In Foreign Policy (and picked up in, of all places, the Huffington Post’s World Post), an article criticizes Tariq Ramadan, Reza Aslan, and Akbar Ahmed for claiming that “Islamic teachings are not responsible for provoking young Muslims to join groups like the Taliban and al Qaeda,” and says that “these Muslim scholars still shy away from acknowledging that there actually are such religious texts that use the term jihad in the context of calls for armed struggle against non-Muslims rather than urging Muslims to observe self-restraint against various harmful impulses.”
Since not just Ramadan, Aslan, Ahmed and Hassan Abbas but the entire political class and media establishment shies away from acknowledging that there actually are such religious texts that use the term jihad in the context of calls for armed struggle against non-Muslims, and since those who have pointed this out have been smeared and marginalized as “racists” and “bigots,” this is remarkable. It will be interesting to see if Malik Siraj Akbar, despite his impressive record, is now vilified as an “Islamophobe” by the hatchet men and attack dogs who stoke the hysteria about “Islamophobia,” and if Ramadan, Aslan, or Ahmed offer any intelligent riposte to his statements here. The smart money is on the likelihood that neither will happen, as the smear merchants will understand that attacking someone like Akbar will boomerang on them more than their smears of people from non-Muslim backgrounds and open apostates from Islam, and Ramadan, Aslan, and Ahmed, knowing that Akbar is correct, will remain silent and hope that as few people as possible note what he is saying here and ponder its implications.
“The Taliban Revival,” by Malik Siraj Akbar, Foreign Policy, June 10, 2014:
…Similar to several contemporary Muslim writers, such as Oxford University professor, Dr. Tariq Ramadan; University of California associate professor, Reza Aslan; and Dr. Akbar Ahmed of American University, Abbas also unconvincingly insists that Islamic teachings are not responsible for provoking young Muslims to join groups like the Taliban and al Qaeda. He lambasts the Taliban for doing a great disservice in distorting the idea of jihad, which, he argues, actually encourages Muslims to fight against inequality and illiteracy.
“In the Islamic traditions, the word ‘jihad’ refers primarily to a spiritual struggle within oneself against sin; but its secondary meaning revolves around the idea of religious armed struggle. In daily usage, Muslims often refer to their work or intellectual efforts as ‘jihad,’ especially if those efforts are service oriented…thanks to Muslim extremists (but somewhat tragically for Islam), the term ‘jihad’ has assumed negative connotations in the Western world, where it is seen as a synonym for Islamic terrorism,” Abbas says.
But these Muslim scholars still shy away from acknowledging that there actually are such religious texts that use the term jihad in the context of calls for armed struggle against non-Muslims rather than urging Muslims to observe self-restraint against various harmful impulses. Since 9/11, some scholars from the Muslim world have passionately been advocating for the “good jihad” and endeavoring to either disown or conceal the “bad jihad.”
“Like Many Muslims, I grew up hearing my parents say that education was my jihad,” writes Abbas in support of what can be termed as “good jihad.” He continues: “I think of my role as an educationalist in the same way — but because of the widespread misuse of the word, I think twice before saying it out loud.”…
Peter Buckley says
The fact that even the Western media refer to violent sharia-hungry muslims as “jihadists” is a bit of a clue. Everybody knows that a “jihadist” is a BAD PERSON.
The problem for muslims is that even Muhammad said jihad is THE BEST THING a muslim can do. Therefore Islam turns morality on its head.
We are seeing more and more of these DESPAIRING articles written by muslims.
The game is up. Islam is on its way out…..
eib says
Quote:
Everybody knows that a “jihadist” is a BAD PERSON.
end
No. Jihadists are not bad people.
They are people worshiping a good God in an errant way. They travel a bad road. That does not mean they can’t change their minds once they cease to submit to the demonic impulse for destruction.
Rinzai says
Since when is Allah a ”good god”? Allah is the reason for prophet muhammads shenanigans, such as having sex with a 6 year old girl, murder, piracy, spreading terror and much more. Some god, this Allah.
eib says
They claim to be worshiping the same God as Jews and Christians. By their logic, one might say that 9/11 was dedicated to the glory of God.
We know, though that their idea of God as unitary is in error, their worship is in error, their prophet is false, their communities are corrupt, their treatment of women and children is cruel, and their state of civilization is backward. They are errant, and as a result, destructive; and they are arrogant to boot, which means they won’t get off the errant path.
I do not acknowledge their Allah as God, but I understand that they believe (with all their errant hearts) that their Allah is our God.
Even if I adopt their understanding, their error is clear.
And that is why the Ummah have no excuse for the evil they do.
Slobbering Fits says
@eib Sorry man go back to school or something , you lost the thread.
voegelinian says
You say tomato…
Edward Vaughn says
Allah and God are not the same. Allah was one of 300+ gods worshiped at the Kaaba before Muhammad [If he existed at all (blt, pb&j; he must be fed up with raisins by now)] created this mess. Allah is a heathen god transferred, like so many others, into the harness of another cause. Conflating them is nonsense; separation is the key to better understanding here. Just FYI.
Rinzai says
”fight against inequality”
What about the dhimmitude? Is dhimmitude a form of equality? Bloody hell, the ORWELIANISM of those people astounds me… ”freedom is slavery”
duh_swami says
There are only three reasons to join jihad…
1. Islam.
2. Islam.
3. Poverty.
The third one has been debunked leaving….
eib says
Quote:
He lambasts the Taliban for doing a great disservice in distorting the idea of jihad, which, he argues, actually encourages Muslims to fight against inequality and illiteracy.
end
Whose inequality and whose illiteracy?
Certainly not that of women.
Peter says
They don’t “shy away from acknowledging” anti-non-Muslim religious texts and doctrines, rather they deliberately obfuscate, misinform, deceive, and lie about them.
They know the doctrines; they don’t want non-Muslims to know and understand them and their link to the inherently evil behaviors they engender and sanctify.
voegelinian says
Yep. The writer is himself doing a subtler form of taqiyya and stealth jihad. He’s still cleverly purveying the notion that jihad as the pursuit of violently supremacist expansionism in the name of a bloodthirsty fanhaticism is not an overwhelmingly massive and central and essential factor in Islam. This Akbar character is making it sound like it’s just one menu option, that one can take or leave — depending on whether one is a member of the Tiny Minority of Extremists or not.
I have noticed over the past couple of years, slowly but surely, certain Muslim pundits (usually touted as academics) coming out to write op-eds or appear on televised panels to offer the giant, seemingly succulent crumb, of concession that “yes Islam has problems of violence”, etc. But if one looks carefully (and doesn’t allow one’s desperate hunger for Moderate Crumbs to occlude one’s clarity of vision and what should remain a ruthless skepticism in this regard), one always finds loopholes indicating that the Hopeful Muslim du jour is either schizophrenic or deceitful. And neither of those two bode well for an ally, let alone for the degree of hope that would prove adequate for our #1 priority — the safety of our societies from these Mohammedan monsters metastasizing in their global revival of jihad.
Hal says
Quite so. Like a certain professor, perhaps.
Kasey says
Anyone who cries “Islamophobia” over criticism of Islam regarding radicalization like that which is driving events in Iraq, uses that term as a “smoke-screen” to divert that criticism, for the true term which should be used and recognized, is” Islamoreality” .
Jay Boo says
Islamic semantics is where the ocean of truth recedes from the barren desert of Islam.
Islam baits the ‘servants of Allah’ with empty vanity that is to be flaunted masked as humility.
