Comments on: Is it time to scrap the term “jihadist”?

By: Tom Heneghan

Tom Heneghan — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:42:02 +0000

Toomi — jihadizer! Now there’s a term I’ve never come across. It sounds more like a machine than a person!

By: Toomi

Toomi — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:37:03 +0000

“Jihadist” is a translation of the Arabic “mujahid” and is a valid English word, meaning more or less: “One who engages in jihad either full- or part-time”. The motives of the jihadist are what is being debated here. Are they “amateurs” or “professionals”? It is certain the first “pioneer” (salafi) generations of Islam had no such concerns! They possessed only the literal concept reflected in the following: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.” The Pioneers understood jihad literally, not figuratively as a poetic or spiritual thoughtful.

General ul-Haq is no doubt trying to avoid criticizing the core truths of Islam whose three main texts (Koran, Sira and Hadith) all use “jihad” to mean a “military, armed struggle”. The later spiritualizing re-interpretations of these source texts by medieval Islamic writers have more to do with the urbanization of Islam due to the wealth of new empire.

I don’t see how “jihadist” can be reinterpreted to suit the good General, in spite of his noble motive. I have seen the word “jihadizer” (one who makes jihad a main pillar of Islam), but this neologism has not caught on.

By: Tom Heneghan

Tom Heneghan — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:58:27 +0000

Thanks for these very interesting comments. One reason I could see for scrapping the term “jihadist” would be to make room for other explanations for what motivates and radicalises these people. The rhetoric of radical Islamism certainly has roots in Islam. But it is also rooted in the ideology of Third World anti-imperialism and national liberation movements. In the Middle East, this movement had two schools, the secular school of Arab nationalists like Nasser and Arafat and the Islamist school of al-Banna and Qutb. With the eclipse of the secular version, the Islamist anti-imperialists are the only ones left to represent this radical movement. Osama bin Laden’s war against the U.S. is couched in both Islamic and anti-imperialist terms. The spark for it — the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia because of the first Gulf war — was just as much anti-imperialist as Islamic. Consciously or unconsciously, these radical Islamists have two holy books — the Koran and The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, a classic text of anti-imperialism. This element gets lost when we explain the motivations of radical Islamists just through religion.

By: See

See — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:33:00 +0000

Surely a “jihadist” is someone involved in a mental, spiritual or physical struggle. If that person is using violence they then become a “militant jihadist”. Problem solved?

By: Hassan Abbas

Hassan Abbas — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:25:02 +0000

Of course a’Jihad’ means a holy war;just as a’Crusade’ means a holy war.And equally Jihad also can be a moral or a spiritual struggle just as you in the west so often use the term for a moral or spiritual crusader.In fact Mahatama Ghandhi’s concept of peaceful non-cooperation could also be termed a Jihad is Islam ,just as it can be designated a crusade in a Christian context.
Another well understood fact is that stastics can be manipulated to prove any point.I will not point you to them but if you search through any search engine you will discover millions of websites made and supported by seculiar western psudo scholars allegedly proving to their own satisfaction that as per it’s own content the Holy Bible is a pack of lies;the most immoral instruction ever penned;full of pornograpy;laced with scientific errors and contradictions etc ,etc.
So let’s not have a vulgar,mutual hate breeding and ill informed debate on this vital and dangerous issue confronting civilisation.If it has to be countered we need logic and sincere effort in trying to get to the roots of it.
Remember there were no ‘Jihadis’of the terrorist type in Pakistan or Afghanistan till the Russians occupied it.Even then it needed the massive involvement and funding of USA and CIA before they could be created,trained and unleashed.By the way Osama bin Laden is neither an Afghan nor a Pakistani , but a blue blooded Arab recruited by CIA from amongst members of The Saudi Royal family - who have always been Americas best loved allies in the middle east.He was an ally recruited and trained by the CIA to serve their purpose.What went wrong?
Also their was no Al-Qaida in Iraq till Bush attacked it falsely claiming they were making nuclear weapons!Now they have terrorists,which in some ways is the greater danger, because unlike nukes they can be used so easily and created so cheaply.
This is not to say that the US was wrong in what it did to support in the effort to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.When you have such a ruthless enemy to defeat,as the sayings go’ all is fair in love and war’… ‘they gave their todays for our tomorrows’…etc ;etc.
Yet we also say,’as you sow so shall you reap’.The west must face upto the reality that it along with it’s Islamic allies created the Al Qaida phenomina.In time because of our own short sightedness it became an uncontrolable monster. If it gave you your 9/11 once,the self blowing bombers contine to gives us hundreds of dead loved ones in our cities every month.
Blaming Islam just will not do- and the type of ill informed and inflamatory comments I see here will only accentuate and perpetuate the problem,serving to give the terrorists more recruits then they could ever have hoped to
get.
Certainly what is needed is a more informed analysis of - and determined tackling - of the real causes ; failing which the illness will continue to grow till it consumes us all.

By: Bella

Bella — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:06:54 +0000

Just a minute - here are statistics coincidently from the Center for Political Islam which found that in Islam’s three holy books [Koran, Sira, and Hadith] 97% of references to “jihad” relate to war and only 3% to inner struggle.

I think we can safely say Jihad means jihad or holy war - and the terrorist are calling it in accordance with the teachings of Islam.

“”Research on the Koran, conducted by the Center for Political Islam, which illustrates the Islamic focus on conformist behavior and beliefs. According to the Center’s analysis of the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith, only 17% of the Islamic trilogy deals with the words of Allah. The remaining 83% refers to the words and deeds of Mohammed. Of all of the references to “hell” in the trilogy, 6% are for moral failings, while 94% are for the transgression of disagreeing with Mohammed. Statistical analysis of the trilogy revealed that 97% of references to “jihad” relate to war and a mere 3% to the concept of “inner struggle.” “”

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/t he_other_jihad_islams_war_on.html

By: tkas

tkas — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:27:32 +0000

From this article on a conference on terrorism, I get a sense that most of the participants’ concern, if not all, was reduced to semantics of the issue. IMO it does not matter what Islamic terrorism is called; the definition does not matter. The basic tenet of Islam is at stake, which should have been more deeply explored. Every imam or Muslum leader should denounce an act of violence carried out under the name of Islam when and every time such an act takes place. He should do so in his place of worship addressing his people and let the rest of the world know he thinks this act of violence is wrong and contrary to the tenets of Islam. I have yet to see this happen. Far from it.

By: Al Chinchar

Al Chinchar — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:05:04 +0000

Call ‘em whatever they want. It’s meaningless semantics, and doesn’t change the consequences for anyone standing within a 75-foot radius of a jihadist, or terrorist, or holy warrior, or whatever label they prefer.

By: pervez

pervez — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:47:33 +0000

For all practical purposes in the English language JIHAD has come to mean HOLY MUSLIM WAR against all non-muslims. Period.
If muslims are so outraged with use and misuse of certain religious terms they should ask their religious extremists to quit.

By: frank koppe

frank koppe — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:08:09 +0000

whoa, do you mean to tell me that their feelings are hurt? It didn’t know they had any…b@stards