 |
| Gun researcher Elsie Tu, 97, goes to her "latest Oxford Dictionary" for answers.... |
********
It is impressive that the venerable Elsie Tu comes out of retirement to take on the thorny issue of "jihad" ("Recalling Palestine's sad and bloody history", 15 May). Why, she even went to the trouble of referring to her very "latest Oxford Dictionary”.On the basis of this exhaustive research she claims that I "misunderstand" the meaning of jihad. But even her "latest" OED says that it means "holy war against unbelievers". This was rather my point.
The rest of her letter is a personal reminisce about the Middle East. The "cruel Israelis" get what they deserve and "jihad" has mysteriously metamorphosed into a "fight for...rights". This, Ms Tu assures us, "the Koran permits".
There are two problems here.
First, her recollections are riddled with errors. For example:
... I remembered that soon after the war ended, the leaders of Britain and the United States met together and decided alone in their so-called wisdom to split the country we had always called Palestine into two, divided between Israel and the people who had always lived there. Neither side agreed.
But Palestine was not then a "country... always called Palestine" nor was it divided by Britain and the United States. Israel was established in 1947 from British Mandatory Palestine by Resolution 181 of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Nor is it correct that "neither side agreed"; the partition plan was accepted by Israel (and Jordan). Ironically, that partition plan of 1947 is virtually the same as the one the Palestinians now say they would accept, 64 wasted years later.
Second, this excursion down Ms Tu's faulty memory lane is irrelevant. Israel is not the cause of the global jihad -- "the holy war against unbelievers" -- nor would Israel's annihilation be jihad's demise.
Jihad as "holy war" has been a part of Islam since its inception. That's clear in its doctrines, in the Koran, in the Hadith, in its jurisprudence. It is this understanding that is explicated by the great majority of Islam's most authoritative scholars. If they "misunderstand" the meaning of Jihad, it is to them that Ms Tu should direct the results of her scholarship, not me. I am merely reporting what they say.
Yours, etc...
Postscript 2 (23 May): from El Padrino, "Thoughts on Jihad", 23 May, with exhaustive description of the four types of Jihad.
Postscript 1 (18 May):
Quote from the revered Shia scholar Ruholla Khomeini:
Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
· As quoted in Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism (1987) by Amir Taheri, pp. 241-3. [Source]
