Next, our counterterror adviser evokes the perverse logic behind the administration's recent decision to censor words offensive to Muslims (which I closely explored in this PJM article):Nor do we describe our enemy as "jihadists" or "Islamists" because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.Inasmuch as he is correct in the first clause of that sentence -- "jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community" -- he greatly errs in the latter clause, by projecting his own notions of what constitutes "holy," "legitimate," and "innocent" onto Islam. In Islam, such terms are often antithetical to the Judeo-Christian/Western understanding. Indeed, the institution of jihad, according to every authoritative Muslim book on Islamic jurisprudence, is nothing less than offensive warfare to spread Sharia law, a cause seen as both "legitimate" and "holy" in Islam. As for "innocence," by simply being a non-Muslim infidel, one is already guilty in Islam. Brennan understands the definition of jihad; he just has no clue of its application. So he is left fumbling about with a square peg that simply refuses to pass through a round hole.
In recent times Muslim spokesmen working in conjunction with the usual suspects of PoMo intellectuals/pseudo-scholars and progressives have attempted to re-define the term. But one needs only to pick up any book from the previous era that even tangentially touches on the subject to see the term used in its proper historic meaning. As a student of ByzantinoRoman history I know this full well. Thus Ibrahim is actually wrong when he says, almost reflecting the thinking of Edward Said, that his "dual Middle-East/Western background gives me the advantage to understand both the Islamicate and American mindsets equally." Previous generations of Westerners also understood the term Jihad properly. The ethnocentric projection Ibrahim rightly condemns is actually a post-modern and multiculturalist phenomenon, and thus a rather recent innovation. This might seem like a minor quibble, but it's critical to our understanding of the problems we face.
It would be more proper to say that the word "Crusade" has transformed from its original meaning than it is to say "Jihad" has. After all, we have such things as "crusades for peace" and "The Billy Graham Crusade," neither of which involve mobilizing armies to recover1 lands from Islam by military means. Jihad has never ceased to mean what it means, however, up through the mobilization of Arabs to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets and down through the present, though we are asked to believe otherwise. But we are told we cannot use the word "Crusade" because it is inflamatory, while also being instructed to re-conceive our understanding of calls for Jihad. This is a form of mental manipulation inflicted upon us not by our enemies, but by ourselves - or at any rate one wing of our own civilization.
And of course many young people, knowing little, having come of age in this era of degenerate pseudo-scholarship, educated by the instructors they have been educated, sincerely believe Jihad does not mean what it means. This is one means of intellectually disarming us, and leading people into accepting the received wisdom of progressivism on the sources and causes of this conflict, rather than connecting it to history. It helps open them to the conclusions of a Said or a Fisk or even their slightly-less-radical imitators: That we are to blame.
Redfining terms by those with an ideological axe to grind is almost invariably aimed at controling the thinking of others.
1Yes, recover: Crusades, aweful as many Crusaders behaved, were launched as counter-attacks. To call any but the 4th agqressive is akin to calling D-Day agressive. But, in this degenerate age, that history, however bad it was even told "straight," has been corrupted for ideological ends.
"Redfining [sic] terms by those with an ideological axe to grind is almost invariably aimed at controling [sic] the thinking of others."
And therein lies the crux of the matter.
If we are trying to encourage the "thought transformation" of Islamic world "moderates" such that they reject terrorism and violent expressions of political disaffection, then allowing the terrorists to define themselves with the term "Jihad" only works against us. The vast majority of Islamic "moderates" view that concept as legitimate, and we're going to have an impossible struggle to get them to change their mind on that one. Irhab, on the other hand, is the Arab equivalent of what we call terrorism, is universally denounced by mainstream Islam, and if we can get them to apply that label to the various extremist movements, we'll have made great progress toward our goal of getting mainstream Islamic culture to reject those extremists, regardless of anything else.
All of this parsing does far too much credit to this lout Brennan, whose job is to abolish the debate, not fine-tune it. Apparently there is some sort of competition among WH officials to put on the greatest abject display of politically correct holy-rolling. Posner at State had a good one with the Chinese a couple weeks ago, but this might almost top it.
