By ezmc
The imperialists have tarnished the image of Jihad. In the Western media it is presented as a concept synonymous with nihilistic violence and bloodshed; its prime objective to kill unbelievers and those opposed to Islam.
Accordingly, the prefix 'Jihadist' is attached exclusively to militant extremists who follow a brand of Islam outside of the mainstream.
The US Department of Justice describes Jihad as the "Arabic word meaning 'holy war'", adding that "jihad refers to the use of violence, including paramilitary action against persons, governments deemed to be enemies of the fundamentalist version of Islam."
Under this definition, Jihad is made synonymous with extremists or 'fundamentalists'.
Similarly, the media portrays Jihad as a call for holy war against unbelievers and presents extremists such as Bin Laden as prime examples of 'Jihadists'.
This is an obvious tactic used by the imperialists to taint the image of Jihad, which is an important element of Islam.
By adding negative connotations to it, the goal has been, and is, to wipe Jihad out of the vocabulary of Muslims.
The imperialists throughout modern history have attempted this, for the simple reason that Jihad –with its call for resistance to oppressors- challenges the power of the imperialists.
In British India, the imperialists installed puppet leaders and religious scholars who interpreted Jihad and Islam in a way which was cosy with the British colonialists. To this end, the British even harboured and funded a heretic movement within Islam led by Mirza Ghulam which called for the abandoning of Jihad.
Put simply, Jihad threatens the power of those in charge; of the imperialists, and the puppets of the imperialists. It is a concept therefore that needs to be suppressed by those people that are concerned it will challenge their rule.
But what is Jihad?
Is it an intolerant and violent ‘holy war’ used by 'fundamentalists' to install their version of Islam across the world?
That is certainly, to some degree, the version Bin Laden supports (‘to some degree’ because Bin Laden nonetheless attributes his terrorism to US foreign policy, not to a religious duty to attack the secular, ‘immoral’ West).
But it is not the interpretation most Muslims accept, with obvious reason.
Firstly, it being described as ‘holy war’ is untenable. ‘Holy war’ is a concept that originated in Christian Europe and is not applicable to Islam, or Jihad.
As Reuven Firestone points out, “The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihâd has no relation to holy war or even war in general” (1999: 16). The proper meaning is ‘struggle’; a struggle to carry out your obligations to God.
Accordingly, Jihad takes many forms, and “most have nothing to do with warfare” (Firestone, 1999: 17).
According to one hadith, the Prophet describes striving to live as a Muslim and fighting inner evils as the ‘greater Jihad’, and striving against enemies in warfare as the ‘lesser Jihad’.
The most important aspect of Jihad is therefore striving to live as a good Muslim; doing good deeds and opposing sin and oppression. This has very little to do with violence.
Nevertheless, Jihad also takes up other forms; forms which allow for the use of violence. However, Islam has many qualifications to the use of violence and the conduct of war.
Jihad can only be conducted in a defensive manner; or as an attempt to challenge oppression and persecution.
The ethics surrounding the use of violence are important.
Jihad cannot be used against innocent people, or to force people to convert; or to conquer or colonise for economic or political gain.
The Quran reinforces the defensive nature of Jihad by stating “And fight in the way of God with those who fight you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.” (2:190).
Opponents of Islam often use the so-called “sword verses” to take the Quranic message regarding Jihad out of context. They often quote the Quranic verse which states “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush” (9:5).
Cunningly, they do not include the following passage “But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat [tax for alms] then let them go their way for God is forgiving and kind” (9:5).
In contrast to the interpretation the opponents of Islam and the extremists such as Bin Laden employ, this verse “has traditionally been read as a call for peaceful relations unless there is interference with the freedom of Muslims” (John Esposito, 2003: 35).
It was a verse written under the conditions of the time; when the pagans of Arabia violently persecuted Muslims because their religion challenged the status quo.
Jihad then, certainly includes the use of violence; but in a defensive manner.
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are not Jihadists.
True Jihadists are those that challenge oppression; those that challenge persecution, and those that challenge imperialism.
The insurgents in Iraq who do not target civilians but fight the American occupation, who die fighting the imperialist enemies, they are true Jihadists.
