What's in an interpretation?

Submitted by Rebecca Moulds (United States), Aug 18, 2009 at 17:43

It's very frustrating that people in such high places as John O. Brennan is, have been sucked in to the rather bland interpretation of jihad, when former prominent Muslims such as Nonie Darwish, Ergun Caner, and many others---will tell you that there is only one meaning of jihad, which is the total annihilation of so-called infidels, by any means available. A quote by King Fahd of Saudi Arabia in 1980 went thus: "What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring 'Holy War' against Israel, of course, who else?"

So whether jihad is represented by Islam defeating a certain nation (Israel) or "infidels" in general, the meaning is the same. Cushioning the word jihad in cotton wool does not change its true meaning, and poverty is not a stimulus for violence and radical Islam. Someone should tell Mr. Brennan.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".