»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Why We Should Use the Word "Jihad" Correctly
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Why We Should Use the Word "Jihad" Correctly |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I would encourage people to listen to the below lecture on terrorism by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCyX7YMjuLY We hear the terms "terrorism" and "jihad" together in the news quite a bit and journalists and consumers of media seem to give into terrorists' extreme abuse of the word instead of using it according to the legitimate definition and context of it in Islam, or leave it as if the actions of terrorists speak for it themselves. This is exactly what shouldn't be done though. When extremist individuals and groups resort to extremism and try to justify it by calling it jihad, we should not give into them and let them determine how the word is used and how we understand this religious concept. It treats them as if they have authority. It is important to look at a legitimate, reliable source to understand what jihad actually is and other things about Islam. The same is true about any other inspiring way of life or system of beliefs. The last thing we should allow are terrorists to be treated as the authorities or representatives because they show up in the news more than the millions of people that do good things and don't abuse the concept of "jihad" which is part of their religion. Just as we wouldn't present extremism commited in the name of justice as something that should get to represent what "justice" is supposed to be, nor should we treat it as if it is what "jihad" is supposed to be - a legitimate extension of justice and legitimate struggle or fight for justice. Jihad isn't terrorism and isn't meant to justify terrorism, and isn't used by the majority of anyone involved in Islam as terrorism. If we give into the abuser's way of using the term, and use it that way as well, then we are part of the abuse, giving into terrorists and letting them define it for us instead of the true meaning and intention of the concept by those that don't abuse it. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-30-2013 01:58 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2013 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I haven't watched the video. But you haven't explained what you got out of it. Do we also misunderstand the term "fatwa"? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yes, I think the word "fatwa" is misunderstood in a similar way. For example, what is the first fatwa that comes to mind when you say/hear/think "fatwa"? Is that fatwa representative of most kinds of fatawa and what most -millions of - Muslims would suppport? If not, why is that the one that comes to mind? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Salman Rushdie |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Do you see what I was getting at in my last comment? Surely when you think of getting advice from a doctor, the first thing that comes to mind is not a worst example that some radical doctor issued twenty years ago or so, something and from someone that most people wouldn't give the time of day. Most people probably wouldn't seek a doctor's advice if that was the "lens" they thought of "advice from a doctor" through or expected. You should look at kinds of fatwa that are more normal and regular for a better understanding. Here are two site with some (and there are many other sites like these) http://www.askimam.org/ http://www.ali-gomaa.com/?page=fatwas A fatwa is simply judgement/advice from an expert in the ways of Islam. As in any other sphere of life, not all experts give good advice, some give horrible advice. But the good still far outweighs the bad for most people, otherwise it wouldn't have such an important and respected place. Hopefully, you will find a more normal and respectable fatwa to bring to mind when you think of "fatwa" rather than something from Iran and from someone as radical as Khomeini was. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I see where you're going, but I'm not attacking Islam as a whole (well, I can do that but in a different context). Of course, there are many Muslims who are kind and generous and would not consider killing others. I have friends like that. And yet, the idea that we misunderstand these words because we aren't looking at the proper examples strikes me absurd. What you should be saying is that the people who act and do these extreme acts misunderstand the terms "jihad" and "fatwa" and whatever else you want to mention. I can get on board with that. We are affected by what most affects us so it seems that you're choosing the wrong target. It's not us who needs education, it's the extremists. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think it is absurd to point out going by extremely bad examples leads to misunderstanding and misgeneralization based on those examples. It is more extreme than just the actions of the extremists. When people exploit an extremist's examples of a "jihad" or "fatwa", think of them first when speaking of the concept or the practice of it, and treat them as "poster child" for it then they are letting extremists basically define this or that concept or practice for them. And that is a shame because this puts a diabolical twist on things that are supposed to be so positive in Islam and are believed in and practiced in a positive way by the greatest majority. It is not far from mentally joining and assisting the extremists by presenting Islam as in an extremist way. From the point of propoganda and spreading misunderstanding, there is not much difference from people in the West exploiting and going by an extremist example to present these things and a group of terrorists teaching by the example and radicalizing people. They both feed the fire. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Intriguing. I can agree with that in a certain context. My only caveat is that religious doctrines are, by definition, unstable as they have no real reference point. How do you convince someone of the rightness of a "good" interpretation? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I won't try to speak for other systems. I have learned a lot about Islam in the past few years and now have a lot more faith in it than other systems. One of the reasons is that I find it does have very strong and stationary "reference points" and doesn't let itself become assimilated into self-centered secular liberalism and the moral free for all that has come upon much of the world today. It is markedly more strict and self-preserving than other religions and systems; it needs to be if it is going to continue to be itself as a comprhensive way of life, but one that takes part in all spheres of humanity instead of being forced into the closet. Different opinions can be shared by Muslims about aspects of their religion, but opinions need to be strongly supported by the sources and the community in general in order achieve any level of respect or authority. The moral and legal commitments are set out by the three main sources: The Qur'an, The Hadith, and the Shari'ah. If something isn't unambigously supported by these sources, then it will not be supported by the community in general, and if something is not supported by the sources and the community in general, then it has no legitimate standing in Islam at all. This prevents Islam from being something subjective that people can make whatever they wish of or moral free for all in the name and belief of God, because it is so thoroughly source-and-community based. That is how Islam has very strong and steadfast "reference points" for determing good practices. But a similar principle is used in other practices, including non-religious ones. Anyone could come up with his or her own notion or approach for what is "good dentistry", but that doesn't mean we recognize everything as good dentistry and that everything will be given moral or legal permission as being included in dentistry. If you know of a dentist that used a chainsaw and hammers, either doing so against the law, or because his country or community doesn't have morals or laws against it, would that be what you go by, generalize, or think of first when you think of "dentistry"? Or if your country for some reason lacked much dentistry but you could still read widely about it and learn about dentistry in the world, instead of going by how dentistry is practiced in most places, or in the most advanced places, by most dentists, will you still go by tjat worst-case scenaria of someone using a chainsaw and hammers, instead of the most common-case or far better-case scenarios of dentistry praticed with far less dangerous tools? Surely not. Usually it doesn't take much to know a horrible example is a horrible example of something, whether you are looking at a religious practice or medical practice and that it shouldn't be used as an example to generalize it by. But bias and media can exploit a bad example so excessively that it soon becomes a blindfold to the immensely larger truth. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Ess, that sounds like a cop out. When you "speak for" something you always already "speak against" something. Remember that some of the these extremists also run countries. Any fuller understanding of Islam must include views that you might disagree with just as a Christians must deal with Jewish pogroms in Europe and "secular liberals"(your term) have to deal with the Great Terror during the French Revolution. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying that you shouldn't back away from the implications of your claim. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You stated that religious doctrines are by definition unstable and have no real "reference point". That was the context I was speaking in when I said I didn't want to "speak for" all religions or systems of beliefs and try to paint them all as fitting or not fitting into that generalization. Selfish and de-religionizing ideologies (such as atheism, secularism, liberalism, individualism and capitalism) are what have little stability and lack a "real reference point" when it comes to a core belief-system and morality. They put the individual's subjectivity first and focus on competing with other individuals for quantitative material success instead of uniting and being a strong cohesive community and having a shared belief-system and morality with others. The crime-rates, the populations of addiction-sick and depression-sick people, sexual looseness/promiscuity, divorce, broken famiiles and general detachment and confusion in countries like the US and Canada show what happens when people put de-religionizing ideologies above strong religious belief-systems. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No doubt intended to be provocative.  Where do you want to live? The Europe of 1600 or before, Canada today, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Iran? What if you were a woman? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. It doesn't matter how we understand it It's how others who have died killing others understand it that matters . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: If I could move anywhere, I think it would be to the United Arab Emirates. It is one of the best devoloped countries in the world and is not ashamed to have Islam as an official/main religion. It has strict laws against things like drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling and therefore those things aren't given the chance to take root and become overwhelming and destructive on any large-scale among people. This establishes a society that can be religiously and morally much more united, stronger as families, and physically and mentally much healthier. That doesn't mean it doesn't have any serious problems of its own, of course. But it seems to have far less social and political problems than the US and Canada, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This is because a strong belief system - Islam - creates a strong faith and moral safety-net for humanity. Where would you want to live (if you could move anywhere)? quote: http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session3/AE/UPR_UAE_ANNEX3_E.pdf |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Yes it does matter. You can't understand something correctly if you let those that abuse it and abuse it to extremes set the terms of how it is understood. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ess, you miss the point. What I think is wrong is that you are not thinking about people who disagree with you. You are not asking, anymore, why people should believe. You are saying that you should believe. Do you want to take on the Koran here? I can do that. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Brad, quote: I don't think I said that. But it wouldn't be inappropriate to say you should believe in God and his guidance. You are suggesting the natural position of a human is neutral and that any bond or belief we have in God wasn't there to begin with and needs to be created by convincing ourselves into it. But that is somewhat the opposite of how it is perceived in Islam. To Muslims, Islam doesn't come from force (i.e by the sword or by intellectual force to make one(self) believe.) It comes from being at peace with God and humanity's fitrah (the natural inclination to submit to God Almighty.). This is true in family bonds as well. You seek and love your mother naturally/instinctively first, and then as you grow up you articulate reasons relative to more complicated experiences and feelings. Reasons come after, not before. No matter what experiences you experience, saying you should love and respect your mother and her guidance is almost always appropriate. The same is true, but always appropriate, in respect to believing in God almighty and his guidance. From Islam's point of view we need to return to our natural bond (the fitrah) of belief and our need for guidance, which was given in its most final and complete form through Muhammad. Without guidance that we can all share and hold above ourselves, when we go by only our own devices we become the slaves to our egos, peer pressures, materialism, confusion, addictions, depression, division and general destructiveness. Perhaps you have heard a message like this so often that it seems like a religious cliche. But what part of the human condition, especially in the world today, doesn't bear this truth out? quote: I don't think you can take on the Qur'an if you don't believe in it. It would be like trying to take on marriage even though you don't believe in it or wish to commit to it, or trying to use a torch but refusing to include the fire. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
My apologies. I can do it but I can't do it now. I do think you have made a mistake. A fundamental mistake to be sure. Stop believing in magick, Ess. You are better than that. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Brad, I already have a judgement that weighs things from an experience of different levels of disbelief and doubts that I have had at different times. This only helps me overcome them because I am the more aware and know how positive the direction of belief is in firm contrast to them. quote: I have every instinct and reason to believe in God's magic. You do too, therefore you should quit disbelieving in it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting comment...using reason to believe in magic. There are those who would say that, to believe in God's magic, one needs to suspend reason and go on faith. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think we do have an original/natural sense of belief that can act independent of reasoning, but I would argue that once we do believe in something faithfully and committedly, it is almost inevitable to contemplate on it and rationalize about it, to develop to the best of our abilities an extent of understanding and reasoning, which can extend in a lot of directions. And in order to communicate and defend our belief in any depth we need to articulate it using reason. In truth, if you truly do believe in something, how could you keep yourself away from reasoning about it? Is there anything that you believe in, that you don't also reason about? [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-01-2013 11:50 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
" but I would argue that once we do believe in something faithfully and committedly, it is almost inevitable to contemplate on it and rationalize about it, to develop to the best of our abilities an extent of understanding and reasoning" So you are saying there that the belief comes first and the contemplation and reasoning comes afterward. How do you believe in something faithfully without having used reason to arrive there? What litmus test do you use for achieving that belief, if not thought and reason? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"In truth, if you truly do believe in something, how could you keep yourself away from reasoning about it?" My question would be..how do you truly believe in something by not reasoning about it first? "Is there anything that you believe in, that you don't also reason about?" No, there is nothing I believe in that I did not reason about first. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
My Opinion. A lot of evil has been done, in the name of righteousness. Unfortunately as human beings we are absolutely bias to our point of reference. This is why pride is considered to be one of the most deadly of the sins. Whether you call these individuals terrorists, savages or rebels. Understand that in their point of reference they are freedom fighters. They call their atrocious acts against humanity, glorious, and they do it in the act of jihad. Whether the point of view of other Muslims are different doesn't change the fact that is how the terrorist view it. These acts of terrorism are war tactics to bully individuals to conform to their point of reference. Before modern technology and transportation: war acts and war crimes was the best way to convert one nation to another nations interests. Meanwhile those within the borders would take the lies and deny any blood was on their hands. Some even believe it is a necessary evil. Think of Germany in WW2, where neighboring communities to concentration camps had no idea what was going on (cause the smell or burning flesh is so easy to hide). Taking attention away from this, is only aiding these individuals in their acts of violence. Its like those who fight over whether or not Hitler was a socialist when the guy frequently called himself one (why also for the next 40 years no one wanted to admit they were socialists). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_socialism Because some individuals observe these terrorists conducting acts of evil and then observe the terrorists calling their attacks Jihad, can you blame people for calling them Jihadists? Point of reference... There is a difference between ignorance and malice. Ignorance isn't always a bad thing malice is. Therefore the two should be treated differently. However it is good to not be ignorant and call them what they are: terrorists. As for that whole Islam having a stronger footing, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole. Juju -Juju |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer, quote: In your earlier comment in the thread you implied that belief/faith is not always accompanied with reasoning: quote: Think of our natural senses and family bonds. We don't reason in order to see something with our eyes, but see something and then reason about it to try to develop better understanding. We don't reason ourselves into loving our parents, we naturally/instinctually love them, and then as we grow up we articulate reasons relative to more complicated experiences and feelings The same is true about the sense of belief and its natural inclinations. We have a natural sense and "fitrah" to our belief that isn't dependent on reason, but uses reason because it is part of being intellegent, rational, civilized beings. Imagine if we were able to experience all these things, but were limited only to being able to grunt in response! Reason allows us to understand and express things in a much more meaningful way. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Ess, I made that statement that there are those who say that but I didn't say I agreed with them....and I don't. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"I would argue that once we do believe in something faithfully and committedly, it is almost inevitable to contemplate on it and rationalize about it" "We don't reason in order to see something with our eyes, but see something and then reason about it to try to develop better understanding. " You have changed your definitions, Ess. You first speak of BELIEVING in something and then rationalizing about it and, in the second quote, speak of SEEING something and then reasoning about it. There is a world of difference between the two statements. Yes, loving our parents from birth is instinctive. It has nothing to do with reasoning or believing and is not a worthwhile example of what we are discussing here. I will repeat the same question you failed to answer....."My question would be..how do you truly believe in something by not reasoning about it first?" |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer I guess we disagree, because I do find belief very much like a sense or an instinct or a natural behaviour/function of the body (eating, drinking, sleeping, walking etc) something that, at least initially and its rawest form, doesn't come from reasoning and isn't dependent on reasoning. You don't need reason to believe, but you need belief to reason and belief to be accompanied by reason if you wish to experience it in a more meaningful way. If you don't have belief in something, you won't be able to reason about it because you will lack all means to get to reason, which are provided by taking the initial steps of believing. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step". That first step is the most important step because if you don't take it, you won't even make it to the second step, let alone the top. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I completely agree. But that's why using words like "Jihadist" (for terrorist) and Jihad for "terrorism" I think is an injustice in three ways: it treats someone who engages in terrorism as someone who is legitimately waging a Jihad, it treats all Muslims as if they believe in terrorism because they all accept the concept of Jihad, and does an injustice to those that are legitamately fighting a Jihad against military dictatorship/oppression in countries like Syria and now again in Egypt. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Ess, I believe that 98% of people aren't using that to malign Islam. They See these terrorists using these acts as an expression of jihad (where the terrorist say that what they are doing is jihad and they are jihadists). I guess what I was saying is like saying if an bipolar person is mentally ill, but a mentally ill person is not necessarily bipolar. Calling them jihadists is not really incorrect, it is just really broad and doesn't give enough information. I just don't like using any term but evil ones for what they do. Juju -Juju |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
" because I do find belief very much like a sense or an instinct or a natural behaviour/function of the body (eating, drinking, sleeping, walking etc) something that, at least initially and its rawest form, doesn't come from reasoning and isn't dependent on reasoning." I doubt very much that believing in a certain God or religion is an instinct like eating, Ess. One doesn't "believe" in eating. One eats, because it is a natural function which the body tells it to do. I find the comparison lacking. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think the original context of Jihad was more literal than metaphorical. I have nothing against giving a word a more peaceful meaning however, taking a metaphorical shift ... It still comes down to actions. In light of what you've said in the past Essorant about the nature of words (I'm recalling a discussion where the word 'omnipotent' to you meant to know a little about everything) ... can there be a Correct way to use a word? Long time no see! Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: I just reread this and came upon this. Brad ... tsk tsk. All the Deconstructionism you've talked about in the past, and you haven't learned that such a powerful philosophical solvent as relativism won't stop at religious language? ;-) You're also saying that "by definiton" (who's definition?) religion has no ontological reference (history, experience, evidentiality). But that is simply ignoring that there can be, and are, different kinds of religions. It's all too general. Good to see you again (well kind of). Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Hi Stephanos, I think when we are talking about something relative to a specific context (for example a religion) then the correct usage in the context (the religion) certainly applies. When I spoke about omniscience, I was using the word without any context except general philosophical arguments and contemplations. Since omniscience literally means "knowing everything", then it can mean both "knowing everything (perfectly) or "knowing everything" (imperfectly), thereby making us in that sense (imperfectly) omniscient. I feel a bit embarassed for arguing so vigorously about it at the time. As you might guess, I don't use "omniscience" that way in most/normal contexts myself. In that discussion I was speaking of it in philosophically stretched and generalized way, and it was in that way that it made sense. And in that context, it still does to some extent. In other contexts, certain things are specified according to certain criteria, ways of understanding , beliefs, etc. and therefore I wouldn't try to speak about it the same way in those different contexts. Anyway, it is good to see you at the forum again. Where have you been hiding? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Stephan, It's good to hear your voice (does that make sense?). But, um, deconstruction is about being rational, more rational than everyday life should be (quotidian). You say I'm being to general, but I'm not. I have a copy of the Koran. I have a copy of the Bible. I have read the Bible. Seriously. I have skimmed the Koran -- not enough, I assure you. What's left? Why is any of this important? Well, to me, it's important because I don't want to kill you, I don't want to kill Ess, I don't want to kill people who disagree with me. And from that point we begin. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, yes you are being general, or more accurately, dismissive. When you say that all religion (by definition) has no ontological reference, and you've read the Bible, you are denying the validity of the references ... not defining religion or its boundaries. If you'd like to make the case that the Bible expresses a complete fideism, then you would need to do so from the text itself, not with sweeping dismissive statements. If the Bible does not in fact present us with absolute fideism, then surely religion cannot be said (in all cases) to have no ontological references. At the end of the day, we simply disagree, and both have to live with our commitments. And I'm glad you don't want to kill me. I certainly extend the same passivity to you, with maybe even a little praise to boot. :-) Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
