Does "Jihad" mean war?

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by sqweels
Can’t we simply get a representative sampling of recent usages by Muslims of “jihad” and glean the meaning from the context?

Not easily. For one thing, such a survey would have to take into account foreign language press, as western media really does focus more on the one meaning. Second, even a press survey won’t give adequate comparison of the usage of the word in everyday situations, as the press by nature focuses on the political.

Originally posted by IzzyR
Bottom line is that you do agree that all Muslims agree with a (as opposed to the) definition of Jihad as being holy war, but you are saying that there are two types of holy war, and most Muslims embrace the second, less aggressive version.

Not all Muslims. Never say all as regards anything having to do with believers in a large, diverse religion ;).

Well, you see there is a question of semantics here. I cast the defensive jihad in terms of “Holy War”, in the sense of a relgiously sanctioned struggle under certain circumstances. But many/most Muslims would completely reject that categorization. To them “Holy War” has one defintion and it is not the defensive one - They do not regard the defensive jihad against an aggressor as “Holy”. Witness:

*Jihad may also reflect the war aspects in Islam (Submission). The fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam, to deter an aggressor , for self defense, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion , would also be considered a Jihad …

Since this verse shows that God accepts only justice, fighting in the name of God is fighting in the name of justice. But, contrary to many people’s interpretation, Jihad is anything but a holy war; the media and public misunderstand this.

In the light and essence of Islam (Submission) and the Quran, there is no war which is holy; this, under any circumstances whatsoever. In fact the whole text of the Quran and the religion of Islam (Submission) revolves around the concept of peace, not war. To many people’s ignorance, Islam (Submission) is also a word that share the same root of the Arabic word Salaam meaning peace. To Islam (Submission), war is unholy, Jihad must mean anything but holy war.

However, there are times, in certain circumstances, when Islam (Submission) tolerates, permits and sometimes even accepts the practise of war. Islam strongly emphasizes the ideas of justice, freedom and opposition to oppression. There is another condition: fighting for self-defense. War is tolerated in these conditions, but if there is a possibility to avoid war, then this alternative, as long as it is reasonable, must be taken. *

From here: http://www.submission.org/muhammed/jihad.html

So, again Muslims and Muslim scholars aren’t necessarily being disingenuous or dishonest - To them, jihad is not Holy War, period.

This because even someone who accepts only the second type of holy war may have a lot of latitude in defining “in some way transgress against Muslims individually or Islam generally”. US forces in Saudi Arabia? Jewish sovereignty in Israel? Publication of the Satanic Verses? Any of these could be reasonably construed as a transgression against Muslims individually or Islam generally, and any doctrine which calls all Muslims to battle in such cases might justifiably be viewed with some concern

Agree, there is some latitude for disagreement on this issue. Extremists can find all sorts of hoops to jump through. The question is how widely their views are accepted. This is simply part of the ongoing struggle against extremists, however. Personally, speaking as a non-pacifist, I do not find the concept of a religion that acknowledges the occasional necessity of war to be intrinsically threatening. It’s when the concept is abused that it becomes a threat.

And certainly, to try to quiet discussion of the “holy war” concept by pointing out that jihad (also) means inner struggle would be an egregious misrepresentation.

I would say it is egregiously disingenuous only if in further discussion there is a refusal to acknowledge that Islam does appear to sanction war/violence in certain circumstances ( by the way, there are indeed Muslim pacifists, including many Sufis, but I am not expert enough in their theology to go in depth on the nature of that ). As I pointed out above, saying that Muslims do not believe in Holy War, does not necessarily conflict with that notion ( i.e. I take a very broad view of the phrase Holy War, but many Muslims/Islamic scholars, do not ). Partly it may be a translation problem, as holy has a slightly different nuance in Arabic than English ( by the way, the word is muqaddas in Arabic ). See Bernard Lewis’ The Political Language of Islam for further on that.

Saying that jihad has other meanings is absolutely valid to counter the widely held notion in the west that it has only one.

• Tamerlane

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
Agree, there is some latitude for disagreement on this issue. Extremists can find all sorts of hoops to jump through. The question is how widely their views are accepted. This is simply part of the ongoing struggle against extremists, however. Personally, speaking as a non-pacifist, I do not find the concept of a religion that acknowledges the occasional necessity of war to be intrinsically threatening. It’s when the concept is abused that it becomes a threat.

But you would also have to establish that the “extremist” view of what constitutes insults to Islam is a “hoop” or an “abuse”, in terms of the true religious teachings. Which may (or may not) turn out to be the case, if you understood the religion well enough. But this is certainly not established merely by pointing to definitions of the word “jihad”.

I would say it is egregiously disingenuous only if in further discussion there is a refusal to acknowledge that Islam does appear to sanction war/violence in certain circumstances

Or if this is implied to an audience that believes the broader claim is being made.

Saying that jihad has other meanings is absolutely valid to counter the widely held notion in the west that it has only one.

Sure, and this is of great relevance to students of the Arabic language. And to serious students of Islam. But to people whose primary intrest is the practical impact of Islamic teachings on the world, no.

[tomndebb]

Sure, and this is of great relevance to students of the Arabic language. And to serious students of Islam. But to people whose primary intrest is the practical impact of Islamic teachings on the world, no.

