NPR: "Rethinking the Word 'Jihad'"

This is from NPR, so what else is new?

Yet jihad always leads to shari'a, which is legalized terror. Let NPR rethink the term. I already know the term 'jihad', what it means, and the principal for which it stands: My enslavement by islam, by any means necessary.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what does NPR stand for? National Public Radio?

All Things Considered, January 7, 2005 · "Jihad" is one of the few Arabic words used in English. It means "spiritual struggle," but many Muslims have pointed out that "jihad" is almost always used in English in the context of terrorism, even though the actual meaning is broader. Commentator Anisa Mehdi would like to propose a word that could be used instead of "jihad."

???????????????????SMOKE AND MIRRORS?????????????

"Lincoln described it best when he posed this question:"If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does he have?" Five", his audience would usually respond. "The correct answer", is four". Calling a tail a leg does not a leg make.

Chuck:)

nippon:

That's correct.

nippon,

NPR= National Public Radio I believe is correct.

SO from now on it is proposed that Jihad is only a peaceful inner struggle, therefore one can say that....
War is peace
Tyrrany is freedom.

Hmmm...actually you can forget those changes to the english language/dictionary. I like it the way it is.

National Proletariat Radio

No amount of lipstick can redeem the visage of a pig. The taqiyyah is getting more transparent, not because the perpetrators are getting sloppy, but because the Western societies are becoming more educated.

Heard this, nearly drove off the road laughing (at the world-historical naivete), and was inspired to start a blog last night entitled "JIHAD FOR IDIOTS" in reply, viewable at-

http://jihad-for-idiots.blogspot.com

(With a nod to Robert Spencer, of course.)

The jihadi's creed is the same as what Stalin said to a rich lady who asked when he would stop liquidating kulaks (wealthy farmers in early Soviet Russia):

"The undersirable classes to do not eliminate themselves."

Substitute "infidels" for "undersirable classes" and the sense and outcome is identical.

Communistic totalitarianism was a wind-up toy compared to the juggernaut of radical Islam.

But the latter will fall, as well, for the same reason:

Humans prefer to think and live and believe freely and will naturally oppose all forms of tyranny over the mind of Man (and Woman).

Sic semper Mohammad.

NPR -- National Public Radio -- during much of the Cold War was known among many as "Radio Moscow of the West" because of their decidedly Leftist sympathies.

Here's a link to the Father of Jihad,if it wasn't such a threat to the existance of all life on Earth I might have chuckled a bit more. Muslims care very little about the present and the value of life,Allah promises them a place in paradise if they die for his cause and the leftist tree-huggers just don't get it.
Islamist are so brainwashed about suicide for Allah that the Nuclear threat is real since distroying the World isthe path to Allah.
Just look at the polution from the Oil pipe
bombings and the oil fires set by Saddam in the Gulf war,Muslims are also enviromental terrorists
bent on killing the Planet and all life on it.

http://davidsonpress.com/islam/

NO ISLAM,NO SUICIDE-BOMBERS!!

Belief in the hereafter is what drives Muslims. Martyrdom is not something for which only Muslims are known for. The Crusades were a form of Jihad. Christian Martyrs are posthumously granted sainthood. So what is the difference between Jihad and fighting for your beliefs?

Secondly, the daily struggle of life, staying away from sin, fighting our own personal greed, trying to stay on the straight path is what is also known as Jihad. Where Nathan is stating that Jihad has never meant struggle in true Islamic scriptures, he is not quoting true Islamic scriptures, more the conjecture and opinions of a select few. As for Al-Mouhajiroun. Well we all know where they stand.

ala-sux-

Thanks for the comic link! Where can I get some of that Zam-Zam water?

Shapps-

"fighting for your beliefs" is not that point.

WHAT your beliefs ARE is.

Islam is a form of mind-death calling itself a religion.

That other similar 'faiths', in the past, have been as narrow and nihilistic and anti-mind as Islam is irrelevant. (Giordano Bruno and Galileo learned the hard way what non-Muslim fantaics can do "fighting for their beliefs" -while these two early astrophysicists and exobiologists were not after 'belief' but scientific facts.)

These other faiths have been brought under the control of rational law and are not now trying to overthrow all of the secular governments of the world and establish a global theocratic tyranny. And render the human intelligence subject to the moronic thoughts of a 7th century pedophile.

I believe this is a bad thing.

And will fight it.

And all other forms of tyranny over the Mind of Man (and Woman).

Inshallah?

The legendary Dhimmi status of NPR has even spread across europe,as i'm only too aware in
Ireland that they along with the BBC are running
neck and neck for the coveted Dhimmi Media prize
of the year,the statue in keeping with the symbolism of the prize is of course a platinum
severed head,a subtle warning to their Dhimmis
to keep islam in the forefront of 21st century
news.NPR changing the meaning of jihad will most
assuredly push BBC,NBC,ABC,CNN aside to win the coveted severed head,but it's going to be a long year so don't write any of the other Dhimmi's of
just yet.

Hi Profitsbeard,

If fighting for your beliefs is not the point then why come on this website and post comments. You are effectively fighting for your beliefs. The belief that "tyranny over the Mind of Man (and Woman)" is wrong, is what you state you believe in.

Thanks,
Shapps

Dear Dr. Spencer,

You write:

"But by trying to get Westerners to use a different word, Anisa Mehdi is only deflecting attention from the real source of the problem: the Islamic doctrine of jihad warfare, which enables terrorist groups to recruit members among Muslims everywhere."

Ms. Mehdi points out that jihad as defined by islamists is not a "spiritual struggle" but a "war on society". I do not understand how this deflects attention from the problem. Could you expand on this?

You also write: "You tell me, Anisa Mehdi: are these men talking about a spiritual struggle?"

I think this is exactly Ms. Mehdi's point. The fundamentalists are not talking about a spiritual struggle and therefore should not be calling it Jihad.

Thank you.

Ilka

Ilka,

The problem with Ms. Mehdi's point is that any examination of Islamic theology and history will reveal that Muslims have never restricted the meaning of the word jihad to a spiritual struggle.

The Qur'an and Hadith are quite clear in numerous passages: jihad means fighting unbelievers. Only later, on the basis of a hadith deemed dubious by Hassan Al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, and others, was the idea that it was a spiritual struggle devised.

People like Osama are working squarely within Islamic tradition when they say that jihad means warfare. If his opponents ignore that, they will likely be blindsided in this struggle by attacks from quarters they thought benign.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer