Ed Morrissey is a standup guy and a terrific commentator over at Hot Air, and I've much enjoyed being on his radio show a couple of times. A few days ago, however, he posted a favorable evaluation of the Singer/Noor op-ed in the New York Times -- the same piece I wrote about unfavorably here yesterday. At Hot Air yesterday evening Ed kindly linked to my post, and disagrees:
If we use jihad to describe these acts, it sounds as if we’re recognizing those attacks as part of a holy war, or put another way, that we accept the construct of the terrorists.
Perhaps I didn't make my point clear in my first post about this op-ed. The idea of jihad warfare to subjugate infidels under the rule of Islamic law was not invented by the terrorists. To acknowledge that that is what we are fighting is not to "accept the construct of the terrorists," but simply to accept reality -- which is the first step toward adjusting to it.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to argue that we don’t accept that any war is holy, especially when people target non-combatants (in our estimation, at least).
I couldn't agree more with this. But if this were done, we would have to understand it for what it would be: a challenge to a traditional concept within Islam. We can't do this by pretending that what the jihadists are doing is not in accord with mainstream, classic principles of Islam. Islamic law allows for the killing of women and children, i.e., non-combatants, if they are perceived as aiding the war effort against the Muslims ('Umdat al-Salik o9.10, cf. al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2). The idea that large numbers of Muslims are disgusted with the jihadists because they target non-combatants has no basis in anything but wishful thinking: the only evidence we have of any large-scale revulsion among Muslims for the jihadists has come when they targeted fellow Muslims, as in the bombings in Jordan a few years ago.
So if American officials were to say we don't see any war as holy, especially when people target non-combatants, they would be doing exactly what I recommended yesterday: taking on the principles of Sharia and offering a better way of life. But if they do this while imagining that they will tap into a huge reservoir of Muslims who believe on Islamic grounds that no war is holy, they'll be kidding themselves. They may win over Muslims who reject the holiness of war because of their own horrific experience, or on pragmatic grounds, or for any number of other reasons, but not because Islam doesn't teach warfare against unbelievers -- as, in its new guidelines, State is trying to pretend.
Regardless of how we define jihad, the terrorists and their sympathizers hear us essentially endorsing the holy nature of their fight.
This is the common charge, but I wonder if there is any evidence for it at all. Has any jihadist ever been quoted anywhere as saying, "See? Even the Americans call us 'jihadists.' They admit we are waging war for Allah!"? I doubt it. America, in the jihadist view, is the Great Satan. Is what the Great Satan thinks of them is really that important?
In any case, I'm all for calling them criminals. I'm just not for kidding ourselves that when we do, we will find millions of Muslims suddenly saying, "Hey, you know what? I guess they are criminals at that!"
In the end, it won’t make much difference whether we stop using the term or not. It’s an interesting academic exercise.
Here is the most important point. This is not an academic exercise at all. This is a question with immense policy implications. If we believe that only Muslims who are twisting the true meaning of jihad believe that it has to do with fighting against and subjugating infidels, we will not win over any Muslims, who do not accept the United States government as an Islamic teaching authority, but we will inhibit investigation of the motives and goals of the jihadists. Forbidden to speak about jihad, analysts will have no way to understand what the jihadists are doing and why. Stephen Coughlin, the Defense Department's celebrated expert on Islamic law, put it this way:
The Current Approach stands for the proposition that the WOT can be successfully prosecuted without reference to a substantive understanding of the enemy. In this, the Current Approach purposefully violates Sun Tsu’s first rule of war: to know the enemy. Never understanding the enemy means never being able to generate an effective strategy to defeat him. At the operational level, this means never having the ability to convert tactical successes into strategic victories. The cost of not understanding the enemy has been high and is getting higher everyday. It will increasingly be measured by news stories that narrow in on senior leaders’ inability to answer basic questions about the nature of the enemy and his environment. It will also manifest itself in official responses to terrorist attacks that become progressively less reality-based.
That is the main reason why we must speak about jihad, not "hiraba" or the other comforting fictions coming out of the State Department these days. Our survival may depend upon it.
How do we avoid speaking of jihad when there is at least one organization with that word in its name: Islamic Jihad?
They defined the term. We didn't.
I agree with Robert, something I also said in the comments at Hot Air. If we refuse to plainly identify our enemy and understand his beliefs for what they are --a product of mainstream Islam-- we're engaging in intellectual self-disarmament.