Glen, maybe you should start a jihad agianst state and the White House, better yet, issue a Fatwah.
Since none of these words have any real meaning to non Muslims, their meaning seems to be filtered by the political bias of the translators, why not use Irhab, if that is the literal translation of what we are trying to label these guys.
Language is a great weapon when used precisely. If Irhabi is the word that an Arab would use to describe people who blow up mosques and dill your kids when you send them out for some onions at the local market, then use that.
Why would you defend the use of a word that, quite frankly, I would be surprised if you knew the meaning of other than what some journalist decided was the translation.
Call a spade a spade in the language of the people you want to influence, period.
toc3:
Are you kidding?
False. We know what jihad means, and Osama bin Laden knows what jihad means. The victims and perpetrators of jihad across the world know what jihad means. When Al Qaeda clerics call on Muslims to engage in worldwide jihad, everyone understands that they are not asking them to join community literacy programs. You do not go to Pakistani training camps to build playgrounds. Benign and metaphorical uses of "jihad" are obviously of no interest to us.
Only people like Brennan pretend that you can change the meaning and nature of things by renaming them. And they seek to disguise their failure to neutralize Islamist hate (which no sane person expected) by defining it out of existence.
Why not use "Jell-O Pudding"? Excuse me, HOLY SACRED Jell-O Pudding.
For the further edification of Mr. Brennan, the State Department, and other noobs:
Definition of Jihad from Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik, the standard text of Sunni-Shafi'i law. This is the standard English translation by Muslim scholar Nuh Ha Mim Keller.
Note: The portion in which Muhammad distinguishes between "lesser" and "greater" jihad is not in the Koran, but in one of the hadiths (Acts of the Prophet). Many Muslims reject this hadith.
As those of us who have paid attention to this stuff over the past 10 years know, Islamists rely heavily on the hadiths to justify their militant interpretations.
The idea that the Obama administration is now the reigning authority on Islamic interpretation is news to me, though, and if Obama is the Fourth Prophet he'd better be ready to prove it.
I have a hard time taking this seriously, to be honest. On the one hand, it's a time-honored part of western politics (and probably all politics) to grab the moral high ground, define the norm, and then define everyone else out of it-- see the fine shadings of distinction between "terrorist," "rebel," and "freedom fighter."
This seems little different.
On the other hand, I fail to see "the Islamic World," for values that include people likely to actually take up arms, actually giving a shit about the White House definition of the term.
It's political self-stimulation, meaningful only to us. As such, it's a waste of effort, but probably not actively harmful.
Well, I hope your rant makes you feel better. But it would appear to me that by your own research there are two types of jihad, higher and lower, thus an ambiguity.
The reason that you would use Irhabi, if that is the word to describe a terrorist or maybe Hashishim is to find something that is unambiguous in the minds of Muslims. You know, calling a spade a spade.
You can go on a crusade to enlighten Arabic speakers to what the actual meaning of Jihad is, but I doubt you will get very far. Because, quite frankly, your knowledge of the nuances of arabic is not really backed up by a definition you pulled out of a dictionary. Philosophical and religious words often carry shades of meaning.
The point of the exercise is to communicate the criminal nature of these people, not to argue over the meaning of a word.
My point is not to have an argument about the meaning of Arabic words, but to point out that the very ambiguity that you layout in your definition makes our efforts less effective.
Simply put, it is apparent that the dog does not hunt. Nothing more, Nothing less.
In a large part I agree.
toc3 -
As I said before, some of us have paid attention to these things, because we believe that it is important for us to understand them. You're entitled to your own refuge.
Part of me wants to agree with Marcus Vtruvius - but another part can't. Precisely because the issue is so fundamental, and important.
Ultimately, the question becomes: "Is Islam a predatory religion"? By which I mean a sense beyond "conduct during an historical period," asking instead "is the religion predatory at a fundamental, doctrinal level"?
Islam is.
And that's a pretty fundamental point.
To say so isn't to say that Islam couldn't change. But this is not like a Christian change of conduct, justified by its core doctrines. This is a change of core doctrine, which then extends to behaviour.
