What the proper meaning of “Jihad” is in the Arabic language? Does the word imply an armed military struggle?
In this thread, gobear asserted that “Jihad can encompass struggle by the sword against unbelievers, but that is not what the word means.” gobear thoroughjly supported his POV. He quoted the Department of Islamic Studies at USC: “Jihad is not a war to force the faith on others, as many people think of it. It should never be interpreted as a way of compulsion of the belief on others…”
From gobear’s cite, Lane’s Arabic-English lexicon says under jihad:
However, Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes disagrees. He acknowledges that most US professors of Isamic Studies support the non-military definition, but he says they’re wrong. Historically, Pipes says,
However, in modern times, Pipes says,
Pipes is harshly critical of academia:
OTOH others are critical of Pipes
So, which is it: [ul][]Jihad by-and-large does not connote armed warfare. Those who assert that it does are hate-mongers.[]Jihad, by-and-large does connote armed warfare. Professors who assert the opposite should be ashamed of themselves.[/ul]
Neither. You seem drawn to sharp dichotomies like a moth to a flame, december. Sadly the world is not that clear-cut.
Jihad by-and-large is not so easily quantifiable as to say by-and-large on the level of historical survey. Mainstream medieval Sunni doctrine did indeed seem to emphasize Jihad as a military struggle, with the exceptions being found in the work of some Shi’a and later Sufi jurists. In more recent times, this emphasis has flip-flopped, with more Muslim scholars emphasizing jihad as primarly defensive ( in the military context ) and contemplative ( as per earlier Shi’a and Sufi writers ). Both schools of thought have found ammunition in the Qur’an, which, like most religious texts, are open to interpretation. Further discussion of this historical evolution, can be found in this brief essay here: http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_jihad.html
The answer ultimately, is that jihad means different things to different people. In point of fact even Islamists, or most of them, accept the idea of jihad as internal struggle in this day and age. The salient question is how many believe in the medieval doctrine of aggressive expansion of the faith through offensive jihad. Given that even ObL seems to feel the need make apologetic references to how he is just responding to “American aggression and Israeli repression” et al, I think it is fair to say that the dominant paradigm today is of jihad as a defensive doctrine ( and in a separate conext, as an internal struggle, the two meanings not by any means being mutually exclusive ).
Is Daniel Pipes related to Richard Pipes, the Russian historian? Richard is known for his rather characteristically conservative, Cold War-era views on communism.
It’s an article analyzing an umbrella group of moderate, non-violent, but highly politically active Sufi Muslims in Lebanon and their struggle for social and political supremacy with local Islamist groups. Very interesting reading, which nicely illustrates the mostly under-reported breadth of religious thought in the Muslim world.
A complex group - Note their loathing of the Islamists, but careful friendliness towards Hezbollah based on certain theological and social tenets ( despite disapproving of their violent activities ), for example.
As Tamerlane has ably noted, yes and no. Depends on the circumstances.
Let me expand. The root from which Jihaad is derived is JHD, common root verb is jahada, to strive for / struggle for. The verb is in use at all levels of usage per my personal observations on usage, meaning not only in academic but also in dialect.
Jihaad is the habitual form from this root (a more amusing one is nabaah, one who barks habitually or as for a profession. I love that one.) also indicating intensity.
Other forms are jehoud, efforts. Effort expended, mejhoud. Related root (ifaal form), ijhaad.
In other words - and I so very gently hesitate to point out that I have explained this to you before such that one has to ask why you keep pimping the same motherfucking wrong headed points - the root, its derived forms are in common usage. Further to this, lest one think it is esoteric grammar, I point out that the manner in which one forms nouns adjectives etc. in normal Arabic, including dialect is via these forms, so the connections are not merely scholarly.
The word has a wide range of meanings. Depending on the context various things will come to the fore. In a political discussion when someone uses Jihaad they usually mean struggle against the unbelievers / enemies of their position. Talking religion, well you get into another area where it depends.
Simple as that.
There may be something of an overreaction on the part of the learned community in attempting to get it through thick heads and counter those who want to deliberately distort to paint the Islamic world in a worse light, for certainly Jihaad contains the meaning of war (although the usual word is 4Harb) and certainly in an ordinary convo on politics, it won’t be understood in the inner Jihaad terms.
On the other hand it is a gross distortion to think it means only Holy War - as Tamerlane notes, in Sufism it is clearly the inner struggle. I once more take the opp. to point out is a style of belief rather than a sect per se, as one can be Sunni of the Malekite school and also Sufi. Sufi itself takes on a variety of forms - it is best to understand Sufism as being something akin to Evangelical or perhaps Charismatic in Xianity.
Pipes is a political hack who I have only contempt for. He’s a fucking liar pimping a neocon political agenda. He’s been running around smearing the MENA scholarly community in re al-Qaeda claiming he predicted its rise, in fact his papers in the early 1990s predicted, and I quote, “an Islamic Comintern” run from Tehran with a unification of Sunni and Shi’ite ‘fundamentalism’. One can not get more wrong than that. Fucking ideological pimp hack.
Kudos to Tamerlane on the link BTW, emphasizing once more the piss-poor coverage of the Islamic world.
You should have left it at that. Tamerlane did a fine job. You merely confused things.
Here’s a news bulletin for you. Nobody cares about what the linguistic origins or menaing of the word are. What does interest people is the usage of this word in the Islamic religion. IOW, granting that jihad literally means “struggle” and can refer to many types of struggle, the question is what type of struggle is it that is thought of so highly in Islamic teachings.
Apparently, it has both meanings in this area as well. But it is of interest to know which is predominant.