I’d say that it has great relevance to people whose primary interest is the practical impact of Islamic teachings on the world. Every time that a Charles Krauthammer or a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter finds a comment in the Muslim press or oratory where the word is used, they are liable to bring it back into English, either translated as “holy war of conquest” or untranslated with the unstated “understanding” that it means “holy war of conquest.” This allows them to portray the Muslim world as some monolithic West-hating cohesive force all of whose adherents are marching in lock-step to destroy European- and Christian-oriented civilization.

Educating people to the wide varieties of meanings so that they will not reflexively invoke an “Us vs Them” mindset at every reference to Islam or to jihad will allow Western societies to pay attention to the various (often conflicting) groups in the Muslim world and try to discern who is potentially a friend and who an enemy rather than treating them all as enemies and, thus, creating enemies needlessly out of potential friends.

[tomndebb]

Sure, and this is of great relevance to students of the Arabic language. And to serious students of Islam. But to people whose primary intrest is the practical impact of Islamic teachings on the world, no.

I’d say that it has great relevance to people whose primary interest is the practical impact of Islamic teachings on the world. Every time that a Charles Krauthammer or a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter finds a comment in the Muslim press or oratory where the word is used, they are liable to bring it back into English, either translated as “holy war of conquest” or untranslated with the unstated “understanding” that it means “holy war of conquest.” This allows them to portray the Muslim world as some monolithic West-hating cohesive force all of whose adherents are marching in lock-step to destroy European- and Christian-oriented civilization.

Educating people to the wide varieties of meanings so that they will not reflexively invoke an “Us vs Them” mindset at every reference to Islam or to jihad will allow Western societies to pay attention to the various (often conflicting) groups in the Muslim world and try to discern who is potentially a friend and who an enemy rather than treating them all as enemies and, thus, creating enemies needlessly out of potential friends.

[Tamerlane]

But you would also have to establish that the “extremist” view of what constitutes insults to Islam is a “hoop” or an “abuse”, in terms of the true religious teachings. Which may (or may not) turn out to be the case, if you understood the religion well enough. But this is certainly not established merely by pointing to definitions of the word “jihad”.

No, but it is the first step to getting there. Just saying jihad means “Holy War” on the other hand, is simply erroneous and gets you nowhere.

Or if this is implied to an audience that believes the broader claim is being made.

Perhaps. However insomuch as this is context-dependant, rather than get into nitpicky details of who meant what, when, I would rather just agree that sometimes people are probably being disingenuous, sometimes not.

But to people whose primary intrest is the practical impact of Islamic teachings on the world, no.

Sorry, I couldn’t disagree more. It is absolutely relevant, because a) It is correct and b) the default - “jihad means holy war” - is incorrect ( at the very least partially wrong and some would say completely wrong ).

The correct reply to the comment that “jihad means holy war”, is, “No, jihad means struggle, the type of struggle being context dependant, sometimes referring to armed conflict and sometimes referring to other struggles, including the struggle against ones’ own inner demons. For most Muslims today, when jihad is cast as armed struggle, it has a defensive connotation.”

Those ‘whose primary interest is the practical impact of Islamic teachings on the world’, should be aware that Islam is not an entirely bloodthirsty faith interested in expunging all others, but also a meditative faith interesting in struggling with internal imperfections. After all, that teaching, as well as the modern interpretation that Muslims are not to go launching offensive wars to incorporate everyone into the Dar al-Islam, has a practical impact as well.

• Tamerlane

[zipper]

No it is just one of many excuses for war.

[litost]

Of course, when a Western commentator is interpreting OBL’s call for jihad, it is disingenuous to report that as a call for an inner struggle or even as a religiously sanctioned defensive war (and as far as I know, no one does that). Which is (I think) what IzzyR believes is the practical relevance of the word in the West. But, to interpret jihad as “Holy War” independent of context, or even to report in a fashion that yields the impression that a billion Muslims are calling for it in their everyday lives is clearly erroneous.

[hijack] I am reminded of a stand-up routine by Eddie Izzard where he talks of how Muslims don’t go “a fucking jihad on you” when the fruitshop shortchanges them. It suggests how the word and its violent import has been blown out of proportion. [/hijack]

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
Those ‘whose primary interest is the practical impact of Islamic teachings on the world’, should be aware that Islam is not an entirely bloodthirsty faith interested in expunging all others, but also a meditative faith interesting in struggling with internal imperfections. After all, that teaching, as well as the modern interpretation that Muslims are not to go launching offensive wars to incorporate everyone into the Dar al-Islam, has a practical impact as well.

Of course. But as has (apparently) been established, that fact is not directly connected with the meaning of the word jihad. (I don’t have a problem with the rest of your post).

I do wish to acknowledge that tomndebb has made a valid point in his recent post, and one that I had not considered. Thanks. And thanks again to Tamerlane - you have been most informative, as always.

[december]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
** Every time that a Charles Krauthammer or a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter finds a comment in the Muslim press or oratory where the word is used, they are liable to bring it back into English, either translated as “holy war of conquest” or untranslated with the unstated “understanding” that it means “holy war of conquest.” This allows them to portray the Muslim world as some monolithic West-hating cohesive force all of whose adherents are marching in lock-step to destroy European- and Christian-oriented civilization. **

I’m a regualr reader of these three columnists, and I can’t recall any of them portraying the Muslim world as “some monolithic West-hating cohesive force all of whose adherents are marching in lock-step.” Even Coulter’s outrageous comment right after 9/11 about killing or converting certain people to Christianity was made about the perpetrators of 9/11, not all Muslims.

Please withdraw your comment (unless you can find support for it.)