'Jihad-lite' - less filling, more tasteful

Submitted by Chuck Mundy (United States), Nov 1, 2002 at 12:51

When one looks at events since the Iranian Revolution, and uses them as a context for understanding which interpretation of 'jihad' is correct, one can only conclude that a 'martial' understanding of the term is the only one that makes any sense at all.

I simply cannot see why any Muslim, adopting the 'jihad-lite' understanding, would want to kill infidels. On the other hand, a Muslim understanding 'jihad' in the martial sense would certainly have no qualms about any person, other Muslims included, who did not adhere to his version of reality (translated as ideology).

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".