Jihad’ refers primarily to a spiritual struggle within oneself against the knowledge of never pleasing Allah that uses fault-finding projection onto others as well as violence to hide from the inevitable self-loathing that comes into the life of every single Muslim.
eib says
Maya Angelou talked about the difference between modesty and humility. The modest individual can hide any number of evil conceits, stratagems and even weapons in his or her “modesty.” True humility exists apart from modesty, and is from the inside out. Humility makes a person worthy of trust. Modesty hides heaven knows what.
jewdog says
Let’s put this in context:
A statistical analysis of the Islamic texts by Bill Warner’s political Islam study center found that only about 3% of the references to jihad mean an inner spiritual struggle, the other 97% mean warfare to establish Islamic rule.
tpellow says
“Sickening propaganda footage emerges of ISIS beheading policeman and random fatal drive-bys: UN confirms jihadists’ summary executions in Iraq.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656905/ISIS-jihadists-seize-two-towns-bear-Baghdad-U-S-tanks-helicopters-stolen-fleeing-western-trained-Iraqi-forces.html#ixzz34WZaeRwX
eib says
Islam is profane, and anti-humanistic.
Muslims are fated from now to eternity to do only evil as a result of their beliefs.
el-cid says
Thank you Robert for posting this.
I can now understand the dilemma of “normal” people who self-identify as Muslims. If they have been using the word “Jihad” in the context above, then the current trend must create a lot of dissonance in their minds. The writer has had his spiritual vocabulary usurped! Terrible. Until know, I thought this was a pure lie.
It is critical that especially the young and impressionable see this distinction very clearly–if they are confused about the “good” vs. the “bad”, they can be recruited to violence in the name of religious ideals.
Bradamante says
I think a fair number of “normal” Muslims are in denial. They think that since they personally wouldn’t slaughter infidels, whoever is out there slaughtering infidels is motivated by something other than Islam. But meanwhile, many of these same “wouldn’t hurt a fly” Muslims would happily participate in demonstrations demanding halal food in cafeterias, school closings for Muslim holidays, censure of Facebook for allowing the posting of pictures of Muhammad, etc. And they won’t draw the connection between non-violent bullying of the infidels and the violent manifestations of the same supremacist impulse.
Charli Main says
Supporters and condoners of Jihad are just as guilty of Jihad as the Muslims that pull the trigger on a gun or blow women and children up on buses and trains.
The silent Muslim majority are condemned by their silence.
Slobbering Fits says
Silence equals consent ? Just ask A’isha .
voegelinian says
Aisha when she grew up wasn’t silent — she crossed over into full-blown Stockholm Syndrome, actually participating in violent jihad.
Slobbering Fits says
I doubt they are in denial they know they benefit from the reputation of violence which makes their whining more effective .They are kind of pleased to have a crazy big brother with brass knuckles willing to kill .
eib says
As before, there is no evil conceit or stratagem that mere modesty will not conceal.
War is deceit.
And the silent are the deceitful in this war.
CogitoErgoSum says
I think some Muslims are actually ignorant of the full teachings of the Quran while some are really aware but choose to live in a state of denial….. and, of course, there are also those who just outright lie. Now the Jihadists may do many bad things but at least they speak the truth about what they believe. The time is coming soon for the ignorant, state-of-denial and lying “peaceful” Muslims to face up to the truth being presented to them by their Jihadi brothers and to understand fully that Islam means “submission” and not “peace.” Those who do not know the difference in meaning between “submission” and “peace” eventually will be set straight by their Jihadi brothers. Now those who prefer not to live in submission under the “truth” of the Jihadis should know that there is another Way, another Truth and another Life….and they need to understand that it’s not too late to change the direction they are headed. There is a religion of peace out there….it’s just not Islam.
Ty says
Give em some credit, man. They may be debased from centuries of mummery and intensive incest, but they all know they’re helping their cause.
Jack Diamond says
Fighting inequality and illiteracy? Struggle against sin and only secondarily religious armed struggle? Rubbish, as an Englishman would say. Muslims know perfectly well what Jihad means. How can they not? It’s the Sixth Pillar of Islam (the only difference with the other five is that Jihad someday comes to an end, when Islam dominates the earth in the Final Day).
