“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”
But Pipes is not talking about legal and theological discussion alone but also the meaning given to the word by “most Muslims”. In that context the meaning of the word in ordinary conversation is highly relevant.
I don’t think that is true. He is referring to the meaning given to the religious concept by “most Muslims”.
Well I don’t think Pipes explicitly restricts his discussion to the purely religious meaning; but anyway even if that is his intent I would argue that the meaning that ordinary people give to a word in a religous context will still be partly shaped by the use of that word in ordinary conversation. After all most of them will hardly be experts in Islamic theology.
In any case the big problem with the article is the substantive claim about the ideology of the average modern Muslim
"For most Muslims in the world today, these moves away from the old sense of jihad are rather remote. They neither see their own rulers as targets deserving of jihad nor are they ready to become Quakers.
Instead, the classic notion of jihad continues to resonate with vast numbers of them, as Alfred Morabia, a foremost French scholar of the topic, noted in 1993:
Offensive, bellicose jihad, the one codified by the specialists and theologians, has not ceased to awaken an echo in the Muslim consciousness, both individual and collective. . . . To be sure, contemporary apologists present a picture of this religious obligation that conforms well to the contemporary norms of human rights, . . . but the people are not convinced by this. . . . The overwhelming majority of Muslims remain under the spiritual sway of a law . . . whose key requirement is the demand, not to speak of the hope, to make the Word of God triumph everywhere in the world.
In brief, jihad in the raw remains a powerful force in the Muslim world, and this goes far to explain the immense appeal of a figure like Osama bin Laden in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001."
He just offers a string of assertions by himself and then by another writer without producing a shred of evidence for his rather sweeping claim.
Yah know…here is another question.
What does crusade mean to you?
What does crusade mean to someone for whom English is not a first language?
I think crusade and jihad have a lot in common
Tamerlane
I sympathize with your point. Dictionary definitions of libertarianism are notoriously bad. And just look at how American Heritage defines survival of the fittest. So, I can quite imagine that they have mangled the technical definition of jihad.
However, regarding the excluded middle charge against December, I still must stand in his defense. He merely asked whether by and large it does or by and large it doesn’t, with respect to connoting armed warfare. It might be a complex (or loaded) question, but I don’t think it is. In any case, it is not he, but those of you chastising him who are drawing the bifurcations.
[
Whatever my boy, I am not responsible for your lack of understanding.
Well Izzy dear, my exposition was illustrating the point that the word means “striving, struggle” in the common sense of striving and struggling for something, and is in ordinary fucking usage.
Those of us gifted with something approaching an ordinary sense analytical capabilities will discern this is an important point in understanding what the ordinary sense of the word is, given the way the Arabic language is constructed, and the fact that, unlike many theological terms, it comes from a word in common usage with a gloss rather close to the Sufiste meaning of the term.
As such, presuming you’re not so blinded by your discomfort with new information, this should be of use in the following:
Precisely, Izzy my ever so dear friend, usage; I am sure that you may be able to grasp that popular usage is influenced by a number of things. Theological inputs,
If one is paying attention and capable of following the point, which I confess is a large and exceedingly optimistic presumption, the “technical point” was anything but that. It was rather a demonstration that Jihaad is a normal adjectival derivation by standard grammatical rules from a commonly used word, in dialect and standard use, for striving for, struggling for. Trying to achieve something, to be clearer.
Given the manner in which Arabic operates, these are not obscure points to an Arab speaker - even an uneducated one- and the meaning or understanding one will have for a word will be - excluding specialized jargon and knowledge - informed by the common usage. Thus Izzy, if it is not too painful for you to consider, my “technical” explanation has given you a piece of the puzzle.
Now as to Pipe, his ideological pimpery is another matter. One can look up his absurd claims in re the “Islamic Comintern” in his favorite place to publish, the National Review**, and come to one’s own conclusions about the quality of “scholarship” that the hack indulges in. Start around 93-94 as I recall, perhaps a bit sooner. In re Greeny’s response - well it is nothing but empty posturing to get into my credentials, or lack, versus Pipes, but your reply doesn’t follow.
If one wants an actual rigorous examination of such items, scholarly and non-polemical, as well as easily found, start with Bernard Lewis. I do not agree with Lewis on his characterizations in several areas, above modern where I rather do disagree with him, but he has engaged in careful, well supported scholarship to document, as well as possible actual usage in this area. Including operative distinctions.
