One of the dangers of A Certain Past Republican Contender for the Nomination of Presidential Candidate, which to me was the worst of his offenses, was isolationism.
“Isolationism” means that a state refrains from involving itself in the affairs of other states. The opposite is called “interventionism”, which means that a state gets involved in the affairs of other states. Often, isolationism involves a foreign policy which distances the state from other states, while an interventionist foreign policy means coming close to other states (which means interacting with them, not necessarily making them do our will or controlling them or invading them). Read the rest of this entry »
I was going to hold off on going off on Obama but I am increasingly becoming irked if not extremely displeased.
A few days ago, I saw a bumper sticker on a car that said “Got Hope?” I thought to my self, “Now that’s a clever Christian bumper sticker.” Slowly, though, from the car’s other bumper stickers, horror began to dawn on me. I felt the Spirit rushing away as I realized what the bumper sticker referred to.
It referred to Obama.
That was the last straw. How can a man be so successful whose campaign is practically a large parade of iniquity, false witness, falsehoods, and now blasphemy?
I have heard Obama speak. As I mentioned to my father, his rhetoric reminds me of other rhetoricians, like Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini. All based on stirring emotions, to lead the proles forward in obeying the Glorious Word of the Leader. But does words have any substance? He’s nothing but sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.
Change and hope. Hope and change. What about them? How will he implement them? It’s just words he uses to whip up a frenzy. Mindless, zombie-like frenzy.
No one has become so enamored with and enthralled (in the latter case, a good word to describe this phenomenon) by Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or John Kerry or Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. We see this enthrallment to some degree among some Paulbots and fewer Huckabites, but nothing compared to the ridiculous adulation poured out on Obama. Honestly, it’s almost like they’re hailing a god incarnate. What is he, the Hidden Imam? Jesus Christ returned to Earth? Maitreya? All we need now is for some Jews to come out and proclaim him to be the Messiah. Der schwarze Moshiach, nu? We’ll probably discover he’s a Goa’uld System Lord.
There are many black Americans who would make good presidential candidates, even if I may not agree with their politics. If Obama is the best we can do, we’re in serious trouble.
As a person who studies religions, the almost religious frenzy and adulation towards Obama is very, very concerning. I can see it very well. I’m surprised that others haven’t caught on. This is a matter of grave spiritual and national concern.
As election times comes closer, you will see this blog become more political. Once the lines are drawn, I want people to be more aware of what’s at stake. I want to put this race in greater context.
Major Stephen Coughlin, employed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was recently fired under pressure from Islamists, most alarmingly the ring-leading Islamist (Hisham Islam) working in the Department of Defense. They opposed his exposé of the rôle of Islamic law (shari’ah) in jihad. Declaiming him to be an extremist and whatnot, endangering the military’s efforts to build bridges with the Muslim community.
(I learned about this from Lady Vorzheva’s blog Spanish Pundit in her post “Terrorismo islámico (III): continuación del caso Stephen Coughlin, el experto anti-terrorista despedido del Pentágono por “islamófobo”” which means “Islamic Terrorism (III): continuation of the case [of] Stephen Coughlin, the anti-terrorism expert fired by the Pentagon for “Islamophobia””. I was a little but surprised I had not heard of this before.) Read the rest of this entry »
“Islamophobia” refers to what some people believe to be bigotry and intolerance towards Islam due to fear, hatred, and ignorance of Islam. It is often used against those who speak or write against aspects of Islam, such as Islamism, or who otherwise do not respect Islam as Muslims want them to.
Literally, “Islamophobia” means “fear of Islam” but is used like “homophobia” to refer to what they see as an ignorant, bigoted hatred for Islam. (This is somewhat interesting as many of the people who accuse others of Islamophobia could themselves be accused of homophobia.) Read the rest of this entry »
There is a difference between understanding Islam and Muslims’ grievances and being aware of them.
We have no obligation to understand Islam and/or Muslims’ grievances. We would be morally behooved to do so were Muslims to try to understand us, but barring that it is utterly ridiculous to assert that we unilaterally (or, rather, unreciprocatedly) try to understand them. Read the rest of this entry »
A commenter (a moonbat, I believe) invoked Occam’s Razor in attempting to debunk the official line regarding who was behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.
This invocation of Occam’s Razor was utterly ridiculous as it is manifestly plain that any alternative explanation regarding who was behind those attacks, stretches our limits of credulity.