Islam teaches all of us are created Muslim and submitted to Allah (7:172) Islam is Allah’s only religion (3:19; 3:85) and that all the Biblical prophets were Muslims, including Jesus. That everything relevant from previous scriptures (the Bible) were abrogated and incorporated by the Qur’an and that the current Bible is maliciously corrupted and changed to conceal the truth (that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets). All unbelievers, including Jews & Christians, are in rebellion to Allah and have misled humanity. Allah hates them for that. Muslims too are to hold hate and enmity for them. The mission of Islam is to bring mankind back into Islam, submission. Jihad is part of the call (or da’wa) for unbelievers to embrace Islam. Rejecting that call has always been regarded as an act of war necessitating their being forced under the authority of Islam by physical Jihad when possible. Ultimately, Jihad is always “defensive” and the unbelievers always the aggressor (at the head of this rejection stand the Jews). So, fight them until there is no more fitna (dissension, disorder, sedition– 8:39). Let’s add, while “jihad” can signify other than holy war–any struggling and striving–hence the subterfuges that the real meaning of the word is something innocuous, the word for “fight” is “qital” which usually denotes “killing, slaughtering, massacring, or slaying.” It appears 89 times in the Medinan Qur’an.
To imply Muslims don’t understand the basis of their belief-system strains credulity, to say the least. That they may choose to disregard it is different than attempting to tell the kaffir that such teachings do not exist or that they are not primary ones and going to be understood as primary ones by pious Muslims. Fighting in Allah’s cause is obligatory, even though you may dislike it (2:216). Fight here is qital, killing and warring. Just as Islamic manuals of law, like Umdat al-Salik, say clearly “offensive military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation…(jihad) means war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” Or as stated by the scholars on Islamqa.com “it is obligatory for the Muslims to wage jihad against the kuffar and take the initiative in that…seeking them in their own lands and calling them to Islam and waging jihad against them if they do not accept Islam or accept paying the jizyah, is obligatory and has not been abrogated.” Muhammad and his successors gave infidels those three choices and only those three choices, or as echoed by Ibn Khaldun “all of them are unbelief (including Christians). This is clearly stated in the noble Qur’an. To discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is for them to choose between conversions to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death.”
The legal definition of jihad (as warfare against non-Muslims) is the controlling one and the one that concerns infidels. Moreover, Jihad is considered a Right of Allah (according to Hanafi jurists) which means it cannot be overruled by man. It cannot be “reformed” by a new Ijtihad. And they aren’t talking about the personal struggle with sin, overweight or learning to read. Physical fighting is the pinnacle of jihad but jihad waged by the “tongue” or with wealth or by migration (colonization based on the hijra to Medina) or jihad just in the heart, are valid forms of removing the obstacles to the spread of Islam. The war in the heart is the doctrine of al-wala wal al-baraa (loyalty and enmity). These are not extremist doctrines and they are understood perfectly well by Muslims. Absolving Islam of blame or criticism is the aim of all this “dust thrown in your eyes” whose sole purpose is to promote Islam, by hook or by crook.
voegelinian says
For every JW commenter like Jack Diamond who gets it, there continue to be, alas, several JW commenters who keep scratching their heads and speculating about various species of Muslims who are, supposedly, not dangerous:
“normal” people who self-identify as Muslims
Muslims [who] are in denial
some Muslims [who] are actually ignorant of the full teachings of the Quran
…etc. (and many more where these came from). All speculation resting on a cloud of insufficient evidence, inadequate for our #1 priority: the safety of our societies.
Not only inadequate; but downright dangerous if translated into policy (or the obstruction of sound policy).
Beth says
@eib
The Koran calls the Son of God an abomination – and denies the Father and the Son.
See for yourself:
009.030 (Koran chapter 9 verse 30)
037.151
037.152
019.088
019.089
New Testament:
1Jo 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (And this Judgment was never changed)
The Koran is the sole supreme authority for Islam.
The New Testament is the sole supreme authority for Christianity.
The two could not be more opposite of each other – the books speak for themselves . To say they are the same – is blasphemy (in both religions).