Once again, by rambling on about technical yet tangetially related matters you have succeded in confusing an issue which others have shed light on. Kudos.
What do you think might account for the frequent use (cite) of Jihad to mean “holy war”?
According to the Merleau-Ponty concept of language, language is dynamic and intersubjective — even emotive. Ultimately, usage decides what a word means.
American Heritage (2000) gives “jihad” as “A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.” Likewise, Webster’s Revised Unabridged, (1998), gives “A religious war against infidels or Mohammedan heretics; also, any bitter war or crusade for a principle or belief.”
Quite many popular sources could be cited using the word that way. So, there could well be a meaning of “holy war” in English that has developed over history from subjective experience and emotion.
Incidentally, I think December took great pains to explain that he was NOT seeing this in black and white. Note his usage of the “by and large” phrase.
Argumentum ad hominem and utter bullshit at that. Rather than take your word for it I checked out this biography on Daniel Pipes
A fucking liar? Now calling someone a fucking liar with credentials you couldn’t hope to compare to is downright assinine.
And yes Lib , the definition of a word is should be based on present usage. Crusade no longer means what it meant in the middle ages. There is no call today by christians to assemble and defeat by force of arms the infidel in the Holy Lands.The term Jihad seems to have evolved into several meanings, including the removal by force if neccessary of Jews from Palistine and Americans from Saudi Arabia. That the term Jihad is used by hateful muslims in their way no doubt irks the moderate muslims, but it helps to know what the haters mean when they use it.
The phrase “by and large” is indeed grey territory but a territory where a dichotomy is valid (at least in a statistical sense?). I am glad that phrase was used and unfortunately, as the replies from Tamerlane and Collounsbury have noted, “by and large” is still stretching the dichotomy too far (unless there is some way to quantify a prevalent thinking amongst the vast array of religious scholars and muslims)
Well, just hold it. Now you’re the one drawing a dichotomy. I didn’t read Coll’s reply past his Pit-worthy explosion, but Tamerlane seemed to understand that the term means different things to different people. Why does it matter what religious scholars think when so many people (including usage panels) think something else?
“Now calling someone a fucking liar with credentials you couldn’t hope to compare to is downright assinine.”
I don’t get the logic of this. It isn’t possible for someone of Pipes’s credentials to be a liar?
As the credentials you have supplied they don’t necessarily indicate expertise in Middle-East history. What is his area of specialization? Has he written peer-reviewed articles about Middle-East history in academic journals Has he written scholarly books on the Middle East? Did he get tenure at any of the universities mentioned?
Certainly his tone of sweeping denunciation of Middle East experts suggests a crank rather than a first-rate scholar.
“Nobody cares about what the linguistic origins or menaing of the word are.”
Um speak for yourself. I found Collounsbury’s post quite informative. I do wish he would cut down on the expletives though.
OK, maybe I shouldn’t have spoken for anyone else. But my point remains that he is confusing the issue by going on about the secular Arabic language use of the word, when the discussion is about the specific Islamic religious meaning.
Many terms have many uses in ordinary conversation but can take on a specific one when adopted by a religion or legal system to refer to a concept within that framework. One cannot determine the meaning within that framework by focusing on the wider usage of that word.
Etymologies have a certain dry intellectual interest, but quite often they are not only irrelevant but misleading. Lefthanded people are not necessarily sinister, for example.
Sorry, I disagree. His ‘by-and-large’ is at best sufficient to move to very, very dark grey vs. very, very light grey. I consider it a distinction without much significance. He presents two strongly contrasting views and casts them, by implication, as being the only two options, with either one or the other being so heinously wrong that their proponents are either ‘hate-mongers’ or deceitful liars who ought to be ‘ashamed of themselves’. IMHO the little ‘by-and-large’ qualifier doesn’t change the fact ( again, IMO ) that any comparison, the consequences of which should apparently generate such opprobrium, is intended to be pretty stark. I consider my characterization of it as ‘black and white’ to be valid. YMMV.
At any rate it is a false dichotomy IMO. Your fallacy of the excluded middle if you like. Again, YMMV
No argument from me. I agree that is exactly what has happened. A long history of Christian ( which in this one particular context we can characterize as western/European )/Muslim antagonism in which the phrase came to mean just that to people in the west that were on the receiving end of aggressive wars. Similarly with the emotion with which the word crusade is regarded in the Muslim world - Stems from the same phenomena ( on refreshing I see Grienspace has already pointed this out ). Far as I can tell, your average Muslim on the street when hears the word crusade doesn’t think of a synonym for earnest endeavor, he/she thinks of “Christian aggression”. It’s not like the study of comparative theology is common to the majority of the world’s people.
So, sure. However, if you are arguing that jihad should only mean an aggressive “Holy War” in English, because that’s the tradition that has been handed down to us ( and I’m not saying you are arguing this ), I’d say that is just silly. It does matter what Muslims actually think the word means. That’s the whole point, really. The fact is that those dictionary definitions are incomplete. Of available English-language definitions I’ve seen, American Academic Encyclopedia is a little closer ( but still not quite there, as jihad need not have anything to do with spreading the faith at all, but merely an issue of internal struggle to maintain righteousness ) (p.418 ):
In Islam , the duty of each Muslim to spread his religious beliefs is termed “jihad”. Although the word is widely understood to mean a “holy war” against nonbelievers, jihad may also be fulfilled by a personal battle against evil inclinations, the righting of wrongs, and the supporting of what is good.
If the appeal is to dictionary definitions, I’d say that those cited definitions are in need of revision ;). English does evolve, thank some deity of your choice.
