Last night I was on Alan Colmes' radio show. Colmes has me on, of course, hoping that I will play Washington Generals to his Harlem Globetrotters, but I do what I can in between his multitudinous interruptions. Last night he asked me about Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef, aka Derrick Shareef. Colmes said he considered this an isolated incident that had nothing to do with Islam. He said that the real difficulty after incidents like this was that people like me starting pointing to Islam as the problem, fueling hatred and intolerance. I responded, of course, to the effect that it had everything to do with Islam, and that Colmes himself was carrying water for the jihadists by diverting attention onto people like me who report honestly about such incidents, and away from the work that needed to be done by peaceful Muslims to prevent this sort of thing from happening by, among other things, teaching against the jihad ideology.
And here is a variant of the same phenonomenon that Colmes represents. In "Jihad: A word that represents a lot of miscommunication," Pat Cunningham in the Rockford Register Star scratches his head over the meaning of jihad and suggests that Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef has it wrong when he thinks that it means violence against unbelievers. He does have a few -- Neuhaus, Pipes -- who get it right, but then has Maher Hathout whining that non-Muslims are defining Islam for Muslims. This gives the impression that it is only wicked Islamophobes and crazed Misunderstanders Of Islam (i.e., Al-Qaeda) who believe jihad involves violence.
Well, heck, Pat, I could have gotten you a hundred definitions of jihad written by Muslims for Muslims that support Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef's idea that it involves violence. Then it might have been a good idea for Cunningham to start asking Chicago-area Muslims where they thought Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef might have gotten the idea that jihad involved violence, and what they proposed to do to make sure that such teachings did not spread further among their community. And if they had no such plans, that itself would have been news, wouldn't it?
But I guess it is easy to purvey pabulum about "misconceptions."
The Arabic word “jihad,” which Rockford terror suspect Derrick Shareef used in conversations with an undercover FBI source, is not an easy term to define.More to the point, the definition of jihad depends on whom you ask. Western news media usually equate jihad with “holy war,” but some Islamists and Middle East scholars dispute that definition as too simplistic.
Brian Handwerk, writing for National Geographic News in 2003, said jihad “is a loaded term and a concept that illustrates a deep gulf of miscommunication between Islam and the West.”
Handwerk said the Arabic meaning of the word is “exerted effort.”
“In the Quran,” notes Handwerk, “it’s projected as exerting effort to change oneself, and also in certain situations physically standing against oppressors, if that’s the only way.”
Handwerk argues, however, that “the concept of jihad as a struggle for self-improvement is little known among non-believers.”
True jihad, says Harvard professor David Mitten, a faculty adviser to the school’s Islamic Society, is “the constant struggle of Muslims to conquer their inner base instincts, to follow the path to God and to do good in society.”
But the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a prominent Catholic intellectual, wrote in Time magazine last month that such jihadist groups as al-Qaida believe “their religion mandates the use of any means necessary, including suicide bombers and the mass killing of civilians, to bring about the world’s submission to Islam.”
Daniel Pipes, who has a doctorate in early Islamic history from Harvard and is director of the Middle East Forum, wrote recently that jihad “is an elastic term” that has changed over time and among different Islamic groups.
“In premodern times,” he wrote, “jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims, then as now the Islamic majority. It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims ... at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.”
Maher Hathout, author of “Jihad vs. Terrorism,” complained in his book that “everyone is defining us except us, everyone is explaining jihad except for Muslims.”
If different Muslims ascribe different meanings to jihad, Islam is like other religions in which adherents differ on the meanings of vice and virtue, sinfulness and saintliness.
Shareef, the suspect in the Rockford case, made a videotape last week on which he mentioned jihad.
According to federal authorities, Shareef said he wanted to let Muslims know “that the time for jihad is now. ... Be strong, oh brothers who want to fight for jihad.”
The implied definition of jihad in that context clearly is at odds with the meaning embraced by countless Muslims.
In Brian Handwerk’s essay for National Geographic, he quoted Sheik Jaafar Idris of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington to the effect that there are “two kinds of jihad, because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice.”
The jihad of the sword, Handwerk wrote, “has received the lion’s share of global attention” in recent years.
Gee, Handwerk, why do you think that might be so?
"The Arabic word “jihad,” ... is not an easy term to define."
Maybe it would help Alan Colmes understand what the word means by translating it into German: "mein Kampf."
Before any discussion of jihad two questions must be canvassed:
Does islam value truth ?
No, it doesn't - one can do whatever serves the umma, the believers.
Does islam counsel taqayyah ?
Of cource. In this instance, the deception of unbelievers as to motive etc. is mandated. (Mohammad - war is deception - and he did a lot of deceiving as almost all his battles except one, were agressive)
So mush minded media, including commentators, are just patsies ( Sally Field gushing - you really love me) for this crap;
(failing to ask where Baker's law firm gets its money - representing the Saudi bastards);
At it lightest level, jihad is shameful behaviour - but that is from our, a Western, perspective; from islam, its the 'right thing to do'.
Despicable.
Jihad - "And those who strive hard for Us, We will certainly guide them in our ways" 29:69
"Strive hard against them a mighty striving with it" (25:52)
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you and do not exceed this limit" (2:190)
"And fight with them until there is no persecution and all religions are only for Allah."
What is not mentioned is that, essentially, in Islam if you are not a Muslim then you are automatically considered as "fighting" against Islam and, thus, a legitimate target for fighting according to the Qu'ran.
Fighting which can, and does, take the form of physical violence.
I would love to see a survey done to see if ANY of our leaders, including President Bush, and any one in the Media have read the Qu'ran. I bet they haven't even glanced at it.
I could be wrong, but I'm curious now.
"Pat Cunningham in the Rockford Register Star scratches his head over the meaning of jihad and suggests that Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef has it wrong when he thinks that it means violence against unbelievers." --Robert
Cunningham's presentation is certainly confused, perhaps reflecting his own state of confusion surrounding the issue. He states, in reference to jihad as fighting:
"The implied definition of jihad in that context [of violence] clearly is at odds with the meaning embraced by countless Muslims." --Cunningham [bracketed insertion added]
It isn't "at odds with" anything except a partial understanding of what the word means. Jihad refers to struggle of all kinds. For Muslims in the Islam context this generally means struggle through speech, writing and Islamic studies, funding of Islamic endeavours (of all kinds), da'wa (i.e., propaganda), political activism, and physical fighting to defend or advance the religion. And, yes, it can refer to struggle against one's own inner tendencies toward disbelief and disobedience in Islam. The goal is to defeat disbelief in both the inner and the external worlds--and the latter includes restricting the behaviour of disbelievers and killing them if necessary if they do not comply. Anything that advances the goal of Islam, which is to bring all of humankind under Islamic rule, is jihad in the cause of Allah.
In Islamic jurisprudence, jihad primarily refers to the use of physical force to defend, establish, or spread Islam.
Alan Colmes and Pat Cunningham are good examples of why the public respects journalists less than used-car salesmen. If ever a profession deserved to be despised, it's theirs.
Hopefully one of these days people like Alan Colmes will take the time to open up the Quran instead of reading the editorial pages of the Duranty Times (New York Times)!
The following surahs are but just a few that call for Jihad against all non-believers. there are earlier surahs that call for defensive jihads(not posted) forming before those that are listed below in the Koran that lead up to the offensive jihads that Mohammed proclaimed in the name Allah after he gained greater, and greater armies after his last arrival into Mecca.
Sura 4:84,88,89 (Fight, and rouse other believers to fight. Don't join the hypocrites, but instead seize and slay them if they flee or betray you.)
Sura 4:95,96 (God gives a higher grade and reward to those who strive and fight in God's cause.)
Sura 4:100 (sure reward for those who die in the cause of God)
Sura 33:50 (you may take women whom you capture to be your concubines in addition to your wives)
Sura 48:29a (Muslims fight against unbelievers, but are loving among themselves)
Sura 9:1-6 (Dissolve all treaties with those pagans who haven't kept them, giving them four months notice. But keep your treaties with other idol worshipers till the end of the time agreed upon. In the future, make no more treaties with pagans, but kill those who do not receive Islam.)
Sura 9:16 (God knows those who strive with all they have, and don't make friends with or seek protection from non-Muslims)
Sura 9:19-22 (Jihad is greater than other service, and of the highest rank in the sight of God)
Sura 9:29-31 (fight against Jews and Christians until they are subdued, because God's curse is on them)
Sura 9:38,39,41 (Don't avoid fighting, but fight with whatever you have. Otherwise God will punish you with serious punishment.)
Sura 9:52,73 (Muslims can expect either martyrdom/paradise or victory in battle. Unbelievers can expect only punishment from God. Fight hard against unbelievers, whose abode is hell.)
Sura 9:111 (God gives Paradise to those who give all they have to God and slay and/or are slain in Jihad.)
