NO, CALL THEM JIHADISTS

... and don't take any tips on fighting the global jihad from the NY Times ...

From Robert Spencer:
September 1, 2007

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017999.php

Scholar clears up meaning of jihad!
Relax! Take your shoes off! Jihad is an interior spiritual struggle! Nothing to be concerned about at all! Everybody out to the beach!

By Matt Vande Bunte for The Grand Rapids Press:

GRAND RAPIDS -- Next time you hear "jihad" associated with a terrorist act, consider it a politicized perversion of a spiritual concept.
Bilal Sambur says you should instead think of the term the way most of the world's billion Muslims understand it: a pervasive morality that governs daily life.

Sambur, director of the Turkish Association for Liberal Thinking's Centre for the Study of Religion and Freedom, is spending a month at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty.

Just as the Grand Rapids think tank explores the role of Christian morality in a free-market economy, Sambur said he promotes democracy and free religious expression within the context of Islam.

"There is a need to rediscover what 'jihad' really means," said Sambur, a Muslim who teaches at Suleyman Demirel University in Turkey. "Jihad is not equal to holy war. It is an ethical and spiritual concept. It means a human being must spend all his effort to actualize spiritual ideas in his individual and social life.

"This is not my personal definition. This is what the Prophet defines."

**********************************************

The Prophet. Hmmm. Uh, that would be Muhammad, right? Oh yes, I think I've heard of him. And as a prophet, he delivered to the world a holy book, didn't he? Let's see, I think I've heard of it -- the -- the Qur'an, that's it! Of course!

Now, in it, is jihad really simply the idea that "a human being must spend all his effort to actualize spiritual ideas in his individual and social life"? Can you explain, please, Mr. Sambur, how the idea that Jews and Christians must be warred against until they submit to Islamic rule, pay a special tax, and "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29) represents the actualization of a spiritual idea? Do you mean, perhaps, by "spiritual idea" the idea of Sharia supremacism, with its "actualization" in "social life" involving warfare against unbelievers?

Take also another passage, one that isn't usually adduced in discussions of Qur'anic teaching on jihad. Qur'an 4:71-104 is an extended passage exhorting the believers to go forth courageously to jihad warfare. Ibn Kathir explains v. 71 in this way: “Allah commands His faithful servants to take precautions against their enemies, by being prepared with the necessary weapons and supplies, and increasing the number of troops fighting in His cause.” A warrior should fight fearlessly, for “whether he is slain or gets victory” he will be rewarded (v. 74).

How is all this talk of weaponry and the possibility of being slain in battle consonant with the idea that jihad is primarily the actualization of a spiritual idea? (Unless, again, that spiritual idea is that Sharia should be the supreme law throughout the world, with non-Muslims subjugated).

The passage goes on to say that one will not escape death by declining to fight, for “all things are from Allah” (v. 78). And in any case, Allah will “restrain the fury of the unbelievers” (v. 84). V. 90 is sometimes adduced as proof that Muslims have no open-ended mandate to fight unbelievers, but the Tafsir al-Jalalayn makes clear that this refers only to unbelievers who submit to Islamic rule: “And so if they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, reconciliation, that is, [if] they submit, then God does not allow you any way against them, [He does not allow you] a means to take them captive or to slay them.” V. 95 says that those believers who stay home and risk no injury are not equal to those who wage jihad.

Do not passages such as this demonstrate definitively that what the Qur’an means by jihad is not an interior spiritual struggle, but warfare? Why should anyone fear death or the fury of the unbelievers, or shorten his prayers in view of an impending attack by the unbelievers (v. 101), in a spiritual struggle? How can one kill a fellow Muslim by accident (v. 92) in a spiritual struggle?

Sambur goes on to say that he likes eating at McDonalds, and therefore there is no clash of civilizations. I am all for Muslims adapting to Western mores while living here, but his talk might have been a bit more reassuring if he had dealt forthrightly with the passages about jihad that I mention above, and many others like them.

But probably no one in the audience knew enough about the Qur'an to ask him about them -- demonstrating once again the utility of being well-informed. For if he had been asked about them, his answers, or his reaction, might have been most illuminating and instructive to his non-Muslim audience.

Posted by Robert at September 1, 2007 9:36 AM

I alway wonder, if it is an affront to Mohommed to name object after him or to create a picture of him, why isnt it bad to name kids after him?

Perhaps we could solve the problem if we could some how get muslims to kill anyone named Mohommed and the etrie familly of those named after the molester, I mean prophet

Regarding France, it's nice that you quote "Foreign Policy" but the last time there was an attack was in 1996 and not " since 9/11 ". I'm sure they sounded like a good source but anyone can find the facts which bear it out to be a hollow source on this claim which is only based in the US time frame.

That's not well-written, but they're talking about 9/11 as a benchmark, not as something that happened in France. And it is a benchmark for all of us, not just a "US time frame." I could be a bit off on the exact time frame, but if memory serves me, believe it was right after 9/11 that they stopped having metal trash cans in France, and started merely having clear plastic bags attached to rims.

Egads, they're not clear plastic garbage bags at all but bright green. As a photographer it causes endless grief and many times you simply need to turn a perfectly good shot into B/W to "make them go away".

Bardot might disagree with you on this:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080603162444.u52osd46&show_article=1

"started merely having clear plastic bags"
Somehow I believe that someone who's been in the movies can understand the difference between "clear" and bright, freaking green.

Hi Crid,

I'm not exactly sure why you're comparing a living human being to a garbage bag.
Bardot was basically fined as someone would be in the US if the were a member of the Klan and had an active hand in inciting racial or hate crimes or speech. But maybe you can explain your logic to us.

But as the NY Times said "A Paris court on Tuesday found Brigitte Bardot, guilty of provoking discrimination and racial hatred..."


She lives in France and has been convicted/fined several times before. I mean, even in the US would you want do anything at all to provoke discrimination or racial hatred?


Even the French prosecutor is getting tired of always having to drag her into court. She's old and somehow she just doesn't get it.

I'm so sorry but Bardot lives in France and has to abide by French law. So when you say " Did she incite violence? That's the dividing line, I believe, in the U.S.A. "... bzzt, wrong country and wrong set of laws.

Bardots troubles are maybe best explained http://www.wondertrash.com/blog/index.php/2008/04/16/


It's interesting that her husband Bernard d'Ormal was an advisor in the Front National party of Le Pen fame. The link above is a quick read and worth it if for nothing else then the "donkey incident" (I kid you not).

Thanks for the link.

By the way, Bardot would probably be banned from admissin into Canada, based on her 'hate speech'.