| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In my line of work, I hear it all the time — from Muslims and non-Muslims alike: "jihad doesn't mean 'holy war.' The Arabic word means 'struggle.' In Islam jihad primarily means the struggle within the soul of the believer to conform his life to the will of Allah." In Onward Muslim Soldiers I discuss all of this at length. From Islamic sources I show that there are indeed many meanings of jihad in Islam, but that radical Muslim theorists like Hasan Al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Abdullah Azzam (Osama bin Laden's intellectual mentor) reject the idea that jihad is a spiritual struggle on the grounds that its attestation in the Islamic sources is weak. Their arguments for jihad as holy war are firmly traditionalist: rooted in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the example of Muhammad, and Islamic history.
It does no good simply to pretend that this is not so and hope that it will go away; it must be understood because it is a fundamental cause of innumerable conflicts around the world today. If we don't understand the goals and motives of our opponents, how will we possibly prevail against them in the "war of ideas" that is so central to the war on terror?
In light of all this also, attempts by Muslims to explain that jihad is actually peaceful must be viewed as either well-intentioned but ignorant or outright deceptive. Until Muslim spokesmen acknowledge that violent jihad is a broad tradition within Islam and renounce the doctrines that give rise to it, there will be Muslims somewhere in the world who continue to consider it part of their religious responsibility to wage war on non-Muslims. They will not be swayed by efforts like this one, which only go so far as to show that jihad doesn't mean ONLY holy war, but deceive only those who aren't paying attention into thinking that jihad doesn't amount to holy war at all:
THE word 'jihad' has become so commonly used - and abused - that Muslim religious authorities in the region want everyone to get it right once and for all.
This from the Straits Times.
The official organisations that oversee Islamic practices in Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia are producing a book on the true meaning of jihad.They want to put right misconceptions of the term by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, said the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) yesterday. . . .
Jihad is a term commonly used by the international media to mean a holy war. But most Muslims understand it to mean struggle or perseverance. It could mean struggle or striving in one's daily life, or in one's efforts to become more spiritual, or to avoid temptation.
At the Mabims meeting, the Singapore delegation described the efforts by Muslims here to build a community of excellence as their own brand of jihad, said its leader, Muis president Alami Musa. . . .
'We want to reach out to the non-Muslims, because the word jihad has been misused by many irresponsible groups for their own narrow objectives,' he told The Straits Times. . . .
Yesterday, Muslim leaders contacted lauded the moves, saying the book, especially, was timely. The word jihad has been in the news here this week after it was reported that members of the terror group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) had been put under Restriction Orders and must go for religious counselling.
Community leaders had said that the counselling must focus on correcting the JI members' misconceptions about jihad, including that it means violence is justifiable.
The good thing about the book is that it will go beyond the community and such efforts, noted those interviewed yesterday.
Ustaz Azmi Abdul Samad of Kampung Siglap Mosque said: 'When non-Muslims visit our mosque, many talk about jihad as if it means just 'holy war' when, in fact, it's a broad term with many meanings.'
Indeed. And I can produce a mountain of evidence to show that one of the most important of those meanings throughout Islamic history and today has been warfare — that is, with guns, not rhetorical warfare — against non-Muslims. Let the Muis forthrightly acknowledge that that is true and renounce that understanding of jihad, and we'll be getting somewhere.
Posted by Robert at January 17, 2004 8:56 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Let's have a school, K-12, where Robert's books are the textbooks that are the foundation of some of the coursework.
A well known cognitive psychologist at Harvard once said that any subject can be taught to any child at any age in an intellectually honest way.
That's a bit of a stretch, but it comes close enough.
Thank you, Robert.
Posted by: cubed at January 17, 2004 10:38 AMThis is stooping to conquer. Let's get it on the record that what jihad doesn't mean is what jihad means, this way we can wage jihad and not have it called jihad … until we win the jihad. BS, MS, PhD.
Posted by: hari at January 17, 2004 10:54 AMJust had another thought: Is there ANY possibility that a few Muslims are beginning to feel a bit self-conscious about the behavior of their fellows? That some are (dare I hope?) beginning to recognize the impracticality of the "lesser jihad?" Somewhere, deep down in their subconscious minds, is it possible that a few are suspicious that blowing people up is not the proper way to conduct oneself? Could there be the tiniest movement in the direction of a significant spin-off of Islam that could actually co-exist with the civilized world?
Posted by: cubed at January 17, 2004 11:13 AMI am at war with my weight. I am also at war with my boss. Any American knows what I mean by those statements. My boss and I are having a disagreement, we aren't trying to kill each other. So I can understand that not all uses of jihad mean killing the non-Muslim, but the main meaning of that word is clear.
Posted by: Engineer at January 17, 2004 11:33 AMDifferent persons uses the word jihad with different meanings.
It does not matter much what the word means. What matters is the fact that Islam is at war with the rest of the world and will not rest until it has been beaten.
Posted by: Peter at January 17, 2004 12:54 PMThe example of "at war with my weight" is interesting, because it shows a good example of metaphoric transfer --- e.g. the root meaning of "war" is fighting, and this has become attached via metaphor to its other uses. It would be interesting to explore whether this is the case for J-H-D in Arabic. Is the idea of "struggle" actually secondary and derived from the primary one of "fighting"?
Posted by: Andy Bannister at January 18, 2004 3:10 AMIf Islam was peaceful, we would see it.
Posted by: Joseph at January 18, 2004 6:04 AMSorry, but they can sugar coat the issue all they want, but the only people they'll end up fooling are themselves. The only actions I've ever seen associated with a jihad are broken lives and blood.
Perhaps at one time it may have meant a struggle for the peaceful spread of Muslim beliefs in the fertile battleground of religious philosophy, but they need to grasp the reality of the image that they have let their own brothers create.
I mean really, who do they think they are talking to, idiots? Perhaps they do, but given the arrogance of most of the Islamic movement this shouldn't be suprising. I'm not meaning to be flippant, but there's an old saying I think we should be able to compare this with...
"If it looks like a jihad, walks like a jihad, and sounds like a jihad, it's probably not going to be very peaceful"
Posted by: trackersmurf at January 20, 2004 5:23 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)