Abstract
The paper is based on interviews with Czech Muslim community leaders and focuses on the way how do they interpret the concept of jihad, how do they think the concept should be implemented in action, and what factors shape their interpretations. The dates have been analysed using qualitative methodology that have uncovered two parallel understandings of the concept: a wide (struggle to promote something good) as well as a narrow one (armed struggle).
Three different typologies of jihad have been identified based on the wide understanding of the concept, however there is not a strong support for such dealing with the concept. As for the narrow definition of the concept, there is a consensus that jihad is legitimate in self-defence.
On the contrary, there is a tendency to reject the offensive jihad, especially in terms of spreading the Islamic faith. There is a weak consensus regarding the many conditions under which jihad can be issued and waged, especially what authority can issue jihad and if such authority exist today.
There is also an absence of consensus regarding the question if the legitimate actors of jihad are only nation states or also non-state actors including the public living under occupation or oppressive regimes. The interpretative plurality is shaped by five factors: referring to different authorities and ethical principles; different reading of Islamic history and contemporary political realities; talking to different audiences.