« The Florida Primary | Main | Max Boot: Perspective on Iraq »
January 31, 2008
The Definition of "Jihad"
Hint: It isn't "peaceful inner struggle", like some apologists try and tell us.
I had my own experience with this "nicer" definition. Shortly after Sept 11 2001, I went to a church where they had invited two Muslims, a man and his wife, to come and speak. The purpose behind the invitation was noble; like many well-meaning people they were afraid that a backlash against Muslims might develop in the wake of the terrorist attack. Indeed, I had thoughts along those lines too for a time. As such, these two Muslims were there to explain their faith, which after all was something not many of us were familiar with at the time. Anyway, one of the things that the two insisted on was that the proper definion of jihad was "peaceful inner struggle", something that one did to purify oneself before God. They asserted that any definition of it as "war" was from ancient times. Even then I knew they were blowing smoke, but of course was too polite (like everyone else) to say so at the time.
In case you need proof that jihad really means something along the lines of "war against the infidels, the invaluable MEMRI has this immaculately researched piece:
The Arabic word jihad has gained wide currency in the media worldwide. Since the 1990s, various countries around the world have seen numerous terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims calling themselves "jihad fighters" - the most deadly of them being the attack on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. But what exactly is this concept of jihad, which has so much impact on life in the world today?The Meaning of the Word Jihad
Let us begin with the meaning of the word jihad as it is understood by the "ordinary" contemporary speaker of Arabic (and also by Muslims who are not Arabs) - I refer to the meaning of the word in "common parlance," to use a British legal term, or in what the Jewish sages called "the language of ordinary people." In the language of ordinary people, jihad means war against the enemies of Islam. Since this interpretation often arouses controversy or objection among academic experts, I present here a word-for-word translation of what is said about the concept of jihad in a standard 11th grade textbook used in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority:
"Jihad is the Islamic term equivalent to the word 'war' among other nations. The difference is that jihad is [war] for the sake of noble and exalted goals, and for the sake of Allah… whereas other nations' wars are wars of evil for the sake of occupying land and seizing natural resources, and for other materialistic goals and base aspirations."It should be noted that the literal meaning of the word jihad is not "war." Jihad is the nominalized form of the verb jahada, which means "to strive," "to exert oneself." The textbook from which the quote is taken presents this etymological information, but what it stresses - and what is relevant to this investigation - is the accepted meaning of the word in Muslim culture and history, and, of course, its accepted meaning today. [
The Place of Jihad in the Muslim World View
To properly understand the place of jihad in the Muslim world view, it is important to keep in mind that Islam has been, from its very beginning, not only a religion but a political community - the nation of Islam (ummat al-Islam). Muhammad was not merely a prophet communicating the word of God, but a political leader and military commander. Hence, any victory by the army of a Muslim state over non-Muslims is perceived as a victory for Islam itself. According to Islam, Allah promised the Muslims victory and superiority over all other religions worldwide. ...
ust as humanity is divided into two - into believers and infidels - the world itself is also divided into the abode of Islam (dar al-Islam), namely the region under Muslim rule, and the abode of war (dar al-harb), referring to all lands not yet under Muslim rule, which must be conquered by the sword, i.e., through jihad.
However, jihad, important though it is, is not regarded as a personal obligation (fard 'ain) incumbent upon each and every Muslim. In this, it differs from the "five pillars of Islam" - the declaration of faith (shahada), prayer, fasting, pilgrimage to Mecca, and the payment of zakat (alms tax) - which are personal obligations of every individual believer. According to the shari'a, jihad is a collective duty (fard kifaya) of the Muslim nation, or community, as a whole. It is the Muslim ruler who decides when and against whom to declare jihad. When a Muslim ruler declares jihad, it becomes a personal obligation for those whom he orders to take part in the war.
There is only one situation in which jihad becomes a personal obligation of each and every Muslim even without an order from the Muslim leadership - namely when non-Muslims attack Muslims or invade a Muslim country. Bin Laden and the adherents of extremist Islam claim that this is the situation today: Islam is under attack, both physically and ideologically. The infidels - Christians and Jews - are invading the lands of Islam: Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, they maintain that waging jihad has become a personal obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, wherever they may be.
Be sure and read the whole thing for historical background and documentation (the piece is heavily footnoted)
Previous
Posted by Tom at January 31, 2008 9:14 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1070
Comments
It's been said elsewhere, but the succinct phrase is I think, "There exist many moderate Muslims. There is no such thing as moderate Islam."
Posted by: Mark Olson at January 31, 2008 10:06 PM
Then the question remains: Why are we in Iraq. If muslims are and the Islamic faith are fundamentally flawed, why are we there trying to bring democracy? So on day they can elect some mullahs? I just don't get the logic.
OBL and the internationalist jihadi who attacked us are somewhere between the capital cities of Afghanistan and Pakistan, hanging out with their ilk (to call either place a defined country with well defined borders ill informed). Call it waziristan, whatever, the reality is this is the nuclear armed cradle of jihadis who attacked numerous times in the past, on our own turf. So what are we looking to achieve in Iraq? A democracy for jihadis working together for fard kifaya?
