Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: Greater Jihad and Lesser Jihad

August 29, 2008

Fitzgerald: Greater Jihad and Lesser Jihad

"There are, according to Khan, two kinds of Jihad. The greater Jihad, in which a person fights their animal tendencies, and a lesser Jihad, in which they fight on behalf of their community." -- from this article

Again and again this phony business about "Lesser Jihad" and "Greater Jihad" keeps coming up, and we are carefully told that the "Greater Jihad" is the internal struggle of Muslims with their own consciences. But this is not quite what it seems.

First of all, Islam is based not on solicitousness for the individual, but concern for the collective of Believers, the Umma, and for furthering the interests not of a single soul but of the Great Cause: that of spreading Islam until it dominates everywhere. The individual Believer is akin to a recruit to an army. If he leaves, that is regarded as treason. His duty is that of mental submission -- no independent questioning, no comparing what his duties are with what reason, or morality, tell him should be his duties. His not to reason why, but to follow scrupulously the rules as to what is prohibited and what is commanded.

This "Greater Jihad" business is designed merely to convince Infidels that the real "Jihad" -- the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam -- is not that, but a lesser thing, something hovering in the background, while all attention should be focused on these individuals wrestling with their consciences. The weight of authority is completely on the other side. Qur'anic commentators and Muslim jurisconsults and Muslim historians all agree that the "Jihad" means that "struggle" to spread Islam, and that the "internal struggle" is simply a later invention by a few Muslim would-be reformers who realized that "Jihad" would not be wise or even possible in a world of overwhelmingly more powerful Infidels, and that therefore the idea should be given a different interpretation. Or at least they would try to do the impossible and hope that some Muslims might actually accept that interpretation.

But it never happened. Yet today, all kinds of security services in the Western world keep trying. They keep believing that if they stay away from the word "Jihad" and supply every other sort of word (hiraba, etc.), that somehow they will manage to convince Muslims in the West that the real Jihad is this "internal struggle." They are not only whistling in the dark, but are delaying the widespread recognition of what the "Jihad" is and why it matters among the very Infidels who need to recognize the meaning and menace (for them) of Islam in order to realize what is going on, and to support measures that otherwise might appear to them to be uncalled-for. Our security services and our political and media elites all over the Western world failed to understand Islam before the great unhindered migration of Muslims to the Lands of the Infidels began. That failure continues right up to the present, because few wish to think rationally about this problem, so fearful and confused does it make them. And then there are always the crazies, the ones who, in having sensed the threat, are incapable of soberly discussing it, but instead focus on the trivial or the tendentious -- "it's all the fault of lefties [Marxists, democrats, fill in your favorite epithet here].” And in their inarticulateness and political parti pris, and general uncultivated and comical ineptness, they simply allow others to more easily dismiss them.

This "Greater Jihad" and "Lesser Jihad" business comes from a single Hadith that is not judged authentic by the most authoritative muhaddithin, such as Bukhari and Muslim. Karen Armstrong, naturally, in her little guide to nothing called "Islam," quotes this hadith and makes much of it, without hinting at how little it means to Muslims. Of course, it is unclear if Armstrong understands what an isnad-chain is, or how the muhaddithin studied and ranked the hundreds of thousands of claimed Hadith (more correclty, ahadith), or how the muhaddithin themselves have been ranked according to their supposed authoritativeness.

This is never mentioned by the kind of Muslims who want to convince us that the "Jihad" is not what we think. They want us to believe that our understanding of the texts and our study of how Muslims, over 1350 years, acted on those texts reveals nothing about Jihad, and that the truth of it can be learned from latter-day Muslim propagandists. Those propagandists have to deal with an unprecedented situation -- that of millions of Muslims living within the Lands of the Infidels, the Bilad al-Kufr. They have to stave off any inquiry, or critical analysis, or study of, Islam that might lead Infidels, quite naturally, to become keenly worried -- as they discover that Islam is not a "religion" but also, and mainly, a politics and a geopolitics within a Total Belief-System that is based on the notion of uncompromising and permanent hostility between Believer and Infidel, a hostility that does not lessen if the Infidel moves heaven and earth to prove his own good will and surpassing generosity.

