(See also: Palestinian/Arab Terrorism; Islamist Terror Attacks; Radical / Fundamentalist Islam's Nature, Goals, and History; and Islamic Terrorism and Jihad)

The Arabic root of the word jihad, a concept central to Islam, is jahada, which means “to strive for” -- implying some type of struggle to overcome an adversary. Two types of jihad are generally recognized: The first ("greater jihad") is the soul’s struggle with evil -- the daily inner quest to be a better person -- where one’s adversary is psychological conflict and moral temptation. The second type ("lesser jihad") is the struggle against religious or political oppression -- an armed conflict fought in defense of Islam -- where the adversary is an actual physical presence that must be destroyed.

Since 9/11, many organizations and individuals, both religious and secular, have actively promoted the idea that authentic jihad, in its truest sense, is by no means an actual physical war, let alone a war rooted in aggression or a desire for conquest. According to these apologists, only a minority of fringe Muslim fanatics think otherwise.

For example, following 9/11 the Presbyterian News Service explained: “Jihad refers primarily to the inner struggle of being a person of virtue and submission to Allah in all aspects of life. This is sometimes described as ‘jihad of the heart.’”

The United Church of Christ produced a publication stating that jihad means “to strive or to exert oneself,” and that equating the term with “holy war” is to “distort its spiritual significance and connotation.” Jihad’s purpose, the piece continued, is to establish “equilibrium within the inner being of man as well as in the human society in which that person functions.”

Said the National Council of Churches: “Jihad means struggle or exertion in the way of God. The ‘greater jihad’ is the struggle against temptation and evil within oneself. The ‘lesser jihad’ is working against injustice or oppression in society.”

A Harvard Islamic Society (HIS) faculty advisor defined true jihad as “the constant struggle of Muslims to conquer their inner base instincts, to follow the path to God, and to do good in society.to do good in society.” Onetime HIS president Zayed Yasin concurred that “jihad is not something that should make someone feel uncomfortable.” And Harvard dean Michael Shinagel declared that jihad -- far from having militant connotations -- denotes instead one’s personal quest “to promote justice and understanding in ourselves and in our society.”

In a similar spirit, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has depicted jihad as “the struggle against evil inclinations within oneself [and] the quality of life in society.”

The aforementioned groups and individuals generally contend not only that jihad's true spirit is peaceful (rather than militaristic), but also that the militaristic form of jihad can itself be either "good" or "bad." By this theory's reckoning, the good jihad occurs when the proper religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad jihad, called also hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the "real" Muslim leadership. Those Muslims who wage a hiraba are called mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers."

The advocates of this theory recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the jihadists by that name and stop identifying the concept of jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that "jihad is good, but the mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense."

Significantly, this jihad-vs.-mufsidoon template was produced by clerics of the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, as a plan to prevent jihad and jihadism from being depicted by the West and the international community as an illegal or repugnant activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the United States, particularly within America's defense and security apparatus. By aiming to convince Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real jihadists but merely a small band of renegades, the advocates of this school promote confusion about the actual nature of America's Islamist enemy. This is a classic jihadi terror tactic known as taqiya, the doctrine of deception and deflection.

Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes explains what jihad in fact has meant, historically, to Muslims:

“The way the jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history.... The goal is boldly offensive, and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world....

"Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad.... The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth. Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life.... Today, jihad is the world’s foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups."

According to the scholar Bat Ye'or, for non-Muslims through history jihad has meant “war, dispossession,... slavery and death.” She adds:

“The fate of Jews in Arabia foreshadowed that of all the peoples subsequently conquered by the Arabs. The primary guiding principle was to summon the non-Muslims to convert or accept Muslim supremacy, and, if faced with refusal, to attack them until they submitted to Muslim domination.... The jihad developed into a war of conquest whose chief aim was the conversion of infidels.... The jihad is a global conception that divides the peoples of the world into two irreconcilable camps.... [It] is the normal and permanent state of war between the Muslims and the [infidels], a war that can only end with the final domination over unbelievers and the absolute supremacy of Islam throughout the world.”

The RESOURCES column located on the right side of this page contains links to articles, essays, and videos that explore such topics as:

jihad's nature, history, goals, and tactics;
jihad's long record of treating non-believers as second-class citizens (dhimmi) who are subject to all manner of humiliations and penalties;
jihad's persistent hatred for Jews, and its quest to vanquish them from the Middle East;
the historical links between jihad and fascism;
the murderous intentions of jihadists and Islamo-fascists, as told in their own words;
Muslim efforts to advance the hegemony of Islamic law in the United States by introducing it stealthily and incrementally into American society;
the many ways in which jihadists obtain the money they need in order to effectively pursue their various objectives;
how jihadist movements have taken root in Western nations specifically;
how jihadist movements have sprouted and grown in various nations and regions of the world;
the West's propensity to ignore, euphemize, or whitewash the violent, hate-driven objectives of Islamic jihad;
profiles of college- and university-student organizations that may be classified as "fellow-traveling" or "apologist" groups that aid and abet jihadists and the Islamo-fascist movement;
how jihadists use the Internet for purposes of recruitment, collaboration, and mutual encouragement in their quest to establish worldwide Islamic supremacy;
prominent black racists who have become leading figures of the Islamic jihad in the United States;
the psychology and belief systems of those who engage in jihad as an expression of reverence for their deity; and
the testimony of former jihadists who, at some point in their lives, chose to renounce violence and extremism.

Parts of this Summary are adapted from "Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad," by Walid Phares (July 18, 2007).