Perhaps it is quite easy to assign blame, and for some the choice of culprit makes rational sense, but they get stuck in trying to explain or determine how the culprit did it. If the US government, Jews, Freemasons, Crusaders, neo-cons, CIA, Mossad, or whatnot did it, how did it/they do it? Occam’s Razor is not a friend to such attempts.
On the other hand, the manifest reality that we know regarding those responsible for those attacks, which the official line states, makes sense and is practicable. In other words, it is easy to see who did it and how. (Indeed, this is so easy that it makes us shameful that the terrorists were able to succeed.)
To bring religion into this: such people remind me of Satan, the master of lies, who hides truths amongst falsehoods and falsehoods among truths, claiming both to truths and making it hard to tell the truths from the falsehoods. And so like the Father of Lies, the “Truthers” mingle fact and fiction, sometimes in an utterly shameful manner.
But like the Father of Lies, these people are not interested in truth or reality: all they want to do is convert others to their paradigms, memes, and agendas, regardless of what truth or reality may be. Indeed, because truth and reality endanger their agendas, they stubbornly refuse to accept truth or reality.
There is no use debating these people, although those who may be influenced by such nutters should be shown the reality lest they be led astray by the cunning wiles of the Deceptors.
Many people expect and hope for a better world. Such a world is characterized by peace, tranquility, harmony, coöperation, and so on.
But the way things are going, the world is getting worse: more violent, more unsafe, more unsecure, more ruthless. Evil is gaining strength while the good are being perverted by the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures. And even what constitutes scripture (sacred writings that dictate a people’s values and beliefs) is changing, to where Moses is reviled and Chomsky is hailed. What serves man’s baser instincts is lauded while those that challenge them are pooh-poohed. Read the rest of this entry »
(I apologize for such a vulgar title.)
The King of Spain, Juan Carlos I, became involved in a very public and unprecedented spat with Venezuelan loose cannon and tyrant, Hugo Chávez. At the Ibero-American Summit, Chávez called (José María) Aznar, the former president of Spain, a fascist, and said that a fascist is less than human. The current president of Spain, José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero, intervened in Aznar’s support, saying Aznar was legitimately elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate leader of Spain. But Chávez would not stop interrupting Zapatero. After the King said something to Chávez, gesturing in his direction and visibly agitated, the King leaned towards the microphone in front of him and said, “Why don’t you just shut up?” (“¿Por qué no te callas?”; note the second person familiar, which in this case is an indication of rudeness). A short while later, the King got up and left the room. He returned, but then left before the Chilean national anthem that closed the summit.
Bravo, Don Juan Carlos!
Soon: URLs to videos of the spat.
Poco después Al Gore, el laureado apóstol del Apocalipsis, volvió a sembrar el pánico por 200.000 euros la sesión.
Soon thereafter Al Gore, the [Nobel] Laureate Apostle of the Apocalypse, returned to spread the panic for 200,000 Euros per session.
(As of 1:04 UTC on October 23, 2007, €200,000 (two hundred thousand Euros) is equal to about $283,781 (two hundred eighty-three thousand seven hundred and eighty-one US dollars.)
I had a coworker who had accepted Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code as gospel truth. This astonishes me to no end. But there you have it: some people are just that impressionable and stupid.
The heresies and lies of Dan Brown, especially as expressed in his magnum opus, The Da Vinci Code, have been refuted and exposed millennia ago. That is: thousands of years ago! But, again and again, they rise up, grip the minds and imaginations and follies of men, and lead them astray down dark paths of lies and untruths.
I find it especially frustrating because when these heresies and lies rise up, as they are periodically wont to do, they are considered to be new, to be rediscovered truths, to be an expose of established authorities (and, particularly, of the demonic or diabolical or evil foundations thereof). I believe I can tell how early Church leaders must have felt.
Anyone who has studied religion, and particularly Christianity, would recognize the recycled Gnostic claptrap that Brown parades around as fact. Whether today or a few centuries after the ascension of our Lord, no one with any serious background in Christianity takes the Gnostics seriously. They simply mixed in pre-Christian mysticism and myths with Christianity and added to it a dash of “exposing” the “real” origins and purposes of the authorities. But the whole Gnostic edifice was built on heresies and lies and even deliberate misinformation.
