|
Regarding the National Defense University's recommendation that we all pretend that the global jihad is not a jihad, and hope that thereby it will go away, Greg Allen, on whose Right Balance radio show I have had the honor of appearing many, many times, has kindly passed on to me this memo from LTC Joseph C. Myers, Senior Army Advisor at Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB.
I tend to disagree with this article. I understand our desire to de-legitimize the "jihadist" as part of our CIST objectives; but we should not fall into the trap of failing to understand ourselves the exegesis of "jihad" in theory and practice. True, jihad does not translate to “Holy War” but that is also irrelevant and moot. War is either “just” or “unjust” in Islam and jihad to be “just” must be fought for the ends of God and Islam. Even Muslim texts do not accept this artificial debate, I suggest you find a copy of the Reliance of the Traveller, the first English translation of Sharia Law in print at your local library and go to the index, look up jihad -— re-indexed to “Holy War.”Jihad does mean in the classic Islamic texts “striving;” striving in the context of war, not in the context of individual spiritual growth...that is a later adaptation brought by Shia and Sufi scholars, the influence of ascetics, around the turn of the last millennium as Islam struggled with schism and the Moghul invasion. Its original meaning was associated with warfare and that meaning has never been rejected or renounced as invalid, it was merely added upon with the concept of “greater jihad.”
...While that term itself, becoming more spiritually prepared as an individual Muslim is associated with spiritual growth and non-violence, it also has applicability with becoming more spiritually prepared for combat: “jihad” and “shahada.” Recall Mohammed Atta’s “Last Night” preparations...which was for him and the other 9-11 jihadis a lengthy process of spiritual preparation for their martyrdom.
The resurgent global “jihad” in all its forms [including the bust in Miami yesterday] is based on classical readings of the Quran with mujahids willing to take up the sword for “dawa,” the proclamation and propagation of Islam.
Finally, if the thesis below were accurate then these would, in fact, be the terms used by Muslim scholars themselves (over 1400 years of written texts) with respect to this “theme” in theory and practice including the term “jahidu” (combat), but that is not the case. The scholarly texts discuss war “in the path of Allah” as “jihad.”
One can appreciate these modern Muslim scholars attempting to discredit the ideology of groups like al-Qaida, but before we latch on to these modern “vernaculars” we must make sure we fully understand the terms of reference denotatively and connotatively and historically as Muslims have understood them; not as part of a Western Strategic Communication campaign.
...In my humble opinion we still have not done our homework.
We are dealing with “classicists,” not “extremists.”
Posted by Robert at June 23, 2006 8:25 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Joseph C. Myers for President!!
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at June 23, 2006 8:43 PMThis just in: Lt. Col. Joseph C. Myers has been transferred to the recruiting office on American Samoa where he will remain until he writes the "correct" analysis. Not really, but don't be surprised to see the Pentagon and the White House try to "re-train" this officer. He might be a Lieutanant Colonel for a looooong time.
Posted by: Pelayo at June 23, 2006 8:53 PMNow I got to wonder who passed on Joe's email. This was part of a discussion we were having in the COP. I guess our discussion is no longer as private as we thought.
There were many opinions on this subject in the community. While there is no consensus it boils down into about three lines of thought:
1. The line of thought brought forward using the terms hirabah, irhabist and musfidon (ie. using traditional arabic words to describe evil doers)
2. The line of thought that says to ask the muslims what we should call them (you get a bunch of different terms)
3. The line of thought that says you use English terms to describe them (terrorist)
Personally, I think it is a bad thing to use arabic terms, while I'm an arabic student and can pronounce them correctly, most politicians/pundits/reporters will butcher it and it will loose its meaning. Additionally, some of the words are like hirabah are old arabic and not understood by the masses (also not all muslims speak/understand arabic). It is especially grevious to use the terms Jihad and jihadist for the reasons sited in the NDU paper (there is a consensus on that). We should use English terms and let them be translated into Arabic/Farsi/Urdu/Banda/Tagalog by their government/press.