And, of course, those who report on such matters rarely think they have an obligation not merely to write down and transmit to others, as docile amanuenses, what is told them by Muslim propagandists, but to study Islam, and to question what they are told, and to learn enough so that, in such cases as the one above, they will be able to discuss this matter of the "Lesser Jihad" and the "Greater Jihad" precisely in the way that...well, that I have done in this very article.

Posted by Hugh at August 29, 2008 6:42 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Comments
(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.)

Outstanding piece, Hugh. It bears noting that the willful ignorance of jihad is not limited to security services or government agencies but is also endemic among journalists, whose commitment to "the people's right to know" seems not to extend to our right to know about the tenets and true nature of Islam.

One request: it would be helpful to have a citation for the "greater jihad" hadith -- to whom it is attributed and so on.

Posted by: Papa Whiskey

at August 29, 2008 7:05 AM

Another article that is on-point, as usual, Hugh. I think most of the regular readers and contributors to this site understand, but, even though growing, we are still but a small voice in the wilderness and have hardly made a ripple in the body politic. I feel that we need to come up with some means to make our leaders focus on the issue, not some faux "Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by terrorists" pablum, but really focus and come up with real solutions. I, along with many others, have left e-mails, phone messages, and letters, and, although it may have had a minimal impact, I haven't seen any evidence that the ship is turning and that politicians are even grasping the issue.

Posted by: George Mc.

at August 29, 2008 7:08 AM

It's hard to see how real solutions to this problem can be arrived at in the current climate. Islam has been mixed with immigration and with law enforcement.
For instance, do we ban all immigration from Egypt or do we allow Egyptian Christians in, and how do we distinguish between the two if someone is willing to swear that he is not now, and never has been, a Muslim?
There are many Arab Christians. Do we ban all Arabs? Profiling rears its ugly head.
Profiling is a dirty word and is all but banned in law enforcement, despite its logic. You have American-born Muslims. They vote. They are even elected to high office.
We have international flights coming in to countless airports every hour of the day, many from countries whose people profess jihad.
Islam and Islamism are intertwined. Any action against Islamism is deemed an action against Islam that must be answered - with the jihad.
What's needed is a cold war mentality. During the cold war, we supported many less than pure governments because we had a common enemy - Communism. That policy has been discredited.
Are we Americans willing to get our hands dirty by supporting anti-Islamist governments, no matter how unsavory they are? Are we willing to take the heat from the politically correct? Are we willing to be blamed for "preventing democracy from taking root" because that supposed democracy was based in Islam? Are we willing to endure the H-bomb of today: being called a Hypocrite, or is being universally loved more important?

Posted by: PMK

at August 29, 2008 8:12 AM

I think most of the regular readers and contributors to this site understand, but, even though growing, we are still but a small voice in the wilderness and have hardly made a ripple in the body politic.

- - from George Mc.

One significant thing we all can do, is to continue to speak forthrightly with our family, friends, acquaintances and fellow conversationalists across the fruited plain. True, there is a time and a place for everything. But the occasion does present itself.

Spencer and Fitzgerald have generated a remarkable - - unique? - - enterprise, nothing less than an ongoing, popular, academic discussion about a serious subject. History, philosophy, science, religion, it's all here, seen from the perspective of the grave threat to our very civilization, at least what's left of it.

Students of the site have to demonstrate to others, when it is appropriate to do so, that it is ok to talk about this totalitarian threat. There is no shame or bigotry in doing so. It is, in fact, vital.

Most people follow the leader. It's just the way of the world, always has been, always will be.

The threat to us, grave as it is, is an absurdity in every respect. We have that going for us.

Once folks see that it is ok to believe mohammed-worship is an absurdity, and to say it is an abusrdity, the rest will quickly follow.

It is this struggle, the struggle through example to help folks permit themselves to see the truth, that all of us can assist.

