The Islamic State

[Shiranu]

This war has started 622 CE, and it is not going to end any time soon.
It is called jihad, or holy war. 

You say you have lived in the Middle East, and yet you don't even know what jihad (more specifically, lesser jihad) even means or translates to. That's kinda sad.

[pr126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myMz9QUagrA

[SGOS]

I have heard this too.  Claims are made that Jihad has two meanings, and as in English, I don't see why that should present a problem.  When bi-Laden called for Jihad, he was clearly taking about physical warfare.  When I hear that it means only a"spiritual struggle" well I can understand that in terms of the Koran, too.  For by physically eradicating all infidels from the Earth, Islam can establish peace (of course only in the imagination) through a mind controlled ideology compelled by Islamic thought police and executions, a spiritual struggle then exists that achieves peace with violence.  When I hear jihad only means "spiritual struggle," it sounds suspiciously like Christian apologetics when Christians account for the absurd claim that Biblical ancients lived for hundreds of years, specifically that a year in the Bible doesn't mean 365 days.  Sometimes fiddling with definitions makes a incoherent truth more acceptable and wipes away bothersome cognitive dissonance.  "Spiritual struggle" sounds sweeter and more well intentioned than "murdering infidels." so I can understand why it's preferred by some Muslims.

But what is the true meaning of the word?  And what difference does it make?  The argument is semantic in nature, and doesn't change the nature of Islam.

[josephpalazzo]

I have heard this too.  Claims are made that Jihad has two meanings, and as in English, I don't see why that should present a problem.  When bi-Laden called for Jihad, he was clearly taking about physical warfare.  When I hear that it means only a"spiritual struggle" well I can understand that in terms of the Koran, too.  For by physically eradicating all infidels from the Earth, Islam can establish peace (of course only in the imagination) through a mind controlled ideology compelled by Islamic thought police and executions, a spiritual struggle then exists that achieves peace with violence.  When I hear jihad only means "spiritual struggle," it sounds suspiciously like Christian apologetics when Christians account for the absurd claim that Biblical ancients lived for hundreds of years, specifically that a year in the Bible doesn't mean 365 days.  Sometimes fiddling with definitions makes a incoherent truth more acceptable and wipes away bothersome cognitive dissonance.  "Spiritual struggle" sounds sweeter and more well intentioned than "murdering infidels." so I can understand why it's preferred by some Muslims.

But what is the true meaning of the word?  And what difference does it make?  The argument is semantic in nature, and doesn't change the nature of Islam.

Even Muslim scholars don't agree of its meaning: between an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam. Regardless as you point out, it leaves for those who can carry the agenda to say whatever, and that makes it dangerous.

[Baruch]

Educated folk, Muslim or otherwise ... are of course in a better place with any problem compared to the uneducated.  Certainly there are no holds barred here ;-)  Like most folks who post here ... I am not a supporter of theocracy or holy war ... but because I don't support autocracy or advocate offensive war.  I think those are better reasons to oppose than just atheism or anti-insert-ethnic-group-here ... there are perfectly good theistic or multicultural reasons to oppose.  Also I am cautious of opposing something out of nationalism ... since that has caused so much damage in the past ... though I am not a one-world supporter either, I support diversity in politics and pretty much anything else.  So no, just because I don't get up a counter-hate ... doesn't mean I am an apologist for Islam.  I am not in favor of Sharia or any other religious system of law in m own place, and I don't want ISIS-like politics in my own place.  But on the other hand, Western interventionism doesn't seem to be working either.

[SGOS]

But on the other hand, Western interventionism doesn't seem to be working either.

The idea that we were going to make Iraq a shinning beacon of democracy that would illuminate a path that other Arab countries would not hesitate to follow turned out to be kind of a short sighted flop.  And this was headed up by New American Century (the neocons), which has been described, even by centerists, as a conservative think tank of intellectuals.  These were the people leading our country.  So much for elite insight into foreign affairs.

[Baruch]

Most people can't tell fools gold from the real thing.  But gold miners can.  But it takes real work to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Just being an intellectual ... isn't a guarantee of pragmatism, maybe even a contrary indicator.  The idea of sending the children of the rich, to noble but impractical schooling, does no better in the US than it does in England.  Winston Churchill if he ever learned anything, learned it in the field of practice, not in the halls of theory.