Thanks to Political Islam.....used with permission....
Jihad is jihad.
The hadith are as important to Islam as the Koran.
Muslims and USA politics
Terminology of Islam-Naming
Naming, nomenclature or terminology is a first step in knowledge. Words shape how we think and reflect our concepts. With new words we can think new thoughts. Equally important is that without the right words it is hard to have the right thoughts. One of the marks of any expert is their command of the "trade talk".
Islam is a complete civilization and as such has its own highly technical and precise language. From the multi-cultural point-of-view it is bigoted not to use Islam's language and substitute a non-Islamic language.
There is one, and only one, correct basis for the terms and names to be used in describing anything Islamic. That basis is the doctrine of Islam, which is only found in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is found in the Sira (Mohammed's biography) and the Hadith (Mohammed's traditions). All religious and political Islamic doctrine is found in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The definitive Sira is by Ibn Ishaq. There are six collections of Hadith, but the most authoritative is Bukhari. Everything is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith-three books. Upon close examination that amounts to all of Islam is Mohammed (remember, he is the only one who ever heard the words of Allah).
Let us address the other source of information about Islam-experts. There are two kinds of experts-Muslim and kafir (non-Muslims). But in either case, if the expert agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right, but he is redundant. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed, the expert is wrong. So experts are either redundant or wrong. The only expert that can be trusted to be 100% correct in every case is Mohammed. So why bother with any other expert?
It is the doctrine of Islam that is the true source of names and terminology.
Let's take an example-the "moderate Muslim". Most kafirs use the term moderate to mean someone who seems reasonable and nice. But that definition is not Islamic. A moderate Muslim is someone who follows the doctrine of Islam. Anyone who follows the example of Mohammed is moderate in terms of the doctrine of Islam.
But, Islam has two doctrines-the early Islam of Mecca and the later Islam of Medina. As a result there are two forms of moderation-dualism. In Mecca Mohammed was generally religious and achieved little success. He only garnered 150 followers in 13 years. Then in Medina he became a warrior and political leader and achieved complete success in 10 years. The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith all document these two different Sunnas.
So, a Muslim who follows the Koran of Mecca is a moderate. But a Muslim who follows the Sunna of jihad is also a moderate. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim. He follows the Sunna and Koran of Medina. Jihad is one form of moderation.
In the same light, an extremist Muslim is one who does not follow the Sunna. So an apostate, one who leaves Islam, is an extremist, whereas Mohammed Atta was a moderate Muslim.
The kafir failure of naming
Kafirs have always failed at the right names for Islam. When Islam exploded out of Arabia, kafirs called then Arabs. When Islam invaded Eastern Europe, they were referred to as Turks. When Islam invaded Spain, kafirs called the invaders, Moors.
The jihad of Umar burst out of Arabia and crushed the Christian world of Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East. The Christians recorded it as an Arabic war. When Islam invaded Europe, Europeans called it a Turkish invasion. The jihad against Christian Spain was an invasion by the Moors. The Muslims called these events jihad.
In the early nineteenth century America sent the Navy and Marines to war against the Barbary pirates on the Berber coast in North Africa. For centuries the Islamic Barbary pirates had raided Europe and taken nearly a million white slaves, and their shipping raids in the Mediterranean had taken a great toll. But the Muslims never called their naval raiders "Barbary pirates." They called them ghazis, sacred raiders. A raid led by Mohammed against the kafirs' caravans was called a ghazwah. The Muslims were clear that naval raids by the "Barbary pirates" were actually jihad by the army of Mohammed. Naming them "pirates" showed that the kafirs had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam. Today we call the jihadists off the coast of Somalia who are attacking ships, pirates.
Look at the news today. The media report an intifada, uprising, by the Palestinians against the Israelis. But the terms intifada, Palestinian, and Israeli are misnomers. The real terms are jihad, Muslim and infidel, if we follow the Koran, and the doctrine of political Islam clearly states that jihad is to be waged by all Muslims against all Jews and other "kafirs." Today is no different from 1400 years ago in Islam.
9/11 is recorded in the West as a terrorist attack by terrorists. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, was a pious Muslim. He left a letter clearly stating his intentions: 9/11 was pure jihad. An attack is a single event, but jihad is a 1400-year continuous process. Therefore, a terrorist attack is not the same as jihad. Terrorism does not have the same meaning as jihad.
Kafirs called them the "Paris riots." Muslims called the burnings and theft the "Great Ramadan Offensive," which connects them to Mohammed's first jihad in the sacred month of Ramadan. The name "Paris riots" evokes different thoughts, insights, and points of view from the "Great Ramadan Offensive."
The naming of these events by kafirs does not convey the right meaning. Muslims' names for themselves and their actions connect events and people with Islamic history and doctrine and show a continuing process. Kafir names are temporary, do not connect events, and show no historic process.
The only correct terms are those of Islam. The naming by the kafirs is wrong because the naming is a projection of Western culture. Correct naming leads to correct thinking.
Why are we talking about naming?
One of the marks of a dhimmi (a kafir who is an apologist for Islam) under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.
University Islamic studies never mention the political doctrine in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira and Hadith). The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don't teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Black history doesn't refer to the 100 million Africans destroyed over 1400 years of jihadic predation that fed the slave trade up to today. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force.
The problem with this ignorance is that our intellectuals are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism, whereas our civilization is based upon the ideal of unitary ethics. Our intellectuals cannot explain what this difference has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future.
As a result, kafirs have no intellectual leadership who can speak in terms of Islamic doctrine.
There are four types of jihad (according to Mohammed)-sword, pen, mouth and money. When we listen to Muslim experts try to get kafirs to use "moderate" names, we are submitting to the jihad of the pen and the mouth.
There is only one source of correct terminology-the doctrine of Islam. Use it.
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.