And it also astonishes me how, in the same line of thought and tendencies, people will grasp onto spurious texts, holding them to be more true than the commonly-accepted texts of the Gospel. They claim we support our texts because they support our agendas and purposes and desires and vain imaginings and plots, all the while evidently oblivious to the fact that this is precisely why they accept, support, or believe in the spurious texts they uphold. Indeed, we accept the traditional (and authoritative) canon of the Gospel because it has been taught to us as the truth, because we received it as authoritative and as true by those to whom the preservation of authority and truth has been entrusted by God Himself. I, for one, am not going to jump onto the bandwagon of some Sacred Feminine-embracing crackpot neo-Gnostic heretic.
What amuses me (or, rather, would amuse me were it not tragic at the same time) is that these heretics accuse the established authorities of what they do themselves. They accuse the established authorities of claiming a monopoly on truth, which is precisely what Gnosticism is about: they have the knowledge (“gnosis”) of the real truth, knowledge of which will lead one to salvation, ignorance of which will doom one to loss. They are, in this respect, no better than those whom they oppose. They also accuse the established authorities of hiding or suppressing the truth, while at the same time Gnostics quite gleefully hide the truth from the ignorant masses, taking delight in their superiority and in their status as the saved elite. They look down on the “sheeple”.
As I mentioned, the Gnostic heresies, with what contemporary modifications, reappear periodically. The only reason this resurgence has been as widespread as it has been has been because of groundwork the New Age movement established for the reception of such ideas. (Many ideas, practices, and teachings of the New Age movement(s) are themselves part of regularly recurring elements in the fringe of established religion.) The other reason has to do with the highly entertaining, gripping, and convincing setting in which one can find them through Dan Brown’s work.
He must be so proud of himself, a firebrand prophet against the millennia-old Gospel of Jesus Christ, when all he is, is a talented hack. I bet even serious Gnostics may be a little annoyed how no one listened to them but now, all of a sudden, are listening to the words of some fiction-writer.
Which reminds me of another fiction-writer (specifically, science fiction) who, on a bet or dare, created a psychiatric quasi-religious treatment method which is taken quite seriously by many.
Point the First:
The central problem of the democracy in Iraq is Islam. Islam has always had a political and social character, including a full program for government. In fact, the first year of the Islamic calendar does not mark the birth of dead of Muhammad, of the beginning of his prophetic ministry. It marks Muhammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina, where he became a political and military leader and Islam became a state.
(Robert Spencer. Religion of Peace? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 165.)
This is most forcefully demonstrated by the fact that after Muhammad’s flight, Muhammad revelations take on a vastly more political tone (almost to the point of legal minutiae) and a much more intolerant tone (as, being the indisputed leader, he no longer had to tolerate or appease anyone).
Point the Second:
And of course there is no shortage of people who insist that Islam not only does not forbid, but in fact also actively fosters democracy. Abdulwahab Alkebsi of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, for instance, has declared that the essentials of democracy are “consistent with Islam’s clarion call for justice, equality, and human dignity. . . . According to the Qur’an, one of the explicit purposes of God’s messengers is to offer mankind liberty, justice, and equality.” Islam, he said, “lays the ground for the values of freedom, justice, and equality that are essential to democracy, more so than any other religion or dogma.” [Reference omitted.]
Not only as much as any other religion or dogma, but more so. Can this really be true? Iranian journalist Amir Taheri thinks not. Arguing in favor of the proposition that Islam is incompatible with democracy during a debate in 2004, he directly contradicted the assertions D’Souza would make three years later: “There are fifty-seven nations in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Not one is yet a democracy. The more Islamic the regime in place the less democratic it is.” He concluded, “Islam is incompatible with democracy.” [Reference omitted]
(Robert Spencer. Religion of Peace? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 166.)
Subpoint the First, explaining Spencer’s reference to D’Souza:
So can Islamic countries be democratic? Some commentators think so. Dinesh D’Souza scolded conservatives in 2007 for “holding silly seminars on whether Islam is compatible with democracy. In reality, a majority of the world’s Muslims today live under democratic governments–in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Turkey, not to mention Muslims living in Western countries. There is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic tradition that forbids democracy.” [Reference omitted.]
(Robert Spencer. Religion of Peace? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 166.)
I am glad Spencer called D’Souza out. I am still absolutely confused why D’Souza would turn on us and support our enemies.
Point the Third:
The fundamental problem, according to Taheri, is Islam’s rejection of the idea that all people have equal dignity, a Christian idea that was central to abolishing slavery. But in Islam, it’s a very different story. The very idea of equality, Taheri declared, “is unacceptable to Islam.”
