by Raymond Ibrahim<\/p>\n
PJ Media<\/em><\/p>\n Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The less accurate words are, the less accurate the knowledge they impart; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the war on terror, to acquire accurate knowledge \u2014 which is pivotal to victory \u2014 we need to begin with accurate language.<\/p>\n Would the free world have understood the Nazi threat if, instead of calling them what they called themselves, \u201cNazis,\u201d it had opted to simply call them \u201cextremists\u201d \u2014 a word wholly overlooking the racist, expansionary, and supremacist elements that are part and parcel of the word \u201cNazi\u201d?<\/p>\n Unfortunately, the U.S. government, apparently oblivious to this interconnection between language and knowledge, appears to be doing just that. Even\u00a0President Obama<\/a>\u00a0alluded to this soon after taking office when he said, \u201cWords matter in this situation because one of the ways we\u2019re going to win this struggle [war on terror] is through the battle of [Muslims’] hearts and minds.\u201d[1]<\/p>\n According to an\u00a0official memo<\/a>[2], when talking about Islamists and their goals, analysts are to refrain from using Arabic words of Islamic significance (\u201dmujahidin,\u201d \u201csalafi,\u201d \u201cummah\u201d); nor should they employ helpful English or anglicized words (\u201djihadi,\u201d \u201cIslamo-fascism,\u201d \u201ccaliphate\u201d). Instead, vague generics (\u201dterrorists,\u201d \u201cextremists,\u201d \u201ctotalitarians\u201d) should suffice.<\/p>\n A\u00a0renewed defense of this disturbing trend was recently published by one Colonel\u00a0Jeffrey Vordermark<\/a>\u00a0and deserves examination.[3] After suggesting that Americans \u201clove to throw around foreign words,\u201d Vordermark writes:<\/p>\n We have fallen into the \u201cjihad\u201d trap. The term is used in casual banter yet most remain clueless regarding its origin or meanings. We think, therefore we know. Pundits, academics, and laymen profess to know its meaning, and the term is daily news in the mouths of reporters and in the banners of headlines. Unfortunately, its very use assumes that Islam is simple and monolithic. \u2026 As a nation and society, we could not be more incorrect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While lofty sounding, this view is riddled with problems. First, by seeking to excise the word \u201cjihad\u201d from public discourse, due to the erroneous notion that that term is apparently unknowable, this position is self-defeatist.<\/p>\n \u201cJihad\u201d has a very precise, juristic definition; more to the point, Sunni Islam \u2014 which accounts for nearly 90% of the Islamic world \u2014 is, in fact, \u201csimple and monolithic,\u201d thanks to the totalitarian nature of Islamic law (Sharia), which categorizes all possible human actions as being either forbidden, discouraged, legitimate, recommended, or obligatory. Indeed, of the major religions of the world, none is perhaps so black and white, so clear cut as Islam, which meticulously delineates to Muslims the correct \u201cway\u201d of living (\u201dway,\u201d incidentally, being the literal definition of the word \u201cSharia\u201d).<\/p>\n Thus to try to portray Islam and its institutions as somehow \u201cotherworldly\u201d and unfathomable \u2014 so let\u2019s just not bother trying to understand in the first place \u2014 is not only folly, but precisely what the Islamists themselves most desire: to guard Islam\u2019s more troubling doctrines, such as jihad, from infidel scrutiny.<\/p>\n Vordermark continues:<\/p>\n Historically the term [jihad] applied to the concept of either a \u201cgreater jihad,\u201d or a \u201clesser jihad.\u201d The former denoting the daily struggle of the believer to overcome \u201cself\u201d in the pursuit of Allah\u2019s will, and the latter traditionally meaning\u00a0defense of religion, family, or homeland<\/em>\u00a0[emphasis added].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s for the time being overlook the hackneyed stress on the so-called greater-lesser jihad dichotomy \u2014 which, semantics and sophistry aside, does not invalidate the lesser jihad (i.e., armed warfare). The real problem here is that Vordermark\u2019s assertion that the military \u201cjihad\u201d has been \u201ctraditionally\u201d limited to \u201cdefensive warfare\u201d is totally false.<\/p>\n Even so, Vordermark is to be excused; he warns us about accepting definitions of \u201cjihad\u201d from \u201cpundits, academics, and laymen,\u201d and surely his falls into this category. Thus let us dispense once and for all with infidel-based definitions \u2014 including my own \u2014 and see what Islam\u2019s own most revered authorities have to say about what \u201cjihad\u201d really means.<\/p>\n First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly dependent on the various rulings (ahkam<\/em>) of the so-called four schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba\u2019<\/em>). I am currently reading an Arabic manual called\u00a0Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw\u2019 al-Kitab wa al-Sunna<\/em>\u00a0(The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna<\/em>), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely examining the word \u201cjihad,\u201d he concludes that \u201cjihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya<\/em>] and live in submission, and then they refuse.\u201d<\/p>\n The book also contains terse summaries of the word \u201cjihad\u201d from each of the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam \u2014 or in this case, jihad \u2014 is articulated: According to the Hanafis, jihad is \u201cextreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one\u2019s life, wealth, and tongue \u2014 a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it\u201d; according to the Malikis, jihad is \u201cwhen a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah\u2019s word [Sharia] reigns supreme\u201d; according to the Shafi\u2019is, jihad is \u201cfiercely fighting infidels\u201d; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is \u201cfighting infidels.\u201d (Note: \u201cinfidels,\u201d or\u00a0kuffar<\/em>, simply means non-Muslims.)<\/p>\n In short, the \u201ctraditional\u201d meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to spread Islamic hegemony \u2014 period. This is doctrinally, textually, historically, and consensually demonstrable. At any rate, who probably better understands what jihad means, the non-Muslim Jeffrey Vordermark or the Muslim Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil? More to the point, whose definition will Muslims actually take seriously?<\/p>\n