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 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 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.

In the wake of 9/11, many organizations and individuals, both religious and secular, have actively promoted the idea that 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 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.”

According to 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 depicts jihad as “the struggle against evil inclinations within oneself [and] the quality of life in society.”

In his article "Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad," Walid Phares discredits the foregoing misperceptions of jihad, by tracing their roots back to the Wahhabi regime of Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. Phares writes:

In the 1990s, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that Jihad was a "spiritual experience only, and not a menace." That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the "good cop, bad cop" strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality Jihad can develop in two forms: good Jihad and bad Jihad.

The practice of not using "Jihad" and "Jihadism" was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard. On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title "Loosely Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology." Streusand told CNN that "Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith."

The article was posted under the title "Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms" by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. Since then the concept of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling, though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba [bad jihad]. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that "Jihad has been hijacked" as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard's lobbying pieces. Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.

The good holy war is when the right 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. According to this thesis, those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers." The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the Jihadists by that name and 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."

When researched, it turns out that this theory 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 and therefore sanctioned activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy and plunges democracies back into the "black hole" of the 1990s. This last attempt to blur the vision of democracies can be exposed with knowledge of the Jihadi terror strategies and tactics, one of which is known as Taqiya, the doctrine on deception and deflection.

First, the argument of "good Jihad" raises the question of how there can be a legitimate concept of religious war in the twenty-first century to start with. Jihad historically was as "good" as any other religious war over the last 2,000 years. If a "good Jihad" is the one authorized by a caliph and directed under his auspices, then other world leaders also can wage a "good crusade" at will, as long as it is licensed by the proper authority. But in fact, all religious wars are proscribed by international law, period.

Second, the authors of this lobbyist-concocted theory claim that a wrong Jihad is called a Hiraba. But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a "genuine" war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts "spin" on Jihad but leaves the core idea of Jihadism completely intact. The "spoilers" depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate's long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon "fail" their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.

This scenario fits the relations of the global Jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the "hotheaded" Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the "great leap forward" made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real Jihadists but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.

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," Pipes elaborates. "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.” “The fate of Jews in Arabia,” Ye'or says, “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.”

An outstanding analysis of jihad is provided by Menahem Milson's December 21, 2007 article, "Jihad Today," published by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Professor Milson's piece explains that jihad traditionally has meant an aggressive, permanent war of conquest whose ultimate aim is to achieve Islam’s dominion over the human race at large. He writes:

To properly understand the place of jihad in the Muslim world view, it is important to keep in mind that Islam has been, from its very beginning, not only a religion but a political community -- the nation of Islam (ummat al-Islam). Muhammad was not merely a prophet communicating the word of God, but a political leader and military commander. Hence, any victory by the army of a Muslim state over non-Muslims is perceived as a victory for Islam itself. According to Islam, Allah promised the Muslims victory and superiority over all other religions worldwide. Allah validated this message with the Battle of Badr, in Ramadan of 624 CE, in which 300 Muslim warriors under Muhammad's command vanquished the 950-strong army of the Quraysh tribe - a military feat which played a crucial role in shaping the Islamic consciousness.

This victory was not an isolated event. Rather, it was the harbinger of an impressive series of victories that led to the rise of a Muslim empire stretching from India to the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, the notion of Islamic superiority became engrained in the Muslim religious consciousness. "Islam is superior and cannot be surpassed" -- this saying, attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, reflects the Muslim sense of superiority, and this self-perception remained unshaken for many centuries, even when the political and military reality no longer supported it.

According to the traditional Muslim outlook, humanity is thus divided into two groups: the followers of Islam who are called "believers," and all non-Muslims, who are called "infidels." It is the duty of the Muslims to propagate the one true faith -- Islam -- throughout the world. Should the infidels refuse to embrace Islam, jihad is the means to vanquish them.

Among the infidels, Islam distinguishes between two main groups: idolaters or polytheists (who, in Arabic, are called al-mushrikun -- those who place others alongside Allah) and the "People of the Book" (ahl al-kitab), that is, Jews and Christians. Islam recognizes that the Jews and Christians have received divine revelation and divine laws (hence "People of the Book"), but maintains that they distorted the word of God and the holy scriptures, and are thus infidels.

The People of the Book are granted special status in Islam, and their fate is different from that of the polytheist infidels. The Muslims are commanded to fight them until they either accept Islam or agree to pay the poll tax (jizya). The basis for dealing with them is laid down in the Koran in the "jizya verse": "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya out of hand, in a state of submission..." (Koran 9:29). By paying jizya, the People of the Book indicate that they submit to Muslim rule and accept the status of protected people, called in Arabic ahl al-dhimma. [5]

Just as humanity is divided into two -- into believers and infidels -- the world itself is also divided into the abode of Islam (dar al-Islam), namely the region under Muslim rule, and the abode of war (dar al-harb), referring to all lands not yet under Muslim rule, which must be conquered by the sword, i.e., through jihad.

