I think we're running into confusion over the definition of what a "jihadist" is.

But to call Jesus a crusader, when the crusaders murdered many innocent Jews, seems absurd to me.

I think we're running into confusion over the definition of what a "jihadist" is. — BitconnectCarlos

Then by all means, clarify the confusion, I'm all ears.

But I would like to raise a related issue: how do we deal with militant politico-religious groups anywhere, including our own?

How do we deal with American Christian Nationalism? Who is responsible for 'causing' it? Should it be stamped out? Should it be punished? Forbidden? Who has the responsibility for solving the problem of American Christian Nationalism? — BC

Difficult question. A simple answer is that those of us who are not ideologically aligned with or politically adjacent to such groups should go about making it difficult for these people to enact their agenda. Yes, I know. Honestly, I'd have to think about it quite a bit to come up with a more substantive answer on how to deal with it. On whether or not it should be allowed: if influencing the government to adopt Christianity as what would essentially be a state religion is necessary for Christian nationalism to be Christian nationalism (and that might not be the case, if I'm being generous), then we cannot let it exist. I mean that sincerely: it must not exist if we are to preserve the separation of church and state. How we go about fighting something like that, once again, I'm not totally sure.

I'm coming across so many different definitions that it's essentially rendering the term meaningless. Jihad is an actual concept within Islam, jihadism seems like it's just a pejorative that's associated with violence.

I'm coming across so many different definitions that it's essentially rendering the term meaningless. Jihad is an actual concept within Islam, jihadism seems like it's just a pejorative that's associated with violence. — BitconnectCarlos

Tell me what part, or parts, of the following definition and characterization you don't agree with:

Jihad (/dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جِهَاد, romanized: jihād [dʒiˈhaːd]) is an Arabic word that means "exerting", "striving", or "struggling", particularly with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] In an Islamic context, it encompasses almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as an internal struggle against evil in oneself, efforts to build a good Muslim community (ummah), and struggle to defend Islam.[1][2][5][6] Literally meaning 'struggle', the term is most frequently associated with warfare.[4] — Wikipedia

EDIT: Furthermore,

Jihad is classified into inner ("greater") jihad, which involves a struggle against one's own passions and impulses, and outer ("lesser") jihad, which is further subdivided into jihad of the pen/tongue (debate or persuasion) and jihad of the sword (warfare).[5][7]: 13 [8] Much of Muslim opinion considers inner jihad to have primacy over outer jihad, although many Western scholars disagree. The analysis of a large survey from 2002 reveals considerable nuance in the conceptions of jihad held by Muslims around the world, ranging from righteous living and promoting peace to fighting against the opponents of Islam.[9] — Wikipedia

I don't disagree with any of it. Jihad is a real thing; jihadism, as far as I can tell, is basically a pejorative.

5. Religious tolerance applies to religious tenets. — Leontiskos

It applies to some religious tenets. If your religion requires you to punch nonbelievers in the face, that shouldn't be tolerated.

I'm thinking that we can say that "Jihadism" represents part of the religion of those Muslims who accept and practice Jihad in the "outer" and violent sense.

"Jihadism refers to militant Islamic movements that use violence to achieve their political and religious goals." — BitconnectCarlos

I take it that this is not pejorative. I take it that Jihadis would not disagree with this description of themselves.

The problem may or may not go away, but it will stop being our problem. — T Clark

I doubt it. In anycase, even if all support for Israel vanished and all troops were pulled out of the region, there's been such a history of terrorism against the U.S., the U.S. would still conduct counterterrorism operations, and those operations alone would provide justification for the jihadists to attack the U.S. and it's allies. It's an insolvable problem until the jihadists vanish.

It applies to some religious tenets. If your religion requires you to punch nonbelievers in the face, that shouldn't be tolerated. — RogueAI

I take it that "religious tolerance" means tolerating religiously motivated acts. So if you do not tolerate the punch in question, then you are not practicing religious tolerance. You are being intolerant of a religion.

I think the only alternative is to say, "I am tolerating religiously motivated acts by prohibiting or censuring religiously motivated acts," which is contradictory.

I take it that "religious tolerance" means tolerating religiously motivated acts. So if you do not tolerate the punch in question, then you are not practicing religious tolerance. You are being intolerant of a religion. — Leontiskos

Unless it's not a religion to begin with, which is why this is not an entirely private matter, it is in part a public matter. If public entities (such as federal entities) don't recognize it as a religion, then it's up to the believers to prove that they are a religion, and that their specific interpretation (i.e., their specific "denomination", if you will) is indeed a legitimate religious interpretation of their own scripture.

I think the only alternative is to say, "I am tolerating religiously motivated acts by prohibiting or censuring religiously motivated acts," which is contradictory. — Leontiskos

The alternative is to demarcate, between religion and non-religion, just as we demarcate between science and non-science, art and non-art. As for the question of who should do the demarcation, that's another discussion. But I am convinced that it cannot be an entirely private matter, because it is related to public concerns.

Unless it's not a religion to begin with — Arcane Sandwich

Sure, but no one is arguing that Jihad is not religious.

I'm thinking that we can say that "Jihadism" represents part of the religion of those Muslims who accept and practice Jihad in the "outer" and violent sense. — Leontiskos

Then this should be all muslims, at least in theory. Outer jihad is a veritable part of jihad and jihad is a veritable part of Islam.

I take it that this is not pejorative. I take it that Jihadis would not disagree with this description of themselves.

When I look up the term the articles specify that it only applies to "extremist" groups and not the average, peace-loving muslim.

Sure, but no one is arguing that Jihad is not religious. — Leontiskos

Some Muslim scholars argue that jihadism, understood as the violent overthrow of a non-Muslim state, is not compatible with Islam, and it is therefore not the correct, religious interpretation of what Jihad is in the context of the Muslim religion.

I take it that "religious tolerance" means tolerating religiously motivated acts. So if you do not tolerate the punch in question, then you are not practicing religious tolerance. You are being intolerant of a religion.

I think the only alternative is to say, "I am tolerating religiously motivated acts by prohibiting or censuring religiously motivated acts," which is contradictory. — Leontiskos

I wouldn't expect any country to blanketly tolerate all religious tenets. The tenets that infringe on other's rights of non-interference will not be tolerated and should not be.

I wouldn't expect any country to blanketly tolerate all religious tenets. The tenets that infringe on other's rights of non-interference will not be tolerated and should not be. — RogueAI

Right:

Suppose a state has a law against prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now suppose they prohibit a Jihadi from exercising their religion. I would submit that what is occurring is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion, which is religious intolerance. I think the state would acknowledge this and say, "Free exercise of religion is not unconditional."

But note that religious tolerance and free exercise of religion is precisely what is not occurring in this scenario. It is being overridden by a higher law. — Leontiskos

Right. I should have caught that. I was skimming the thread.

- That's fair. I'm just trying to capture the OP's usage in a way that is at least loosely related to the meaning of the words. We can restrict Jihadism to extremists. I don't see that as a problem for the purpose of this thread.

-

Some Muslim scholars argue that jihadism, understood as the violent overthrow of a non-Muslim state, is not compatible with Islam, and it is therefore not the correct, religious interpretation of what Jihad is in the context of the Muslim religion. — Arcane Sandwich

Okay, but I don't see this as sufficient for the conclusion that Jihadism is not religious. Even if the Jihadi is not a "real Muslim," what they are doing still seems to be a religious act. On the premise that they are not a "real Muslim," their religion is a deviant form of Islam, but I don't see how this quantitatively small deviation from "true Islam" can cause the Jihadi to be non-religious.

Okay, but I don't see this as sufficient for the conclusion that Jihadism is not religious. Even if the Jihadi is not a "real Muslim," what they are doing still seems to be a religious act. On the premise that they are not a "real Muslim," their religion is a deviant form of Islam, but I don't see how this quantitatively small deviation from "true Islam" can cause the Jihadi to be non-religious. — Leontiskos

There is a theological difference between a religion and a sect, which is why there is a theological difference between religious behavior and sectarian behavior. The leader of a doomsday cult, who tells his followers that he is the Second Incarnation of Christ and that they, being his loyal followers, must commit mass suicide, is not behaving religiously as a Christian should nor as a Christian would, he is behaving in a non-Christian, sectarian way.

(slightly edited for clarity)

There is a theological difference between a religion and a sect... — Arcane Sandwich

Let me try to cut to the chase a bit. What if Jihadis win the entirety of the judicial placements in the Islamic schools? At which point all of the Islamic authorities favor "Jihadism" as part of Islam? What happens then? I submit that all the people who are now pointing to those scholars and schools that oppose Jihadism would simply pivot and claim that religious tolerance is not unconditional, and that the religion of Islam does not need to be tolerated vis-a-vis Jihad. I don't think they would claim that Islam is no longer a religion.

So the buck stops at the fact that nations (including especially secular nations) do not tolerate the violence of Jihadism. If it is non-religious they won't tolerate it, and if it is religious they won't tolerate it. It makes no difference whether it is religious or non-religious. It's not as though if the Islamic authorities can convince everyone that Jihad is part of Islam, then Jihad will be tolerated. Besides, I find the implicit idea here that religions are never inherently violent to be simply ahistorical.

nations (including especially secular nations) do not tolerate the violence of Jihadism — Leontiskos

Of course not. Why would they? Secular nations delegate the monopoly of violence to a particular group of people (I.e., law enforcement). Those are the only people that can use force in a legitimate way, and only under certain conditions (i.e., proportionality, circumstance, level of threat, etc.).

If it is non-religious they won't tolerate it, and if it is religious they won't tolerate it. It makes no difference whether it is religious or non-religious. — Leontiskos

Indeed.

It's not as if the Islamic authorities can convince everyone that Jihad is part of Islam, then Jihad will be tolerated — Leontiskos

It's actually a really simple theological point to make: for Muslims, the inner jihad is more important than the outer jihad. The inner jihad is one's effort to be good, not evil. The outer jihad, however you wish to define it, is less important, by definition, and this is literal scripture, it's not open to interpretation. Of course, no one is under the obligation to convert to Islam. But if you're a Muslim, it would be heretical to say that the outer jihad is more important than the inner jihad.

I genuinely wonder how you might rationalize what seems obvious to me: radical interpretations of scripture in the Quran tend towards producing mass-murdering maniacs at a (relatively) high rate. I consider that to be partially a problem with Islam, as those scriptures are given meaning by shared interpretations of a shared book. Although I think our policy definitely factors into the attitudes of jihadists heavily, and almost certainly fuels radicalization, one group just seems to be consistently more belligerent, at least in terms of acting violently for religious reasons, than others. — ToothyMaw

I am not a sophisticated student of Middle East or Islamic history, but it seems to me that what we call jihadism is primarily a political movement juiced up by religion. Solve the political problem and we solve the rest. We solve the political problem by getting out of the way. The jihadis are only a problem if they are coming after us or our friends. Within Islam they can work it out for themselves.

As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with Imams wanting to set up sharia law in western countries. They're not coming to set up the New World Caliphate.

the U.S. would still conduct counterterrorism operations, — RogueAI

If the terrorists stopped terrorizing, why would we keep conducting counterterrorism? Islam is not another evil empire coming to get us.

Nothing does more for Jihadism, and brings more to its cause, than its oppression.

Counterpoint: if the US and the rest of the region hadn't rapidly stood up a massive air campaign against IS as they advanced into the Baghdad suburbs in 2014 (and provided significant ground support) it seems fairly obvious that IS would have taken most of Iraq, all of Syria, and likely expanded into Lebanon by 2016.

Even with a massive amount of air and artillery support it still took almost three years to retake Mosul, with the siege of the city lasting 9 months after the initial encirclement and resulting in civilian losses that were, on some measures, a significantly higher proportion of the population than Gaza to date.

Essentially, IS wasn't going anywhere without the coalition carrying out an extremely large scale air campaign. IS was smashing through US trained and equipped Iraqi divisions despite huge numerical and material disadvantages, fighting Iran and Hezbollah and winning, fighting other Jihadis and winning, and advancing against both Russia and the SAA, while also engaged and making progress on a third major front while tangling with both the Kurds and the Turks.

There is very little reason to think the problem would have just "gone away."




Many of the countries with the largest Jihadi problems are hostile to Israel and have essentially no footprint in the Middle East. Likewise, Iran, Hezbollah, and other "Shia kufar," threatened with Salafi Jihad are not exactly huge fans of Israel.

Those are the only people that can use force in a legitimate way, and only under certain conditions (i.e., proportionality, circumstance, level of threat, etc.). — Arcane Sandwich

And the military and special agents.

Counterpoint: if the US and the rest of the region hadn't rapidly stood up a massive air campaign against IS as they advanced into the Baghdad suburbs in 2014 (and provided significant ground support) it seems fairly obvious that IS would have taken most of Iraq, all of Syria, and likely expanded into Lebanon by 2016. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The creation and expansion of ISIS was a direct result of the destruction of government and military infrastructure in Iraq by the US. We were stepping in to solve a problem we created. Let's stop causing those problems to begin with.

Many of the countries with the largest Jihadi problems are hostile to Israel and have essentially no footprint in the Middle East. Likewise, Iran, Hezbollah, and other "Shia kufar," threatened with Salafi Jihad are not exactly huge fans of Israel. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which other targets of jihad are you talking about? If it's not us or our allies, why should we get involved. Let them work it out for themselves.

If the terrorists stopped terrorizing, why would we keep conducting counterterrorism? Islam is not another evil empire coming to get us. — T Clark

That's a big if. Islam isn't an evil empire, and the Islamic holy book itself isn't any worse than the Bible or Torah, but for whatever reason, many Muslims have an archaic worldview where women are little more than property, violence against LGBTQ folk is justified, democracy is shunned, corrupt strongmen rule, and jihad against infidels is applauded. That's not going to change if we stop supporting Israel and wash our hands of the region. We would still be viewed as the Great Satan.

Does the existence of Islamic reformers actually constitute oppression of jihadists, though? If anything, jihadists would be the ones inclined to impose their own political and religious beliefs on others, probably through force or armed conflict by definition. I mean, they literally want to establish a state based on Islamic principles. I don't see how they couldn't transgress others' rights in the process, and I can't think of many plausible things more antithetical to freedom. Shouldn't a libertarian like yourself have some sympathy for those reformers who want some freedom for themselves?

You’ll note the caveat “…so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same”. When that happens all bets are off.

Which other targets of jihad are you talking about?

Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Chad, CAR, etc. Southeast Asia has had its share of Jihadi groups too.

That's a big if. — RogueAI

I think it's a small to medium sized if. If we can extricate the west from the religious and political conflicts within the Islamic world, admittedly a tall order, I don't see why they would care about us anymore.