What's the Arabic for cowardly sadist?
Posted on 11/03/2006 5:10:30 AM PST by SJackson
Like Douglas Farah, I roll my eyes when I hear apologist groups airbrushing the meaning of the word “jihad.” The historical sources I’ve seen indicate that the word has always refered primarily to a military campaign against infidels, not some touchy-feely Oprah-type journey of self-reflection.
But here’s another issue: In the context of terrorism, should we be refering to “jihad” at all? That’s the question I was asking myself after listening to this interesting Oct. 30 segment on NPR’s All things Considered. The segment profiles Islamic history expert Douglas Streusand, who last year wrote a paper for the Pentagon in which he argued that we should immediately stop refering to terrorists as either “jihadis” or “jihadists.”
Here’s his rationale: “The term ‘jihad’ usually means Jihad Fis abu Allah — ’striving in the path of God’ … Simply by its very definition, striving in the path of God is a good thing to do. If we are calling them ‘people who strive in the path of God,’ in other words — if we are calling them meritorious Muslims — then we are implying that we are fighting Islam, even if we’re not.”
By Streusand’s memorable analogy, calling terrorists ‘jihadis’ is like “calling Germans during the Second World War ‘National Socialist Aryan Heroes.’ ” Think of that the next time you hear the word “jihadis” being used as a term of abuse.
So what term should we be using? Streusand has an idea: “The term in Islamic law which best describes the activities of al Qaeda is hirabah, which originally meant brigandage, but has a more general meaning as sinful warfare … If our elected officials started saying ‘This is a war against hirabis,’ that would be more effective. It would certainly be better than using the term jihad or jihadis which is actively harmful.”
jkay@nationalpost.com
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Hirabis, crazed murdering SOBs, ignorant savages, bearded girlie-men, whatever. But I'd prefer to call them dead.
That said, we need to take this idea one step further.
Islam needs to be reformed, if it's going to coexist with modern society. Like the practice of suttee, or burning the widows of men on the dead men's funeral pyre, 'jihad' may be their culture, but it's incompatible with the principals that are required for civilized behaviour.
Just as the British stamped out suttee, we must stamp out jihad. We have to destroy any positive connotation that the word has. That means the word jihad must be tied to killing innocents, suicide, and other forms of chaos and evil. The romantic notions of jihad must be pulled down, and replaced by the cruel mirror of what jihad really is. Barbarism.
So, A+ on cultural understanding, good job there. But the strategy, in this case, is wrong.
Jihadis ... hirabis ... whatever. The bottom line is that you can't polish a turd.
What's the Arabic for cowardly sadist?
They consider themselves, for the most part, Salafi Jihadiyas. Other Salafi sects consider them evil, but they too use rhetoric nearly as bad (but is where the desire to call them shameful words derives from). Both groups also tend to consider themselves Islamicists (boosters for the cause of Islam), and both have shrill, anti-Western rhetoric and both treat their women shamefully.
All these nuances are lost in the West. What difference does it make? Whether the call of Jihad that Al Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood and related groups scream for is righteous in Islamic eyes or not is an issue for the various Salafi groups to nuance among themselves.
The other groups, while not blowing up civilians, still preach the anti-Western hatefilled rhetoric that is beginning to really hurt Europe...and led to the Al Qaeda types in the first place.
Pot calling the kettle black.
What is in a name?
That which we call a raghead
By any other name would smell of goat.
True, to an extent, but the concept of Jihad is universal across Islam. It doesn't matter that our primary enemies are Sunni Salafists, because the underlying philosophy can surface violently in any sect.
Just as the concept of a literal 'crusade' has been reduced in Western thought, so must it be reduced in Islamic thought. If members of your church started talking about an armed crusade against a local politician, you'd think them mad, not divinely inspired. Islam must be reformed to the point that jihad, when used as anything other than as a metaphor, is made unacceptable.
It wouldn't make a difference what we call them in the Western press far as westerners are concerned is what I meant.
As far as I am concerned, a pox on the entire spectrum of salafi Islam. It keeps their people in the 10th century.
It's interesting how the truth always comes to light,even when people work diligently to suppress it. We are indeed fighting islam, our leaders just don't know it yet.
I agree.
Besides, they, the terrorists, whether in Palestine or elsewhere, have themselves chosen to use the term jihad to describe their activities and guess what, the Islamic world has not risen up to try to deprive them of it; so why should we.
If jihad is the wrong term for what the Islamic terrorists are doing it is only the Islamic world that can rectify that, by denying not only the validity of what the terrorists are doing but the political agenda behind what they are doing. But that will not happen.
We have to face it; the Muslim world is waging jihad, in every sense of the word, and the terrorists are simply the violent face of it, not the whole of it.
...the importance, reward and requirement for the Muslims to perform Jihaad Fi Sabeel Lillah i.e. physical struggle:...the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihaad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:
"I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah."As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihaad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh. Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihaad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihaad is defensive...
Excellent, Mrs Ivan! Right on! And welcome to FR!
The Imams in the muslim world are using the "Jihadi Mythology" as a major recruiting tool .
Its one thing to volunteer to be a "Jihadi" in a fight to establish a new "Caliphate".
It is another thing entirely to volunteer to be a brigand ie jihadis are respected ,brigands are a disgrace to the family,sect,tribe. That is one of the keys to taking the wind out of the sails of the Islamicfascist war against civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.