Posted by: jason at February 1, 2008 10:08 PM
Ah-hah, I found it and was able to answer my own question, what is the goal in Iraq. I must have missed the memo. The goal is no longer democracy, Mr. Boot sums it up nicely:
---"In order to secure the military victories that U.S. and Iraqi forces have won at great cost in the past year, the CIA and State Department should engage more effectively in political warfare to shape the Iraqi political process in ways conducive to American and Iraqi interests.... Otherwise, there is a real danger that the situation may regress."---
So we want "Real Democracy", shaped by the CIA? And we wonder why our popularity is way down? Even the Canadians are going to leave us behind. This is like some AL jazeerra propaganda, but from an American.
Posted by: jason at February 1, 2008 10:20 PM
Hi jason, thanks for stopping by. But I must say that in your zeal to attack administration policy (or your perception of it) you missed a golden opportunity to address the issues raised in these two pieces in a more serious way. Let me therefore lay some groundwork:
re your first comment:
We've talked about this before. Do I have to give this same speech each and everytime I post on Islam?
I too am upset when some on the right start saying "Islam is evil" and/or "all Muslims are evil" etc. Yes, if Islam is evil then our venture in Iraq is doomed to failure. Maddeningly, I find that the same people who say that Islam is evil are the same ones who support what we're doing in Iraq.
The answer is that no not all Muslims are jihadists, or know or care about jihad. They may go to their Mosque every day and pray, but that's about it. They don't even care about the details of the Koran. But that doesn't mean we can ignore issues like the definition of "jihad", because many or most predominant Muslim leaders buy into what's posted above. And all too often they're the ones calling the shots.
Islamic theologians need to tackle the hard subjects of their faith, and "jihad" is one of them. This can and must be done, though it will be difficult. Ignoring issues like "jihad" helps no one, certainly not the average Muslim who just wants to get on with life. To help this person Islamic scholars must "reinterpret" aspects of the Koran in a way similar to what Martin Luther and John Calvin did.
re your second
I think that your insinuation that Boot wants to subvert democracy in Iraq, or that democracy is not our goal, is unfounded and over the top.
This from Boot's piece I think illustrates what he has in mind:
"The United States played this sort of role during the Cold War when the CIA heavily subsidized Italy's Christian Democrats and other anti-communist parties. But in Iraq the Bush administration and Congress have fallen prey to self-defeating idealism: They refuse to offer subsidies to the more moderate politicians while Iran and other nations offer copious subsidies to the radicals."
This is probably what Boot is suggesting we do in Iraq. It opens a series of moral dilemmas. One is of whether we should fund democracy groups. One might argue that even to do this constitutes unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of another nation. But if we don't fund them, and the bad guys win, was it really the moral choice not to interfere?
Logically, if an action is bad in itself, it cannot be justified by saying that good will come of it. The question therefore is whether the action is bad. I would argue that funding pro-democracy parties is not bad but is good. Killing someone can serve a good or bad purpose. It is illogical to say that anything is a "necessary evil". For example, the Bible (OT and NT allow killing for certain purposes like self-defense). Just War Theory (a Catholic tradition) says that in certain circumstances killing is justified. As you can guess this is a HUGE issue and books have been written about this subject.
We should also look at it in a matter of degrees. Often it is asked "do the ends justify the means?" But I think this is a false option. The real question is "do the means always justify the ends?" And so it depends on what ends and what means you're talking about.
So if Boot is suggesting targeted assassination of political figures we simply don't like, well that would be wrong. But I don't have a problem with simply directing funds to Iraqi political parties that are moderate etc.
If you still think this wrong that's ok, but you do have to answer the question of "if we don't fund them and the bad guys win is Iraq better off?"
One might legitimately argue that the CIA should go father than simple funding. For example, the CIA might used to undermine Muqtada al-Sadr through a variety of techniques, like spreading disinformation. Would this be wrong? Reasonable people I think can disagree.
Lastly, as you perfectly well know, Boot is speaking for himself and does not represent the Bush Administration,. Yet you act as if he does.
As far as the Canadians go, if they leave us it won't be because of GWB's "arrogance" or whatever. It'll be because they've degenerated into a postmodernist pacifism whereby nothing is worth fighting for period, regardless of who is president or what we're saying. Sorry, but I find the idea tenable that if only Gore or Kerry were president the Europeans and Canadians would participiate more in Afghanistan (which I know you didn't directly say but some do).
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at February 2, 2008 11:37 AM
There is an organized effort by this society of journalists to obfuscate the meaning of "jihad."
Posted by: Always On Watch at February 3, 2008 1:40 PM
TOM,
Your review of the Islamic word 'Jihad'
is a noble effort. But does the Left-Wing
really enjoy being INFORMED, when they
can win elections via Slogans like "Change"
and 'New Direction', and "Our Time Has Come"
to excite the gullible, & the young voter?
Our Time? Did Obama mean Uncle Soros Time, huh?
How many know that George SOROS put his Royal
Blessing, and already secured the nomination for
BAarraacCK O-BaaAM-MAAA! Poor/HillyBilly.
She's Burnt Toast! It's Soros 'Open Society'!
It's the chumps "BRAVE NEW WORLD". Forgive
them Father, they know not what they do. reb
Posted by: Ralph E. at February 10, 2008 11:03 PM
