Jihad - we've all heard the word. It's most often used by Arabs, in their calls for "holy wars" upon their enemies. It was the war cry for Saddam Hussein, and is used most often nowadays against the Israelis in the Middle East. It has gotten old: when we hear it we all roll our eyes, shake our heads at yet another Muslim fanatic, and move on.
Well, maybe not all of us.... I don't, and I cannot, though I wish so often that I could. I am a Muslim person, who, while not from the Middle East, grew up there. This makes it impossible for me to see anything happening there now in black and white, to accept the way news reporters define "jihad" and move on with my life. They mangle more than the pronunciation, I can tell you that much. They mangle the very meaning of the word, and that is why I would like to share the meaning of jihad that I was taught, because I believe it is important.
Jihad, I was told while I lived in Saudi Arabia, means "a quest for justice." Note that the word "war" is no part of that definition. A person, when defending him/herself in court, for example, can be said to be on his/her own jihad. By this definition, the Jews in Israel currently fighting for their homes can be described as carrying out their own jihad as well. It is a word which applies to either side of this issue, as long as someone is struggling for what they believe is just, with no inherent negative connotations. However, this said, why do we have fanatics frothing at the mouth, screaming the word in efforts to raise the common people to war against "the infidels?"
The answer is obvious: they're fanatics, the very few individuals present in every religion and culture who twist words to their own causes. This is something else we've all seen, in history class if nowhere else. No religion is exempt: not Judaism, not Christianity, and certainly not Islam. Do these few individuals reflect the preferences of the larger population? No, they do not- we all know that.
Or so I thought. I read the Viewpoint titled "The Arab-Jewish Tragedy" in the Oct. 24th issue of the Daily, and the opening quote made my heart stop. Apparently from the name, it was a Muslim man, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, who was quoted as saying "Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them." The article went on to discuss the Israeli position in the conflict in impressive historical detail, with the general theme that Israel is simply defending itself. The quote was repeated once more, and included was a description of how "Arab crowds cheered at the sight of Israeli blood" when the two soldiers were recently lynched by a mob.
What did the author mean to achieve by writing this article, I wonder? Was it to paint a picture of Arabs as truly being bloodthirsty? That can't be - I refuse to think that of anyone, even someone who writes such an article. I suspect it was meant to emphasize the horrific nature of what was done to the Israeli soldiers. If this is true, I have only one question: was it really necessary to do so in such a manner? When I saw the video of the soldier being thrown out the window and then pummeled to death, my stomach turned, and I was as disgusted as everyone. I believe the killers should be brought to justice, tried as criminals for what they have done. Was it necessary to couple the horrific nature of the crime with a description of Arabs as "bloodthirsty?" Must my disgust at the crime be coupled with a sense of responsibility, because I am Muslim, and a condemnation of Arabs (people I lived and grew up with), for the crimes of a few? I apologize to the author if I misunderstand what was meant by the article, but I consider myself an able reader, and unfortunately, the content seemed clear to me.
Alongside this article in the Daily was another, "Reality in the Middle East," (10/24) which, while it made some effort to see both sides of the issue, ended with the quote "So if the Israeli army uses a little force in order to subdue provocative demonstrations that could only lead to violence, understand that they are trying to keep the peace." This quotation raised another question in my mind: was the lynching of the Israeli soldiers by the mob also the use of "a little force?" No, it wasn't. I would never demean them, never dishonor the soldiers' lives by claiming that it was. And yet, how can the same be said for what has been done to the 100-plus Palestinians who have died in recent conflicts? How can their deaths be the results of a "little," necessary force? What applies to one side applies to the other. Neither side is bloodthirsty, but neither side is without blood on their hands either.
Why do I bring these issues up, and cite specifics from the articles of two people who, just as I am right now, expressed their opinions honestly? It is no personal vendetta against either author - I do not know them, and I have nothing against them. The reason I bring up what I do is because I think the worst thing we can do, as people who are deeply conscious about the conflict in the Middle East, is allow ourselves to be biased. I'll be honest: I struggle with this every day. I applaud Barak for his efforts in the peace process, and I disagree with his placing of Ariel Sharon in a position of power in the Israeli government. I cheer Arafat for his perseverance against Muslim fundamentalists, and I curse his inability to control the Palestinian part of the violence. I grieve for every Muslim death, and every Israeli casualty as well. Objectivity doesn't come easily, but I try, and I believe it is worthwhile for everyone to do so. This, then, is my jihad. Because I believe that by refusing to give in to stereotypes, by refusing to let passion overcome reason, is the only way any of us can be truly just.
Tauheed Zaman is a freshman who has not yet chosen a major.