However, jihad, important though it is, is not regarded as a personal obligation (fard 'ain) incumbent upon each and every Muslim. In this, it differs from the "five pillars of Islam" -- the declaration of faith (shahada), prayer, fasting, pilgrimage to Mecca, and the payment of zakat (alms tax) -- which are personal obligations of every individual believer. According to the shari'a, jihad is a collective duty (fard kifaya) of the Muslim nation, or community, as a whole. It is the Muslim ruler who decides when and against whom to declare jihad. When a Muslim ruler declares jihad, it becomes a personal obligation for those whom he orders to take part in the war.

There is only one situation in which jihad becomes a personal obligation of each and every Muslim even without an order from the Muslim leadership -- namely when non-Muslims attack Muslims or invade a Muslim country. Bin Laden and the adherents of extremist Islam claim that this is the situation today: Islam is under attack, both physically and ideologically. The infidels -- Christians and Jews -- are invading the lands of Islam: Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, they maintain that waging jihad has become a personal obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, wherever they may be.

Even in the modern era, when the balance of power tipped decisively against the Muslims and in favor of the European states, jihad did not recede from the Muslim consciousness. The notion that any confrontation between Muslims and non-Muslims constitutes jihad was so deeply ingrained in Muslim thought that the Muslim rulers of North Africa in the beginning of the 19th century referred even to the actions of Muslim pirates -- who used to attack "infidel" ships from ports on the North African coast -- as "jihad."

In this section of DiscoverTheNetworks, the category titled Jihad's Nature, History, Goals, and Tactics explores the objectives, the prevalence, and the ideological underpinnings of jihad throughout Islamic history.

The category titled Islamic Genocide Plan examines the murderous intentions of the Islamo-fascists, as told in their own words. The speakers include primarily political figures, terror group leaders, clerics, and scholars. Excerpts from the founding charters and other key documents of various Islamo-fascist organizations are also included.

The category titled Stealth Jihad / Soft Jihad examines Islamic efforts to advance the hegemony of Islamic law in the United States by introducing it, bit by bit, into American society and demanding that Americans accommodate it. As Islam scholar Robert Spencer explains, "The stealth jihad plan was enunciated by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative in this country, Mohamed Akram, who explained that the Brotherhood 'must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.'"

The category titled Communist Roots of Palestinian Terror explores the relationship between Communism and the genocidal objectives of Palestinian extremists. As David Meir-Levi points out in "The Communist Roots of Palestinian Terror," the Palestine Liberation Organization was a Cold War-era creation of the KGB, the Soviet intelligence agency.

The category titled Jihad's Nazi Connections explores the historical links between radical Islam and fascism.

The category titled Jihad against the Jews focuses specifically on radical Islam’s deep-seated hatred for Jews, and its quest to vanquish them from the Middle East.

The category titled Jihad and Dhimmitude explores radical Islam’s long history of treating “infidels” as second-class people who are subject to all manner of humiliations and penalties.

The category titled Jihad in the West focuses on how jihadist movements have taken root in Western nations specifically. These movements are aided, in large measure, by the fact that Islam is currently the West's fastest growing religion. As of 2003, almost 20 million inhabitants of European Union nations identified themselves as Muslims. As the January 7, 2003 article titled "Jihad's Fifth Column in the West" points out: "If present trends continue, by 2020 Moslems will account for 10% of the overall population of Europe, and exceed ten million in America. This population is expanding by immigration and an enormous birth rate that far exceeds that of the indigenous population."

The category titled Jihad Around the World examines how jihadist movements have sprouted and grown in various nations and regions of the world. It also details the goals of the jihadists in those places, and the means by which they pursue their objectives.

The category titled Funding of Jihad and Terrorism explores the many ways in which terrorist groups and their leaders obtain the money they need in order to effectively pursue their jihadist objectives.

The category titled Black Racists and the Jihad in America examines a number of prominent black racists who have become the spearpoint of the Islamic jihad in the United States. Moving out from the hidden corners of American society into universities and other public places, these preachers of hate have made racism and Islamism into a potent toxin that they release under the cover of diversity and religious pluralism.

The category titled Jihad on Campus provides profiles of college- and university-student organizations that may be classified as "fellow-traveling" or "apologist" groups that aid and abet the Islamo-fascist movement.

The category titled Jihadist / Islamist Websites examines radical Muslims' use of the Internet for purposes of recruitment, collaboration, and mutual encouragement in their quest to establish worldwide Islamic supremacy. Many of the websites used for these ends are based in non-Muslim, Western nations including, most prominently, the United States.

The category titled Second Thoughts on Jihad and Islam features the testimony of individuals who were raised as Muslims and who, at some point in their lives, chose to renounce their faith and/or its radical and hateful elements.

The category titled Mindset of Individual Jihadists and Their Families explores the psychology and the belief systems of those who engage in suicide missions as expressions of reverence for their deity. This category also examines how the family members of jihadists offer considerable emotional support and encouragement to those who engage in these acts of murder and self-destruction.

The category titled Videos of Islamic Beheadings, Punishments, Torture features videos of extreme brutality carried out -- in the name of their faith -- by Islamists in various parts of the Muslim world. (Warning: The content of these videos is extremely graphic.)

The category titled Political Correctness and Appeasement explores the West's propensity to ignore, euphemize, or whitewash the violent, hate-driven objectives of Islamic jihad.