"Jihad" -- The Fight Over Meaning

A Harvard student has been invited to give a controversial graduation address about “Jihad” (although he has since been pressured to change the name of the talk to remove the potentially offensive word.) Questions for discussion:

– What does this word mean?
– How offenisve is it?
– Should it be avoided?
– Is it more offensive than the word, “Crusade”
– Is it a double standard to invite the use of the word, “Jihad”?

Here are some opinions from ABC News Nightline June 4, 2002

Chris Bury: * “…this young man at Harvard, is giving a speech in which he says, look, the definition of “jihad” has been, essentially, corrupted by militant Islamists, and that doesn’t have much to do with moderates like me. What’s wrong with him saying that at Harvard?”*

Daniel Pipes: “What’s wrong, Chris, is that it’s a fabrication. Jihad has historically meant, almost always one thing-which is expanding the territories ruled by Muslims through armed warfare. That’s what it’s meant. Now I’m happy to see a development occur whereby it means something more spiritual. But we have to start by acknowledging that that’s the real meaning of the word, the historic meaning of the word, the traditional meaning of the word, and we can’t ignore it.”

Dr. MAHER HATHOUT (Muslim Public Affairs Council): “…it is up to the Muslims according to their text and according to the language of their text to put their definitions. And it is unfair that every time someone wants to broaden the definition to project the right perspective-the broad perspective, jihad, somebody jumps and says, ‘Don’t believe him. This is not what he means. He’s lying, basically.’ This is wrong. The second thing is the issue of what that person is going to say or not going to say. This is censorship in the greatest institution of intellectuality, which I think is a very degrading situation.”

Others weigh in:

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit): *"What’s funny is that all the people who were after Bush for using the word ‘crusade’ seem to think that it’s simplistic to criticize the use of the word ‘jihad’ In truth, the peaceful meaning of ‘crusade’ is more well-established.

And I know other people have already noted this, but what if we had a fundamentalist Christian speaking at a Harvard commencement on the importance of the ‘crusade’ concept? You know, like someone from ‘Campus Crusade for Christ.’ Well, forget the ‘what if.’ It’s basically unimaginable."*

Akiba A. Cohen (N Y Times letter):* "…today we received another concrete example of the most profound meaning of “jihad.”

The Islamic Jihad terror group took responsibility for the suicide bombing of a bus in Israel that claimed the lives of “infidels.” Not only Islamic and not only jihad, but Islamic Jihad!

I urge the graduates, the faculty and their guests at Harvard to pause for a moment of silence and think about this absurd blend of academic rhetoric and gruesome reality."*

1st time poster, so ready for the wolves…

People have to remember that Allah was not only a religious leader like Jesus or the ancient prophets, but also a military commander who was prepetually at war either defending or expanding the Muslim empire. That is why so much of the Koran and especially Allah’s other works exhibit a strong military component.

The problem is that modern fundamentalists and Islam in general have failed to allow the religion to be interpreted in light of hte modern era, relying on strict literal translations (often incorrect at that). Judaism and Christianity went through enlightenments which allowed them to exist in a secular world, Islam has not. There was a great article in the Sunday NY Times a few months ago about this lack of modernization of Islam. A great example is the word that is taken to mean the promise of virgins for martyrs most likely should be translated as white grapes, a delicacy in the region at the time. Wouldn’t that make a lot more sense than willing virgins? Or the teacher in Pakistan who was turned in for heresy by students for suggesting Allah lived a non-Muslim lifestyle before he converted and spoke to god at age 40. Imagine that, living a non-Muslim lifestyle before becoming Muslim!! (I apologize for lack of cite links, but both are from the NY Times)

If they want to give a speech on Jihad at graduation wonderful, but they should not bow to political correctness because it does mean holy war (PC at Harvard, imagine that…)

I suspect that if december troubled himself to link to rather more informative articles, and perhaps the Times article which helped bring this to national attention, then we might all have a better chance of escaping the ideological lock down.

That aside, the student in question, while apparently quite well-intentioned made a major boo boo. In some ways very similar to that of Bush’s crusade usage boo boo. Of course one typically holds national leaders to higher rhetorical standards than commencement speakers, although in the present case that might be an excessively optimistic standard to reach.