Mr. Morrissey hasn't quite made a successful case. We used the word "kamikaze" during World War II, which means "divine wind." Did that mean that the Japanese heard us endorsing the religious nature of their combat? What is more important here is that we don't use ambigous terms that are all-inclusive. If we are unwilling to define our enemies, then woe to us! Our enemies will see that as the fear they desire.
The "conservative" blogs, save this one, GoV, and a few others, have become a millstone around our necks.
Morrissey's folly is just a microcosm "wimps to the right" mentality that is drowning us in the sea.
Hear! Hear!
Who gives a sweet damn what they think? What matters is what we think, and that, for many of us (our pathetic president most of all), is in dire need of correction.
In the reverse, these Islamist Jihadists define us as the great Satan. Does that cause us to believe or disbelieve that we are? They call us crusaders, do we now see ourselves as that? Do these words somehow, in our minds, legitimize our so called war on terror? So now that the enemy has called us colonialists an imperialists this somehow now gives us the idea that, hey, lets take over the world.
Anyone choose to comment on this?
We *did* appropriate Hitler's terminology in WWII. We called them "Nazis", just as they called themselves, and called it exactly what it was: a hateful, foul, dictatorial, anti-semitic, combative and expansionist doctrine (sound familiar?).
Similarly, I see nothing wrong (indeed everything right) in appropriating the term "Jihad" and then ascribing to it its correct nature: a hateful, foul, dictatorial, anti-semitic, combative and expansionist doctrine.
To start using a bizarre term like "hirabi" would only confuse the issue, which, as we see, is in dreadful need of clarity, calling it like it is.
Hmmmm...How about...
Assembled
Suicidal
Swordwielders
Hellbent
On
Leveling
Everything
Simultaneously!
It has an easily remembered anagram.
"In any case, I'm all for calling them criminals. I'm just not for kidding ourselves that when we do, we will find millions of Muslims suddenly saying, "Hey, you know what? I guess they are criminals at that!"
Couldn't agree more. We're not doing ourselves or Muslims any favors by presending that Islam is not a criminal organization, that it is one of the great Abrahamic faiths, that is basically good, sharing the same moral values and world view as Judaism and Christianity.
Muslims have to be told, flat-out, that their's is not a true Abrahamic faith, that their Prophet was a fraud, and their moral values are an affront to everything Jews and Christians hold as sacred.
When Western religious leaders pretend otherwise just to get along, and avoid giving offense, they just reinforce the fiction in the Muslim mind that they are legitimate spiritual heirs of the great Prophets of Judaism and Christianity -- except Islam is a perfected form of both religions.
It's time we disabuse them of any such notion and publicly cut any ties they think they have with the two great Western faiths.
Islam is criminal, just as Muhammad was criminal, and we should have the moral fortitude to say so.
If the Islamic world blows a cork, so what's new? They blow their corks every other day any way.
At least we'll have told the truth.
havekoranwilltravel,
Interesting question. One thought is that those who don't want to use terms like 'jihad' view themselves as intellectually superior. The appeasers figure the other side can't see past its own propaganda and is incapable of interpreting what we say.
They know that calling us satan doesn't mean a thing to us but they think that our use of 'jihad' might be misinterpreted by the other side. Just as the enemy's calling us Satan won't make us evil, neither will our calling them peaceful make them so. What's in a name?
Posted by: havekoranwilltravel at June 4, 2008 12:47 PM
Excellent point.
People who haven't been exposed to off-camera Muslim clerics make the silliest arguments, as if our enemies aren't human beings with their own beliefs and motivations.
This is a testable hypothesis you know: search MEMRI, Jihad Watch, any Muslim site, or the Internet for the term "jihad in the path of Allah" and see what you come up with.
Say hi to DHS for me.
I'll let it be (not) a surprise.
So who are we trying to fool here?
If a group of people kill you for using the wrong word to describe what sort of religious institution allows them to kill you, how foolish are you to dance through their hoops?
That's the argument being advanced: use nice words to keep them from killing us.
All the appropriate responses to offers like that are summarized by "Nuts."
I did a quickie "Jihad in the path of Allah" search and this came up first:
The Slandered Jihad
Quoting the website:
"The Slandered Jihad
by Abu Khubayb and Abu Zubayr
Among the erroneous notions aimed at stifling the spirit of Jihad in this Ummah is the idea of 'greater' and 'lesser' Jihads. According to this belief, striving against desires of the self is considered the Greater Jihad, which makes the Jihad of the battlefield the Lesser Jihad. This idea is based upon a story mentioned by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi in his book, The History of Baghdad, by way of Yahya ibn al 'Ala', who said,
We were told by Layth, on the authority of 'Ata', on the authority of Abu Rabah, on the authority of Jabir, who said, "The Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, 'You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad - the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires.'''
