Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad
Submitted by Dr. Walid Phares on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 09:47
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionBy Dr. Walid Phares
(This article was published in "American Thinker" on July 17, 2007)
In the years that followed 9/11, two phenomena characterized the Western public's understanding of the terrorists' ideology. The first characteristic stemmed from the statements made by the jihadists themselves. More than ever, Islamist militants and jihadi cadres didn't waste any opportunity to declare, clarify, explain, and detail the meaning of their aqida (doctrine) and their intentions to apply Jihadism by all means possible. Unfortunately for them, though, those extremely violent means changed the international public opinion: the public now was convinced that there was an ideology of Jihadism, and that its adherents meant business worldwide.
From Ayman al Zawahiri in Arabic to Azzam al Amriki in American English, via all of the videotapes made by "martyrs" in Britain, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public obtained all the evidence necessary. Against all the faulty academic literature of the 1990's, the statements by the jihadists themselves were very convincing.
The second phenomenon of help to the public was the surfacing of a new literature produced by alternative scholars, analysts, journalists, experts, and researchers who, from different backgrounds and countries, filled in some of the gaps is "jihadi studies." Producing books, articles, and blogs from Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America, a combination of Third World-born and Western-issued scholarship began to provide the "missing link" as to what Jihadism is all about. These factors came together to shift the debate from "Jihad is spiritual yoga" to "Why didn't we know it was something else as well?" And this triggered in response one of the last attempts to prevent jihad from being understood.
In the 1990's, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that jihad was a "spiritual experience only, and not a menace." [1] That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the "good cop, bad cop" strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality jihad can develop in two forms: good jihad and bad jihad.
The practice of not using "Jihad" and "Jihadism" was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University [2] who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard.[3] On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title "Loosly Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology." Streusand told CNN that "Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith." [4] The article was posted under the title "Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms" by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR.[5] Since then the "concept" of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of the defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that "Jihad has been hijacked" as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard's lobbying pieces.[6] Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.
The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the "real" Muslim leadership. According to this thesis, those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers." The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that "jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense."[7]
When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood as a plan to prevent jihad and Jihadism from being considered by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore forbidden activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy and plunges democracies back into the "black hole" of the 1990's. This last attempt to blur the vision of democracies can be exposed with knowledge of the jihadi terror strategies and tactics, one of which is known as Taqiya, the doctrine on deception and deflection.[8]
First, the argument of "good jihad" raises the question of how there can be a legitimate concept of religious war in the twenty-first century to start with. Jihad historically was as "good" as any other religious war over the last 2,000 years. If a "good jihad" is the one authorized by a caliph and directed under his auspices, then other world leaders also can wage a "good crusade" at will, as long as it is licensed by the proper authority. But in fact, all religious wars are proscribed by international law, period.
Second, the authors of this lobbyist-concocted theory claim that a wrong jihad is called a Hiraba. But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a "genuine" war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts "spin" on jihad but leaves the core idea of jihadism completely intact. The "spoilers" depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate's long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon "fail" their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.
This scenario fits the relations of the global jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the "hotheaded" Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the "great leap forward" made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real jihadists but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.
Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. This piece was adapted from his recently published book The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.
[1] See John Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? 3rd edition. (New York: Oxford University Press) 1999.
[2] May 23, 2006
[3] "Hiraba Versus Jihad," the American Muslim. August 2003.
[4] See Henry Shuster, "Words in War," CNN, October 19, 2006.
[5] Quoting the American Forces Press Service on June 29, 2006.
[6] Michael Waller. "Making Jihad Work for America." The Journal for International Security Affairs. Spring 2006
[7] (7) See James Fallows, "Declaring Victory," Atlantic Monthly (September 2006).