That isn't impossible. And the best example is... the Jews.
As a monotheistic religion, conversion of idolators and polytheists was pretty fundamental to the religion. Yet for many hundreds of years, Jews have been marked by the fact that they make it difficult to convert to Judaism.
So what changed? Two words: The Romans.
This was not a change that was gently encouraged, as Christian history teaches all too well. In the Jews' case, the lesson was internalized. Then reinforced by external circumstances. And it has stuck.
Islam now faces a similar necessity. Richard Fernandez' point that if Islam desires to learn the secret of the stars, it must learn to love the kuffar as its brother - or die - more or less encapsulates the imperative. Islam must morph from a fundamentally predatory religion, to a more respectful and spiritual faith in conduct AND in doctrine.
This does NOT mean the "brains falling out of your head" version of respect preached often in the West. But it does mean a real doctrinal shift. One that, as a starting point, substitutes hiraba for much of what has been traditionally understood as jihad .
Until that's understood, people like Tariq Ramadan won't be. And that's a serious, consequential misunderstanding.
Marcus V.-
The enemy is not a bunch of goatherds. They are an organized foe with sophisticated funding, training, indoctrination, intelligence and diplomacy.
They well understand that this war is primarily ideological. When they hear this kind of blather from our leadership they are encouraged to believe that they are winning, and they have good reason to think that.
Fortunately, they are mistaken to believe that our kufr civilization has lost the will to survive. Right?
My point is that your approach is not only ineffective, it is lazy.You throw around words that are ambiguous and nuanced in a language you don't speak and expect that your interpretation of what the meaning of these words are to be accepted by native speakers as unambiguously meaning what you interpret them to mean.
My problem with your approach is not that it is not necessary to call a spade a spade. It is that you fail to realize that not being precise about what your goal is - alienate terrorists from their association with Islam in the eyes of Muslims - is undermined by your need to define Jihad in your own terms.
Even if your interpretation is 100% correct, I doubt that your proselytizing about the evils of Islamic theology to Muslims is going to get you any further than an Al-Qaeda member would get with you if he were to explain to you the evils of American Freedom of Religion.
I think we would be best to follow Deng Zhao Peng's advice and not care so much about whether the cat is black or white, but rather if it catches mice.
I think your attachment to Jihad as a description plays into the hands of the Terrorists precisely because it is ambiguous in Islam, and therefore can be manipulated by them. In other words, the cat doesn't catch mice.
I guess I have to say this again. Are you f----g kidding?
Whether we understand the true nature of Islam, or not, seems beside the point. Whatever its true nature, we want it to incoroporate and reflict modern liberal values. This means we have to engage the Ummah with language they can relate to.
Utterly lacking from Ibrahim's testimony to Congress "Strategies for Countering Radical Islamist Ideologies" is any hint at what that strategy might be. Ditto for the post here.
Ibrahim suggests that the first step is to have everyone understand the true (messed up) nature of Islam. What is that nature, exactly? JK suggests "predatory at a fundamental doctrinal level;" Ibrahim says:
Porhyrogenitus suggests that only know nothing young people "in this era of degenerate pseudo-scholarship" fail to understand the (otherwise) universally understood nature of Jihad as warfare against all non-Muslims.
So what? I have no idea what the "true nature" of Islam is, anymore than I know what the "true nature" of Zionism is between Peter Beinert on the one hand and Avigdor Lieberman on the other. I do know there are a lot of fundamentalist terrorists spouting Islamic doctrine, and they have to be dealt with. I also know that any Muslim conception of Jihad as mandating war against all non-Muslims is a problem.
Why isn't it a good idea to try to push them towards modernity in language that might have some hope of resonating. Attempting to redefine terrorism as Irhab instead of Jihad strikes me as useful regardless whether this is correct in the eyes of Bin Laden. Worst that happens is the attempt falls on flat ears. So?
Of course we want to impose modern liberal values on Islamists. To do that we have to be able to engage them with language that has some hope of resonating, whether we are redefining the "true nature" of the concepts, or not.
