A few more quick comments that maybe Muslim Guy or others could feel free to elaborate on.
Planet Stu: The Taliban are members of the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam, which was founded on the Arabian penninsula in the mid-18th century by Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab and later adopted and championed by the ibn Saud family of Dir’iyah. It is currently practiced in Saudi Arabia, a couple of other Gulf States ( like the UAE ) and the Taliban ( Saudi missionaries exported the faith to Afghan refugee camps during the Afghan-Soviet war ). Osama bin Laden is an adherent.
In essence it is a reactionary, puritanical sect that rejects all innovation introduced into Islam after about the tenth century. So Sufism, for example, is considered heresy. And any other orthodox tradition that tolerates or compromise with what they label as “perversions” ( i.e. more modern theological thought ) are considered open to attack.
The Islamic law the Taliban use is essentially from the Hanbali school of Sunni jurisprudence, the strictes and most rigid of the four main schools in existence today. It adheres fairly fanatically to a supposed “letter-of-the-law” reading of the Koran and Hadith. In addition the Taliban ( and, it could be argued, the Wahhabi’s in general ) seem to have introduced a lot of dubious interpretations that appear to be more related to local conservative social conventions, than the Koran per se.
kfwilkinson: The weasley answer to your question is - “Whoever decides the call to Jihad is legitimate in this case.” Unfortunately that’s about as far as one can go. Sunnism, as Mulim Guy has pointed out and Izzy has run across, doesn’t have anything approaching a true clergy with a well-organized hiearchy. Instead it has “learned men” who make pronouncements. The extent to which they are acknowledged has to do with a wide range of factors, including public opinion on the issue, the extent of their personal following, the extent to which the secular government recognizes their authority, the opinions of other clerics on the issue and them, etc. .
So the actual answer to your question is “everyone” ( Islam enjoins participation in Jihad as a duty ) and “no one” ( but who’s to say this is a legitimate Jihad? ). Not a lotta help, is it 
?
Izzy: The only comment I’d like to make on your question is that their are literally tens of thousands of “theologians” of that stripe issuing those decrees. Islam, particularly Sunni Islam, has a pretty loose definition of “theologian”. They could be anybody from a person with a degree in Islamic Theology from a western-style university, to a village mullah who was trained to perform simple rites by the previous guy. About the only thing they would all be certain to have in common, is sufficient literacy to slog through the Koran in the original Arabic. Otherwise, requirements are pretty open-ended ( and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no universal grading method ). So 350 is not such a large number and at any rate, the number is irrelevant, I think. It’s their individual and collective pull that makes the difference. In this case, I admit I don’t know what that equates to.
Pantagruel: Jihad has a few meanings. One is the spirtual struggle with one’s self ( Jihad literally means “struggle” - the religious dimension, i.e.“Holy”, is implicit, but not part of the actual word ) .
The other is a cognate of “Holy War” ( though in fact, that exact term is not used in the Koran, ). Although I think one can make an argument that it is essentially defensive in concept ( sanctioned warfare against those who fight Muslims on religious grounds or seek to drive them from their homes ), in the application it has just as often been offensive. One is reminded of the phrase, “the best defense is a good offense” . Unfortunately, like most everything else in Islam ( or Judeo-Christian religion generally ), the question of when a military Jihad is mandated can be a thorny issue.
For example, I believe one can chart one of Osama bin Laden’s justifications thusly ( note, it should go without saying, but I don’t necessarily agree with any of the below ):
1.)Israel drives Muslims from their homes.
2.) The U.S. government provides support to Israel that directly or indirectly facilitates this action. Therefore it is complicit in these crimes.
3.) U.S. citizens support the U.S.government by paying taxes and not rising up to prevent this support. Therefore they are complicit in these crimes.
4.) Therefore it is permissable to target U.S. civilians.
QUITE a stretch. And in the opinion of most Muslims, I think, quite un-Islamic. Also, I’m pretty sure the Israel situation is not bin Laden’s biggest single beef. But you can see how one can start reaching for justification.
As to whether Jihad is the “soul of Islam” - Well, in what sense? The inner spiritual struggle or the military resistance to enemies of Islam? If we are talking about the spiritual side of the coin, I think that might just be applicable . To the Taliban, that have been fighting from day one, and are militant fanatics, it’s easy to see why they might focus on the armed struggle.
But maybe Muslim Guy can shed some light on that aspect.
