Mistaken Morality of Contemporary Terrorism; Stop using the word Jihad

Submitted by Athar Waheed,Msc Criminology LSE, London (United Kingdom), Feb 8, 2007 at 11:56

Infact there is long history of justification of terrorism which we call the moralty of terrorism. Jihad, unfortunately misunderstood in both East and West and has taken a cover up by terrorist groups. Rosberie defended its terrorism for maintaing social order in the French society, Fanon from liberationist point of view by presenting the thesis of opperesed and oppressor, likewise Osama bin Laen defended his acts on the cover up of Jihad which is highly misleading and only malign the image of Muslims and Islam as a peaceful way of life.

Lets consider What is Terrorism? It is challenging question but there ae certain elements which can be identified as use of violence, political gains, involving defenceless or non-combatabts. There are the elements over which most of scholars and researchers are agreed upon. Now, I put the Concept of Jihad in this context which is entirely for the purpose of self-defence. It has just cause as well as just conduct which we call jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Terrorism is based on the principle of indiscrimination or randomness of violence but Jiad takes care of it and violence is sanctioned under certain conditions. Similary, terrorism doesnot care about the principle of proportion for application of violence but Jihad cares about it if required. Moreover Jihad is for self-defence and target only combatants under certain conditions which is a decisive element of distinction.

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".