Sura 9:123 (fight the unbelievers surrounding you)
Sura 5:36-38 (death or torture to those who oppose the Apostle
Sura 5:54 (Don't befriend Jews or Christians because they are unjust and unreliable)
And from one of thousands of Hadiths that where comprised by Al- Bukhari
4:267,269 Muhammad said, "War is deceit."
It is quite easy to define, just type in jihad in search field here :
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html
And see what it is all about.
Alan Colmes is an expert at trying to interrupt his guests. On H & C last night, he interrupted Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and finally, Rohrabacher told him to stop interrupting him....Colmes finally shut up and let him finish what he was saying.
Colmes seems to be one of those who knows that the crocodile wants to eat them, but hopes that appeasment will convince it to eat them last.
Alan Colmes is one of the most idiotic people in broadcasting. Sometimes I can't believe that any human being can be so oblivious to reality as he apparently is.
Last night he actually took the side of a career Mexican drug smuggler against a couple of Border Patrol agents who are being railroaded to prison by the Bush administration for doing their jobs. And as DC Watson mentioned, Colmes was obnoxious to Rep Rohrabacher who was visibly angry at being interrupted so much as he tried to explain the truth about agents' case.
So Colmes' dhim attitude is part of the whole package.
"multitudinous..."
-- from Robert's discussion above
A good word. Coined by Shakespeare. "No, this my hand will rather/The multitudinous seas incarnadine/Making the green one red."
Say that last line in either, or both, of two ways. A little pause after "green," and then say "one red" as a unit. Or pause after "one," thereby making "green one" a unit, and then then "red." Keep doing this for as long as you like.
Red/Green, Green/Red.
It's the Christmas season, after all. You can't go wrong.
Red/Green And if you can't be handsome at least be handy. Eh.
So, I wonder if the person who is cut 999 times realizes that all the cuts together will kill him? Or if it takes falling over on the thousandth cut before he realizes that they were all connected?
In Brian Handwerk’s essay for National Geographic, he quoted Sheik Jaafar Idris of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington to the effect that there are “two kinds of jihad, because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice.”
The jihad of the sword, Handwerk wrote, “has received the lion’s share of global attention” in recent years.
Let me expand on Robert's comment at the end of the post:
Even if jihad did not, as it does, predominantly mean "holy war" (as any perusal of the Quran and the hadiths will tell you, where primacy and superiority is given to he who takes up arms for Allah), here is the thing, Handwerk: we do not care.
We do not care if, in some splintered side-usage, "jihad" also means a spiritual struggle against masturbation, or eating during the Ramadan fast, or exploitation, or anything else.
We do not care.
We are only concerned with jihad and how it impacts us: that is, the people on whom aggressive jihad is being waged. It is very fine to tell us that there are many interpretations, and we are sure there are - but the interpretation of war is the one that concerns us.
Specifying that, well, there are many many ways to interpret jihad does not change one whit how it is being applied against us. It does not matter and it does not legitimize it. It must stop.
Now.
Hugh:
Interesting alliteration. Red/Green. How they do go together, and not merely here.
Geoff
I just watched a segment on CNN Headline News about "Jail-house Islam" Unfriggin'believable! Islam teaches men to have a pleasant personality!
I did not know that!
The guy smiled so sweetly...
A religion that tells men in prison that they do not have to change their violent ways, what more can they ask for? No challenge to become righteous, just kill more, terrorize more, rape more (infidels), steal more (from infidels)...wow!...what a deal!
Last night he actually took the side of a career Mexican drug smuggler against a couple of Border Patrol agents who are being railroaded to prison by the Bush administration for doing their jobs.
Dana
I watched the way he was speaking to this Brook Young of Immigrationwatchdog who was in defense of the minutemen. Good old Alan was rude to him.
Here's a link to the site.
http://immigrationwatchdog.com
Alan (the corpse) Colmes is a case study of the mentally ill version of liberalism.
