The Semantics of Jihad And The Road To Paradise
Jack Thomas is an Australian born convict to Islam who went to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban. Before converting to Islam, he considered a variety of religions but did not study them with a complete tableau rasa; he was born Christian. He chose Islam because the religion advocated ‘Jihad.’ He even chose to change his name to Jihad, since it meant struggle and in his opinion signified his 23 years on Earth (back in 1997 when he converted).
Jihad Jack was being radicalized and utterly brainwashed when he went to Afghanistan in 2001. He found al Farouq, an al-Qaeda training camp to be his new home and his sanctuary.
To join al-Qaeda, Jack Thomas needed to read, sign and date an al-Qaeda ‘employment contract.’ A close analysis and dissection of this contract reveals several interesting observations. The six page document lays out Al-Qaeda’s mission, its belief, objectives, sphere of activity and most importantly its regulations and instructions.
Despite a possible loss in translation (from Arabic/Urdu/Farsi to English), the legal employment contract retains its essence. There is no doubt that the document had been written by a wise, erudite individual who has indulged in the knowledge of Islam and most importantly Sharia Law. The contract is flooded with references to Koranic verses justifying the organization’s motives, purpose and its activities.
The contract includes a concise and bulleted ‘duties’ section which includes somewhat trivial obligations such as eating Halal food to more salient orders such as ‘preserving Islamic morals and avoiding means of corruption and bad companions.’ The sentences are succinct and straight to the point.
If one views the document from an objective, non-Muslim standpoint, its biggest flaw is that it fails to define ‘Jihad.’ Jack Thomas understood Jihad based on his own notions, interpretations and subjective perspectives. In fact, the constant rebuttal plaguing many contemporary Muslims’ discourse surrounds what Jihad entails.
For Osama Bin Laden and his followers, Jihad is simply a Holy war against infidels (i.e. non-Muslims in general and especially Jews). Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would use any means necessary to fulfill the goals of Jihad and thus they have resorted to methods of violence and terrorism.
For moderate Muslims, Jihad is understood in context. As a child, I remember understanding Jihad as dying in the name of Allah (God) for one’s country’s cause. For example, if I had participated in fighting the Jewish occupation of Palestine in 1948 or died in the 1956 Suez Canal War (against France, Britain and Israel) or either the 1967/1973 wars against Israel – that would be Jihad fee sabeel Allah (dying in the name of God).
The four wars mentioned above had justifications. The Palestinians required the help of neighboring Arab allies to fight the Jewish occupiers. Egypt needed to nationalize and liberalize the Suez Canal from Franco-British control. Moreover, Egypt needed to retaliate against Israel’s preemptive strike in 1967 and finally Egypt sought to take back the Sinai from Israel in 1973.
These wars had historical context and a justifiable reason for using armed conflict. Nasser and Sadat did not fight Israel in the name of Jihad, but in the name of nationalism and freedom.
The difference between the war waged by Al-Qaeda and those involving Egypt and Israel is that the former uses the philosophical concept of Jihad to justify war whereas the latter uses the pragmatic version of Jihad as a consequence of war. Nasser and Sadat did not rally Egyptians to fight the Israelis by telling them that this was a war of Jihad – for a greater cause – but simply to defend the honor of their country and regain back occupied territory.
In essence, Al-Qaeda’s greatest assets are Western converts in to Islam - like Jack Thomas. For obvious reasons, they integrate in to their respective countries with utter ease and are able to remain discrete and inconspicuous. Al-Qaeda drills their extreme understanding of Jihad in to the nascent minds of such converts and turns them in to human weapons.
Jack Thomas was taken aback at the events of 9/11 and they utterly horrified him. This leads one to believe that Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Jihad is falsely misconstrued or better yet completely radical. On the other hand (similar to the Arab-Israeli wars aforementioned), Jack was ready to take arms when the United States began bombing Afghanistan as part of its campaign to topple the Taliban – here Jack was fighting a Jihadi war against the enemies who sought to infringe upon the sovereignty of his new ‘home.’
