Jihad

Once again, many parts of the Muslim world fall into a defensive rage because of perceived criticism, confirming the belief of many that Islam as widely practised today is intolerant of different perspectives (whether they are external or internal to the faith). It was doubtless folly for the Pope to make the remarks he did and appear not to contradict a quote that Islam was 'evil and inhuman'. The defence that his speech was a piece of deep-theology beyond the ken of ordinary mortal minds just won't wash. The Vatican, stuck in a different history to the rest of the world, needs to get its act together. Just as the previous Pope sent millions to their deaths by not explicitly approving condom use, it looks like this Pope may be prone to error.

However, there is a question in his commentary that deserves to be asked - that of the centrality of jihad in Islamic belief. Muslims and non-muslims have to ask what does jihad actually mean? To an outsider, it simply means war on all infidels (non-Muslims). To that extent, Islam does get perceived as an intrinsically violent faith. So, perhaps jihad should be sidelined in moderate practice of the faith. Or, perhaps there is another scholarly re-interpretation of the concept available. The word comes from the Arabic root ghd, which means 'to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle.' As the link shows, there are six kinds of jihad, only one of which is 'jihad by the sword', referring explicitly to religious war.

Like the word 'Crusade', jihad has a dangerous history. The time for a more spiritual re-interpretation is surely nigh. Otherwise, yet more angry disfranchised young men in Bradford and Peshawar, driven on by rabid mullahs, will continue to abuse and simplify a religious concept as a justification of violence.