Jihad and Crusades? Forbidden Words

From The Brussels Journal. Scary when politicians are banned from using words, isn't it?

A glossocrat whose power is based on words is afraid of words. The EU has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to use "non-offensive" phrases when talking about terrorism. The word Jihad should preferably not be used at all, or should be explained as a misunderstood term meaning peaceful struggle against oneself. These recommendations are being implemented. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in an attempt to avoid offending Muslims, in the summer of 2007 banned his ministers from mentioning "Muslim" and "terrorism" in the same breath, following attempted terror attacks staged by Muslims - including several medical doctors - in Glasgow and London.

To quote Paul Fregosi's book Jihad in the West: "The Jihad, the Islamic so-called Holy War, has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East for more than 1300 years, but this is the first history of the Muslim wars in Europe ever to be published. Hundreds of books, however, have appeared on its Christian counterpart, the Crusades, to which the Jihad is often compared, although they lasted less than two hundred years and unlike the Jihad, which is universal, were largely but not completely confined to the Holy Land. Moreover, the Crusades have been over for more than 700 years, while a Jihad is still going on in the world. The Jihad has been the most unrecorded and disregarded major event of history. It has, in fact, been largely ignored. For instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the Crusades eighty times more space than the Jihad."

At the same time as the memory of 1300 years of almost continuous Jihad warfare and Islamic aggression is gradually being erased from Western school textbooks, "Islamophobia" is being promoted as a serious challenge. By substituting "Jihad" with "Islamophobia," emphasis is moved from Europeans defending themselves against Islamic violence to innocent Muslims suffering from prejudice and racism. An alternate word thus creates an alternate reality.


Anonymous said…
Gosh, if there's been a "constant state of Jihad" for 1,200 years, why isn't the entire world under Islamist rule?

Ooh, I'm sorry, that blew a hole right through your theory, didn't it?
Abu Daoud said…
Hi Jim,

Thank you for the comment. "Constant state of Jihad" is a doctrinal idea and it is, I think, accurate.

In other words, the Dar al Islam is indeed in a constant state of Jihad against the Dar al Harb. If in the recent centuries that jihad was not very successful it is because of the overwhelming power of the European empires.

That is one of the key reasons why the whole world has not been subjected to Islam. But the overall trend of history, from N Africa to parts o India to Turkey to Central Asia, show that jihad is indeed a reality we must deal with.
Fletcher said…
I would like to add that the Christian Crusades were largely defensive, at least in origin. The Christians wanted to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims that overtook it.

Another stark contrast are the "leaders" of the two. While Jesus died to save Christians and bring mankind to God, Muhammed conquered by and converted people to Islam by force, by the sword. So with Christ, there as a sacrifice FOR you... with the spread of Islam, it is a sacrifice OF you should you not adhere.

I know this isn't a politically correct view, but if it's true, then it's true... and it is.
Joab said…
"non-offensive terms to describe terrorists"

Good God. Wouldn't want to offend the terrorists, would we?

Popular posts from this blog

Pakistan population may touch 292m mark by 2050

Ant Greenham's list of reasons for Muslims converting to Christ

Missionary Secrets 4: our churches don't know what to do with us...