensive jihad with aggression, you made an illogical leap. From the perspective of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), and certainly in Qaradawi’s framework, jihad is understood within the principles of just war—interpreted as resistance, self-defense, or retaliation, but never as unprovoked aggression. Qaradawi’s conservative views on other matters are irrelevant here. I could have cited progressive reformists to make this point, but it is actually more useful to reference the most prominent mainstream conservative theologian in Sunni Islam today.
But once again, this debate is about interpretations, not the Quranic text itself.
Last but not least, with some frustration, I find myself having to send you the same message that hundreds of Islamic scholars recently addressed to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of ISIS. Your understanding of jihad aligns with his, which is why this message is just as relevant to you. You can read the full letter here.
In this letter, the scholars state the following about jihad:
"Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose, and the right rules of conduct."
Through more than 70 pages of argumentation, they demonstrate that this is the position of the overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars and schools—except for a few Shafi’i scholars. This proves that the minority opinion, which allows offensive jihad without a casus belli, is exactly that: a minority opinion.
Superficial arguments cannot prevail in such debates. I still hope that these arguments will not only convince Vermeersch but also his young jihadi ideological counterparts who similarly adhere to this minority interpretation and view jihad as offensive warfare.
And I will end with the words of the Quran itself:
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not be aggressors, for Allah does not love aggressors." (Surah 2:190)