The problem is consistency. Governments and the Press need to call them the same thing..F..ing Terrorists (not freedom fighters, insurgents, militants, etc).
Posted by: Sluggo_f16 at June 23, 2006 9:01 PMSluggo_f16, that's a wonderful posting. It's rather scholarly in it's approach. The last sentence with "F**king Terrorists" drives the point home. What a way with words. I prefer the term "MMFMs" for "Murdering Mohammedans." I'll leave you to figure what the MF is.
Posted by: Pelayo at June 23, 2006 9:11 PMThank God there are some men in positions of power that are playing with more cards than the rest.
Posted by: Foehammer at June 23, 2006 9:58 PMLTC. Joseph C. Myers needs to spend some time reading Andrew G. Bostom's book, "The Legacy of Jihad".
While in the most narrow of arguments one can make a feeble case for Jihad not meaning Religious War of the most heinous type, the actual practice dicatates that Jihad as Religious War has been the actual practice since 622 AD for 1384 years with no end in site.
It is of no consequence to argue the subtelties of Jihad, for call it whatever anyone wants to , it is still Jihad, and it has still killed far more people than any other political system that mankind has ever known.
Posted by: Reasonableness Mischief at June 23, 2006 10:11 PMthe term "MMFMs" for "Murdering Mohammedans." I'll leave you to figure what the MF is.
Posted by: Pelayo at June 23, 2006 09:11 PM
+++++++
Pelayo, wouldn't the correct adjactive placement be:
MFMM
Posted by: Texican at June 23, 2006 10:21 PMHope.
Posted by: Hugh at June 23, 2006 10:44 PMAt long, long last someone of importance spits out the truth!! I am truly in a state of shock but I am so thankful for LTC Meyers. I hope he isn't sent to north Alaska for a long tour of duty, sans all but emergency communication equipment. Maybe, just maybe, common sense will replace political correctness before it kills us all.
Posted by: Susanp at June 23, 2006 11:35 PMKudos to someone in uniform who is more concerned with the survival of his country and than mere advancement of career.
Bravo LTC Meyers!
In the words of Gen. George Patton:
"A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes too late."
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 24, 2006 1:38 AMsluggo wrote: "It is especially grevious to use the terms Jihad and jihadist for the reasons sited in the NDU paper (there is a consensus on that). We should use English terms and let them be translated into Arabic/Farsi/Urdu/Banda/Tagalog by their government/press.
The problem is consistency. Governments and the Press need to call them the same thing..F..ing Terrorists (not freedom fighters, insurgents, militants, etc)."
I doubt the JWers would relinquish the juicy words jihad and jihadist. If we were, however, to collectively conclude to use English-based words, I would opt not for "terrorist", as that is too limited to the front-line shock troops and commandos: I would opt for the term supremacist expansionists.
The supremacist part designates the anti-liberal intolerance (Shari'a) that is the sociopolitical heart of the system (Islam) which the enemy desires to realize. The expansionist part designates the imperative to expand, infiltrate and conquer other lands in order to realize the original, divinely mandated goal of the aforementioned system: for the whole world to be ruled by Islam.
Furthermore, the expansionist part is broad and flexible enough to embrace all the tactics of Islam's goal -- from
1) the individual or rag-tag group "street jihad" of gang-rapes, riots, lynchings, spree killings, property damage, and other comparatively less violent but still belligerent intimidation
to
2) more concerted terrorist commando operations
on to
3) the more amorphous and diffused tactics of demographic invasion, daw'a, and geopolitical leveraging of naive Western politicians
and finally
4) all-out military invasion, which Islam has routinely included in its long history, but for obvious reasons (the overwhelming military and technological and infrastructural and political superiority Goliath of the West compared to the currently pathetic powers of the Muslim world) hasn't yet attempted in its latest revival (the last time it attempted this was over 300 years ago, in the 17th century in a major but roundly thwarted incursion inside the West's southeastern flank).