(Robert Spencer. Religion of Peace? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 166.)
Allow me to share an anecdote. Read the rest of this entry »
I have always wondered: why all the hue and cry to get our troops out of Iraq?
Why not focus on Japan and Germany first? Korea? The last I knew, the Second World War ended quite some time ago. Perhaps our leaders forgot to bring them back, eh?
Maybe our most valiant patriots want to withdraw our troops from harm’s way.
Silly me. I missed the memo which stated that our troops are only to be posted where they will not be shot at.
All that armor and weapons must be for show. Shock and awe and all that, eh?
Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan “has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public.” He mentioned Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama by name as an example of someone who made such comments, saying his recent remarks were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.
(From “Pakistan may declare state of emergency” by Matthew Pennington of AP.)
As if one needs any more reason to oppose Obama. His remark was most irresponsible. It has provoked outrage, and for good reason.
I have no problem with unilateral action against or in Pakistan if the target warrants such. But a public statement explicitly stating such is entirely unacceptable. Doing so harms the interests of The United States. Doing so was a stupid, stupid thing to do. If anyone is truly aware of the delicate situation in Pakistan, one would know how disastrous such a statement could be.
Obama’s statement has brought even more public opposition to Pakistan’s cooperation with America in World War III, cooperation that could only be sustained because Musharraf acts because of his monopoly of force and not democratic legitimacy.
And to think that Pakistanis are rabidly pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. The Republican Party has always been the best one for Pakistan and Pakistanis. I hope Pakistan realizes this, and I hope American Pakistanis realize this next year when they have to help us elect a new president.
Funny, isn’t it, the various ways Democrats undermine American national interests.
Want to know just how insane (and insanely anti-American) some Pakistanis are?
There was a drive to administer polio vaccine to children in Pakistan. One of the regions to which health workers went was Bajaur, a district in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which has been a significant problem for Pakistan because of its support for Islamist militancy and Islamist militants.
The polio drive was recently canceled after health workers were attacked by villagers. The villagers threatened to kill them if they returned. Villagers, tribal elders, and religious leaders all condemned and refused the polio drive, claiming that the polio vaccine was a Western (that is, American) conspiracy to sterilize the region’s people as a way to destroy Islam.
Really, parodying these people cannot come close to how ridiculous the truth is.
Now, in discussions regarding Israel and its borders, people will have no choice but to bring up a thorny issue: the Territories. This refers to what Israel calls “Judea and Samaria”, what is known more commonly as “The West Bank” (that is, area on and around the west bank of the River Jordan), and what many Muslims and others sympathetic to the Arab claimants thereof call the “Occupied Territories” (that is, the (Arab) territories occupied by Israel as a consequence of the Six Day War in 1967). Some mistakenly may call it “Palestine”. (See note 1 below.) Others use “the Territories” to include the Golan Heights in the north and the Gaza Strip on the west; hereinafter “The Territory” will refer solely to the Territories of Judea and Samaria. Although theories and ideas have been floated to the effect that The State of Israel should or would withdraw from The Territory, in effect an uneasy division has taken place wherein The State of Israel maintains control and hold over Israeli settlements, upon key resources, and upon roads and the like, while the Palestinian National Authority maintains control and hold over Palestinian enclaves, which are necessarily separate from Israeli enclaves (in some cases, physically so). Often, the Israeli enclaves (called “settlements”) are considered a major obstacle in any peace process by which Palestinians are granted exclusive control over The Territory. The existence and spread of these enclaves necessitate The State of Israel to maintain a large amount of oversight and control and influence over the entire Territory. The only solution — so it is said — whereby The State of Israel would be able to fully withdraw and grant sovereignty to the Palestinians over the entire Territory is the dismantling of these enclaves and the total withdrawal of all Israeli entities or interests from The Territory. But this oversimplifies the actual reality of the situation: Israeli enclaves do not constitute the sole reason The State of Israel retains a vested interest in The Territory. There are two other reasons why The State of Israel ought to retain control and influence over The Territory: resources and the anti-Israeli plank of the Palestinian platform. Read the rest of this entry »
The title for the new video by az-Zawahiri (which features bin Ladin): “Bush, the Catholic Pope, and Darfur: The Crusader’s Wars” (emphasis added).
Yes, we wouldn’t want to blame the Presbyterian Pope, now would we?
The whole deal with Farfour the Mickey Mouse look-alike and now Nahoul the Bee (Türkçe’de: Farfur Sıçanı ve Nahul Bal Arısı) may demonstrate some reasons why I have little pity or compassion for many Palestinians.