Posted by: Moonzoo

at August 29, 2008 8:12 AM

Are we willing to take the heat from the politically correct?

our leaders, demand PC. they don't care about jihad unless it happens to them.

if we go on a bus with a a suicidal bomber and get blasted, nothing will change. but get somebody else on that bus, like McCain or Barrack children, i wonder what the reaction would be.

Posted by: theygottago

at August 29, 2008 10:18 AM

theygottago,
It's not just Washington politicians. It's also the crowd on the East River. What if THAT tower had been leveled on 9/11?
We are expected to work with (and fund?) HAMAS because it was "democratically elected". We are not allowed to choose our friends.
The US is regularly excoriated for "working with dictators". We did it without apology during the cold war. Why are we so diffident now? We are facing the same type of enemy - one that seeks universal domination.

Posted by: PMK

at August 29, 2008 10:51 AM

For PMK,

I know we in earlier threads had our differences regarding how to treat muslim populations, when it comes to immigration from certain countries I do not have problems whatsoever with moratoriums on immigration from countries deemed openly hostile to us, and from Islamic nations that it can be shown are actively aiding and abetting global jihad/islamist movements, and stricter limitations on immigrants from all other countries.

So to be sure, I'm against judging racial and religious groups as a whole and not by the individual cases, including muslims who for all their dangerous elements should not be tarred as some fringe death cult like Jim Jones or David Koresh when they comprise 1/5 of all people in the world. That's how racism and classism are created in the first place. But when it comes to immigration I don't believe in leniency of any kind. The hell with it, sometimes I think maybe it's time to just say screw it and end immigration from most of the outside world forever.

There's no reason whatsoever to be admitting Saudis en mass to our country, for instance. They are one of the exceptions, people you can tar with a broad brush as being fucking assholes as anyone who's ever met one can attest to. And though Egypt does have many Christians who need western help badly, there's other ways to deal with that as well, namely complete suspension of all trade and economic aid to Egypt, and even more aid to its enemy Israel, until persecution ends and they treat copts as equal with arab muslims. No need to admit Egpytian students to our universities who think of Hamas, Hezbollah and Jamat y Islamiyah as freedom fighters. Ditto Jordan, Pakistan, Libya and Algeria. And it's not even muslim countries to be perfectly honest. I mean, what the hell are we doing allowing chinese students to come to our grad schools for 4-6 years, obtain doctorates and use educations we provide them to go back home and make their country stronger militarily and economically. It's not like we're on anything remotely resembling good terms with China, so the notion we are obligated to do this is beyond utter nonsense. Same things regarding the flood of illegal border jumpers form Mexico and Central America; we need to have the minute men down there multiplied in numbers and as armed and well trained as our marines and navy seals. Honestly, the only countries that I think shouldn't be severely restricted when it comes to immigration are Western European ones, India, South Korea and Taiwan. Maybe a few others like Thailand or Brazil or the Phillipnes, but that's about it.

So in short, while I am not really on board with judging anyone by the group or by the individual, I am with regards to bringing in a new era of immigration, so to speak. No doubt about it, the whole world as been taking complete advantage of American generosity and open mindedness for WAY too long, and it's time to rethink that whole "give us your tired, your poor, your hungry" crap.

Posted by: maxwell46&2

at August 29, 2008 10:59 AM

It is very true that islam is a collectivist ideology. Everything in islam looks and sounds very familiar to the practices of the communists in the former Soviet Union that I witnessed for almost 25 years.
The jihadis themselves and their sympathizers love to mention the concept of lesser jihad and always state that it has nothing to do with war and terror.
But the most interesting form of jihad for me is Jihad al-Munafiqeen. This sounds to me similar to the enemies of the people invented by Joe Stalin. It means that even if islam would be successful in finishing off all unbelievers and established caliphate, jihad would continue, but this time against the muslims themselves. And then the things will become interesting, i.e. surprise, surprise for all who would believe that islamic caliphate would bring peace and prosperity for the ummah.
I expect that on the contrary, establishment of caliphate would be the beginning of ruckus unheard of.