Our FBI agents are being taught (through enforced sensitivity training) that jihad means a peaceful "inner struggle" with the self.
jihad may be tough for some to come to terms with- so here's a few easier descriptions of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam- Racial hatred! Cult inspired biggotry! Psychotic prejudicial rage! http://sacredscoop.com
One headline for this story read: Shopping Mall Terror Plot Foiled; FBI: Man planned "to disrupt Christmas" with "acts of jihad"
This inspired me, in the true spirit of “the holidays”, that magical time between Ramadan and Kwanza, to humbly offer “The Ramadan Song”
(sung to the tune of a hopelessly reactionary tune formerly called The Christmas Song)
Infidels roasting on an open fire;
Talib tossing a grenade;
“Allah Akbar” being screamed by the crowd;
And women veiled from head to toe…
Everybody knows some hummus and a fresh-killed goat
Helps fuel the suicide desire;
Tiny tots with their eyes all aglow
Will watch decapitation videos…
There’s no use in trying to resist;
CNN and BBC are on our side;
And so I say to everyone everywhere
Submit to Islam or you’re next!
With a body count that could stack to the moon and there are still talking-heads on radio and TV that will do anything to quibble over the nature of jihad and Islam and everything in-between.
Insanity.
Keep up the good fight, Robert.
Sigh ... standard subjectivist drivel.
"More to the point, the definition of [anything] depends on whom you ask. ....".
Ah ... actually no.
The definition of Kool-Aid does not depend on who you ask and I suggest that you put that cup down right now.
Our entire political class it seems, and all the semi-literate dunces of the media are soaked in the soothing anaesthesia of agnosis as a general approach to a rough and uncomfortable reality.
(I have the idea that "agnosticism" refers only to religion, and a general inability/unwillingness to know, would be agnosis or agnosia).
In any case it's all part of the same know-nothing package. The truth about reality is not discovered by asking a lot of other people and then pulling your chin in confusion.
Fact of reality - Mr. Spencer has dealt with the definition of the word "jihad", objectively and at length.
Fact of reality - plenty, probably millions, of mohammedans think that jihad means war on the infidels, imperial conquest, and regard it as a moral obligation (not to mention fun).
And the facts are gonna getcha if you don't look out.
==========
The only amusement in all this mental rot, is that the same mental midgets that proudly intone how nothing is knowable or definable will rush to the lawyers office to sue the hell out of any doctor who makes the slightest error in their treatment.
Their complacency about no-right-answers evaporates pretty quick if they get to play victim.
GOOD NEWS---BAD NEWS!
you say you want the good news first?
Iran's foreign minister said that Iran would be happy to help us withdraw from Iraq.
But here's the bad news:
They demand that we change our attitude towards Iran, especially where it concerns their development of nuclear "ahem" technology for "ahem" peaceful purposes.
More bad news:
Iran is willing to help us partition Jerusalem and set up new boundaries for the, The Iranian sector, the Syrian sector...etc..
read it here and other places:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6164505.stm
"The Arabic word “jihad,” ... is not an easy term to define."
Maybe it would help Alan Colmes understand what the word means by translating it into German: "mein Kampf."
Posted by: Stendec
I'll make it even easier for him. In English "jihad" means: Kill the "unbelievers".
(failing to ask where Baker's law firm gets its money - representing the Saudi bastards);
At it lightest level, jihad is shameful behaviour - but that is from our, a Western, perspective; from islam, its the 'right thing to do'.
Despicable.
Posted by: dgene
Baker is more evil than the guys in "The Firm". The Mafia is a patriotic organization when compared to the "Kingdom" of SOWdi Arabia.
I am still waiting for the day we finally declare WAR on SOWdi Arabia. They are the wellspring of jihad. Even Ach-ich-bin-ein-Nazi in Iran is a rank amateur compared to the SOWdis.
With a body count that could stack to the moon and there are still talking-heads on radio and TV that will do anything to quibble over the nature of jihad and Islam and everything in-between.
Insanity.
Keep up the good fight, Robert.
Posted by: Foehammer
The only way islamos can ever get to the moon is to kill enough folks and pile up the bodies high enough.
It's us or them. They make that clear each and every day.
Alan Colmes is not a journalist, in fact none of the talking heads on TV or Radio are Journalists..
Journalism is a long dead profession, what you have are news readers, pundits (ignorant and biased ones at that).
The media has cut back on it's journalism staff, to save money and depend on the various wire services and government handouts (propaganda).
Alan Colmes is not even a true liberal, he is a charade, a transparent actor and even wikipedia describes him as a liberal with "sneer" quotes ("liberal").
It is all entertainment, and these talking heads are entertainment professionals..and the only people they influence (on any side) are morons.. then again not much can be said about the American public and it's mentality.. be it Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken or P.T. Barnum..no matter how it is said, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence and gullibility of the American public.. as proof look at who we have elected President at least in the last 30 years..
