| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Peter Awn (Columbia University photo)
The Washington Post wrings its hands this morning about the meaning of jihad, which has been, says reporter Jerry Markon, "debated by scholars for centuries."
At two recent trials in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, it became clear that the argument -- an especially loaded topic since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- is far from settled.Prosecutors labeled five men charged with preparing stateside for combat abroad as being part of an 11-member "Virginia jihad network" and said they had been readying for "violent jihad.'' Defense attorneys said the government had twisted the meaning of the word and that jihad is instead a peaceful term that can mean anything from studying Islam to caring for the sick.
The Post, of course, gives the last word in the article to the defense, hauling out a dhimmi professor to do the job:
Peter Awn, a professor of Islamic religion at Columbia University, said it was prosecutors who were "grasping to come up with a subcategory of jihad when the defense arguments were quite legitimate.""If you want to stigmatize someone today, you use the word jihad," he said. "The word has enormous emotional power, it really does."
of course. But Professor Awn should know full well that this is not an either/or question. Jihad in Islamic theology, history and law has a set of quite well-defined meanings, and they encompass both violence and acts such as caring for the sick. I invite him to pick up a copy of Onward Muslim Soldiers for the details from Islamic texts. Heck, Prof, send me your address and I'll send you one, gratis. Don't thank me, it's no trouble!
The operative question here is not actually what jihad really means. It is: what do those who commit violence in the name of Islam think it means? If the "paintball terrorists" or any other terrorists believe that jihad is a religious responsibility to make war, it will do no good for Awn or any other "authority" to explain to them that it actually means caring for the poor and voting Democratic. The only viable approach would be a comprehensive refutation of the principles of jihad that are derived from Islamic texts, including but not limited to the Qur'an. And that can come only from a worldwide Islamic reformation, or revolution.
Posted by Robert at March 14, 2004 8:44 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The Washington Post editors have always come from an extremely liberal philosophy. The challenge when our country is at war, is rather than being the "loyal opposition", the Washington Post has frequently gone beyond the pale in criticizing and attacking the US government. Moreover, when the Post has been made aware information valuable to helping identify potential terrorists, it has not deemed such information worthy of publication. For example last year there was a search for a woman from Boston believed tied to Al Qaeda that had been in the Gaithersburg, MD area. She was listed as a person of interest by the FBI. This was not a story the Washington Post was interested in. There was the story of Arabic individuals "scoping out" a Jewish educational facility in Baltimore some months ago. Again, no interest by the Post. But the Post is very much interested and gave a lot of publicity to "How to Sue Intelligence Agencies" just last week and ran an extensive story on this.
The question at some point is going to be raised just whose country the Washington Post is reporting for. Our free society continues to support and tolerate such alternative voices, as part of freedom of the press.
But the Washington Post is in danger of becoming just that - "an alternative news" source. Over the past 2-3 years, the Washington Post is moving further and further away from becoming a "mainstream media" newspaper, and more like a college tabloid. If they keep it up, eventually the Washington Post will overreach.
They do have investors who stand to lose quite a bit of money when that happens. Either the Post will have to "clean house" among their editorial staff at some point, or the Washington Post will become a historical publication, remembered by old-time Washingtonians, like the Washington Star.
Newspapers are after all, a professional business. That is the difference between running a real newspaper and a college tabloid. The Washington Post investors won't lose money indefinitely.
Anyone who visits Washington DC for any period of time knows that the Washington Times always sells out first, and there are usually always extra copies of the Washington Post around at the end of the day.
The college tabloid mentality of the Washington Post has helped the Washington Times immensely. The Washington Post can't even get their mini-version out away on the subways for free.
Posted by: Jeffrey Imm at March 14, 2004 11:23 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.)