(This is a feedback to the article The
Meaning of Jihad)
That was an excellect piece on Jihad. You are no doubt correct in your
definition and understanding of Jihad in my humble opinion. I think its
the perception of Jihad that is confused in the West. But with regards to
the Jihad of the Pen and such peaceful ways of making Jihad, I think those
are also very valid points.
It gets confusing because too many Muslims use Jihad as a rallying cry
for what is really Nationalism or Patriotism, and that is wrong in my
opinion. For example, when the Iranians took hostages to oust the US in
1979, I could see how that made sense. It was violent but out of necessity
to stop a percieved western cultural threat. But when Palestinians murder
innocent people (and don't get me wrong, I support Palestinian freedom of
self-determination) that is totally wrong even though it may be effective.
But I think it gets confusing when Jihad is used anytime as a rallying
cry to defend a nation. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I am
saying it is confusing. For example, if a country perceives itself as
being under attack is it Jihad to go to war? Or is it just the
political unit, the country defending itself, even though the major
constituents may be Muslims. I think it is justifiable for a country to
defend itself but I'm not sure if it is Jihad or not. Islam should not
be interested in political boundaries because Muslims can live in
any country, but then again it may make things easier for Muslims to
dominate their own country.
I'm sure the scholars are not confused. I'm sure they would say if a
Muslim country is attacked then it is Jihad for everyone to go to war,
and maybe even do a pre-emptive strike on a country preparing to go to
war. Still this reeks of Islam being played on as a political tool and
it is very distasteful to me. It seems more appropriate to me to
separate political conquest and defense of one's right to practice
their religion. To be honest, some of the ideas I may have about
science for example and religion as metaphor may get me stoned in
Pakistan for being "heretical" even though I consider myself very much
Muslim in practice and belief. But here in the US I do not face this
problem. Then who should I wage Jihad against? I would wage it in
Pakistan against my Muslim brothers if they attacked me for my beliefs.
Now that is an exagerated hypothetical situation that I'm sure would
never occur, but still my point is clear. There are Sufis and Shiites
being ostracized in Muslim countries today. May be Sufis or Shiites are
wrong or mislead or maybe not, but they are still Muslims following their
own beliefs and are entitled to protect themselves. I think they are
more entitled to Jihad than someone defending any political entity, but
that is just how I see it.
As for Jihad of the pen, it makes sense because it is something we can
all take part in and change perceptions from the inside. The "pen" means
to write convincing arguments to make people understand your struggle.
It works very slowly but eventually it works. I went to Jummah at
Islamic Center once and the Saudi Imam basically gave the khutba (lecture)
on exactly that: Jihad and how we can participate by writing to the
congressmen, supporting CAIR and lobby groups and writing articles.
These methods go so much further than picking up a gun and going to
Kashmir to die.
- Smith, 24 September 2002
Letters, questions, or views should be sent to editor@welcome-back.org or
to mushfiqurrahman@hotmail.com.
Unless otherwise notified by the sender, the piece sent may be published in this
column with any answer if appropriate and after any editing for clarity,
brevity, and grammer. Only last name or the first name of the sender will be used (to hide his/her identity) if the
piece is published, unless
the sender wishes to publish his or her full name/email address.
Articles and letters published may not necessarily represent the views of Welcome-Back.org or its affiliations.
Copyright (c) 2000-02 by Welcome-Back.org. All rights reserved.