.
t is fair to say that jihad "can be" understood in a peaceful way. However, there is huge difference between saying that "Jihad can be understood in a peaceful way" and "Jihad is a peaceful concept." The former is an honest and accurate statement, while the latter is a wrong and deceiving one that indicates a serious lack of knowledge.
Scientific honesty necessitates that we present all views about the meaning of the word jihad instead of selecting the definition that makes us feel most comfortable. The following facts MUST be addressed to understand the most dominant meaning of the word jihad in the Muslim world:
Currently, the words "jihadi Islam"* are used by the mainstream Arab media to refer to the violent form of Islam. If jihad is mainly peaceful, why do the Arab media use the word predominantly to describe violent Islam?
The word jihad is interpreted in most of the reputable traditional Islamic books in a violent manner. One of the many available examples, al-Shawkaneei's interpretation for the Quran[2] mentions for Sura 9, Verse 73 that "Jihad against the Infidels is achieved by fighting them until they submit to Islam". Why would it be that he the most reputable Islamic scholars understood jihad in such a way if it was predominantly peaceful?
Modern Islamic books written by top Islamic scholars and distributed globally still adopt the violent meaning of the word to fight the disbelievers until "Allah alone is worshiped". For example, Minhaj al-Muslim [3] states clearly that the aim of violent jihad is that "Allah alone is worshiped." If the word jihad is primarily understood in a peaceful way, why do we not hear about peaceful jihadi organizations?
The word jihad is almost always used by the violent radical groups. If the word is understood predominantly in a peaceful way, would we not see it used predominantly by peaceful Islamic organizations rather than the violent ones?
Modern Islamic scholars such as Yusuf Al-Quradawy who are considered "moderates" by many in Western media and academia mention clearly that jihad has to be conducted via wars to spread Islam and make Islam as the only religion [5]. How is it that such a knowledgeable and leading "moderate" Islamic scholar is not aware of the ['peaceful'] meaning of the word jihad while non-Arabic speakers [Westerners] somehow are?
The most effective way to know the true meaning of jihad is to simply evaluate how the word is used by the Arab street and how it is defined in Islamic texts and in the Arab media, as seen above. As Brennan wisely put it in his speech, "How you define a problem shapes how you address it," and eight years after September 11, we are still having problems defining the problem.”
Creating a Western definition for a word that does not represent how it is primarily used by native Arabic speakers and in Islamic text is both misleading and dangerous to our national security.
It would be great to convince Arabic speakers and the Muslim world to change the meaning of the word instead of deceiving ourselves. The change must occur in Muslims’ educational books rather than in the public statements they release to the West to convince it that jihad is peaceful.
[I noticed some time ago speaking with an expat Indian Muslim at work that on the topic of GWOT he never stumbled over 'terrorist' vs. 'insurgents' vs. 'extremists' ad infinitum - he simply/fluidly refers to the violence makers as 'jihadis', and he assured me that only the West doesn't.
I.e., how do we effectively address a problem we refuse to accurately recognize?]
READ MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment