What Does Jihad Mean?

[Vic]

An interesting article from 1997:

http://www.meforum.org/meq/sept97/streusand.shtml

Does jihad mean a form of moral self-improvement or war in accord with Islamic precepts? There is no simple answer to this question, for Muslims for at least a millennium have disagreed about the meaning of jihad. But there is an answer.

[cerulean]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15818-2002Jun8.html

I have just skimmed it, but it looked interesting.

[Mediocrates]

And then I'm reminded what "Cultural Revolution" and the "Great Leap Forward" and "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom" meant in practice to Mao and to the people underthe thumb of the cadres. Uncounted millions ground up in the machine.

[elke]

I don't know why they bother to quibble: how truly different is " . . . fighting against tyranny or oppression" from "armed conflict"? Anyone ever heard of anyone admitting that they are fighting FOR tyranny or oppression? Yet if someone is fighting against it, then it follows that someone else - one's enemy - is fighting for it.

It's beside the point, anyway. While most of the time the meaning of a word determines its use, at some point the use may change and affect the meaning. That's what seems to have happened with "Jihad". When OBL says it, the meaning is unmistakable,-and it ain't "making the world a better place" . Arafat seems to enjoy word games, so he uses it too. IMO, it is HIS responsibility at that point to make sure that his populace understood that he really meant "Tikkun Olam" and not "Jihad". :D

[Vic]

Elke, the Afghans fighting against the Taliban did so according to their religion too. There are many interpretations of Islam, in fact in some of the more liberal surroundings the chaos seems worse than in Judaism: just about every mullah can - in theory - create and preach his own brand of Islam and still be considered a mullah, a fact that greatly hinders communication between "Muslim" immigrant communities and the authorities or other religious institution in the West.

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic
Elke, the Afghans fighting against the Taliban did so according to their religion too. There are many interpretations of Islam, in fact in some of the more liberal surroundings the chaos seems worse than in Judaism: just about every mullah can - in theory - create and preach his own brand of Islam and still be considered a mullah, a fact that greatly hinders communication between "Muslim" immigrant communities and the authorities or other religious institution in the West.

You are right, of course. :) Islam couldn't possibly have survived for as long as it has, and prospered as well as it has at one time, if it was a static, "worst possible religion in the world". What I was trying to say is that it is the communicator's responsibility to communicate in such a way that the audience understands.

[Vic]

That's the problem, of course. You can hardly expect someone like Bin Laden to be honest and admit that he does not speak for the whole Muslim world. Unfortunately many non-Muslims try to oversimplify the issue and take him by his word, which in return is a great help for all kind of terrorists, fundamentalists etc. Many Westerners "award" them the position they only want to occupy. It would be more helpful to get a clear idea of the diversity inside the Muslim world and of the dangers the fundamentalist movements pose to Muslims who do not endorse them - just look at all the wars in the fmr. Soviet Central Asia.

[cerulean]

Karzai seeks Israeli help to combat terrorism

http://www.middleeastwire.com:8080/storypage.jsp?id=12428

ISLAMABAD: In a major development that holds ominous overtones for Pakistan and seeks the attention of foreign policy makers, Afghanistan has formally sought help from Israel for combating terrorism, The News has learnt. The request was put forth by newly elected Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai to Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky on the sidelines of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia held in Almaty, Kazakhstan, a fortnight ago.

"I expect your help, Israel's help, in everything that concerns Afghanistan's struggle against terrorism," Tel Aviv-based Israeli newspaper Vesti quotes Sharansky as telling it in an interview on his return from Kazakhstan, on June 13. President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee were among a host of leaders from Asia to attend the conference on confidence building measures in the Asian continent.

....
=========

Actually it makes a great deal of sense for Afghanistan to request this help.

It is important to a point to figure out all the different streams of Islam and what the various fault lines are. On the other hand, groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah which are Sunni and Shi'ite, respectively, manage to cooperate for the goal of the destruction of Israel. I've also read that in Yemen, which is relatively non-fundamentalist, Sunnis and Shi'ites can and do share mosques with each other (this is a separate issue from any terrorist action).

[Vic]

The main fault line seems to be at this moment Wahhabis against everyone else (notably the Sufis). They are always the more visible ones, apparently because traditional Islam has a rather loose structure, while the modern, aggressive forms of it are tightly organized.

[Mediocrates]

Doesn't a thousand years seem terribly long for a Protestant Reformation? I mean c'mon guys, make up your minds - either you're different or your're the same. If you're different then stop trying to kill each other and if you're the same, go to your rooms until you learn to behave more responsibly to each other.

