Fjordman: Is Jihad Un-Islamic?

Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at FrontPage Mag. Some excerpts are below:

In Denmark in 2005, Tina Magaard — a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual analysis — published detailed research findings comparing the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard concluded from her data-driven analyses that

“The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with.”

Magaard further observed that “There are 36 references in the Koran to expressions derived from the root qa-ta-la, which indicates fighting, killing or being killed. The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word Jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean ‘to struggle’ or ‘to make an effort’ rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle. Only a single ja-ha-da reference (29:6) explicitly presents the struggle as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenomenon. But this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Koran, and even more in the Hadith.”

Andrew G. Bostom’s copiously documented book The Legacy of Jihad describes the doctrinal rationale for Islam’s sacralized Jihad violence, and its historical manifestations, from the seventh-century advent of the Muslim creed through the present. Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, Bostom cites the independent study of the renowned Arabic-to-English translator Paul Stenhouse, who maintained that the root of the word Jihad appears forty times in the Koran. With just four exceptions, all the other thirty-six usages in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries — the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam — and to ordinary people meant and mean, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E. W. Lane: “He fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” Muhammad himself according to traditional Islamic sources waged a series of bloody Jihad campaigns to subdue the Jews, Christians and pagans of Arabia.

The concept of Jihad is unique to Islam. It is a key component that makes Islam uniquely aggressive and dangerous among all of the world’s major religions.

It is, technically speaking, true that there may be non-violent aspects to Jihad as well, for instance propaganda. However, this is true of all wars. The primary meaning of Jihad is violent, and has been so consistently for fourteen centuries. The ultimate goal of Islam and of Jihad is the global supremacy of Islam and of Islamic law, or sharia — in other words, world supremacy. It is very hard to get much more aggressive than that. Until that goal has been reached, every non-Muslim man, woman and child on this planet is a potential target for Jihad violence. Sometimes, Jihadists will even target Muslims who are not Islamic enough for their taste.

Read the rest at FrontPage Mag.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

4 thoughts on “Fjordman: Is Jihad Un-Islamic?

  1. Once we clear away the PC MC nonsense that has constructed a false holograph of a peaceful Islam, one notices the interesting apparent fact that Muslims have adapted quite well to a mode of jihad without historical precedent: the stealth jihad through immigration and infiltration in mass numbers behind Enemy Lines. It seems that throughout Islamic history, they have always assailed an external enemy through frank warfare (punctuated by razzias). The global revival of Islam in the 20th century has emerged in a context of 300 years of unprecedented weakness where such frank warfare is impracticable. What’s interesting is the innovation in military strategy they have shown, combining stealth (immigration, infiltration, doublespeak propaganda) with the new razzia (terror attacks, social unrest, criminal behaviors). One question that comes to mind is: is this adapting innovation genuinely de novo, or does it follow some measure of guidelines from a blueprint in their textual tradition?

    • PC MC were created to cover the DARING LIARS/ politician’s incompetence.
      The root problem is: Why do they import known invaders to annihilate us. Invaders have always been truthful about their intentions. No matter how many times they bomb us we don’t learn a lesson.
      It is very difficult to act when you have a dictatorship and acts against you and colludes with the enemy.

  2. ” Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, Bostom cites the independent study of the renowned…”
    Magaard’s analysis does not help Europe or Norway in avoiding their fateful and lethal course, or undo Londonistan.
    It is not the muslims and qoran that’s the problem: Muslims did and invade as much countries as they could from Atlantic Ocean to Australia, according to the constant human nature.
    All western cities are going to turn from Constantinoples to Istanbuls.
    With the help of our competent elected qualified democracy defender politicians it is happening sooner than they planned. They have made great achievements in that respect.
    This is how democracy works. No dictatorship has reached this level of excellence in altruism.
    I hate that Putin who does now imitate our unique democracy.

  3. via wikiIslam, Quotations on Islam from Notable Non-Muslims:

    Jacques Ellul (1912 – 1994) was a French philosopher, law professor, sociologist, lay theologian, and Christian anarchist.

    “In a major encyclopedia, one reads phrases such as: “Islam expanded in the eighth or ninth centuries …”; “This or that country passed into Muslim hands…” But care is taken not to say how Islam expanded, how countries “passed into [Muslim] hands.” .. Indeed, it would seem as if events happened by themselves, through a miraculous or amicable operation… Regarding this expansion, little is said about jihad. And yet it all happened through war!
    …the jihad is an institution. and not an event, that is to say it is a part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world… The conquered populations change status (they become dhimmis), and the shari’a tends to be put into effect integrally, overthrowing the former law of the country. The conquered territories do not simply change “owners.”[61]

Comments are closed.