Quote:
Originally Posted by ChalkLine
Just a technical note; the term ' Jihad' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be ' Hirabah'. Another term would be ' Fasad', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.
As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful  |
Calling them "Jihadists" is not my attempt to assign an Arabic term to accurately describe how reprehensible I think they are. If that were the case I'd try and find the Arabic term for "death-worshiping fuck-tard."
I call them Jihadists because, as a group, those who advocate terrorism to achieve the goal of a reborn Caliphate, have hijacked the term Jihad. In their own propaganda, Jihad is conflated to mean violence against any and all infidels, as well as against any Muslims who disagree with the terrorists' (usually Wahabbist) vision of Islam. Nearly all these terrorist groups have elevated Jihad as the single most important activity a Muslim can perform, more important the other six pillars of Islam because to engage in Jihad means getting a pass on violating all the other rules of Islam and forgiveness for all your sins.
In this country, there have been a number of attempts by the media to label this enemy. They've been called "Islamo-fascists" and "Islamists," but I am not satisfied with those labels. Their philosophy has less to do with Islam that it does with violence. And Jihad, I'm sorry to say, is the single most violent aspect of Islam.
Sure, there is some debate over whether Jihad is supposed to mean some sort of "spiritual" struggle against un-Islamic thoughts and deeds, rather than a martial struggle against non-Muslims, but I believe this is historical revisionism. For centuries the Uma was perfectly comfortable with the term Jihad having the meaning of "holy war." As for what defines a "holy war," I'll leave that for another argument.
So, I remain comfortable calling these fanatics and murderers Jihadists because they push the idea that Muslims who engage in Jihad are better than Muslims who do not, and therefore should have a greater place in Islamic society. I agree, however, that their philosophy is a perversion of Islam.
However, I do not want this thread to disintegrate into a back and forth about the pros and cons of Islam. Can we just stick to ripping the shit out of the historical and political improbabilities of my timeline and gazetteer?
A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing