What We Should Say about Jihād
What should academic Islamicists say about jihād? That question is a specific form of the general question about the religion and violence question for academic religionists.
Recently, the media have focused on activist Linda Sarsour's invocation of the idea at a conference of the Islamic Society of North America.
In addition to the predictable conservative response, liberals have conveniently explained for her that jihād is a poetic abstraction for inner turmoils, akin to resisting the urge to tear up a parking ticket or eat lots of carbs.
But the thing is, jihād isn't the above things. It really does mean something like a meaningfully forceful confrontation of others in religious terms. The mystical/care of the self use is, however important, derivative of the embattled meaning.
Islamicists shouldn't say this use argues against Islam or Muslims in any way- imagine every Christian's use of "crusade" submitted to similar interrogation; imagine every lefty's use of "revolution".
What inspires passionate loyalties and commitments is seldom nice and accommodating. Imagine the "Marseillaise" or "Battle Hymn of the Republic" as admitting the points of aristocrats and slaveholders and agreeing to reflect further on our shared situation.
In this, we need to confront the historically false and insidious ways liberals apologize for Islam and Muslims by dismissing an unsettling call to action as a banal hope for a better world.
Speaking for, and speaking over, Muslims in distinctive idioms might do some temporary favors, but it limits the terms of recognition to those of docility and triviality. For the left and for many others, the way things are merit a committed struggle against, and that comes in many forms that need listening.
Academic Islamicists should have more here.