That being said, I will say that Pipes is not wholly wrong in his characterization that the militant meaning of Jihad is extent and has popular resonance. But rather he is picking and choosing what to present to skew or spin the picture to fit into his little “Islamic Threat” schtick - trying to garner a place as like his Daddie in re the Soveit threat IMUHO.
Now, looking at the June thread where December “innocently” pimps the very same POV ( it is refreshing to see how immune you all are to integrating information) I note my own comments:
Perhaps a bit clearer.
I also note:
Now, pray tell what in that thread ever did sink in, and if our dear december is not guilty of the accusation per se, pray tell why does he so cleverly replicate his past stance?
The bifurcations began here:
[quote]
So, which is it:
[ul][li]Jihad by-and-large does not connote armed warfare. Those who assert that it does are hate-mongers.[/li][li]Jihad, by-and-large does connote armed warfare. Professors who assert the opposite should be ashamed of themselves.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I see no possibility of a middle ground in the OP. It is an either-or question in which we are called upon to condemn the proponents of the “wrong” definition.
BTW, regarding the similarity of usage between crusade and jihad, it is interesting that when Tunisia achieved independence, the president called for a jihad of economic growth and advancement with no “enemy” specified (although stagnation and poverty was implied).
I don’t know about that - the two possiblities are pretty distinct - it does not seem to me to require a whole lot of scholarship to tell them apart. But in any event, the larger secular meaning apparently means simply “struggle” which does not at all specify which type of struggle, so it would not influence in either direction.
Well it certainly seems to be agreed upon that there are a whole lot of people for whom the term means “holy war”, and a whole lot of people for whom it means “internal struggle”. So to claim that either is the “real” meaning of the term is erroneous. As to which meaning is predominant, I’m going to rely on others
Tom
Well, either it does or it doesn’t connote armed warfare, by and large. Bifurcations do not include tautologies.
No, it is not an either or issue.
The origin of the word differs from Crusade - at it’s root it means to strive to achieve something with continuous effort. In this manner it has no necessary violent connotation, and the usage (secular and religious to the extent such a difference makes sense in Arabic usage) can go either way. It is not a matter of a bloody tautology, but the impreciseness of 1000 year old terms with a millenium of accreted usage.
False either-or dichotomy. As someone else has noted: context is pretty essential to its use in any given situation.
Jesus is merciful and forgiving? Jesus is a harsh judge? Either/or.
No, that’s not the same. A or B (a bifurcation) is not the same as A or Not A (a tautology).
In fact they are not, and perhaps, if only for the sheer novelty value you might considering picking up a scholarly text widely avaiable, like Bernard Lewis’ Political Language of Islam instead of pointless speculating from sheer ignorance.
Struggle for or better to strive for. It is not used in ordinary language (the root verb) for violent struggle, which is more commonly say kaafeha, indeed using JHD to mean struggling in a physical sense seems to me w/o reflecting too much to require the adverbial kefaah.
There is not an either or sense here, it means both, which is the governing meaning is decided according to context.
“I don’t know about that - the two possiblities are pretty distinct - it does not seem to me to require a whole lot of scholarship to tell them apart. But in any event, the larger secular meaning apparently means simply “struggle” which does not at all specify which type of struggle, so it would not influence in either direction.”
I am not quite sure what you are saying. What I have got from Tamerlane’s and Collounsbury’s discussion is that Jihad is a general term which means “struggle” or “striving” which may have a violent component in certain contexts but does not necessarily do so. Do you disagree with this? If you don’t, I don’t know why you claim that Collounsbury’s point about the meaning of jihad in everyday Arabic is irrelevant. And I don’t believe anyone here is saying that jihad never has any violent meaning.
“Well it certainly seems to be agreed upon that there are a whole lot of people for whom the term means “holy war”, and a whole lot of people for whom it means “internal struggle”.”
Well read the Morabia quote again. He says that the “overwhelming majority” of Muslims believe in a “bellicose” definition of jihad which seeks some kind of worldwide domination of Islam. That’s a pretty sweeping claim. Pipes is defintiely making a quantitative suggestion that the violent, aggressive definition of Jihad is supported by most Muslims whereas the peaceful defintion is only pushed by a few “reformists” and “Quakers”. He provides no evidence for this claim.