This concept, despite the fact that it is based on a hadeeth, can be refuted from several aspects, of which we shall mention the following.
Firstly:
This hadeeth cannot be used to establish proof, for Al-Bayhaqi has said regarding it, "Its chain of narration is weak (da'eef)". As-Suyuti also pronounced a verdict of weakness on it in his book, Al Jami' As-Saghir.
Somebody might claim that da'eef (weak) ahadeeth can be accepted in matters of supererogatory virtuous deeds. This is unacceptable, for we do not believe that Jihad can be a supererogatory deed. Indeed, how can it be so when the Messenger of Allah (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has said that the asceticism of his Ummah lies in Jihad?"
But it's Robert Spencer's fault for calling the jihad "jihad." And watching it. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Meeker,
Good points; simple but profound.
If the term 'Jihad' is to be avoided and Hirarba used instead, out of sensitivity to a legitimate ideology, which is supposedly unrelated to criminal terrorism, then..
After the long war when all the last terrorists or hirarbists are finally dead or locked up and it's time to make peace; then what about all those who call themselves Jihadists?
Still out there with their unchallenged ideology? absolved from association with 'Hirarba'?
Best not dissociate Islam from Islamic Jihad, the two go together and so the one must be recognized as the violent manifestation of the other, n'est ce pas?
My sincere thanks to Robert, Hugh, Marisol and those valuable commenters such as Dumbledoresarmy for all their hard work, which is surely turning the tide of public opinion.
Listing six if you search "Jihad in the path of Allah":
Virtues of Martyrdom in the Path of Allah
'Abdullah Yusuf 'Azzam
Article ID: 1012 | 5109 Reads
That's 5109 moderate Muslims to you kufr!
I'm not skipping peaceful jihads against hunger or tooth decay in case you're wondering, just finding Muslims saying it themselves.
Robert said, "We can't do this by pretending that what the jihadists are doing is not in accord with mainstream, classic principles of Islam..."
But in mental thrall to that wishful mode of pretending, our policy makers have already hired Muslim apologists and agents by the score into every level of our government, including the security services and the military. They have hired Muslim dawa and taquiyya masters to run indoctrination campaigns in our government agencies. They have blessed and facilitated the same deceptive activity in our public schools and universities. They have made countless public speeches and appearances mouthing the Islamic self-serving propaganda.
For our policy makers now to accept the honest definition of jihad, they will have to face the fact that they have made these monstrous and heinous strategic mistakes. They will have to face the fact that, through their willful ignorance about Islam, their venality in capturing windfall subsidies and kickbacks from foreign Islamic powers, and their dereliction of duty in defining the enemy that is making total war on us, they have betrayed the Constitution, our nation, and civilization itself.
So our policy makers will never, ever do this. Rather, it is their narcissistic habit to protect their precious "public service" careers, culminating in comfortable title-bestowed and perk-blessed retirements within gated communities, forever insulated from the Islamic turmoil they unleashed during their stewardship of the Republic, never feeling the slightest responsibility for the societal destruction from Islamic jihad that they invited to our shores.
Until the nukes go off.
I'm sorry, but I have no patience w/ Morrissey, the gay patriot, & other so-called conservatives who support the govt's attempt at speech control. This is just another example of Western governments & institutions coddling of islam/muslims for fear that they might react in undesirable ways. Think of the refusal by most western media to re-publish the mo-cartoons out of fear that they might provoke muslim violence, or bush's statement that the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed under the Constitution really must be limited to responsible speech that doesn't unnecessarily offend someone's sensibilities.
Even if one isn't, for some reason, convinced by the force of Spencer's/Raymond Ibrahim's arguments, there's 2 strong reasons to believe they're right. Steven Emerson at IPT noted that, although DHS refused to identify the muslim Americans & islamic scholars who pushed for this name change, the Muslim Public Affairs Council praised the move. Who is MPAC? Well, among other things, according to Emerson, "[i]t repeatedly has lobbied to remove Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizballah from the U.S. list of designated terrorist groups." In short, if the name change is good for MPAC, it must be bad for America. Second, Emerson wrote that in addition to the name change, the muslim Americans/ islamic scholars also recommended the following:
" 'The fact is that Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible – in fact, they can make each other stronger. Senior officials should emphasize that fact.'"