The Palestinians that legitimately fight Israeli occupation, they are true Jihadists.
The Indians that fought the British imperialists, they were true Jihadists.
The Algerians that fought the French imperialists, they were true Jihadists.
Those that fought (and fight) Western imperialism worldwide are true Jihadists.
The imperialists have tarnished the image of Jihad. In the Western media it is presented as a concept synonymous with nihilistic violence and bloodshed; its prime objective to kill unbelievers and those opposed to Islam.
Accordingly, the prefix 'Jihadist' is attached exclusively to militant extremists who follow a brand of Islam outside of the mainstream.
The US Department of Justice describes Jihad as the "Arabic word meaning 'holy war'", adding that "jihad refers to the use of violence, including paramilitary action against persons, governments deemed to be enemies of the fundamentalist version of Islam."
Under this definition, Jihad is made synonymous with extremists or 'fundamentalists'.
Similarly, the media portrays Jihad as a call for holy war against unbelievers and presents extremists such as Bin Laden as prime examples of 'Jihadists'.
This is an obvious tactic used by the imperialists to taint the image of Jihad, which is an important element of Islam.
By adding negative connotations to it, the goal has been, and is, to wipe Jihad out of the vocabulary of Muslims.
The imperialists throughout modern history have attempted this, for the simple reason that Jihad –with its call for resistance to oppressors- challenges the power of the imperialists.
In British India, the imperialists installed puppet leaders and religious scholars who interpreted Jihad and Islam in a way which was cosy with the British colonialists. To this end, the British even harboured and funded a heretic movement within Islam led by Mirza Ghulam which called for the abandoning of Jihad.
Put simply, Jihad threatens the power of those in charge; of the imperialists, and the puppets of the imperialists. It is a concept therefore that needs to be suppressed by those people that are concerned it will challenge their rule.
But what is Jihad?
Is it an intolerant and violent ‘holy war’ used by 'fundamentalists' to install their version of Islam across the world?
That is certainly, to some degree, the version Bin Laden supports (‘to some degree’ because Bin Laden nonetheless attributes his terrorism to US foreign policy, not to a religious duty to attack the secular, ‘immoral’ West).
But it is not the interpretation most Muslims accept, with obvious reason.
Firstly, it being described as ‘holy war’ is untenable. ‘Holy war’ is a concept that originated in Christian Europe and is not applicable to Islam, or Jihad.
As Reuven Firestone points out, “The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihâd has no relation to holy war or even war in general” (1999: 16). The proper meaning is ‘struggle’; a struggle to carry out your obligations to God.
Accordingly, Jihad takes many forms, and “most have nothing to do with warfare” (Firestone, 1999: 17).
According to one hadith, the Prophet describes striving to live as a Muslim and fighting inner evils as the ‘greater Jihad’, and striving against enemies in warfare as the ‘lesser Jihad’.
The most important aspect of Jihad is therefore striving to live as a good Muslim; doing good deeds and opposing sin and oppression. This has very little to do with violence.
Nevertheless, Jihad also takes up other forms; forms which allow for the use of violence. However, Islam has many qualifications to the use of violence and the conduct of war.
Jihad can only be conducted in a defensive manner; or as an attempt to challenge oppression and persecution.
The ethics surrounding the use of violence are important.
Jihad cannot be used against innocent people, or to force people to convert; or to conquer or colonise for economic or political gain.
The Quran reinforces the defensive nature of Jihad by stating “And fight in the way of God with those who fight you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.” (2:190).
Opponents of Islam often use the so-called “sword verses” to take the Quranic message regarding Jihad out of context. They often quote the Quranic verse which states “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush” (9:5).
Cunningly, they do not include the following passage “But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat [tax for alms] then let them go their way for God is forgiving and kind” (9:5).
In contrast to the interpretation the opponents of Islam and the extremists such as Bin Laden employ, this verse “has traditionally been read as a call for peaceful relations unless there is interference with the freedom of Muslims” (John Esposito, 2003: 35).
It was a verse written under the conditions of the time; when the pagans of Arabia violently persecuted Muslims because their religion challenged the status quo.
Jihad then, certainly includes the use of violence; but in a defensive manner.
