One of the obstacles in the current ideological struggle between the "West" (a vague and problematic term I will nonetheless use for its utility) and folks like Osama bin Laden is a continuing struggle on the Western side over how to describe or define those who oppose them (or us, since I'm among 'em). It isn't a struggle against Arabs, because the group includes many different ethnicities; or Muslims, because the group does not include all Muslims.
We could call particular sects by their individual names: these are Salafist Sunni, these are Shia of the Iranian Qom school, and so forth. But that solution presents other problems, since (1) it requires Westerners to understand the arcane doctrinal positions and hierarchical disputes that define these individual groups, and (2) its emphasis on distinction creates an illusion of separation -- we begin to think of Al-Qa'ida as a separate problem from Hezbollah, and both of them as distinct from the Islamic Brotherhood Salafists in Egypt, and so forth. This would be an error because we know that many of these groups lends the others moral, if not financial or logistical, support. Treating them as entirely separate entities would be like fighting WWII and ignoring the connections between Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Yet, how do we describe or define each of these groups? "Terrorists" is not an ideological claim, but a statement about tactics: the IRA and ELF are terrorist organizations, but they are clearly not of the same class as Al-Qa'ida or Hezbollah. "Islamists" has been suggested, but that too is problematic, because the term does not clearly distinguish between peaceful Muslims and Al-Qa'ida, et al. "Islamic Fascists" has been suggested, but it too is unsatisfactory: "Fascist" is a woefully overused term that means little more in the current political vernacular than "people who want to legally impose a value system I don't like," and what law doesn't do that? (Some might bring anti-Semitism into the mix, but hatred of Jews wasn't the defining trait of Italian Fascism that it was in Nazism, so "Fascist" is still not quite the right word.) Then, eventually we notice that these Al-Qa'ida types already have a word they use to describe what they are: "Jihadi," Arabic for "One who fights the Jihad."
So, it seems that we've found the word we need: "Jihad." Only again we have a problem, because we are told by many Muslims of the more peaceful sort that we can't use the word to describe Al-Qa'ida. This is improper, they argue, because for them "jihad" (Arabic for "struggle") means the inner struggle of a good person against sinful impulses. They cite a passage in the Hadith in which Mohammed tells his soldiers that their war is the "lesser jihad," while inner moral struggle is the "greater jihad." Thus, we are told, it is improper for us to refer to Osama as a jihadi because that disrespects the concept of the inner moral jihad. So -- despite the fact that Osama and company call themselves jihadis -- we can't.
Now, I think this whole dispute is precisely paralleled by another problematic concept: the "Crusade." The medieval Crusades are constantly thrown up in the face of the West in general, and Christianity in particular, as an example of our own values run amuck. "Crusader" is commonly used in Al-Qa'ida, etc., literature as a generic term for Westerners, and the iconic knight with the cross-emblazoned surcoat is found in editorial cartoons throughout the Muslim world. So, while we may not have a word for them, they certainly have a word for us.
But is their use of the term "Crusader" allowable under the terms of their own logic? I argue that it isn't. The term "Crusader" arises from language used to describe a European soldiers enlistment in the foreign "holy war": a knight was said to "take up the cross." In other words, the Church presented the "holy war" as a Christian duty, and so used the phrase associated in Christendom with the performance of Christian duty: "taking up the cross." But where does this expression originate?
Unsurprisingly enough, it came from the words of Jesus. The phrase comes up in more than one passage, but one of the main ones is Matthew 16:24-27 (a discourse repeated in other gospels):
The context in which Jesus makes these statements is His prophecy of His approaching Passion; in other words, the call to take up the cross is a call to suffer "for my sake." Furthermore, the notion of some kind of reward or reckoning in this world is discounted; instead the reward comes when the "Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father" -- the eschaton. So, the notion that Christians ought to suit up and ride off against the infidels is alien to Jesus' intent in the phrase "take up the cross." This is further confirmed when Jesus informs Pontius Pilate that "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight" (John 18:36). Therefore the phrase "take up the cross" and (arguably) "Crusade" can legitimately be used to describe the Christian's struggle against sin, denial of self, and patient endurance of this world's trials.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
In case my point isn't already clear, here 'tis: "Jihad" and "Crusade" can both be used to describe armed conflict and inner moral struggle. Yet, we are told, the Muslims get to tell us how to use their word "Jihad," while they use "Crusader" as they please. But this is contradictory: why can't Christians insist that Muslims can't use the term "Crusader," claiming that it properly refers to Christians "taking up their cross" and living holy lives, etc.? It would be a fair trade: we can't use their word, and they can't use our word.
This is not, in fact, what I propose. Why not? Well, first of all, I disapprove on principle with the idea of groups dictating the terms in which others discuss them, even in debate. It's like that game Taboo where you have to describe something without using any words on a list: it's a fun game, but it doesn't aid communication at all. Second, the Crusades happened. Even if they were over half a millenia ago, they still occurred and we can't ignore that. We could use "Crusader" to mean "Christian who lives a life of humble submission to Christ," but that would ignore the elephant in the room -- the big cross-painted elephant stomping on Muslims, Jews, Albigensians, Slavs, and schismatic Popes. It would be naive and perverse to act as if the meaning of "Crusade" is not now tangled inextricably with those events. Conversely, Jihad -- the jihad of the sword -- happened and is happening. It can't be ignored or forgotten or pushed under the rug. If Muslims are uncomfortable with the attention being paid to their violent history, they should not try to hide it. They should do what Christendom largely has done with the Crusades: (1) apologize, and (2) address in current theological discourse why "holy war" is doctrinally and ethically wrong.* They haven't done that. Instead, what we get are "Islam means peace" and "jihad is inner moral struggle," which are dodging the issue, not dealing with it. To bring back the "elephant in the room" analogy, they deny the elephant is there and call you a racist whenever you point out that the elephant just stepped on your foot. No fruitful discussion can occur if one side of the argument is allowed to limit the denotations of words in a way that prevents the other side from expressing their complaint.
So, the short version: if peaceful Muslims don't like Westerners using the term "Jihad" as a way to describe Osama and his posse, they need to take it up with Osama, because that's how he uses the word. If they don't like the violent denotation of "Jihad," they shouldn't prevent the use of the word: they should eliminate the action it denotes.
* One problem presents itself: if Muslims apologize for their violent past, they can hardly avoid at least implicitly attributing wrongdoing to Muhammed. Which ain't happening. And that, I think, is at the heart of peaceful Muslims' discomfort with the whole issue and why they'd prefer it just went away.
No comments:
Post a Comment