Historical inaccuracy

Submitted by Meg (United States), Mar 8, 2007 at 04:17

This definition and explanation of jihad is historically inaccurate. Jihad originally stems from the idea of a rededication to God through the complete annihilation of the enemies of God through destruction of life and property without exception. Moreover, it is not solely an Islamic notion. In the book of Joshua present in the Tanakh and the Bible, Joshua and the Israelites at God's behest, declare cherem, the Hebrew word for jihad, upon the city of Jericho. When the city falls, they destroy every living thing and all the property contained therein (with the exception of Raheb and her family, which is a story unto itself). Notice, please, that this is the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I am not saying that you are wrong about the effects of jihad (definitely biased, but not wrong). It is a divisive and destructive social and religious situation. However, in the name of history and accuracy, if the jihad against America were to succeed, (according to the true nature of the phenomenon) all Americans would be dead and all the possessions and holdings of the United States would become defunct.

The eventual goal, as you put it, is not and never has been Muslim rule of the world. Instead, it is the removal of what they consider unholy and impure; jihad does not seek to dominate any other culture, it seeks to exterminate that which is offensive.

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".