Heavans knows the West has backed far far away from literal interpretations of the Bible, and to good effect.
My understanding is that the greater jihad is an interpretation of the hadiths and koranic verses originating with Sufi al-Ghazali in the eleventh century. He wrote that those who stay at home, suffering no injury are not equal to those who fight with their possessions and persons. But he extolled that all those who fight against their egos also earn merit.
I don't think there are historically two competing interpretations of jihad. They co-exist. And they particularly co-exist within the formation of sufi warrior monks that both fight the infidel and fight their inner passions and demons.
Unfortunately, Glenn. This last rant along with and name-calling lie "this lout Brennan" appear to be the spine of your arguments.
It is hard to see where your problems are when, and they may be very legitimate, when you are this apoplectic.
I think there is a good reasoned debate going on here about something important, difficult, complex and perplexing that isn't helped by the issuance of Papal Bulls.
toc3 -
I'm very sorry if I hurt your feelings regarding Mr. Brennan, especially if you are Mr. Brennan, but I'm not the one being emotional here.
You say that "none of these words have any real meaning to non-Muslims", so presumably only Muslims can define them. In other words, their language is epistemologically closed to us, and we cannot judge or understand it. This is the kind of nihilism we hear from the relativists and multiculturalists, and I reject it. Utterly. So deal with it.
Then you employ a chicken-hawk argument to claim that only Arabic speakers can understand a word like jihad, which has been in common English usage for decades. Oddly, this does not prevent non-Arabic speakers from lecturing the rest of us about what the word DOESN'T mean, even when they're dead wrong. If I spoke Hebrew I would call it chutzpah.
It also doesn't prevent you from recommending the word "irhab". Whatever the merits of this word, it has no history in English and it pushes debate into obscurity.
Apparently, the Arabic speaker is incapable of uttering hostile intent. Any word he might possibly use to signal hostility is found to be innocuous, and furthermore so loaded with religious significance that it would be deeply offensive to even question it. Likewise the Farsi speaker, who might say "Let's wipe Israel off the map." And a certain Farsi expert jumps in to say that this is a good thing - and so on.
So we've played that game before, and we know how it works. We shut our mouths and cede all debate to the Muslim world, whose intentions we are not fit to judge. And we pretend that the terrorist is an alien - a pure criminal outlaw with no cultural connection to anything East or West, of interest only to law enforcement and psychology. Which is absolutely not true, but sure makes some people feel better.
More all over the map ranting, most especially extrapolating from a simple statement by a member of the government who, by the way is an Arabic scholar, to a doomsday scenario where we are being pushed around by insidious forces within Brennan's psyche.
Sorry, I am not ready to make that jump.
Look at the language you are using and the posture you are taking just because a couple of people want to discuss something government official has said.
Not only that, you never addressed my point that the approach may not be effective, but of course, that would involve more than the knee-jerk reaction you have had throughout the thread.
You didn't hurt my feelings, nor would you have especially if I were John O. Brennan.
Here is the career of this "lout" as you call him:
* CEO of The Analysis Corporation
* Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA)
* Interim director, National Counterterrorism Center9
* Director, Terrorist Threat Integration Center
* Deputy Executive Director, CIA
* Chief of Staff to Director of Central Intelligence, CIA
* Chief of Station, Middle East, CIA (1996 - 1999)
* Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, CIA
* Deputy Director, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA
* Daily Intelligence Briefer at the White House, CIA
* Deputy Division Chief, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA
* Chief of Analysis, DCI's Counterterrorism Center, CIA
* Middle East Specialist and Terrorism Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
* Political Officer, U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Department of State
* Career Trainee, Directorate of Operations, CIA.
[edit] Education
* B.A., Political Science, Fordham University, including a year abroad studying Arabic and Middle Eastern studies at American University in Cairo.
* M.A., government, with a concentration in Middle Eastern Studies, University of Texas at Austin.
But, more than that there is something that I see in him because he is of a similar background to me and has traits shared by members of our tribe, though I, in no way compare myself to a man this brave, intelligent and accomplished.
Here is what I see in his background.
