Sanity Injection

Injecting a dose of sanity into your day’s news and current events.

Terrorists are fasadis, not jihadis

Posted by sanityinjection on February 18, 2009

I learned an interesting tidbit today from a New York Times op-ed by Thomas Friedman on the lack of support for terrorism among Muslims in India. Friedman quotes an Indian Muslim journalist, M.J. Akbar:

“Terrorism has no place in Islamic doctrine. The Koranic term for the killing of innocents is ‘fasad.’ Terrorists are fasadis, not jihadis. In a beautiful verse, the Koran says that the killing of an innocent is akin to slaying the whole community.”

This is in line with comments I’ve seen previously from moderate Muslims who argue that the main meaning of “jihad” is the spiritual struggle to live according to the will of Allah rather than a physical one against infidels.

Therefore, I’ve decided that Sanity Injection will henceforth refer to Islamic terrorists as fasadis rather than jihadis. Not to be politically correct, or to avoid offending Muslims, but because I suspect that al-Qaeda types would consider it a gross insult. It’s fitting to slap these monsters in the face with a term from the book they claim to revere. And “the killing of innocents” is about as good a definition of terrorism as anything.

So fasadis it shall be. You learn something new every day.


5 Responses to “Terrorists are fasadis, not jihadis”

  1. foundersfreedom said

    Funny how OBL/Hamas/Hezbollah/ and all other terrorist organizations use the same Qu’ran, sunna and ahadith to command Mohammed’s followers to kill the infidel where they find them and to strike terror in the hearts of unbelievers. The NYT is the last place to go for information, unless you’re an enemy of America looking for our security secrets. Come to think of it, this article seems to want us to keep on believing the “small minority of extremists” mentality. Even if only a paltry 10 percent of 1.3 billion Muslims adhere to the violent form of jihad(to some this is a very conservative number)it amounts to a not-so-paltry 130,000,000 jihadists. Most moderate Muslims are those that haven’t had to choose sides…yet.

  2. sanityinjection said

    I’m no fan of the NYT, but even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Part of staying well-informed and in touch with reality is listening to people you disagree with. As a recent reader here argued strenuously, when you only listen to one side of an argument you lose the ability to be credible and develop a warped perception.

  3. Jason said

    This author would have a hard time convincing his fellow muslims of that. And the Koran speaks of the Jihad in both forms. A military campaign used to slaughter the unbelieving and a time for personal battle with faith and the doctrine of Allah.

    So are they both right? To me the one holding the gun, beheading the Westerners, blowing up cars, buildings, and even brutalizing and killing their own is right. I’ll take him at his word when he says he is on a Jihad.

    Call me stubborn, but a guy writing a piece for the NYT just isn’t as convincing our radical jihadist enemies.

  4. foundersfreedom said

    I know you were seeing what’s being bandied about in the news. I have to force myself to scroll through Kos and Huffpo just to see what’s going on there. The NYT would be a breath of fresh air compared to what goes on at HuffPo and Kos.
    And an Amen, Jason.
    One talks the talk, the other walks the walk.

  5. Sourav Roy said

    It is true that behind every mass movement or idea, an ‘ism’ is attached. This ‘ism’ is often coherent with the ideology of the followers or a name quoted by media. It is the media, who have reserved the word ‘terrorism’ exclusively for Jihadis! All others who are involved in such activities are given different ‘isms’ that either glorify their work or softens their acts of terror!

    So terrorists in Jharkhand are called ‘maoists’ or ‘naxals’. Terrorists in the north-eastern states are called ‘militants’. Tamil terrorists in Sri Lanka are dubbed as ‘tigers’ while the Irish terrorists were ‘separatists’. Terrorists in Africa are ‘insurgents’, The Cuban terrorists were ‘rebels’, the Hungarian ones were ‘extremists’, the Chinese terrorists are ‘radicals’ and the American terrorists are ‘counter-insurgents’. The Israeli terrorists are ‘commandos’ and the communist terrorists are ‘revolutionaries’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: