There is no Islam without Jihad

Obama's policy on this? Obama's counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan calls jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

Saudi Columnist: 'There Is No Islam without Jihad' Memri

Anas Zahed, a columnist for the Saudi government daily Al-Madina, criticized Arab and Muslim intellectuals who limit the term jihad to a personal, spiritual struggle and reject its interpretation as waging war against occupation, which he said is its principle meaning.
Following are excerpts:

"Islam without jihad is the product of colonialism and is in no way connected to the Islam of Muhammad. Without question, the greatest jihad is personal jihad, and therein lies the proof that the term jihad in Islam is not limited [solely] to waging war... [But] this does not mean that the term jihad does not include many other aspects, among them those which relate to the individual's responsibilities to society, and the relations of the [Muslim] society and ummah with societies and countries that declare war on a Muslim state.
"[However,] ever since the American [declaration of] war against what is called terrorism, there has emerged a group of Arab and Muslim authors and academics who try to limit jihad to one dimension, namely to personal jihad. This is exactly what happened in India during the period of British colonialism, when the Qadian sect, also known as Ahmadiyya, emerged and rejected the principle of fighting the colonialists. [They] abolished the duty of jihad in the sense of waging war, and were content with preaching merely personal jihad.

"What is striking is that these preachings, which were intended to rescind the duty of jihad from Islam, existed then, and still exist now, alongside the most brutal type of imperialism and occupation ever known to the Islamic world, and specifically to the Arab world. This fact sheds doubt on the intent of the philosophers, authors, and members of the media who took it upon themselves to disseminate a 'friendly' Islam that obligates its followers to live with occupation, [population] transfer, the resettlement of land, and the expulsion of its inhabitants by force of arms.
"I completely understand that we Muslims must reexamine the term jihad, after the extremist terrorist gangs have attempted to appropriate this noble term. Likewise, I completely understand that we are bound by the conditions and limitations of [declaring] jihad, namely [that jihad can only be declared when] Muslims are being expelled from their land and [are subjected] to religious coercion.

"But I do not at all understand Muslims' calls for the reexamination of the term jihad from a viewpoint that rejects declaring war on those who occupy their land, kill the innocent, destroy homes, and expel millions. Islam is a religion of justice, and the most basic principle of justice demands that evil be opposed and not surrendered to. It goes without saying that occupation is the severest form of evil. If we add to occupation the resettlement of land and expulsion [of population], we arrive at the greatest degree of evil that can befall man. There is no Islam without jihad."[1]
Endnotes:

Torture Taxis and Imperial Injustice

Torture Taxis and Imperial Injustice

Liliana Segura, Alternet

A British colony lying midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean, the island is one of 64 unique coral islands that form the Chagos Archipelago, a phenomenon of natural beauty and once of peace. Newsreaders refer to it in passing: "American B-52 and stealth bombers last night took off from the uninhabited British island of Diego Garcia to bomb Iraq (or Afghanistan)." It is the word "uninhabited" that turns the key on the horror of what was done there. In the 1970s, the Ministry of Defense in London produced this epic lie: "There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation."

Pilger tells the awful story of an island that, at the height of the Cold War, was seized by the British, and with the help of the American government, "swept" and "sanitized." This involved taking a population of natives and, retroactively, reclassifying them as "short-term, temporary residents" that were "returned" to the island of Mauritius, about 1,000 miles away. "In fact," writes Pilger, "many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness."

Rendered disposable, the population of 2,000 was forcibly removed and eventually replaced by American troops: Diego Garcia was leased to the United States free of charge following a secret pact between British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and U.S. President Lyndon Johnson. They inhabit a military base that's now one of the world's largest. The name: "Camp Justice."

Years later, the start of the "war on terror" coincided with a number of significant -- and hideously overdue -- developments for the people of Diego Garcia. In 2000, the British high court ruled the forced removal of the islanders illegal. But, reported Pilger, "within hours of the judgment, the Foreign Office announced that it would not be possible for them to return to Diego Garcia because of a 'treaty' with Washington -- in truth, a deal concealed from Parliament and the U.S. Congress."

In 2003, at the same time that extraordinary rendition flights were carrying detainees to be tortured, a second ruling denied compensation for the former residents of Diego Garcia. Adding brutal insult to injury, the Blair government invoked the "royal prerogative" -- special executive powers that belong only to the king or queen -- to dispense with the earlier ruling -- and "a decree was issued that the islanders were banned forever from returning home."

Today, with Diego Garcia in the spotlight, official reports have tried to continue the fiction that the island never belonged to anyone. "Once uninhabited, it was turned into an air base to protect oil supplies to the West during the Cold War," wrote a reporter in the Gulf Times the day after Miliband's apology.

For their part, U.S. officials are taking responsibility for failing to tell the British about the flights in and out of Diego Garcia. "That we found this mistake ourselves, and that we brought it to the attention of the British government, in no way changes or excuses the reality that we were in the wrong," CIA Director Michael Hayden said. "An important part of intelligence work, inherently urgent, complex and uncertain, is to take responsibility for errors and to learn from them."

Perhaps. But if Diego Garcia's role in the war on terror is any indication, neither the U.S. nor the British government have learned from their mistakes. It is only the latest chapter in an epic story of imperial injustice.

•