RodSerling says
Malik Siraj Akbar (MS Akbar) doesn’t indicate disagreement with all of the Islam apologetics he presents, only with a couple of points, allowing the remainder of the apologetic claims to stand. He indicates disagreement with the notion that Islamic teachings play no role whatsoever in motivating Muslim youths to join groups “like the Taliban and al Qaeda,” but I’m not sure those he cites–Ramadan, Aslan, and Ahmed–actually espouse that notion. Their denials and deflections, I think, are more complex than outright denying any role of Islamic teachings in motivating and recruiting potential jihadists. MS Akbar may himself hold the notion that while Islamic teachings do play such a role, they do so in a significantly twisted or distorted form.
“In the Islamic traditions, the word ‘jihad’ refers primarily to a spiritual struggle within oneself against sin; but its secondary meaning revolves around the idea of religious armed struggle.”
This is not correct, or is a best misleading–as anyone can gather by reading the Sira and Hadith. Even if it were correct, the point of “inner jihad” is to hate and annihilate disbelief and disbelievers, which fits with Islam’s worldly goal of defeating disbelief and disbelievers.
“In daily usage, Muslims often refer to their work or intellectual efforts as ‘jihad,’ especially if those efforts are service oriented…”
This extravagant and unsubstantiated claim is presented, but not challenged, by MS Akbar. According to David Cook, the opposite is the case: The word jihad as used by Muslims in the Muslim world normally refers to military or violent struggle, and that it is only in the non-Muslim West that alternative senses of the word are emphasized.
“But these Muslim scholars still shy away from acknowledging that there actually are such religious texts that use the term jihad in the context of calls for armed struggle against non-Muslims rather than urging Muslims to observe self-restraint against various harmful impulses.”
I don’t think they shy away from it. Aslan for example claims jihad is used in the sense of a “Just War.”
“Since 9/11, some scholars from the Muslim world have passionately been advocating for the “good jihad” and endeavoring to either disown or conceal the “bad jihad.””
These apologetics should be challenged by MS Akbar, but aren’t. The goals of all “jihads” in Islam are the same: defeat of disbelief and disbelievers, promotion and defense of belief and believers, rule of Islamic law over all. Jihad of the heart/mind/soul, jihad of tongue and pen, jihad of the hand, jihad of wealth, jihad of the sword–everything that a true pious Muslim does must be for the cause of Islam. If not, then it’s not Islamic jihad.
sidney penny says
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/chi3.htm
CHAPTER 3
ENTIRE QURAN IS A MANUAL ON JIHAD
JihAd bil Saif
The book by Brigadier S.K. Malik to which we have referred above is a study of striving by the sword as elaborated in the Quran. It carries a Foreword by the late General Zia-ul-Haq who had seized power in Pakistan in 1977 after being appointed the Chief of the Army by Z.A. Bhutto, who was dictator of that country for more than a decade, and who promoted the concept of proxy or low intensity war against India – a war which continues in various forms and on several fronts till today. The General says:…
………….
The Ideology of Islam
Taking into account the character of the basic text of Islam – the Quran – as a Manual on War, Islam cannot pass as a spiritual doctrine in any sense of the term. On the contrary, it stands exposed as a political ideology of predatory imperialism like Christianity, Communism and Nazism with all of which its shares its source, namely, the Bible, as well as many psychopathological traits. Professor K.S. Lal has studied and taught the history of Islam in India for the last more than fifty years.
……..
Prof Lal has presented many other facets of Islam such as that Islam has no word for democracy; that secularism and Islam are mutually exclusive; that Islam can set up only a theocratic state; that Islam has institutionalised slavery and degraded women; and that Islam has laid waste many countries. But here we have been discussing Islam as a religion of peace.
sidney penny says
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/jihad/
JIHÃD
THE ISLAMIC DOCTRINE OF PERMANENT WAR
Jihãd has five clear components, and a complete understanding of the subject requires a discussion of each one of them.
Thus jihãd stands for
(1) Forcible expansion of Islam;
(2) Destruction of infidels;
(3) Establishment of jizyah on the subdued infidel population;
(4) Plunder in the form of properties wrested from infidels; and
(5) Plunder in the form of enslaved female and child population acquired from the vanquished infidels.