Shouldn’t parents (though there is no mention of the mother) have freedom in selecting their children’s names? Maybe. But why “Djehad?” Will this young man be brought up with a mystical, peaceful, interior understanding of the concept for which he is named?
“Leading Islamist Wins Right to Name Son ‘Djehad,'” from Spiegel Online, September 2:
A German court has ruled that “jihad” doesn’t always have to mean “holy war…”
Of course jihad doesn’t “always have to mean holy war.” Jihad literally means “struggle” or “striving.” Questions remain:
1) When waging “Djehad,” precisely what is being struggled against, why, and in what way?
2) What authority does a non-Muslim court hold in defining jihad for Muslims or non-Muslims?
3) What is communicated or implied when a “leading Islamist” who waged jihad violently in Bosnia (see below) calls his son, “Djehad?” Such a name could very well refer to “holy war.”
…and that Muslim families have the right to give their children the name.
Do non-Muslim families share this “right”? Non-Muslims may be less liable (ahem) to dub their child “Djehad,” but liability is not the issue. Or maybe it is. One group privileged by the law sets precedent for further privileging. Intentionally or not, the statement that “Muslim families have the right” implies special privilege for Muslims.
In Germany, it seems, it’s okay to name children “Jihad.”
Children named “Djehad” may be halal. Teddy bear owners, on the other hand, may find “Djehad” unbearable.
A Berlin court has ruled that the name Djehad is neither denigrating nor offensive — even if the child’s father is a man considered by German intelligence agents and the United States to be one of the country’s most radical Islamists…”Djehad,” (is) an alternative spelling of the Arabic word jihad. A city official had previously rejected the name because of its connotation of Islamic holy war.
Was the father unable to convince the official of a true, peaceful intent behind his son’s name? If he was later more convincing, will he then adhere to a more peaceful understanding of “Djehad,” and repudiate in words and actions any violent connotations “Djehad” carries?
A city official said it had rejected listing the name in the city’s birth registry because it could endanger the child’s welfare.
A valid concern. Where is the analysis of why, how, and from whom the child’s welfare is most prone to endangerment?
Following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, the term “jihad,” which in the West is usually regarded as meaning “holy war,” has had negative connotations in Germany. The child’s father himself, German-Egyptian Reda Seyam, is being monitored by German intelligence agencies and is known to have fought as a jihadist in Bosnia.
He’s “being monitored,” good. What business does he have in Deutschland in the first place?
But this week a local superior court, following previous rulings in an administrative court and a regional court, said the name was unobjectionable.
In its ruling overturning the city’s decision, the court argued that “Djehad” is a common first name for Arab males that also evokes the duty of Muslims to promote their faith both spiritually and within society. The use of the word as a first name, the court argued, was in no way denigrating or offensive.The court conceded that, in recent years, radical Islamists have used the term to express the idea of an armed struggle against people who don’t share their faith.
Could this apply to Radical Islamists, like the “father of Djehad?”
But that could not justify a restriction of the right of the parents to choose their child’s name as they see fit, they said, adding that the parent’s motives for selecting the name were irrelevant.