Islamic Duplicity: Jihad
Robert Houghton
holy war, and that the word does not even appear in the Koran. The
latter claim seems to be strictly true, though of course jihad itself is
often referred to - in 127 verses, I believe. The arch-Islamophile Karen
Armstrong has this week repeated in the "Guardian" the claim that
"jihad" means spiritual struggle and that it is distressing to Muslims
to hear it said otherwise. As a woman who earns her living by saying
what Muslims want to hear and what Muslims want to hear non-Muslims
among whom they live being told, Armstrong presumably knows the truth.
Anyway it is refreshing to read a frank explanation found in an
11th-grade textbook used in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority:
"Jihad is the Islamic 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 was for the sake of occupying territories and seizing natural
resources..." (Al-Thaqafa al-Islamiyya, The Ministry of Education, PA,
Ramallah, p 208)
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c6acbb$65f27c50$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> We have been told ad nauseam that "jihad" means spiritual struggle, not
> holy war, and that the word does not even appear in the Koran.
Comment:-
Is the "we" the subscribers, Muslim and non-Muslim, to SRI? Where in the
recent SRI archives is this ad nauseam plethora of "Jihad means spiritual
struggle"? Isn't the exact opposite the case? Aren't you the one that
constantly uses the "Jihad" term ad nauseam?
What is this Karen Armstrong "arch-Islamophile" ad hominem noise all about?
Isn't she a Catholic Christian? See this link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong
But now I will now go away and read her erudite Guardian article "The label
of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA" at this link, just to
ensure I don't get the wrong end of the prejudicial stick:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1525714,00.html#article_continue
--
Peace
--
Truth gains more . . . by the errors of one who, with due study and
preparation, thinks for himself than by the true opinions of those who only
hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think." [John Stuart
Mill]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Mike
Robert Houghton wrote:
> We have been told ad nauseam that "jihad" means spiritual struggle, not
> holy war, and that the word does not even appear in the Koran. The
> latter claim seems to be strictly true, though of course jihad itself is
> often referred to - in 127 verses, I believe.
In fairness, it has to be said that when many (most?) Muslims speak of
"Jihad" they speak of the spiritual (internal) struggle or social
action, rather than 'war for noble and exalted goals and for the sake
of Allah'. I suspect, however, that the distinction is not by any means
a simple one, and it is certainly a matter of debate even among Muslims
as to whether the distinction is all that meaningful.
AFAICT the "correct" position is that armed struggle forms a part of
Jihad, but is not its whole. Indeed, it does seem that at times Muslims
have been very reluctant to resort to arms and have needed exhorting to
do this very thing by the Qur'an itself. What doesn't help is
pronouncements such as Karen's which seem to go some way to confusing
this point.
> The arch-Islamophile Karen
> Armstrong has this week repeated in the "Guardian" the claim that
> "jihad" means spiritual struggle and that it is distressing to Muslims
> to hear it said otherwise. As a woman who earns her living by saying
> what Muslims want to hear and what Muslims want to hear non-Muslims
> among whom they live being told, Armstrong presumably knows the truth.
I have to say that this is possibly one of the most ludicrous
pronouncements Ms Armstrong has made for a long time. It is not for the
critics of Islam to dictate what an Islamic term means, and in this
particular case the supposed dichotomy of meanings has been around for
centuries. One person's "spiritual struggle" may well mean another's
"holy war", be it a violent campaign or a peaceful call to moral
living. Said "distress" is by no means univeral either - although I
suspect it may be the majority position of Muslims in America, I would
be surprised if the same is true in the Gaza Strip.
I searched for a non-Muslim equivalent of "Jihad", and the best I could
come up with is (with apologies to those Muslims who find the parallel
uncomfortable) crusade.
For those who wish to respond with an instant knee-jerk riposte, may I
at least quote the dictionary on one of the term's meanings:
3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. See
Synonyms at campaign.
intr.v. cru·sad·ed, cru·sad·ing, cru·sades
To engage in a crusade.
Now, back when I was growing up, the term "Crusade" in general usage in
the UK meant just this - concerted action by a group of (normally)
Christians against some abuse, injustice, or other situation which
needed to be addressed. Normally it took the shape of social action
such as the provision of support or help for those who needed it.
Indeed, there was a youth movement called "the Crusaders" who engaged
in these sorts of activities, tied up with spiritual activities such as
prayer, personal development and discipline, spiritual encouragement,
mission, and so on. I somewhat doubt they still call themselves by that
name.
This sort of thing is not so far away from the "great Jihad" or
spiritual struggle that Muslims engage in. But the term itself has
baggage which we are all too aware of now. Muslim groups have
increasingly marginalised its use in a positive sense by constantly
using it with negative connotations. So now, when people talk of
"crusading", we are constantly reminded of the atrocities of the middle
ages.
I would like to be able to wrest back some of the meaning of "Crusade"
if I could, and at least in part attempt some part of a rehabilitation
of the term so people have some sort of language were they can express
the sort of idea I posted above, while not forgetting some of its
history. But language becomes loaded with its use, and I suspect that
the term's meaning is now entrenched with use.
I rather suspect the same is currently happening with the term "Jihad".
While I can understand a degree of frustration amongst some Muslims
that their opponents carp on about "holy war" while conveniently
ignoring the other connotations of the spiritual struggle, it is at
least unsurprising that the Jihad/Holy war connection is never far
away. All the more so when these very Muslims point the finger at
Christians - who have in diverse ways and at many points now formally
apologised for the atrocities of the 4 crusades of the Middle Ages -
and use the term "Crusader" as a term of abuse.
I doubt that either term will now ever be clear of the supposed tarnish
of past violent actions being perpetrated under their banners. But the
problem does not even go away then. For example, could we see terms
like "Spanish Inquisition" paralleled with "Shariah Court" in secular
critiques? I rather suspect we will - and quite honestly do not relish
the prospect.
> Anyway it is refreshing to read a frank explanation found in an
> 11th-grade textbook used in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority:
>
> "Jihad is the Islamic 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 was for the sake of occupying territories and seizing natural
> resources..." (Al-Thaqafa al-Islamiyya, The Ministry of Education, PA,
> Ramallah, p 208)
Unfortunately, Robert, I don't see your post as actually addressing the
issue. It is painfully obvious that there are those in the Muslim
community who hope to use religious pretext to justify violent action.
I am fairly sure we didn't need to be reminded of this. Part of the
Jihad for Muslims seems to be to struggle against themselves, sort this
confusion out, and then present a coherent (and single-syllable)
message on the subject to non-Muslims. But any talk of "Jihad" merely
meaning "inner struggle" is not going to work, because it simply isn't
true. In the same way it is true that the equation "Jihad = Holy War"
is unhelpful and something of a distortion.
Mike.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:000001c6acbb$65f27c50$4101a8c0@rhdt...
> <snip> ...
> > We have been told ad nauseam that "jihad" means spiritual struggle, not
> > holy war, and that the word does not even appear in the Koran.
> <snip> ...
>
Several forms of the triliteral root "jhd" appear in the Qur'an. The
verbal form is quite common. It means "strive" or "struggle" to achieve
some aim. The great jihad (according to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be
on him) is the inner struggle waged by the believer to rise above the
lower self and to seek God's face. The lesser jihad is the struggle of
individuals and the community to establish God's kingdom on earth. It is
in that sense that the orientalists mistranslated "jihad" as "holy war".
A better translation would be to borrow from Christian terminology and
say "just war". Jihad is not necessarily and certainly not usually armed
struggle. However when the community is attacked, invaded, subjugated,
etc. jihad in the formed of armed self-defense is ordained.
A month ago, in another reply to you, I mentioned a book:
_Islamic Jihad: An Historical Perspective_ (ISBN 0-89259-086-6) by
Jamilah Kolocotronis.
You should read it if you really want to know what a conservative but
not radical (extremist) Muslim thinks jihad is. The book was written
after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and draws on that conflict as
an example. It also traces the meaning of the jihad with examples from
the Qur'an, the Traditions of the Prophet and other historical sources.
If you intend to only read your own sources and to ignore source
material suggested by others, I see no useful purpose in trying to
discuss these issues with you. My main reason for responding from time
to time is for the benefit of others, whose minds are still open and who
actually want to understand the Islamic perspective.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1153742487....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> In fairness, it has to be said that when many (most?) Muslims speak of
> "Jihad" they speak of the spiritual (internal) struggle or social
> action, rather than 'war for noble and exalted goals and for the sake
> of Allah'. I suspect, however, that the distinction is not by any means
> a simple one, and it is certainly a matter of debate even among Muslims
> as to whether the distinction is all that meaningful. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What is the "Jihad" duplicity when coming from Robert? Robert has and
continues to use the word "Jihad" incorrectly for pure emotional
(rabble-rousing [sic]) effect. He has used the term "Jihad" (i.e. a holy war
waged by Muslims against infidels) to describe conflicts between Muslims
(e.g. Mughals versus Delhi Sultanate, Pakistan versus Bangladesh, Arab
versus Ottoman Turks, and, most recently, the ethnic - nationalistic dispute
between Armenians and secular Young Turks). When this is refuted, which can
easily be established from the archived transcripts, he then admits it's not
a "Jihad" in this formal sense, mentioned above. Robert then comes up with
the mendacious suggestion that it's a "Jihad" because, as he disingenuously
claims, "because in the mosques" allegations were made. What mosques? What
substantiated allegations? None, that can be independently verified! To
compound the fallacy, he previously used this self-same lame "mosque" canard
to perfidiously justify his use of "Jihad" term to describe the Pakistan
versus Bangladesh conflict.
What should subscribers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, then call someone who
duplicitously overworks the use of this false "Jihad" notion to mislead
subscribers? Should we then call it "Catholic Duplicity: Equivocation"?
Ethically, isn't this then the sacrifice of Christian principle for Church
interest?
--
Peace
--
Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law. [Kant]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com