Robert,
You wrote that Maher Hathout complained “everyone is defining us except us, everyone is explaining jihad except for Muslims.” That struck me as an odd thing for him to say. It seems to me only Muslims are defining jihad.
As a child, I learned to define “hot”, not by words, but by physical attribute when I made contact with a very hot surface. It was only later in life that I learned that “hot” could be described by words (some not even pertaining to temperature), but no words compare to learning the physical attributes by experiencing what hot is. I learned hot could hurt me. That experience helped me throughout life when someone warned of other dangers that could inflict harm.
There may be countless ways jihad could be defined by words, but I don’t rely on any of those descriptions. In much the same way that I learned what “hot” meant through an experience that defined it through my sense of touch, I have learned to define jihad through my sense of sight, sound and reason.
First, it is only Muslims that I have ever heard say they were making jihad. It may seem silly to state that, but it is why I associate jihad with Muslims. As such, I count on Muslims to define it. Aside from that association with Muslims, I can define jihad by physical evidence Muslims provide of what jihad is where word descriptions fail.
When I hear Muslims declare jihad, and see news footage of broken, twisted bodies of innocent victims left in the wake, it is not me, nor the news reporter that has defined jihad. The Muslims gave it a physical definition.
Maher Hathout has no right to complain. It is ONLY Muslims that are defining jihad with physical evidence where words fail.
"In Brian Handwerk’s essay for National Geographic, he quoted Sheik Jaafar Idris of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington to the effect that there are “two kinds of jihad, because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice.”
Does that mean I have a choice between someone shouting at me in Arabic and someone shooting at me in Arabic?
Hmmm. Earplugs...Kevlar...
I think people like Alan Colmes should discover the meaning of jihad by going to Iraq or some other place in cesspoolia and asking some Muslims there about it. The problem with that is these people will be unable to tell their audience the truth for they would be dead.
im a strong believer in permioting the muslims define exactly what jihad is!
in qu'ran there are two jihad mentioned, one greater jihad and the second the lesser jihad!
the "greater jihad" is that struggle for the muslim to maintain his/her deen!
the lesser jihad is that which all muslims who are sane and mature male and female ore "obligated" to fight the nonmuslims to spread islam!
oddly enough, only the "lesser jihad" is obligatory! the muslim is not "obligated" to seek to struggle to maintain his/her deen!
here is how one of islams greatest islamic scholars of all time defines jihad:
JIHAD:
Sahih AL-Bukari v4b52n44 .Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s cause with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah is made superior and he becomes the only god who may be worshipped. By jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.
So what is so hard to comprehend about that?
here is how jihad is defined in islams book of justice or fiqh(jurisprudence):
reliance of the traveler:
þ*** Found in: BOOK O: JUSTICE.
Chapter O-9.0: Jihad.O-9.4:
Who is Obligated to Fight in Jihad
Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.þ Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.''The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b-7) is such Koranic verses as:
1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);
2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);
3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';
þ*** Found in: BOOK O: JUSTICE. Chapter O-9.0: Jihad. 0-9.3,,,Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.whoever is found by non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).þ
well i think that pretty much describes what jihad means.
I think the kafir should leave it to the muslims themselves to describe what jihad means. not by words but what has been written by their islamic scholars. we wouldnt want to confuse the muslims now would we?
The Arabic word “jihad,” ... is not an easy term to define."
Maybe it would help Alan Colmes understand what the word means by translating it into German: "mein Kampf."
Posted by: Stendec
Exactly.
nariz, this time you are partly right. We got Carter, who gave Iran to the Mullahs... we got Clinton, who ignored nearly a decade of advances by the jihadists while working to neuter both the military and the intelligence agencies...
Too bad so many are worried about words rather than actions. In dealing with a religion that places a premium upon deception, let us watch what Islamists do instead of conecerning ourselves so much about what they say. Islam is as Islam does, sir.
Bullsheet!
Jihad: a rallying call to all bullsheet troublemakers.
CAIR: a front for bullsheet troublemakers.
Imam: an instigator of bullsheet troublemaking.
Ayatollah: the supreme bullsheet troublemaker.
Sheik: someone smart enough to keep the oil wealth for himself and divert the bullsheet troublemakers by encouraging, supporting and funding bullsheet troublemakers abroad.
NASCAR Jihad: a term coined by Michael Savage, who has been sounding the alarm against dhimmitude for quite sometime for the benefit of commuters. Essentially, Nascar Jihad is the concept that we may run out of oil, but we can still whoop their butts if and when we decide enough is enough.