Such hatred — being taught to children, no less! — is simply unacceptable and is quite vile.
Such characters — or, rather, the tendency to use such characters to teach hatred to Arab children — also demonstrate some reasons why there will never be peace in that region: every generation is raised to hate (for example: the Arabs) or fear (for example: the Israelis).
If there is any vicious cycle, here it is. And the fault lies squarely on the Arabs: if they did not teach so much hatred, they would be able to co-exist with the Israelis.
So don’t shove that “co-exist” dreck down my throat: convince the spontaneously explosive Arabs first.
The recent operation of the Pakistani military government against the Red Mosque (لال مسجد, lāl masjid; Türkçe’de: Kızıl Cami) was a fantastic move. Although there were a lot of deaths — some of which was due to the military’s restraint — the fact remains that one den of terrorists has been flushed. And this den in heart of the capital of Pakistan, to boot.
What annoys me is the utter stupidity and idiocy of a variety of Pakistani entities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan condemned the campaign; the Pakistan Bar Council has called for an investigation; a key opposition leader has announced he will resign in protest; the expected riots and protests have swept through Pakistan.
Can someone explain to me how anyone can be opposed to the destruction of a den of terrorists? I am shocked that anyone would be so stupid as to support the Red Mosque and/or its militants and leaders.
The opposition leader — Qazi Hussain Ahmed (قاضى حسين احمد, qāzī husseyn ahmed; Türkçe’de: Kazi Hüseyn Ahmet), head of the Muttahida Majlis-e Amal (متحده مجلس عمل, muttahidah majlis-e amal; Türkçe’de: Müttahida Meclisi Amal veya Hareket Birleşik Meclisi), the pan-Islamist party — said he will resign during the next session of Parliament in protest of the military government’s actions against the Red Mosque. I say: Good riddance! Frankly, I think the entire MMA should be banned and its members arrested for disturbing the peace. Each and every one of these men have been responsible for fanning the flames of radicalism and militancy in Pakistan, which is a threat to Pakistan’s stability and security. Of course, they see their actions as part of a campaign to purify Pakistan of infidel influences. Well, someone should tell them that Zia-ul-Haqq (Türkçe’de: Ziaül Hak, Pakistan İslam Cumhuriyeti’n önceki cumhurbaşkanı) has been dead for a long time now, so the era of an Islamist Pakistan is over!
The usual players will undoubtedly come out and exploit this opportunity to erode the people’s support for Musharraf (Türkçe’de: Pervez Müşerref, Pakistan İslam Cumhuriyeti’n cumhurbaşkanı), playing along the usual like that Musharraf is the West’s faithful dog, doing its bidding, attacking innocent worshipers and students out of bloodlust.
See, the people are so blinded by Islamist propaganda and conspiracy theories that they have no idea what the actual situation is in Pakistan. I find it sad that we in The United States have a clearer picture of what is going on in Pakistan than those in Pakistan itself. All the time Islamist entities accuse the military government of planting evidence against them — such as ammunition and bombs and missiles and the like — in an attempt to eradicate “true Muslims”, which the West is trying to do. There is no Usama bin Ladin, nor did he ever exist. He’s a puppet created by the evil West. There is no Islamist terrorism: it’s all acts by the West to frame Muslims so the West can kill them. Or, if a Muslim were involved, he or she was undoubtedly paid by the West (or by Jews or by Israelis or by Zionists or by imperialists or by Christians or by Crusaders or by Freemasons…the list can go on and on and on) to do it so that Muslims can be framed.
Honestly, Pakistan is full of idiots.
The only way to save Pakistan from terrorism is to stamp it out. Every terrorist enclave should be flushed out. Close all the madrassas. Ban weapons in mosques and other places of worship. Ban the use of sermons to inflame hatred, extremism, or radicalism. Shut down their training camps, their publishing houses, their video production and distribution facilities, their ammunition depots. Ban all forms of terrorism and radicalism, and enforce this ban vigorously. Arrest and execute all clerics who defy this ban. Arrest and execute all politicians who defy this ban.
These militants are trained not to surrender. Expect major casualties. But then fight smart. Don’t shoot them: flatten them. Raze their buildings; fire missiles and rockets at their establishments.
