re: Jihad and Soleman's views

Submitted by concerned (Italy), Jul 26, 2006 at 07:54

After having read the remarks by Soleman with Daniel Pipes' response, all I can say is that I agree more with Pipes than with Soleman.

Although I don't deny the truth of what Soleman is saying (Jihad as a way to reach one's goals with all one's strength, even to the point of death); and although he deserves our appreciation for condemning terrorism, still, in the contexts in which I've read and/or heard of Jihad, it's almost always been referring to war or some sort of armed conflict.

To give one example: shortly after the war began against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Saddam himself gave a speech trying to stir up the troops in defense of himself and of Iraq. At one point, he used "Jihad" and it definately was referring to war with the hope of defeating the Coalition forces and driving them out of the country. There are also countless examples of Jihad used by militant mullahs and imans in rhetoric against the West, the USA, Israel, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other unbelievers.

While I wish that Soleman's understanding of Jihad was really the majority's understanding of the term in the Islamic world today, I honestly don't think that's the case, nor will it be in my life-time at least.

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".