Would be proper if you could provide a link to support your claim that Pipes is a liar in an earlier post. The only reference you made is some predictive failure on his part. If that constitutes a lie than what about this quote from you here
We all are subject to fail in prediction, and you have no right to call someone a liar for failing in that regard or you condemn yourself.
Perhaps, for the sheer novelty value, you might try to make your posts informative, instead of an empty testimony to your great knowledge. Seems to me that “internal struggle” and “holy war” are pretty distinct. If someone has been brought up and taught that Islam teaches Jihad as a holy war, he will not confuse this with internal struggle just because the term happens to have a common usage as struggle or strive.
But by all means, if you have some actual point to make about how a person might confuse them due to a similarity, go ahead and make it.
Exactly. And what we are discussing is in what context are the majority of Muslims using it when they refer to the religious concept of Jihad.
(I’m not bothering with your previous post, which contained nothing new)
CyberPundit
Of course not - this is exactly what you just quoted me as saying. I don’t see how the rest of your paragraph follows.
Your second paragraph seems to be another attack on Pipes’ claims about what most Muslims use the word for. I’ve already told you that I am taking no position here.
“I don’t see how the rest of your paragraph follows.”
Well the point was that if “jihad” is a general word for “struggle” it seems relevant to understand how Arabs use the word in everyday language. Not least because, if I understand Collounsbury correctly, there isn’t a clear distinction between secular and religious usage in Arabic.
In any case I am getting rather tired of the semantic discussion and what is or isn’t relevant to it. I think the important point is that Pipes makes sweeping claims about the ideology of the “overwhelming majority” of modern Muslims for which he provides zero evidence. That alone suggests he isn’t much of a scholar no matter what his credentials.
Well, my posts are informative, you simply fail to read them with the proper attentiveness or perhaps other inherent issues get in your way. “Seems to me” I should add strikes me as the start of your error: again try reading something substantive instead of simply nit-picking and arguing from ignorance.
Not a matter of confusion but rather interpretation of how struggle for the improvement and expansion of Islam should be weighted. A continium of efforts rather than a stark either/or choice.
I would prefer if you exerted some modicum of effort in actually reading.
Both, in the context of the moment. I’ve noted that a rather goodly number of times.
Which is to say you are properly chastized for your argument from ignorance in re the importance of the so-called “technical” comments on my part, I would presume.
As to Greeny and Pipes:
Greeny, when will you learn?
The argument you link to was about a classic, full-scale invasion of Afghanistan, and occupation. There was no such thing, there is no ‘occupation’ in any ordinary sense of the term. The bulk of the fighting then and now, in ground terms, was by Afghans. A handful of Special Forces and related groups is not what was under discussion there. Try harder next time.
In re Pipes, I specifically refer to the material on his site in re his strong criticisms, smears really, of the academic community (he evidently feels excluded) in re Islamic terrorism, and in contrast with his writings in the early 90s (starting 93/94 if memory serves) which you can locate with no large effort in the National Review.
And finally, no in Arabic there is no clear secular versus religious demarcation in usage. The final point is one has to understand the context in which the word exists if one wants to have some faint aspiration for understanding how to characterize the word.
I think it suffices to say that in political discourse the word will usually be understood to be refering to warlike efforts. However, even there you get usages, which raise no comment and are not hard to understand, like a Jihad to improve the economy, a jihad to improve this. (The idea of improvement is closely linked to this kind of usage, and reform) In other discourses, not necessarily so. It depends on the context.
Thus to characterize it as meaning “primarily” to the exclusion of other meanings, or attempting to imply that w/o clearing saying so as I read Pipes as doing, is disingenous.
Collounsbury
You persist in playing your cutesy games. I’ll try to put it this way:
- There is a concept in Islam called “Jihad”
- There is some question among Muslims as to whether this is a call to a “holy war” against “infidels” (or enemies of Islam) or this refers to an internal struggle.
- Question is how do most Muslims interpret this religious concept.
Now you have a choice - either continue childishly chastizing “ignorance” or say something informative for a change. Agree or disagree - say something that addresses the issue.
I think the Board has pretty well agreed that “jihad” does mean war a lot of the time. Even Collounsbury, depited his Pipesophobia, posted, “That being said, I will say that Pipes is not wholly wrong in his characterization that the militant meaning of Jihad is extent and has popular resonance.” Nobody has questioned Pipes’s point that most professors don’t see it this way.
What are we to make of the professors’ blind spot? Why are they dissembling? What should academia do about it?