This may sound drastic, but such is the situation. It’s quite dire, and I remain pessimistic. Even though the military might have the resolve and even though Musharraf may have his military’s support, the people — especially the opposition politicians and the militants and the Islamists — will not permit such a campaign to succeed. The people prefer to not see the threat right before them. And there is nothing we can do to make them see.
One good thing from the recent campaign is that an agreement may be effectuated between Pakistan and The United States’ Armed Services for the latter to go and destroy terrorist enclaves across the border in Pakistan. It will be unofficial of course, but we have the capability to strike at the terrorists in the northwest region of Pakistan; Pakistan’s military does not have the capability.
P.S. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you have the utmost
faith that He is opposed to Bush and Cheney and their path of deceit and
destruction, then why didn’t He prevent them from gaining power in the
— Stephen Spruiell, “More Rosie”, media blog, National Review Online; thanks to “Stephen Spruiell has fun with a Truther” by HayZeus of HayZeus, Inc. (Do read all of Mr. Spruiell’s post. It’s quite good!)
Mwahaha. Mwahahahaha. Mwahahahahahahahahahaha!
The problem with attributing events to the Will of God is that such attribution can be turned around. For example, many are wont to say that the attack against The United States on September 11, 2001, was (Heaven forfend!) the Will of God. Then it would follow that the destruction of the Taliban–al-Qa’idah regime in Afghanistan, the deaths of thousands of terrorists, the incarceration and (supposed and alleged) violations against them at Camp X-Ray, the fall of Saddam Hussein, the destruction of his regime, the death of his sons, and even the slaughter of Lebanese in response to Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel — all of these were also the Will of God.
And so if it is the Will of God that so much suffering be inflicted on these Muslim peoples, what does it say about how these Muslim peoples are viewed by God? Let us take into consideration as well the decline of Muslim peoples, their poverty and backwardness, and their utter inability to do anything — this also has to be the Will of God, if He is as omnipotent as they say He is. So, what then?
The rational conclusion is inescapable.
P.S. to the Muslim peoples: We, the chosen and favored of God (just look at all the evidence in support of the claim!), are celebrating the resurrection of your new savior this Sunday, April 8. Join us!
Whenever someone reads about jihad, one will invariably come across an explanation that includes a differentiation between the greater and lesser jihads.
Basically, this interpretation is based on some saying of some prominent person (and who exactly said it varies according to account) who, upon returning from a war or campaign, remarked that he was returning from the lesser jihad (that is, armed jihad; in Arabic: الجهاد الأصغر, al-jihād al-aSghar) to the greater jihad (that is, spiritual refinement; in Arabic: الجهاد الأكبر, al-jihād al-akbar). Another way to characterize this is to refer to “jihad with the sword” (جهاد بالسيف, jihād bi-s-sayf) and “jihad with the self” (جهاد بالنفس, jihād bi-n-nafs). However, we are presented with a linguistic dilemma. The particle prefix (ب, bi-) can here function as a possessive qualifier, that is: a jihad belonging to the sword or a jihad belonging to the self, or to indicate instrumentality, that is: a jihad fought by using a sword or a jihad fought by using one’s self. Considering both involve the offering of one’s self for the sake of Islam, they are practically synonymous in referring to jihad that is warfare.
In a similar manner, practically every phrase, term, title, or permutation using the word “jihad” can be and is taken to refer to jihad that is warfare. In other words, as far as Islam’s centuries-old literature is concerned, “jihad” refers to offensive warfare for Islam’s sake, even though it may take a number of forms. All of this “lesser jihad” and “greater jihad” and “non-violent jihad” is all nonsense.
Two major points:
- There is no authentic or reliable source for the quote that is used to create this concept of jihad being external and internal. Its authenticity is disputed. Plus, there are far more sayings and quotes that state the exact opposite of the quote in question. One simple example, by Muhammad himself, is that “the gates of Heaven are under the shadow of swords.”
- The literature of Islam pertaining to jihad focuses on jihad as warfare. Sufi manuals and books, and those influenced by the same, may talk about jihad as internal warfare, but this is an innovation and unattested to in the normative or orthodox literature of Islam, including and especially those dealing with Islamic law and practice.
Therefore, let anyone who claims that jihad can be non-offensive (that is, taking a form that does not affect those other than oneself) be aware that one is wrong. Although the jihad to establish Islamism can take non-violent forms (such as propaganda, supplying the fighters, et cetera), no form of jihad (or, at least, no legitimate form of jihad) exists that concerns solely the self. All forms of jihad have the aim to reform and change and conquer those around one.