The true meaning of Jihad

Submitted by Shah (United Kingdom), May 17, 2003 at 07:42

The true meaning of Jihad

Jihad has been on the agenda of the Western nations for decades. The West fears the meaning of Jihad for no reason other than the fact that this word is an explanation of what makes Islam a force in the world. So, it should not surprise anyone that the West will try its utmost to distort the meaning of Jihad from the minds of the Muslims.

There is no doubt that the effort to distort the true meaning of Jihad intensifies during a crusade against a Muslim nation. The styles vary, whether it is from Tony Blair who says, "Islam is a religion of Peace", or whether it comes from his followers in the Muslim Council of Britain who argue that "Jihad is only about struggling against our desires."

The West has also used the style of scare tactics. Mosque committees up and down the country are fearful of their Mosques being closed down on the basis of discussing Jihad, similar to that of Finsbury Park Mosque, in London. Muslims have questioned their Imams and committees as to why they are not talking about Jihad and the response of Muslims in this war, the reply being, "we don't want our Mosque to be closed down." Whichever style it takes, it is clear that there is a concerted effort made by the Kuffar to destroy the true meaning of Jihad. All in all this line of discussion is a red herring, placed there by the Western governments in order to divert the Islamic agenda of discussion.

Let's face it, war is an inevitability in life. The Western nations are very experienced in using force in order to achieve their goals, the crusade in Iraq being a clear example of this. So it is hypocritical of the Western Governments to force Muslims to say that Islam does not use force; this is a tactic used in order to weaken the mindset of the Muslims so crusades and invasion become all that easier.

It should be understood that what makes a nation are the ideas it upholds as sovereign. In the West the ‘maximising of the pleasure' is the predominant idea, whereas in Islam the ‘worship of Allah (swt)' is the most prominent and fundamental idea.

In order for these nations to defend and propagate this idea, force is necessary, internally using the Police force and the secret service apparatus, externally using the Army. It comes as no surprise that the biggest allocation in the budget of any nation is allocated to defence from an external threat. So for the humanists who argue that force is not necessary, they are really miscalculating reality as without force, chaos will prevail. Consequently, the correct debate should be upon what the reason for war is and if this reason is correct.

The Muslims should be careful in how they debate this subject as the Socialist/Humanists and the like by using their same argument of "no war (full stop)" upon Islam, thus distorting Islam by inferring that Islam does not have concepts dealing with the subject of war.


Indeed all ideologies will have fighting and killing as part of its method of defending and propagating its way of life. In the West the objective of war is defined by material interests. Thus it could be defined as "fighting to remove the obstacles in the way of the acquisition of material interests." Note once again, there are two distinct points, the action: "Fighting to remove the obstacles" and the reason: "in the way of acquisition of material interests".

So by drawing a comparison between the actions of Western Capitalist states and the actions of the Islamic State, there is no difference as both use force in their actions. However there is a clear distinction in the reason, as Islam makes the propagation of its ideas the reason, whereas Capitalism makes the acquisition of material benefit its reason. So consequently, Muslims must be aware of this distinction and not fall in to the trap laid out by the kuffar.

Definitely when the western nations seek to change the whole concept of Jihad, to mean nothing but struggling against one's own inner desires, this will invariably give them a distinct advantage as it will render the Muslims defenceless.

.....

---

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".