Honestly, all this eggshell walking and analysis of our analysis of the discussion of someone's critique of our analysis about it. Do I need to know all there is to know of Shinto, Buddism, or the Tao, Zoroasterianism, Ba'hai or the people of the purple comet in order to deal with them. If they go to war with me because I didn't arch my left eyebrow the right way while genuflecting to the east then what's the difference?

Trust me, I can have meaningful discussions with the most serious Lubavitch rabbi or rebbetsin who think I'm probably close to apikorsim (heathen bastard) anyway and they don't lunge over the table and punch me in the face. I can put the most militant Southern Baptist in the same room as a Catholic and the odds are we won't have to declare the contruction of a DMZ and call in some international observers.

But somehow......Walk down the street of your local Sunnitown and mutter something about that 11th Century Shiite mullah who 'probably got it right' and we're picking up nerve gas corpses from the side of the road.

[elke]

What they really need now is a Jonathan Swift and the Battle of the Eggs. :D

[Vic]

Other aspects aside, Mediocrates, what do you have against the recommendation to "know thine enemies"?

[Mediocrates]

Nothing really I just think it's futile. I don't think honesty or truth or accuracy or coherent view or reason or logic or history have much to do with it. I don't really need know WHY they are straight faced pathological liers, merely that they are. I think facts are what you make them and the facts on the ground are so disputed that it's futile to even try to agree what they are.

Whether there were 87,459 Jews living in Palistine in 1945 or 112,345 seems to make a world of difference to some people and they'll fight to death to post and certify one number over the other. Whether Arafat meant what he meant when he said such and such or is a trip to the inner heart that doesn't lead anywhere.

Our Dickensian hairsplitting of Res242 (and the 103 others that takeo typically lists) takes on almost Talmudic distinction but denies the basic undeniable fact that Jews in Israel are imperiled regardless of how many the EU is willing to sacrifice before they will acknowledge it. There are no facts and why that is the case takes on less and less significance because actions matter, results matter.

In normal life when one negotiates something it's not that important if your opposite is telling the truth or if you know they are or not. What is important is that there is some recourse in the case where somebody tries to screw you or back out. It doens't matter whether the person you sold your house to even has the money (more or less) as long as there is a way for you to recover damages or back out of the deal or do something to protect yourself.

Same here - what does jihad mean? How is that important? What does any slogan mean, what does any advertising message mean. The words are not important only the utterance of them is.

Does it mean 'struggle'
http://tariq.bitshop.com/simplyIslam/jihad.htm
or this one which is quite different
http://utut.essortment.com/whatisjihad_rerr.htm
or this one
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jihad.html

...And we leave the other term which I forget as the one that refers to armed fighting? What's the difference what the name is?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

Our Dickensian hairsplitting of Res242 (and the 103 others that takeo typically lists) takes on almost Talmudic distinction but denies the basic undeniable fact that Jews in Israel are imperiled regardless of how many the EU is willing to sacrifice before they will acknowledge it. There are no facts and why that is the case takes on less and less significance because actions matter, results matter.



Lord Caradon of the UK sponsored UN Resolution 242 since he is the author one must accept his interpretation of its meaning. I think that he made it quite CLEAR what exactly he had in mind below. If one study Oslo II it becomes quite clear that the Palestinians signed documents that in effect made UN 242 moot.

The only argument that I can see coming out of UN 242 is that Israel refuses to negotiate in good faith. I don’t believe that’s the case.

The clarification below brings one question to my mind, which is:

Who should decide where the secure defensible border should be? Israel or the Arabs?

The only logical answer is Israel!





Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
Even before the beginning of the Jarring Mission (the Special Representative as mentioned in the Resolution), the Arab States insisted that Security Council Resolution 242 called for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the Six-Day War. Israel held that the withdrawal phrase in the Resolution was not meant to refer to a total withdrawal. Following are statements including the interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242:
A. United Kingdom
- Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:
" . . . the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. TO add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)
- Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:
Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"
Answer: "the purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "
- Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:
Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"
Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."
- Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:
"As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."
- Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:
"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)
B. United States of America
- Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:
"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description ... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is . . . " (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)
- President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968:
"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbours involved."
- Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):
"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."
- Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
a) " ... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbours 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)
C. USSR
- Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:
" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)
D. Brazil
- Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:
"We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States." (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67)
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cyv0

[L@mplighterM]

Sorry for the loooooong post.