Jesuit educated, therefore intellectually rigorous, Hard as nails, Not easily swayed from his convictions. Personally Courageous, fearless, intelligent...
Need I go on.
But since you can pull out a dictionary definition of Jihad, which even you must admit is ambiguous in that it has 2 meanings, this guy is a lout being duped into selling his country down the river.
If you want to believe that, fine. I do not.
And, until you come up with something better than the not even anecdotal evidence of his weakness of mind on even suggesting that our use of Arabic could be more effective in attaining our goals, I will reserve comment on your ideas, which at this point, need better support than you have given them. My mind is open, but you have to show up with more than you have to this point.
Sorry to jump in late on the thread (I've been away), but let me suggest a construction that might put the toc/Glenn disagreement in a more useful (thus interesting) context.
In our strategic communications, we have two problems: an internal one of explaining and justifying our actions and decisions; and an external one of making our case to the broader Muslim world.
As I'm reading this, Glen's approach is valid when it comes to the internal problem - but toc's is valid as to the external one.
Externally, all that matters is that we are heard and how we are heard. Sensitivity to the nuance of foreign language and culture matters - a whole lot - there.
Internally, we need to develop common understanding and purpose. Nuance and subtlety aren't what we need there; it's broad strokes that will resonate that matter there.
Here - at WoC - more inquiry, more humility, less frustration might be useful as well.
Marc
So, let me get this straight. It is the consensus here that jihad means "a holy struggle to purify oneself and one's community", and this is either the primary or exclusive meaning understood by the Muslim world?
I have a few questions:
1. Do we really believe this, or do we think that pretending to believe it will make us popular?
2. Are we taking this Argumentum ad authoritatem?
3. When people speak to you in tones of obviously insincere flattery, do you trust and/or respect them more, or less?
4. Do we believe that the Arabic and/or Muslim world is just stupid as hell?
5. When we see usages of "jihad" that do not invoke butterflies and fields of fragrant daisies, such as:
- al-Jabhah al-Islamiyah al-Alamiyah li-Jihad al-Yahud wa-al-Salibiyin (World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders), the formal name of al-Qaeda
- "They fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils." (Hamas Charter, Article 3)
- "Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." (Hamas Charter, Article 8)
- "It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters." (Hamas Charter, Article 15)
And so on and so on and so on, do we assume that these things are all just mistakes made by people who aren't smart like John Brennan, or do we just ignore them?
I'm with Glen.
In order to say one thing at home and another abroad (something Muslims have done for a very long time, counting on lack of Arabic understanding), you do pretty much have to assume a stupid enemy, or an uninterested one. It might have worked amidst conflict in the era of the packet post and telegraph. It won't work in the era on IP packets and Internet, and in a language that's the lingua franca of the modern world.
It's also pretty insulting to keep telling people at home things that they can pretty clearly see are, to put it kindly, lies. I can think of no better way to undermine trust. And in the modern age, all it does is produce a deeper distrust, carried by a perfectly viable and growing counter-narrative.
Neither is likely to produce intelligent policy.
To pretend that Western governments are still in control of these messages, internally or externally, is fast moving from hope to fantasy.
Ultimately, the truth is the only viable starting point for any sustainable consensus, on anything. Lying to ourselves is dangerous. Lying to Muslims about their situation compounds the danger, even on the logical assumption that it's largely ineffective.
Now, truth also includes the real changes happening in the Muslim world, and documented by people like Michael Totten. It requires a look at the people of the Muslim world as people, not just ciphers. Something else I really like about Michael. They are not ciphers, as we are not. Many of them aren't exactly thrilled to have their lives dictated by a bearded theocracy.
But it also requires acknowledgment of the obvious, which is that Islam has a doctrinally predatory side - and that its preachers endanger both us and their fellow Muslims, in both the immediate term AND in the medium-long term.
It is not acceptable to prey on those who do not share your faith, any more than it's acceptable to keep slaves. Those are not the acts of civilized people - and they taint those who practice them in the eyes of the world.
We need to include that message, and make sure it's heard.
The West is not the only player on the global stage, and what the Brazilian/Turkish deal for part of Iran's uranium shows, is that proliferation has hit the breakout stage. Many players in the semi-developed world want them. Many of those are semi-stable or outright unstable Muslim states.
Richard Fernandez' point gets more relevant by the day. Embrace the kuffar as your brother - or, ultimately, die.
That's reality in a proliferating world. That's the truth.
We need to start from the truth.
Joe, I don't think anyone is talking about saying one this here and one thing there; we're talking (or at least I'm talking) about how we say things both here and abroad.
Look, to us the difference between jihadi and irhabi is insignificant - to someone living in Jordan or Turkey, it's damn meaningful.
I get it that Glen (and possibly you, Joe) are making the straightforward claim that it's Islam we're in conflict with.
As I've said a bunch before, if we were in straight-out conflict with a billion Muslims worldwide, things would look a damn lot different than they do today.
The goal is to keep from being at war with a billion Muslims without giving the worst among them what they want.
That's a good goal.
Marc
Damn it, no. We are at war with an undetermined number of people, almost all of whom belong to one or two Islamic sects, who are plotting acts of extreme violence against us and our allies. They call it "jihad", and we call it - well, nothing, apparently.
If the acts, beliefs and rhetoric of these people are continually confounded with that of all Muslims, then we would be at war with all Muslims. I am not the one insisting on this.
We are continually held in check by a pair of contradictory lies. First, that Islamist terrorism has no connection at all to Islam. Secondly, that all words or deeds directed against Islamist terrorism are attacks on all Muslims.
And if nuance is what is desired, take another look at Brennan's entire statement:
There is no nuance there. This is blunt definition. He does not acknowledge that the word has any other meaning that the one he gives it. He does not mention any other meaning even to dismiss it.
So, let me get this straight. It is the consensus here that jihad means "a holy struggle to purify oneself and one's community", and this is either the primary or exclusive meaning understood by the Muslim world?
No, no one has taken a vote on the matter. When someone does then we will know it there is a consensus. This strikes me as just another example of extrapolating on on a point in the discussion to the extreme. There doesn't have to be a consensus, this place is for discussion. But then again, I may be wrong.
I have a few questions:
1. Do we really believe this, or do we think that pretending to believe it will make us popular?
Well, I don't know about other people, but I think we have a very important and delicate debate here that is worthy of discussion and not ranting and name calling. Not only that, the question is absurd in the sense that discussion is not about whether it will make us more popular, but whether it will make our strategy more effective. If it makes us more popular fine. If not, fine. If it makes the radicals less popular, phenomenal. That is the purpose of the debate and statement. Unless you think the "Lout" is hung up on being popular. Though, I must say, he doesn't strike me as the type.
2. Are we taking this Argumentum ad authoritatem?
No, but in the face of your ad hominem attacks and your utter lack of anything other than a dictionary definition, which in itself is ambiguous, to back up your attacks, it seems reasonable to list the qualifications and accomplisments of the man you are attacking.
3. When people speak to you in tones of obviously insincere flattery, do you trust and/or respect them more, or less?
I don't follow you here.
4. Do we believe that the Arabic and/or Muslim world is just stupid as hell?
Is this going anyplace?
5. When we see usages of "jihad" that do not invoke butterflies and fields of fragrant daisies, such as:
- al-Jabhah al-Islamiyah al-Alamiyah li-Jihad al-Yahud wa-al-Salibiyin (World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders), the formal name of al-Qaeda
- "They fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils." (Hamas Charter, Article 3)
- "Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." (Hamas Charter, Article 8)
- "It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters." (Hamas Charter, Article 15)
No one, including Brenner is defending any of this.
And so on and so on and so on, do we assume that these things are all just mistakes made by people who aren't smart like John Brennan, or do we just ignore them?
No one is saying that, either.
Are you accusing me of any of this?
Are you saying that all Muslims agree with these statements?
This post of yours is nothing but a continuation of the rest of the emotional outbursts you have made in the thread, though this particular one is different in that it is a compendium of red herrings.
