 | Middle East Forum | |||
| MEF Home Research & Writings Middle East Quarterly | ||||
Related Words | ||||
 Send |  RSS | Share:    |
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 — which is pivotal to victory — we
need to begin with accurate language.
Would the free world have understood the Nazi threat if, instead of
calling them what they called themselves, "Nazis," it had opted to simply
call them "extremists" — a word wholly overlooking the racist,
expansionary, and supremacist elements that are part and parcel of the
word "Nazi"?
Unfortunately, the U.S. government, apparently oblivious to this
interconnection between language and knowledge, appears to be doing just
that. Even President Obama
alluded to this soon after taking office when he said, "Words matter in
this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle
[war on terror] is through the battle of [Muslims'] hearts and minds."
According to an official
memo, when talking about Islamists and their goals, analysts are to
refrain from using Arabic words of Islamic significance ("mujahidin,"
"salafi," "ummah"); nor should they employ helpful English or anglicized
words ("jihadi," "Islamo-fascism," "caliphate"). Instead, vague generics
("terrorists," "extremists," "totalitarians") should suffice.
A renewed defense of this disturbing trend was recently published by
one Colonel Jeffrey
Vordermark and deserves examination. After suggesting that Americans
"love to throw around foreign words," Vordermark writes:
We have fallen into the "jihad" 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. … As a nation and society, we could not be more
incorrect.
While lofty sounding, this view is riddled with problems. First, by
seeking to excise the word "jihad" from public discourse, due to the
erroneous notion that that term is apparently unknowable, this position is
self-defeatist.
"Jihad" has a very precise, juristic definition; more to the point,
Sunni Islam — which accounts for nearly 90% of the Islamic world — is, in
fact, "simple and monolithic," 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 "way" of living ("way," incidentally, being the
literal definition of the word "Sharia").
Thus to try to portray Islam and its institutions as somehow
"otherworldly" and unfathomable — so let's just not bother trying to
understand in the first place — is not only folly, but precisely what the
Islamists themselves most desire: to guard Islam's more troubling
doctrines, such as jihad, from infidel scrutiny.
Vordermark continues:
Historically the term [jihad] applied to the concept of either a
"greater jihad," or a "lesser jihad." The former denoting the daily
struggle of the believer to overcome "self" in the pursuit of Allah's
will, and the latter traditionally meaning defense of religion, family,
or homeland [emphasis added].
Let's for the time being overlook the hackneyed stress on the so-called
greater-lesser jihad dichotomy — which, semantics and sophistry aside,
does not invalidate the lesser jihad (i.e., armed warfare). The real
problem here is that Vordermark's assertion that the military "jihad" has
been "traditionally" limited to "defensive warfare" is totally false.
Even so, Vordermark is to be excused; he warns us about accepting
definitions of "jihad" from "pundits, academics, and laymen," and surely
his falls into this category. Thus let us dispense once and for all with
infidel-based definitions — including my own — and see what Islam's own
most revered authorities have to say about what "jihad" really
means:
First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly
dependent on the various rulings (ahkam) of the so-called four
schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba'). I am currently
reading an Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw' al-Kitab
wa al-Sunna ("The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna"),
written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely
examining the word "jihad," he concludes that "jihad is when Muslims wage
war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least
pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse."
The book also contains terse summaries of the word "jihad" from each of
the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how
Islam — or in this case, jihad — is articulated: According to the Hanafis,
jihad is "extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one's
life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to
whoever refuses to accept it"; according to the Malikis, jihad is "when a
Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah's word [Sharia] reigns
supreme"; according to the Shafi'is, jihad is "fiercely fighting
infidels"; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is "fighting
infidels." (Note: "infidels," or kuffar, simply means
non-Muslims.)
In short, the "traditional" meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to
spread Islamic hegemony — 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?
While the U.S. government is busy censoring
itself, only the above "legal" definition of jihad provided in
al-Jalil's book carries any weight with Muslims — "radical-moderate"
dichotomies not withstanding. And since that is the case, so too should it
be the only definition that non-Muslims rely on in their formal
analyses — that is, if they are ever permitted to incorporate words like
"jihad" again.
But what is the point of all this equivocation? The government
memo explains:
Never use the terms "jihadist" or "mujahideen" in conversation to
describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive
characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad
means "striving in the path of God" and is used in many contexts beyond
warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad
unintentionally legitimizes their actions [emphasis added].
Aside from the fact that, once again, we are offered a false definition
of jihad — the equivalent of the Christian notion of "just war," which it
is not — the apparently widespread assumption that the words we use can
ever have an impact on what is and isn't legitimate for Muslims and
within an Islamic context is beyond ludicrous.
Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government — that
is, the misguided, the deluded, in a word, the infidel — to define
Islam for them; much less will subtle word games and euphemisms emanating
from the West manage to confer or take away Islamic legitimacy on the
Islamists of the world. For Muslims, only Islamic law, the antithesis of
international law, decides what is or is not legitimate, or in legal
terminology, what is mubah or mahrum.
Furthermore, the U.S. government would do well to worry less about
which words appease Muslims — the memo also warns against "offending,"
"insulting," or being "confrontational" to Muslims — and worry more about
providing its own citizenry with accurate and meaningful terminology.
Words matter. Whom those words are directed at matters even more. The
world's Muslims aren't holding their breath to hear what sort of
Islamic legitimacy the U.S. government is about to confer on any
given Islamist group, since it is not for non-Muslims — the despised
infidels — to decide what is and is not Islamic in the first place.
Americans, on the other hand, who still wonder "why they hate us," are in
desperate need of understanding. Using accurate terminology is the first
step.
Finally, as this article is dedicated to "words," know that there is a
reason that the words "knowledge" and "acknowledge" are
etymologically related: without doing the latter — in this case, without
acknowledging the true nature of the Islamist enemy and his goals — one
can never possess the former: requisite knowledge for victory.
Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror/
Raymond Ibrahim is
the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al
Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and
propaganda.
Related Topics: War on terror Raymond Ibrahim
To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php
You may post or forward this text, but on condition that you send it as an
integral whole, along with complete information about its author, date,
publication, and original URL.
No comments:
Post a Comment