The comprehension of Jihad is where Al-Qaeda differs from moderate Muslims. The fact that the employment contract chose not to define the term implies that the new recruits of Al-Qaeda should have already understood it. However, Jack Thomas’ reaction to 9/11 has shown otherwise.
Jihad Jack was being radicalized and utterly brainwashed when he went to Afghanistan in 2001. He found al Farouq, an al-Qaeda training camp to be his new home and his sanctuary.
To join al-Qaeda, Jack Thomas needed to read, sign and date an al-Qaeda ‘employment contract.’ A close analysis and dissection of this contract reveals several interesting observations. The six page document lays out Al-Qaeda’s mission, its belief, objectives, sphere of activity and most importantly its regulations and instructions.
Despite a possible loss in translation (from Arabic/Urdu/Farsi to English), the legal employment contract retains its essence. There is no doubt that the document had been written by a wise, erudite individual who has indulged in the knowledge of Islam and most importantly Sharia Law. The contract is flooded with references to Koranic verses justifying the organization’s motives, purpose and its activities.
The contract includes a concise and bulleted ‘duties’ section which includes somewhat trivial obligations such as eating Halal food to more salient orders such as ‘preserving Islamic morals and avoiding means of corruption and bad companions.’ The sentences are succinct and straight to the point.
If one views the document from an objective, non-Muslim standpoint, its biggest flaw is that it fails to define ‘Jihad.’ Jack Thomas understood Jihad based on his own notions, interpretations and subjective perspectives. In fact, the constant rebuttal plaguing many contemporary Muslims’ discourse surrounds what Jihad entails.
For Osama Bin Laden and his followers, Jihad is simply a Holy war against infidels (i.e. non-Muslims in general and especially Jews). Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would use any means necessary to fulfill the goals of Jihad and thus they have resorted to methods of violence and terrorism.
For moderate Muslims, Jihad is understood in context. As a child, I remember understanding Jihad as dying in the name of Allah (God) for one’s country’s cause. For example, if I had participated in fighting the Jewish occupation of Palestine in 1948 or died in the 1956 Suez Canal War (against France, Britain and Israel) or either the 1967/1973 wars against Israel – that would be Jihad fee sabeel Allah (dying in the name of God).
The four wars mentioned above had justifications. The Palestinians required the help of neighboring Arab allies to fight the Jewish occupiers. Egypt needed to nationalize and liberalize the Suez Canal from Franco-British control. Moreover, Egypt needed to retaliate against Israel’s preemptive strike in 1967 and finally Egypt sought to take back the Sinai from Israel in 1973.
These wars had historical context and a justifiable reason for using armed conflict. Nasser and Sadat did not fight Israel in the name of Jihad, but in the name of nationalism and freedom.
The difference between the war waged by Al-Qaeda and those involving Egypt and Israel is that the former uses the philosophical concept of Jihad to justify war whereas the latter uses the pragmatic version of Jihad as a consequence of war. Nasser and Sadat did not rally Egyptians to fight the Israelis by telling them that this was a war of Jihad – for a greater cause – but simply to defend the honor of their country and regain back occupied territory.
In essence, Al-Qaeda’s greatest assets are Western converts in to Islam - like Jack Thomas. For obvious reasons, they integrate in to their respective countries with utter ease and are able to remain discrete and inconspicuous. Al-Qaeda drills their extreme understanding of Jihad in to the nascent minds of such converts and turns them in to human weapons.
Jack Thomas was taken aback at the events of 9/11 and they utterly horrified him. This leads one to believe that Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Jihad is falsely misconstrued or better yet completely radical. On the other hand (similar to the Arab-Israeli wars aforementioned), Jack was ready to take arms when the United States began bombing Afghanistan as part of its campaign to topple the Taliban – here Jack was fighting a Jihadi war against the enemies who sought to infringe upon the sovereignty of his new ‘home.’
The comprehension of Jihad is where Al-Qaeda differs from moderate Muslims. The fact that the employment contract chose not to define the term implies that the new recruits of Al-Qaeda should have already understood it. However, Jack Thomas’ reaction to 9/11 has shown otherwise.
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 10:47 AM
1 Comments:
a slip of the tongue...convict instead of convert.
Post a Comment
<< Home