Posted by: Television at June 24, 2006 4:27 AMThough this issue is periodically discussed and peripherally, it would be nice to see various producers of prolix prose ponder their prolific patter, and instead pullulate on possible proxies for their presently poor palaver.
Translation: WE DON'T NEED more meaningless Arabic words introduced into the already muddled discussion about Islamic violence and Islamic Supremacy doctrine.
I have been suggesting for some time that we have a failure to communicate -- we have failed to develop a sufficiently digestible terminology for Islamic Jihad -- it's so alien to the average Joe that the message as it's currently configured is doomed to fail. This issue is central to the success of the anti-Jihad message.
We must aim at creating a visceral reaction to Islam among Westerners, not a cerebral reaction. So far, even atrocities and the prospect of limitless barbarities bearing down upon us haven't fazed our populace -- We must set about examining why.
Posted by: jsla at June 24, 2006 10:43 AMLTC Myers is a good friend and we communicate quite often via email and I must say his response to the source article is quite excellent. Judging by the many postive responses to this JihadWatch posting of his commentary I think he's his a resonant chord once again.
Sluggo_f16,
Just so you know, Joe's response to that source article was sent to many via email - but what was emailed was absolutely nothing more than his own commentary which we read above. Hope hope this knowledge makes you feel at ease concerning what you were discussing in the COP.
Apart from LTC Myers comments -which I concur with, there is one issue which I brought to his attention regarding the source article on defenseLINK.mil.
I have a major problem with a couple of sentences surrounding this gem of PC within the source text:
"In fact, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the God of Abraham."
I vehemently disagree with this statement. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- the Judeo-Christian God -- most certainly is NOT the same spiritual entity refered to as al-lah.
Islam is NOT an Abrahamic faith even though there a numerous references to various Biblical charaters in the Qur'an.
Therefore, that these un-named Islamic scholars would insist on Islam being viewed as an Abrahamic faith is in and of itself the Islamic doctrine of al-Taqiyya (dissumulation, false witness) in practical application.
Granted, and I agree that this is a much more fundamental issue than the lexical or usage of Islamic terminologies and completely reflects my own tendency to bore right to the core of an issue. Some will probably want to impugn me for so stating this in a public forum. Therefore, I say "Whatever" -- this is America and I do have the freedom to speak my opinion. I implicitly understand the need for these kinds of debates, but again, I see lexical issues as peripheral battles that also properly need to be dealt with.
I cannot see any true Christian accepting Islam as an Abrahamic faith when it is a pilar of Islam that Christ was NOT the only begotten Son of God and that Muhammed's teachings supercede those of Christ.
In fact, I would go so far as to state that any "Christian" who accepts Islam as Abrahamic more robustly defines my identification of the differences between "Churchianity" and Christianity.
Television writes: "I doubt the JWers would relinquish the juicy words jihad and jihadist."
I know I won't relinquish those terms. However, if there is any chance of ambiguity, I qualify those terms as follows": i.e., "violent jihad" or "jihadist terrorists". That way it's clear that I'm referring to those jihadists who advocate and engage in violence. Even apologists for Islam can't deny that there are such jihadists, even if they maintain that most jihad is non-violent.
"We must aim at creating a visceral reaction to Islam among Westerners, not a cerebral reaction. So far, even atrocities and the prospect of limitless barbarities bearing down upon us haven't fazed our populace -- We must set about examining why."
I have hit upon the perfect label that will rouse and galvanize the West against the terrorists: all we have to do is call them a global network of a cabal of Jews and American neo-con evangelical Christians.
Posted by: Television at June 24, 2006 4:41 PMTelevision said, "a global network of a cabal of Jews and American neo-con evangelical Christians"
I like it and would like to add my own.
"Post-Christian Fundalmentalists"
Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti at June 24, 2006 6:46 PMOopss I meant "Post-Christian Fundamentalists"
Sorry for th[sic] typo.
Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti at June 24, 2006 6:47 PMReeding iz Fundalmental!
Posted by: Eisenhund at June 24, 2006 8:24 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)