No one in their right mind would support Hamas or the above statements. So, tell me how does all this add up to Brennan being a lout and, how is it that the utter mention of a change of approach to those non-radical Muslims though a change in vocabulary bring on some sort of self inflicted Armageddon?
Yes, and now that the war is being waged on their turf instead, it's increasingly personal as well. That has corresponded with a sharp decline in support for jihadis, and for terrorism.
We need to use the word "irhabi", while also connecting these experiences with jihad. Because yes, the distinction is meaningful - but what's generally understood as praiseworthy "jihad" still encompasses a lot of unacceptable things.
And we can't lie to ourselves about that. Nor should we lie to Muslims, who have suffered more than most from that mentality.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't use the word irhabi. Of course we should. Often. But we have to acknowledge that we're going to be using it offensively, against many behaviours that are traditionally associated with jihad - and hence praised in the Muslim world.
We must acknowledge that we aim to redefine the jihad game for them. Because until that happens, there is no peace. Not for us. And not for them.
The terms surrounding jihad must become increasingly toxic, replaced in appropriate areas by by itjihad, and increasingly qualified by strict conditions when used.
When we start to see that, we'll be on the road to a better future. Without it, we're all on the road to disaster.
toc3 -
All right, all right, if you insist that I answer you on this point, I will.
First of all, thank you for all the biographical information on John Brennan.
Like I said, the guy is a lout. A lout appointed by louts, in exchange for his loutish services during the campaign.
They definitely need to send this guy back to the CIA station in Saudi Arabia. I don't know how those louts are getting by without him. And Saudi Arabia, after all, is ruled by royal louts, who are descended from an ancient line of louts. A regular Loutopia. Louts the world over would sleep safely, knowing that we have a real quality lout on duty over there.
Now, do you want to keep pressing me about Brennan, or will this suffice?
No, I do not want to keep pressing you on Brennan.
I do want to keep pressing you to bring more to a discussion than a lot of ranting and name calling without much else.
BB: If we are trying to encourage the "thought transformation" of Islamic world "moderates" such that they reject terrorism and violent expressions of political disaffection, then allowing the terrorists to define themselves with the term "Jihad" only works against us.
You're under the mistaken impression we're re-defining the word for them. It's being re-defined not for them, but at us; the mind control is aimed at the West internally much, much, MUCH more than it is aimed at Islam.
Nobody should have gotten the misimpression about this from what I read, so it is dispiriting to have to clarify this point.
G. Wishard: All of this parsing does far too much credit to this lout Brennan
Ah, but he's not the creator of this "meme," just a cog in the machine, an illustrative example at best. The post I linked too seemed aimed at him alone, I suppose, but my interest is The Movement, and this individual member (Brennan) is the origin of nothing.
All the blather about Brennan, frankly doesn't much interest me. He's just an example of the USG being what it wants to be, an example of the ECS doing what it does. Whether he's a lout or a sincere guy doing what he thinks is right, or some combination, which of us really knows? If he stays in his job or is individually replaced, well do you think the replacement will be substantively different? My guess is he's a sincere part of the whole.
M. Vitruvious: The "pox on both their houses, everyone's an equal villian or hero" attitude gets one nowhere and is useless here. Making oneself neutral between the fire brigade and the fire is, I suppose, a position, but not an elevating one, despite what you may (or may not) think.
toc3: Is here to obsfuscate the issue, so I pay him no mind except to note that he seems to be an exemplar akin to Brennan.
G. Wishard: "It is the consensus here that jihad means "a holy struggle to purify oneself and one's community", and this is either the primary or exclusive meaning understood by the Muslim world?"
It's the wished-for new consensus by what I'll sumarize as the West's Own MiniTrue (rather than repeat the whole thing); the enlightened, Progressive Opinion-Leaders, honoured academics, &tc. Note again that this is not primarily or even at all aimed at Islam whatsoever, but aimed exclusively at our own populations. If only it were aimed at supporting moderate Moslems... Not that we can re-define Islam for Moslems, I suppose. Not without establishing tutilatory dominion over them (which makes the example vis a vi Rome and the Jews quite inapt, since we don't excersise that...suasion. Arguably we shouldn't. But we can at least keep our own minds clear against efforts to obsfuscate us. Not that most of us will, obviously).
J. Katzman: "We must acknowledge that we aim to redefine the jihad game for them. Because until that happens, there is no peace. Not for us. And not for them."
That will not be aknowledged because, alas, that is not what is being done. This is aimed at our people, not theirs. If we were we could aknowledge that and honestly join with real moderate Moslems in saying "that is what Jihad has historically meant, here is what it should mean under a new, modern Islam" (I hesitate to say "reformed Islam," because arguably Salafism is the Islamic Reformation. We forget the fanaticism and violence of many of our own Reformation-era figures; one could compare aspects of John Calvin's rule in Geneva to Saudi Arabia and not be too far off. I wouldn't necessarily say Islam needs a "counter-revolution" though either; it probably wouldn't apply. But a modernization, perhaps).
But no, what is going on is that what is being taught to our own populations is that Jihad always meant this definition and any claim to the contrary that identifies what its historic meaning has been not simply in Islam but as noticed/experienced by those in contact with it is either "ignorance" or "inflamatory Islamophobia."
Why am I insisting upon this distinction? Because we need to understand what is actually going on, our own dynamic, before we can judge (OMG, Porphy's for judgementalism!) whether we're on the path to achieving our goals, or someone else's.
""It is the consensus here that jihad means"
I was trying to [strike]here[/strike] when I quoted this above, but failed to preview and thus failed to notice I miscoded, and apparently can't edit, therefore: I Am Dumb.
toc3: Is here to obsfuscate the issue, so I pay him no mind except to note that he seems to be an exemplar akin to Brennan.
Gee, I am flattered that I got such a rise out of you. Being dismissed in one sentence that contains 2 ten dollar words, doesn't get much better than that!!!!
Porphyrogenitus,
You're under the mistaken impression we're re-defining the word for them. It's being re-defined not for them, but at us; the mind control is aimed at the West internally much, much, MUCH more than it is aimed at Islam.
Nobody should have gotten the misimpression about this from what I read, so it is dispiriting to have to clarify this point.
Well, because I don't really know the man or the policy papers that led to the pronouncement, I can't definitively say whether Brennan is attempting to influence domestic discourse or foreign public diplomacy with his statement -- probably a little of both, I would guess.
I CAN, however, note that the first time I was informed to start using "irhab" (terrorism) and "hirabah" (unholy war) versus the more standard "jihad" when describing Al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations was in 2007, during the Bush Administration, while I was in Washington DC for a consultation during the 2nd of my 3 tours in Iraq. IIRC, Ambassador Edward Djerjian (who had been appointed as chairman of President Bush's Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World) and Jim Guirard both recommended the word change, noting that the USG would have a much easier time getting mainstream Muslims to accept that what AQ and similar organizations do is illegitimate "terrorism" (and not legitimate jihad) versus getting mainstream Muslim to reject jihad as a concept. At roughly the same time, David Kilcullen -- known to all of us inside the counterinsurgency community -- made the same call in a June 2007 entry on the Small Wars Journal blog.
So Brennan is not the first to make this argument, and it should be framed in that proper context. But I suppose the Bush Administration and David Kilcullen might also have been trying to soft-pedal the "irhabist" threat.
I'm now on my third tour in Afghanistan, so I readily admit that I'm not well-connected to American domestic discourse and don't know if Administration officials are crafting messages for domestic or foreign consumption. I do know that we in the national security community have been discussing this issue for quite some time, so the idea that the statement can ONLY have been directed at "controlling" domestic political thought is patently false.
Not everything in the world should be viewed through an Amero-centric lens. Sometimes, believe it or not, some of us are actually directing our efforts to the part of the world that most threatens us, and not just talking about the monumental problem at hand.
But what is your evidence that it is being targeted at the US domestic population and not, as with Ambassador Djerjian and Kilcullen, at the practitioners of American foreign and military policy in the Middle East and Central Asia? I'm definitely interested in seeing that.
Thank You and Godspeed