Posted by: Charles Martel

at August 29, 2008 11:16 AM

The reason for judging muslims as a group is because Islam is a group.
A slave to Allah gives up his individual identity, and becomes a member of the Ummah.
The Ummah is wherever one or more muslims congregate. The difference between muslims in the USA, and those of Europe, or even Pakistan, is a body of water and some mountains, that's all.

Allah did not leave much wiggle room in Islam, and Sharia guarantees it.
Muslims who rebel at Allah's rules, regulations and laws, are not muslims at all. Those who do, have little choice but to participate in, or support jihad. It's an obligation, even if they don't like it.

Do we trust known members of the Nazi party? Or Hitler worshippers? Why not? 'You can't judge an individual by the group he belongs to'...

BS, you certainly can, and you can judge the group, to not do so can get you killed. 'Birds of a feather stick together', this is especially true of muslims, because ideologically they act with one mind, Allah's. Allah's mind is expressed in the Quran and exhorted by Mohammad.
Allah in his book, is clear as to what his priorities are, and how he expects muslims to conduct themselves in accordance.
Mohammad provides the examples. Anything outside that is not Islam, and everything inside it is rotten. Individuals who cling to 'rotten' cannot be trusted, it's as simple as that.
All muslims are clinging to 'rotten' to one degree or another. If not, they are not muslims, but quasi apostates. If they don't want to be identified with the zombie parts of Islam, they need to complete their apostasy and get out.
Quit faking it...
Those who stay in, agree with Allah's agenda, and should not be trusted, or allowed into a western country at all...

Posted by: duh_swami

at August 29, 2008 12:17 PM

Its ironic that all the major hadith collections each of a book of Jihad. Of course the above hadith doesn't appear in any of them. There are however lots of other hadiths in the book of jihad under subheadings dealing exclusively with aspects of war.

For example see:Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani's, "Bulugh Al-Maram"

Hadith 1118
Narrated Umar, He heard Allah's messenger say, "I will certianly expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian peninsula so as to leave only Muslim in it. [Reported by Muslim]

Hadith 1104
Narrated Sa id bin Jubir, "On the day of Badar, Allah's messenger killed three people while they were in bonds" [Abu Da'ud reported it in Marasil its narrators are reliable]

Hadith 1103
Narrated Anas, The prophet entered Mecca with a helmet on his head and when he took it offm a man came to him and said, "Ibn Khatal is hanging on to the curtian of the Kaba" He replied, "Kill him." [Agreed Upon]

The books of jihad all go on like this, but never mention a lesser or a greater jihad. Its also has sub books like: Jizya and Hudna (Head tax and Truce)

Posted by: American_soldier

at August 29, 2008 4:13 PM

maxwell46&2,

You said it yourself: Muslims comprise one fifth of the world's population. That means we HAVE to look at them clinically. We have to look at what we are getting from those nearly two dozen Muslim countries. Everywhere you look, it's anti-American and anti-Western. That doesn't mean there aren't good people among them but we cannot afford to take the time to put each person through a screening process. They have to stand up and be counted and say publicly which side they are on and then they have to join that side without question. There is no room for non-aligned movements or neutrality. We can only assume that the silent majority is not on our side, since they give us no reason to believe otherwise.
You're right, immigration has to stop. There's no need for mass movements of people but that's exactly what we are set up for, with our air, rail and motor systems. We also have to deal with the UNDHR and others that say no country has the right to stop people from crossing its border.
We have multinational agreements that allow for the free and open exchange of goods. This is the age of jet travel. The US is accessible and coming here is no longer a one-way trip. It's hard to see how to stop immigration without cutting back on all the international travel that goes on every day. Tourists, business people and students go back and forth. Some come but never leave. We make a big deal of our porous southern border but how many more arrive by air? They're whisked through customs to allow the next group to come through and then they're out of the airport and are free to do as they please. We didn't have the level of movement during the cold war that we have today. Turning off the spigot is easier said than done. We'd have to drastically curtail foreign travel to the US to make a dent in immigration. Who will accept that?

Posted by: PMK

at August 29, 2008 7:47 PM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.