Again, I disagree with your definition ...

Submitted by sara (United States), Oct 2, 2014 at 21:35

Barry, Thanks for your response.

However, I take issue with your generic categorization of jihadism as "some terrorist philosophy that will evoke havoc."

The problem is not acknowledging that this is not some generic terrorist mindset bent on wreaking havoc for political purposes. Rather, this is a manifestation of religious belief and a sincere motivation and desire to harm those who are not like believers. This puts the whole 'terrorist' category into a different realm. Yes, terrorism is of course a tactic and is employed by many political groups, as always.

That was my point about the inextricable mixing of social services with military terror endeavors that come out of these jihadist beliefs and practices. Protecting the Ummah, Muslim lives, defending honor, regaining lands, feeding the poor, all meld together in ways which cannot be separated. The same group that gives out checks in southern Lebanon to needy families then stores missiles in their homes. Mosques are receptacles for missiles as well as sermons and pious deeds. That is the core problem. It is not a simple case of grievances that are expressed violently.

As you say- Terrorism is nothing new-----just the weapons are. Jihadism is nothing new either (see Armenian massacre for the latest reference).

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".