I don’t have my mounjed al-ma’sir around at the moment, so from memory (my weasely way of covering my ass if I fuck up):
al-Jihaad. Habitual and continued noun form from the jhd root, from the verb jahada.

jahada: to struggle for, to strive for.
jihaad: Striving for, struggling for, holy war.

Usage derives from Quranic textual usage, which uses it in the context of ‘religious striving’ – as I recall the holy war context is not prime.

Like crusade, it is not inherently offensive, context is everything. Frankly the crusade thing is overblown, but when one is a world leader and in a senstive time and trying to get certain folks on board…

By who? A Muslim giving a speech attempting to address the idea that extremists have hijacked the word probably should use it, to convey the point. However the student in question should have made a nod to the context and sensitivities of the audience, as an Xtian speaker should when addressing a similar (i.e. reversed) circumstances.

It strikes me as a large to do about a student’ inexperience rhetorical mistake.

Neither is offensive per se.

Double standard?

I won’t bother to comment on that dishonest fuck Pipes other than to mention that his characterization of usage is exagerated to my knowledge – it would be correct to note the prime meaning in popular usage has probably been religious war to expand dar al-Islam, but to call the student’s POV ‘fabrication’ strikes me as part of Pipes’ little ideological crusade.

(BTW, welcome newbie but do note you meant Mohammed not Allah)

Allah???!!!???

You mean Muhammed, don’t you?

Allah is the god. Muhammed is the boxer – err, I mean prophet.

Given that there appears to be a meaning for the word “jihad” that goes far beyond the popular Western concept for it (i.e., “killing infidels”), this might be exactly the right time to acquaint people with its broader meaning. (I certainly had no idea.) But you have to pick your battles, and you have to pick the time to wage them, and this student’s decision-making process might have been, um, less than well-considered.

Here’s my take on it: If you want to use “jihad” in the non-killing sense in America, you have to face the inevitable reality–namely, that most Americans are going to first assume that by “jihad” you mean “violent crusade to convert/kill nonbelievers,” not “peaceful internal struggle to better oneself and the world,” etc.

Just like you can’t display a swastika anymore. The nazis went and ruined a symbol of good fortune that had been around for some 3,000 years. But that’s the reality of the situation.

My vote: you shouldn’t expect to be able to use jihad in a nonviolent sense anymore. I don’t care that you feel you have “ownership” over the word because your culture invented it. Enough radicals made a big enough noise with it to destroy any other meaning.

The word is broken, and probably can’t be fixed.

It hardly seems to me that either crusade or jihad rise in any way shape or form to the level of the swastika. Both, in their native habitats as it were, have benign meanings and usages.]

The word is a fucking word in Arabic, the fact that most Americans have only a glimmering of an acquaintance with the Middle East and have an inchoate set of half-digested stereotypes about the region, the religion and the peoples is no reason a theological term in Islam is without its historical meanings.

Insofar as Islam is and will be a religion of a goodly percentage of American citizens, insofar as it is a good thing to encourage them to challenge extremist, anti-pluralist obscurantism in the Islamic world and insofar as this take represents uninformed blather, it strikes me as inherently wrong-headed to ‘ban’ jihad. It rather sends the message that Islam doesn’t have a place, whereas supporting the student’s stated agenda (of fighting the extremists) is precisely in our interests by saying the opposite.

In the case of both Jihad and Crusade some sensitivity to other audiences is needed. With a modicum of reason – although obviously humanity has only barely a modicum of reason – there should not be a problem.

The whole controversy here strikes me as much ado about one student’s inexperience in public speaking and poor framing of a useful rhetorical gambit.

Bloody maundering nonesense.

[Fixed quote tags. – MEB]

Actually, those Americans who have any knowledge whatsoever of Islam (which is to say, almost nobody) will likely be familiar with the idea that the word has additional meanings, even if they don’t know all the ins and outs of the various connotations in various contexts. Heck, how many of us understand the theological background of the word nirvana?

However, most Americans probably think of Allah as something completely separate from the Judeo-Christian conception of God; he’s probably just that Muslim dude who orders the Arabs to go around killing Jews.

