The word "jihad" is thrown around a lot, and most people know it means "holy war" and is discussed in the Koran
Well...according to a few things I've read, the word jihad actually means 'struggle' or 'striving', and not necessarily in a military context (though there is a geunine military use for it). The term for 'holy war' in Arabic is a two-word phrase, which I can't remember all of but which includes the word harb, meaning war. According to a lot of scholars, the two are etymologically and properly separate concepts.
The use of jihad to mean 'holy war' seems to be a relatively recent appropriation by people who don't know as much about their own religion as they think they do...
if an Islamic country is invaded and occupied by a non-Islamic government/army who then tries to set up a secular/non-Islamic government, the faithful muslim is religiously obligated to fight a war against them.
I believe at least parts of the Qu'ran argue against this: there are some passages that suggests that so long as the government in question doesn't try to suppress Islam or force Muslims to convert away from it, Muslims living in that region are allowed to co-operate with the government. Of course they're allowed to fight against an invading force, but they're not required to resist or fight a non-Muslim government just because it's not Muslim.
What makes the whole business all the more complicated for an ignorant Westerner like me trying to understand it is that there are verses in the Qu'ran that say different things too and apply to different situations, because they were written at different times in the early years of the religion--before, during and after the persecution of early Muslims...
Well, if you want to be all shades of gray about it! No, seriously, that's really interesting, and I figured it probably wasn't as cut and dried as all that. It just seems that if that *is* a recognized way of interpreting the text that the administration would've taken in into consideration. I mean, surely they had at least a few advisors familiar with Islam when they were planning this mess? There are always, always, always going to be people who choose to interpret religious text in the most violent extreme way possible, because that's what people do....
Well, if you want to be all shades of gray about it!
~giggles~ Me and my habit of overcomplicating things, eh?
It just seems that if that *is* a recognized way of interpreting the text that the administration would've taken in into consideration.
Not necessarily. Politicians, and increasingly even civil servants, are extraordinarily good at ignoring what they don't want to hear, or don't want to deal with, in favour of presenting something that seems simple, cut-and-dried and easy to sell on the evening news...I think they must get special training in it.
I mean, surely they had at least a few advisors familiar with Islam when they were planning this mess?
The US administration? From what I've heard, not really. What political interviews I've seen on the subject have had difficulty finding someone who even knows the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni.
There are always, always, always going to be people who choose to interpret religious text in the most violent extreme way possible, because that's what people do....
Yes, and an added difficulty in this situation is that there are some verses in the Qu'ran that do talk about using violence as a response to some political/territorial problems, because they were written at the time when the early Muslims were living in a permanent state of war with the Arab tribes around them, and they were looking for rules to deal with the situation. One branch of Qu'ranic scholarship that I know about is about putting the verses of the Qu'ran in their historical context, to make links between the circumstances of their composition and their content--some people, however, seem more prepared to take the verses out of their context and do with them as they please.
Well...according to a few things I've read, the word jihad actually means 'struggle' or 'striving', and not necessarily in a military context (though there is a geunine military use for it). The term for 'holy war' in Arabic is a two-word phrase, which I can't remember all of but which includes the word harb, meaning war. According to a lot of scholars, the two are etymologically and properly separate concepts.
The use of jihad to mean 'holy war' seems to be a relatively recent appropriation by people who don't know as much about their own religion as they think they do...
if an Islamic country is invaded and occupied by a non-Islamic government/army who then tries to set up a secular/non-Islamic government, the faithful muslim is religiously obligated to fight a war against them.
I believe at least parts of the Qu'ran argue against this: there are some passages that suggests that so long as the government in question doesn't try to suppress Islam or force Muslims to convert away from it, Muslims living in that region are allowed to co-operate with the government. Of course they're allowed to fight against an invading force, but they're not required to resist or fight a non-Muslim government just because it's not Muslim.
What makes the whole business all the more complicated for an ignorant Westerner like me trying to understand it is that there are verses in the Qu'ran that say different things too and apply to different situations, because they were written at different times in the early years of the religion--before, during and after the persecution of early Muslims...
Reply
Reply
~giggles~ Me and my habit of overcomplicating things, eh?
It just seems that if that *is* a recognized way of interpreting the text that the administration would've taken in into consideration.
Not necessarily. Politicians, and increasingly even civil servants, are extraordinarily good at ignoring what they don't want to hear, or don't want to deal with, in favour of presenting something that seems simple, cut-and-dried and easy to sell on the evening news...I think they must get special training in it.
I mean, surely they had at least a few advisors familiar with Islam when they were planning this mess?
The US administration? From what I've heard, not really. What political interviews I've seen on the subject have had difficulty finding someone who even knows the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni.
There are always, always, always going to be people who choose to interpret religious text in the most violent extreme way possible, because that's what people do....
Yes, and an added difficulty in this situation is that there are some verses in the Qu'ran that do talk about using violence as a response to some political/territorial problems, because they were written at the time when the early Muslims were living in a permanent state of war with the Arab tribes around them, and they were looking for rules to deal with the situation. One branch of Qu'ranic scholarship that I know about is about putting the verses of the Qu'ran in their historical context, to make links between the circumstances of their composition and their content--some people, however, seem more prepared to take the verses out of their context and do with them as they please.
Reply
Leave a comment