Whose definition "jihad" ?

Submitted by Prophet2 (United States), Sep 24, 2006 at 08:31

Let' not all get bogged down on the dictionaries' definitions of "jihad". A word comes to mean the thing that it describes, not just the meaning that the person who coined the word gave to it.

The English language contains more words than any language on earth, yet you will find many meanings of most words in the English dictionary. Words in common use a hundred years ago now have additional new meanings. Most of the words used in computing are not new words but old words given new meanings. The word "rock" used to mean a "stone" 50 years ago. Now it is used to describe music.

If "jihad" literally means "struggle", consider the fact that the German word "Kampf" also means "struggle" and was used by Adolf Hitler in the title of his book "MEIN KAMPF" which became the bible of the NSDAP (Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party) or "NAZI". I am not comparing Muslims with Nazi's, but pointing out other definitions of "struggle".

It doesn't matter how "mainstream moderate" Muslims want to interpret and embelish it for themselves, the word "JIHAD" has come to mean "holy war against infidels" because that is the way it is used every day by those among the Muslims who can be described as fundamental Muslim extremists, who are terrorists, define it and use it to describe their justification for their terrorist acts. They do this in your name. Don't you get it? I regret it , but they have redefined it.

Rather that jumping all over non-Muslims who acknowledge this "new" definition, why don't you denounce those among you who created this definition? If it is really more honorable to die in the struggle to advance the cause of true Islam than to sit by and do nothing, demonstrate this commitment by having the courage to purge the "bad" Muslims out of your faith instead of acquiesing to this new definition. Your problem is not arguing your defintion with that of non-muslims, but in not acting to reclaim the definition that you allowed terrorists to assign to the word. Arguing with me is not courageous. Protecting the concept of Islam as a "peaceful" religion is courageous. Do you have the courage to go up against them or are you allowing them to hide behind the religion while intimidating those among you who want a peaceful religion? If you are, your religion will decay from the inside. Edmund Burke, a great man, once said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing!" How courageous are you?

Another point: A Muslim, who is offended by a suggestion that he is violent, cannot register his point by committing a violent act such as to kill a person (nun) who did not make that suggestion. This just proves his opponent's point. DUH!

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".