It is an absolute, demonstrable lie that islam & democracy are compatible. This second recommendation clearly shows these . Americans/islamic scholars want to deceive us gullible westerners about the true nature of islam. By their motives, you shall know them. Since the second recommendation aims to deceive, their first one regarding the name change must also.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/659
Good points and discussion. Know the enemy means that we have to get them to stop following traditional Islam. This can mean
a) Making up a new Islam and getting them to think this is what Islam always said.
b) Getting people to intentionally change Islam from what it has been openly.
c) Getting people to drop Islam.
This summarizes many past discussions by many at this site or elsewhere.
An alternative approach is
a) Get ourselves to believe that Islam was always the made up version we have.
b) Mass Muslim immigration here.
c) Let Muslims have access to nukes in our military, be judges, have high level positions in all 3 branches, and even be able to hire and promote and do security clearances on anyone including those having nuclear weapons access and codes.
The alternative is what got us from the 1993 WTC attacks to the 2001 attacks. This is what is policy now. Pointing out what Islam really is is not being a team player. And we know what that means under this administration.
Robert,
While it's clear that military jihad is a core concept of normative Islam, and though I loathe political correctness or dhimmification, I think that there is a point in recognizing that the jihadis believe it to be an honorific.
Remember, Islam and the Arabs are shame/honor cultures. If somehow we could convince them that suicide bombers are dishonorable we might make some headway. So I don't see a problem with avoiding honorifics and stressing Arabic pejoratives. The jihadis have become adept at manipulating the language of western democracy and human rights. Let us become as adept in manipulating them.
I think you're being too hard on using the word "hirabi". It's a very useful addition to the lexicon of the WOT. Letting the jihadis know, in their own language, that we think them not to be honorable soldiers but rather brigands and pirates.
If you want to make a point when name calling, you gotta speaka da language. You'll get a lot more attention from an Arab or Muslim if you use the Arabic reference to his female relatives' genitals than if you use some kind of AngloSaxon slur. Koos-emekh, koos-achta, ill hass teeze will get much more attention than ahalan, chabibi.
There revisionists are naive in a profound respect:
-they fail to graps that Linguistic Efficacy (ease of pronunciation and remembering) is vitally important in a propaganda battle.
"Jihad" is a simpler, more memorable word than "hiraba" or any other comforting proposition put forward by the Perpetually-Obfuscating Class of clerks and busybodies.
A layer of functionaries who do not grasp how visceral sounds are, of themselves, psychological weapons.
"Nazi" was a perfect insult-sound in English (eloquently and subconsciously combining: "Nah", "gnats", "nuts", and ending with a "zee"... as in "cra-zee").
"Jihad" has less of the negative mnemonic implications or raw sonic impact of "Nazi", but is catchy enough for government work.
Changing insults in mid-war is always a mistake.
"I think you're being too hard on using the word "hirabi". It's a very useful addition to the lexicon of the WOT. Letting the jihadis know, in their own language, that we think them not to be honorable soldiers but rather brigands and pirates."
Posted by: Johan Amedeus Metesky at June 4, 2008 7:42 PM
Disagreed 110%, good Sir. Here we have another example that global Islamic supremacy, as is explicitly mandated in the Qur'an, and is described in detail in specific Hadiths and reiterated by many Islamic scholars as a holy war against the unbelievers...jihad, as a central duty for all pious Muslims.
Instead you, "Johan", would rather it be a misinterpretation by Spencer, who has forgotten more about Islam than you will ever know, even if you are a Muslim.
But to completely refute your inane statement, I offer this fact. If you think that Islamic jihad can be effectively offset by harsh and derogatory language, hence the "Hirabist" label, then you are either the dumbest person I have conversed with in this millenium, or an obvious provacateur, or sorrily, Ed Morrissey.
None of those answers reflect well upon yourself, I might add.
Good day.
profitsbeard
I agree.
'Jihad' has another major advantage, for journalists and headline editors and the sound-bite generation - it's short and snappy, just five letters long ('Nazi' and 'Maoist' had a similar advantage).
Furthermore, having been adopted into English it may be used as a noun or as an adjective, to wit, 'jihad terror', 'jihad raid' (referring to such things as the Jaipur bombing).