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are not Jihadists.
True Jihadists are those that challenge oppression; those that challenge persecution, and those that challenge imperialism.
The insurgents in Iraq who do not target civilians but fight the American occupation, who die fighting the imperialist enemies, they are true Jihadists.
The Palestinians that legitimately fight Israeli occupation, they are true Jihadists.
The Indians that fought the British imperialists, they were true Jihadists.
The Algerians that fought the French imperialists, they were true Jihadists.
Those that fought (and fight) Western imperialism worldwide are true Jihadists.
Those that fought, and continue to fight, oppression and tyranny worldwide, are true Jihadists.
Let there be no smearing of the concept; Jihad is a beautiful and important element of Islam. Islam teaches justifiable violent resistance to oppression and persecution.
And as Malcolm X once noted, “don’t nobody resent that kind of religion being taught but a wolf, who intends to make you his meal.”
That wolf currently is Western imperialism.
The same imperialists that criticise Jihad as being violent and unjust were the same imperialists that bombed 200, 000 people out of the ground, not making a distinction between an enemy soldier and civilian, in Japan; simply to scare the Russians, i.e. simply for political gain.
The imperialists that criticise Jihad are the same imperialists that funded and propped up dictators worldwide to murder and massacre innocent people.
These are the same imperialists that supported Apartheid in South Africa and continue to support Apartheid in Palestine.
These are the same imperialists that gave General Suharto of Indonesia the means to butcher 200,000 suspected communists in Indonesia.
These are the same imperialists that gave the same man the means to carry out a near-genocide in East Timor.
These are the same imperialists that funded and armed death squads in Latin America, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
These are the same imperialists that have not only made use of offensive war, but also preemptive war to defeat enemies.
These are the imperialists that slaughtered the Vietnamese and Iraqi people simply because the political structures of their government were not to their liking.
These are the same imperialists that have murdered and massacred millions of innocent people to defend Western economic and political interests.
These are the same imperialists, as John Pilger notes, that have overseen “since 1945, the attempted overthrow of 50 governments, many of them democracies, along with the crushing of popular movements struggling against tyranny and the bombing of 30 countries, causing the loss of countless lives.”
These imperialists – and the media organisations, and the commentators, and the scholars and intellectuals that defend their heinous crimes – should be in no position to criticise Jihad.
Do not let oppressors taint the true image of Jihad; be proud of being a Jihadist.
Let there be no smearing of the concept; Jihad is a beautiful and important element of Islam. Islam teaches justifiable violent resistance to oppression and persecution.
And as Malcolm X once noted, “don’t nobody resent that kind of religion being taught but a wolf, who intends to make you his meal.”
That wolf currently is Western imperialism.
The same imperialists that criticise Jihad as being violent and unjust were the same imperialists that bombed 200, 000 people out of the ground, not making a distinction between an enemy soldier and civilian, in Japan; simply to scare the Russians, i.e. simply for political gain.
The imperialists that criticise Jihad are the same imperialists that funded and propped up dictators worldwide to murder and massacre innocent people.
These are the same imperialists that supported Apartheid in South Africa and continue to support Apartheid in Palestine.
These are the same imperialists that gave General Suharto of Indonesia the means to butcher 200,000 suspected communists in Indonesia.
These are the same imperialists that gave the same man the means to carry out a near-genocide in East Timor.
These are the same imperialists that funded and armed death squads in Latin America, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
These are the same imperialists that have not only made use of offensive war, but also preemptive war to defeat enemies.
These are the imperialists that slaughtered the Vietnamese and Iraqi people simply because the political structures of their government were not to their liking.
These are the same imperialists that have murdered and massacred millions of innocent people to defend Western economic and political interests.
These are the same imperialists, as John Pilger notes, that have overseen “since 1945, the attempted overthrow of 50 governments, many of them democracies, along with the crushing of popular movements struggling against tyranny and the bombing of 30 countries, causing the loss of countless lives.”
These imperialists – and the media organisations, and the commentators, and the scholars and intellectuals that defend their heinous crimes – should be in no position to criticise Jihad.
Do not let oppressors taint the true image of Jihad; be proud of being a Jihadist.
No comments:
Post a Comment