Example: I like to think of my mom as a fairly open-minded person, but on Rosh Hashanah, we nearly came to blows over dinner when she intimated that all Muslim clergy agree with each other, and apparently are out to get the Jews. I told her that that would be something like saying that our mild-mannered local Reform rabbi agreed on all political and theological points with Meir Kahane…let’s just say that it didn’t go over very well. And Mom won’t even say the “next year in Jerusalem” part of the Passover Seder, because she’s not a Zionist and has no wish whatsoever to spend next year in Jerusalem, so you’d think she’d be open to the concept of diversity of thought within a religious community.

Anyway, I think it would all make for a fascinating graduation address, and one would hope that the Harvard audience would be intellectually mature enough to deal with it. I also sincerely hope that Americans in general are open to learning more about the diversity of thought within Islam, or we’re going to have a heck of a decade (or century) ahead of us, with the way America and the world have been changing, politically and demographically. Unfortunately, I fear the speaker should prepare to have tomatoes thrown at him.

Well, this nonexpert has read umpteen references to the “Greater Jihad” (the personal struggle) as well as the “Lesser Jihad” (struggle for Islam).

Here’s a quote from a (Sufi) web page (again, I’ve read this story several times).

“Upon returning from the Battle of Badr, our Prophet, Hz. Muhammad (peace be upon him), said, “We are finished with the lesser jihad; now we are starting the greater jihad.” That is to say, fighting against an outer enemy is the lesser jihad and fighting against one’s nafs (ego) is the greater jihad (holy war).”

Now it’s one thing for pldennison to be unfamiliar with this distinction (although it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this quote jogged his memory). It’s quite another for Pipes to completely ignore the “Greater Jihad”, which has been repeatedly referred to in the media.

I can see 3 possible explanations. (1) For entirely legitimate reasons of space, December was unable to show the full context. (2) Pipes is an ignoramus. (3) Pipes has come across the “Greater Jihad” concept and has chosen to suppress it: in other words, he is an untrustworthy reporter and displays poor scholarship. Let’s hope it’s #1.

I confess that the precise meaning of the term jihad is ambiguous to me. I understand that it clearly possesses both spiritual and martial implications. The precise mix and overlap of those meanings, however, is unclear to this observer.

Pipes did not completely ignore the spiritual aspect of Jihad. He did, however, try to palm it off as a recent (and somewhat tacked-on) interpretation.

Apologies for the rhetorical excess.

Ahhh, but there’s the rub: you read. It always blows my mind when I realize just what proportion of the U.S. population never reads anything more involved than a road sign.

IMO, it’s rather irrelevant if there is a different, historical meaning. The fact is, recent events have turned the word into an emotional hot-button. Its use invokes certain images and ideas that are inflammatory.

Let me offer an analogy: The word ‘Holocaust’ doesn’t have to refer to the mass extermination of Jews. Technically, the word “holocaust” is derived from the Greek holokauston, which originally meant a sacrifice totally burned by fire. As in ‘a burnt offering’.

That doesn’t change the fact that if you give a speech in a Jewish school and say that it’s time the people engaged in a real holocaust, you should expect to take some flak for that, even if what you meant is that everyone should go home and set fire to a lamb.

It may not be immoral, but the reference to Jihad in a commencement address at this time was either A) an attempt to intentionally inflame or make a political point, or B) an error in judgement.

Just an IMO, but I think the corruption of “jihad” to mean “holy war” is not the fault of the radical Islamic extremists, but the fault of western news reporters who have perpetuated the mistake for decades.

It really doesn’t matter what WE think the meaning of ‘Jihad’ is. The problem is with the wack-jobs in certain hot countries that believe it means ‘Holy War’ in the literal sense.

Same with Islam being a ‘Religeon of Peace’. Great, just tell the crazies blowing themselves (and others) up, and we can all get along.

The problem isn’t in OUR interpretation, (assuming no Al Queda members here), it is in the terrorists interpretation, and those who support them.

OK, but the wack jobs in the hot-button countries aren’t even close to being the majority of Muslims. What about the many millions of Malaysians? Indonesians? The huge majority of Muslims in the former Soviet Union? The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the “hot-button” countries who have absolutely no inclination to blow anybody up? Don’t they get to make their own religious interpretations?

Why should people who have next to no background in the history of Muslim religious thought (i.e. Western journalists and some fringe wackos) get to decide how theological tems will be used? Heck, I’m Jewish, and I’m more open to the idea of diversity in Muslim religious thought. I wish more people were the same way; maybe we’d all understand each other and blow each other up less.

Of course, that would have to mean that the few wackos would have to accept that being American, or being Jewish, is not automatic grounds for execution. I’d hate to have anyone think stereotypically American things, or even stereotypically Jewish, about me because of where I was born, which is basically an accident of history.

You know when the hell are we going to fix this bloody logging out problem? It annoys the fuck out of me. (And it ain’t the fucking problem on my end as I run into no matter what the config of the system.)

Well, rehashing what I just lost because of the same.

By that very same logic, and contra what I recall you arguing in re the use of Crusade, we should not use crusade etc. Constancy Sam, in logic and analysis, is a good thing.

Sensitivity to the audience is a valid issue, and the student fucked up. But if one looks to his actual subject matter and speech, his intention was precisely the opposite. Inexperience. It can get one in trouble when wading into new waters which turn out to be running faster and deeper than one expects.

As in Crusade, someone using Jihad should be aware of the audience(s).

It is a piss-poor analogy. (a) Holocaust hasn’t meant anything but holocaust in re Jews in a very, very long time – indeed the word was revived for that very usage, was it not? (b) the actual real analogy, although not perhaps as useful for your POV is to crusade.

If you bother to delve into this, it is quite clear the kid made an inexperienced error of judgement which some have siezed on to illustrate some tangential political arguments.

Well, I lost a perhaps interesting but tangential discussion of the relationship between JHD root and the term Ijtehaad and the greater Jihaad, as well as Pipes’ dishonesty but now I have to get real work done.

Part of the problem with the commencement speech was that the speaker supported the Holy Land Foundation, which the US government suspects has ties with Hamas.

If context is the issue, supporting a foundation connected to a terrorist group hurts the speaker’s claim that he’s using jihad to mean spiritual struggle, and not outward struggle.

Who cares if the majority of muslims are supposedly against terrorism? (Or at least, not actively supporting terrorism.) What, they deserve an award for acting like civilized human beings?
Heck, what about the millions of Samoans and Belgian who also are not terrorists? Lets give them all medals as well!

The plain truth is that there is a large radical element in Islam today. I do not know of a single nation with a large muslim population that does not also have the obligatory terrorist group(s) present.

Since muslims themselves are not addressing the problem of islamists in their midst, it is up to the rest of the world to do so.

rjung said:

Er, nope. It’s the extremists who corrupted the word, not the reporters. They just, well, reported it.

I would recommend the book Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam by John L. Esposito to anybody who would like to read up on the differing meanings of the word “jihad” (among other things).

I never, ever said that people, Muslim or otherwise, who oppose terrorism deserve medals simply for being decent human beings. I merely expressed the idea that people who believe in a particular religion should be the ones who get to decide how its theological terms are used.

There is also a large radical element in Judaism. I’ve known people who witnessed European tourists having stones thrown at them in the Old City in Jerusalem for daring to do things like wear short sleeves or drive a car on the Sabbath. And that’s not even counting all kinds of other fringe elements in American society; I grew up next door to Skokie, Illinois, and remember very vividly when the Nazis marched on Yom Kippur, in a town that was then inhabited largely by Holocaust survivors and many other observant Jews. (Now it’s become much more Asian.). That’s about a mile away from where the wacko kid from WIlmette shot to death the Northwestern basketball coach, on the street of a peaceful suburb, because he was black, and then drove to Bloomington, Indiana, where he shot to death a Korean kid because he was Korean. (Sorry, but specific names are escaping me at the moment.)

Does that mean that the vile actions of a few wackos should be able to taint the reputations of an entire ethnic group, religious community, or society? No way in hell!

And yes, the peoples who created the term “jihad” should get to decide how it’s used. It sure won’t be the first time a word had multiple shades of meaning, and I hope you’re linguistically sophisticated enough to deal with it, because language usage doesn’t get decided by fiat.