Either jihadi or jihadist works very well as an Anglicisation of 'mujahid'; and at six letters for jihadi, eight for jihadist, comes in just marginally shorter than 'terrorist' (9 letters) and the same length as 'militant'; definitely shorter than 'insurgent', though one letter longer than 'rebel' (I'm thinking of the flurry of terms we encounter in MSM reports that come in from the various fronts of the Third Jihad).
As far as insults and shaming go - if we want to know exactly what words, in English or other languages, would have most impact, we could always ask the likes of Ali Sina. Ali Sina has frequently recommended mockery and shaming as a way to crack the hard shell of Islamic cult programming.
Finally: if our governments and media were to scrupulously use 'jihad' and 'jihadi' or 'jihadist' ON EVERY OCCASION that an act of Islamically-inspired Muslim aggression against non-Muslims, or against 'slack'/ 'kafirized' Muslims, is either attempted or carried out (whether in India, Ethiopia, Thailand, Philippines, Ethiopia, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan... ), while all the other terms - insurgent, rebel, militant, revolutionary, etc and so forth - were reserved for CONFLICTS NOT INVOLVING ISLAM, such as the struggle between Sinhalese and Tamil, or the unrest in the Basque country, then it would be much easier to see the 'jihad news' whole.
Awake,
I never said that Robert misinterpreted anything. I don't have a problem with calling them jihadis or recognizing that military jihad is firmly based in the Koran, Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence.
I just think that hirabi is a useful tool as well.
While Mr. Spencer undoubtedly knows more about Islam than I do, I'm willing to bet that I was familiar with terms like dhimmi, wakf, and kufar long before you were. I've studied a bit of Jewish history as well as majoring in Studies in Religion in college. As a matter of fact, old friends and I have discussed how we'd never have thought Americans in general would have known what a dhimmi was.
If people can become familiar with terms like Wahabi, Salafi, and dhimmi, I don't see why hirabi would be any different and since it is disparaging to the jihadis, I don't understand your reluctance to use pejoratives when addressing evil people.
"Swinish Muslim Murderers" for a nice alliteration.
or
"Swinish Islamic Murderers" - SIM - for a handy acronym.
I am sure they will find "Swinish" particularly memorable.
Letting the jihadis know, in their own language, that we think them not to be honorable soldiers but rather brigands and pirates
posted by Johan Amedeus Metesky
The jihadis don't care what we think of them. They believe themselves to be the most pious and righteous of all people: holy warriors on a divine mission for allah. We're kafir pigs and apes, despised by them and allah.
Now if other muslims thought they were dishonorable soldiers or brigands and pirates, they might care because they can't afford to alienate the umma. If the umma turned against them, it would adversely affect their recruiting capabilities and financial support. Muslims become disgruntled with them only when they slaughter their fellow muslims in sloppy, indiscriminate terror attacks, since muslims are the only "innocent" victims of jihadi violence. Non-muslim women, children, and civilians are fair game from both the jihadi and muslim perspective. The terror sheiks have decreed that when "innocent" muslims die in terror attacks, they become instant shahids, a muslim's dream come true, and that seems to placate most of them.
Americans are extremely frustrated by the cognitive dissonance generated by islam, muslims, and jihad. Islam cannot be criticized, ridiculed or condemned but thousands of rabid muslims around the world go on frenzied rampages and islamic terrorists blow up people, schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods for allah. If anyone dares to dispute that islam is a religion of peace, he is an islamophobe. Islamic logic makes this contradiction entirely rational to muslims. These people do not belong in our societies and will never assimilate or accept our ways but they will try to force their vile religion down our throats, eventually by force.
Anyone with half a brain, one eye, and impaired hearing is well aware that islam is a predatory death cult and muslims in Western countries are ticking time bombs. Western imperialism did not create the jihadis; islam did. And the farce must end at some point, but when?
"I'm willing to bet that I was familiar with terms like dhimmi, wakf, and kufar long before you were."
How copuld you possibly bet on that with any reasonable chance of winning? How old are you? I majored in religious studies in college as well. So what?
Let's stop with the resume' readings and address the central fallacy of your statement.
You said that jihadist is acceptable but hirabist is also?
They are opposites in meaning. One speaks of divinely mandated and properly sanctioned warfare and the other does not.
I have no problem with pejoratives, only one's that obfuscate the correlation between jihad and Islam, which is exactly the agenda the jihadists seek to implement.