Skip to main content

Stop Misusing Jihad

Over the past few years since that fateful day, on September 11, 2001, the media and many rightwingers, despite all the condemnations from the Muslim Community, have continued to lambaste Muslims and Islam, painting them with the same brush. The buzzwords "terrorism", "terrorist ideology" and "evil" have pervaded rightwing media, and have been used to attack Islam and Muslims under the guise of "free speech".

Sadly, words and ideas like Jihad are being given a new meaning in the semantically incorrect rightwing propaganda/fearmongering dictionary. We hear that Jihad is "Holy War" or "terrorism", and that Islam is an "ideology of terror". There has been no hesitation in ignorantly connecting the 2, despite all the differences. Why do people do this? The answer lies in the notion that they can't find a political reason that their perceived enemies are doing the things they do, and thus resort to the race or background of the enemy. Seeing radicalized Muslims as their enemy, they resort to unbeknowingly and incorrectly translating excerpts from the Hadith and the Quran, and interpreting it in their own, backward way and make the Quran look like a horrible book, and this is far from reality. Such usage is incorporated by those who have no valid arguments to address the politics of a certain situation or conflict, and thus consider their actions as rooted into their very backgrounds. Rightwingers argue, though, that those of Al Qaeda and Hamas use the word jihad to refer to terrorist activities like suicide bombings, yet those very same rightwingers have no problem in calling helicopter strikes and other bombing and raiding operations that strike terror into innocent civilians as "accidents" or "collateral damage". Guess I should go use the words "collateral damage" as a new way of saying "terrorism", then?

But let's start dismembering this argument. Jihad is a noun, and it comes from the verb jahada (جهد), meaning "strive" or "struggle". Jihad is an active noun, and another noun that stems from the word jahada is mujahid, meaning "one who struggles or strives". In a Muslim's everyday life, jihad has many different applications. For the young boy or girl at school, jihad comes in the form of studying, learning and working hard so as to learn how to read and write, and therefore apply it to his or her future memorizations of the Quran, or simply reading the Quran itself. When one reaches 10 years old, he/she finds it hard to pray 5 times a day and keep up with it. Therefore, in the first 2 examples presented here, the individual in his prime is committing to a jihad (struggling in the Cause of God, a righteous cause indeed). Going up the ladder of time, we witness the young individual now studying for exams, and striving harder for a better education. We see the individual has again continued his jihad, so he or she may go to a university or college, then graduate, get a job, and finally marry and settle down to raise a family. This, too, is considered a jihad: working hard, committing to another generation of Muslims, and passing down Islam through generations.

There are other types of jihad. For example, there are those who strive to feed and give to the poor and needy, those who pray every day, those who read the Quran and memorize passages from it, those who fast in solidarity with the impoverished, those who struggle to become better Muslims and those who seek to help others become better. And then there are people like myself, who are struggling to bring to you the truth about Islam and disspell all short-minded misconceptions. There are speakers like Amr Khaled, who struggle to teach Islam to a younger generation. There are also workers who strive and work hard so they may provide for their families, and athletes who sweat till they're dry so they may attain a better body and suit themselves for the defense of their homes, their families and their country. ... You have to admit: Jihad is everywhere in Islam and in the life of a Muslim.

However, when it comes to jihad in warfare, it can only be used for several conditions: in defense, in reclamation of lost territory, or spreading Islam through messengers and other civilian means. Jihad has no roots in "holy war"; "holy war" means Harb Qudsi in Arabic, a phrase that actually does not make sense at all, and is oxymoronic, since starting wars and similar aggressive acts is prohibited in Islam. The word jihad, therefore, has been misused by those who commit outright acts of terrorism. And no, I'm not talking "politically correct" BS: this is the real deal. If there are people out there willing to put words into the mouths of Muslim sheikhs worldwide who agree with my assessment, then I must say that those people are outright ignorant and do not think.

To counter such claims, one must also highlight the presence of "passive jihad". Passive jihad is simply following God's commandments: be kind to others, respect them, do not commit any sin, etc. For example, there are Muslims who go abroad to study in different places far from home, and most likely without a Muslim majority. By exhibiting humane qualities and behaving as God advised us to do so, one can show people the true face of Islam, and perhaps even win some converts. Islam is a religion of peace, but it does not prohibit us from using violence in self-defense of our homes, our families, our wealth, our people, and our nations.

People, please, I urge you to stop misusing jihad: it's misuse by other people worldwide has offended me and my Muslim brethren. It is something we do everyday, and only one small aspect of it has to do with warfare, where this aspect involves self-defense. You can start your own jihad, too, by spreading this Godly message through civil actions, and perhaps we can understand each other better, then, and avoid the misuse of words so sacred as jihad.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un