이슬람은 세계적으로 큰 이슈를 만들고 있다. 종교적으로 세계 제2위의 교세를 가지고 공격적인 선교로 급성장하고 있으며, 그 열정은 메카의 성지순례(하지)에서 수백 명씩 압사하는 현상으로 드러나기도 한다. 또한 2014년부터 ‘이슬람국가’(IS)가 시리아 내전에 참여하여 석유가 생산되는 국토를 장악하면서 세계의 젊은이들을 용병으로 끌어 들이며 확전되고 있다. 2015년 9월 현재 시리아 전체 인구 2300만 명의 절반이 난민이고 400만 명이 목숨을 건 탈출을 시도하고 있다. IS의 무자비한 학살은 오늘날 정의가 도전받고 있는 확실한 증표다. 이슬람은 종교와 정치가 매우 밀접한 관계에 있으며, 개인과 사회가 구분이 없기 때문에 정치는 물론 경제와 사회 문화의 영역까지도 크게 영향을 미친다. 따라서 이 논문은 이런 영역들을 정의의 관점에서 살펴보고, 상호존중과 정의로운 평화 안에서의 기독교 선교방안을 모색한다.

In the wake of September 11, 2001 the word Jihad became well known in the non-Muslim world, especially, in western societies. Some politicians and media have used it to conjure up terrifying images of rabid Islamic fundamentalists. The word Jihad come from a religious context, and has a long history and has been used for a range of complex meanings. However these days it tends to be translated “holy war” from its association with the medieval Crusades. Because of this, there is a current debate whether the usage of the term jihad without further explanation refers to military combat. Some apologists and some western scholars insist that jihad is primarily nonviolent. On the other hand, some Islamic fundamentalists turn the confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage. In this article the author examines how the concept of Jihad was developed in the Quran and the Hadiths and how each of the sub-groups of Islam defines its meaning in their historical contexts. The author begins with the hypothesis that the common mistake made in the study of Islam by outsiders, as in the study of other religions, is to treat Islam as a unified religious system. The reality is that all Muslims are not same in their manner of thinking, believing, and living. Historically proto-Sufism began to add nonviolent concepts into the meaning of Jihad in the context of the conversion of ascetics. This became the understanding of Sufism. For them the concept of greater jihad and lesser jihad were used to imply the meaning of inner spiritual discipline. On the other hand the main streams of Islam, Sunni and Shia, do not reject the use of violence in when they performing jihad. In fact they seem to have added additional kinds of jihad, as well as to develop some preconditions for waging holy wars. Though some pacifistic groups, particularly Ahmadiyya, reject the violent aspect of jihad, modern fundamentalists insist that every Muslim should engage in militant jihad and destroy indiscriminately everything which is in opposition to Islam. In conclusion, the author suggests that we should not expect monolithic answers when we pose questions of Muslims. Instead, we should begin to ask what kind of worldview each particular Muslim person and community have. We will see that each group in Islam, including secular Muslims, have quite different perspectives on the meaning and practices of jihad. To serve Muslims effectively, we need to begin with an informed understanding of each of them if we are to establish a respectful and trustful relationship with them.