[8] (8) According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Taqiya: "spelled Taqiyah, Arabic Taqiyah ("self-protection"), in Islam, [is] the practice of concealing one's belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury to oneself or one's fellow Muslims. The Qu'ran allows Muslims to profess friendship with the unbelievers (3:28) and even outwardly to deny their faith (16:106), if doing so would save them from imminent danger," on the condition that their hearts remain attached to faith. Also see Larry Stirling, "On Taqiya' and ‘Fatwas,'" San Diego Source, September 25, 2006; also Walid Phares, "al-Taqiyah: The Muslim Method of Conquest," Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, December 1997.
Great piece. Muslims have
Great piece. Muslims have been successful infiltrating the highest governments of the world. The people of the USA have been bamboozled by educated Muslims still with the idea of control of the world for allah. Even though people are good to them they still seek their destruction. The "moderate" muslims use theradical ones to terrorize, then say this is not islam to those who know them closely. When Muslim doctors say that women are STUPID according to Tabari 1:280, doctors who are educated in the best schools the world has, Harvard who allows separate swim for Muslims, now separate hospital rooms for "Muslim Only" patients. THIS IS TOO MUCH!
hOW MUCH LONGER WILL PEOPLE REMAIN WITH THEIR HEADS IN THE DESERT SAND.
Jihad is war. WE ARE AT WAR. YOU DONT NEED A SWORD TO KILL AND IT BE INTERNAL STRUGGLE. THEY HAVE PLAYED INFIDELS AS FOOLS.
Well Said,Mr.Phares!
Well Said,Mr.Phares!
Real Muslims are very
Real Muslims are very cunning. Kafirs are too stupid to get anything correctly even after reading much about Islam.
Excellent article.
Excellent article.
I do not believe that kafirs
I do not believe that kafirs are reading any thing at all about islam. They are indeed seeing the islam in action and are getting confused.How can islam kill? They are quietly asleep. till the islam kicks them and wakes them up.
As our politicians are prostitutes of the moslems and islam, we can not expect them to do any thing to help kafirs.It's important for us the kafirs plan out on our own to take direct action.remember the direction day of the slum bag moslems? Let us do the same.Let us propogate the moscum bag tricks.
Let us not buy as far as possible from the moslem scum bag shops for a starter.
Let us the kafirs charge 5-20% extra for moscum bags for the same service we offer the kafirs. reverse of jaziya.
Let us enetertain moscum bags less every where.
Let us not buy moscum made products.Like RAK stones, petrol!, like camel urine,HMM can not think of any thing else made by moslem scum bags,
Please add on suggestions as to how to make direct action day successful
#5 Proudkafir wrote: Please
#5 Proudkafir wrote: Please add on suggestions as to how to make direct action day successful
Email ALL your friends atleast one good article from faithfreedom.org/islam-watch.org. every week. Satires from Ayesha Ahmed are the best.
Whenever a kafir says that islam is not to blame for islamic terrorism, directly ask him/her why? Challenge them and tell them that you can prove that islam is to blame. Ask them if they have read the koran? (The answer is always no.) Guide them to FFI and the rape/hate/killing/slavery verses of the koran.
Awakening of one kafir means awakening of 10 kafirs, because that kafir is bound to awake 10 more.
---
The best way is a bit expensive, start a newspaper / news channel and highlight islamic terrorism in a bit different way.Most often than not the islamic terrorists read a sura before/after beheading a person with allahhuu all over. Let that sura of the terrorist be shown in full in Arabic as well as English. Call a mulla and let him explain, why this terrorist was using that particular sura of the koran, while you claim it to be a religion of peace? For counter point call the experts like Robert Spencers, Ali Sinas, Ibn Waraqs in the print media only, (let them remain anonymous). These discussions should be as regular as the islamic terrorism, till people start connecting the dots.
Guide the viewers to websites like these. Show the viewers the debate raging in the forums of these websites. Let them judge for themselves.
#6 you are 101% rite... bt
#6
you are 101% rite...
bt you know ppl are afraid to go to FFI...
thy say this is against Islam
thn i quote...y dont you point out ali sina to answer yu questions and shut tht web
Excellent article.
Excellent article.