Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on what is jihad
True meaning of jihad
Jihad meaning and types essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on what is jihad
“One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter (Barash 2014: 174).” This one statement explains every war to ever be fought and also the delicate subject of terrorism. The line between who is the bad guy and the good guy will always be difficult to draw because everyone fights for a different reason. In this same sense every “terrorist” has his or her own story. Rarely can one blaring reason can be found to explain why attacks happen. Every soldier has a different reason for fighting, no matter what side of the front they are on. The same is true of terrorists. People the Western world may hold up as a hero the Eastern may condemn as the worst kind of terrorist, we know the opposite is true. Many people the West proclaim to be terrorists
This word is one many, myself included have come to associate with terrorism, but it is not the correct connotation of the word. Jihad is a word encompassing many meanings, one of which leaders are able to construe to convince others to fight for their cause. “For Muslims, jihad is much more than armed struggle against an enemy from the outside, for it includes constant struggles within both oneself and one’s own society (Gomaa 2014: 197).” Only for the case of a just cause will Muslims take up arms in the name of jihad. Meanings of jihad include, but are not limited to “… spiritual exercise of opposing lower self… referring to the pilgrimage to Mecca… speaking truth to those in power… defense of a nation or a just cause (Gomaa 2014: 197).” No Muslim is going to start fighting according to jihad for anything short of a just cause. Does this mean leaders cannot make a cause sound just simply to get recruits fighting? No, they can do this, but both Western and Eastern leaders omit truths to their followers. If they did not lie at some point they would never have any followers. To blame jihad for terror is irresponsible, soldiers may be fighting under it to protect their nation, but they are not blindly
Western civilization has started to associate jihad with terrorism, even though this is not the meaning of the word. Jihad is simply a struggle. An armed struggle must be just in order for any Muslim to take up arms in the name of jihad. Secondly, suicide attacks cannot be looked at as singular people making a bold statement. In most cases suicide missions are part of a larger whole looking to free themselves from oppression. Finally, the way America reacts to terrorism is in its own way terrorism. Most of the United States’ responses to terrorism have led to more deaths than the terrorist groups themselves cause. In order to start to fix the mess terrorism has caused across the world we need to embrace our differences. Some states may not flourish under a democratic leader; the West needs to accept this. In the same way, Eastern leaders need to understand the West does flourish with democracy and will protect its right to that form of leadership. As with all conflicts, there will never be an answer to everyone will love, but there are fixes that we could all live with. It is time for world leaders to agree to disagree and stop punishing innocent civilians who live where fighting
Everyone is a terrorist but everyone can also be labeled as a freedom fighter. It is said that “The ends justify the means” and in order to achieve an important aim, it is acceptable to do something bad. In America we have done both good and bad. Although people for instance President Barak Obama elaborates that one person’s terrorist is also another person’s freedom fighter. A “terrorist” is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of a political aim. A “freedom fighter” on the other hand is a person who takes part of a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order to overthrow their government. In making this comment, the synonyms of the word terrorist urges to
While there is no precise definition of the term, the meaning of Jihad is far more complex. In fact, the term Jihad generally refers to the struggle one must undertake as one “strive[s] in the path of God” (Church 110). That struggle is defined both externally and internally. As so, they are classified in terms of an external struggle with enemies or non believers, or an internal struggle with oneself to reject greed and temptation. While popular opinion has been misconstrued to see Jihad as a malevolent, violent action; a serious investigation of the term’s historical and religious background reveals a multi-defined word.
Terrorists are evil people and Dzhokhar and his brother are evil terrorists too. Dzhokhar is also one of the first terrorist sentenced to death since 9/11. Dzhokhar is the perfect definition of a terrorist because he harmed and killed people over religious aims. He attacked Boston unexpectedly during the marathon and left devestation upon the city. Terrorists attack people to attain political or religious
Through the years the idea that Islam is an aggressive religion has been developed. This is mainly due to the fact that the word "jihad" -- a very important concept in Islamic faith -- is often misunderstood or its initial meaning is intentionally misrepresented. From the very beginning of Islamic invasion in Europe a sense of devotion to the religion was instilled in the Muslim soldiers and believers. Religion was a really important part of their lives. The soldiers were taught to die for Allah in their holy war against unbelievers -- this was the so-called jihad. However, if one examines thoroughly the Quran, the saint book for Muslims, he/she will find that jihad carries a completely different meaning -- this is an internal struggle with oneself for achievements in a certain filed or, simply, for self-improvement. Even though most Islamic believers know what jihad really is, there are zealots that still look for excuse for their appalling and inhumane deeds in the abovementioned word. Nowadays, this is still a major problem, especially concerning the...
But still, will the world ever be free of terrorism? Works Cited O'Conner 2011 James 2005
...errorist attacks and endless wars are trivial compared to historical origins of Islamic extremism, oppressive leaders, gap in economic classes, unemployment and brutality suffered by these terrorists. Tightening up on airport security, bringing out the National Guard, and bomb sniffing dogs are not going to end the hatred that propelled the attack. So, the remote sources of this aggression are so deep rooted and far more numerous that it would require a global dialog to prevent such a tragedy in future.
Terrorism has been around for centuries and religion-based violence has been around just as long. (Hoffman, 2). The violence was never referred to as terrorism though. Only up to the nineteenth century has religion been able to justify terrorism (Hoffman, 2). Since then, religious terrorism became motivated and inspired by the ideological view (Hoffman, 3). Therefore, it has turned against the main focus of religion and more towards the views of the extremist and what is happening politically (Winchester, 4).
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
Many terrorists believe that their religion is the only true religion, and they use it to justify violence (“Islamic Terrorism”). Most Muslim terrorists follow Jihad. Jihad is an Islamic perception that the way to integrate their religion is by massive force (“Of True Muslims and Terrorists”). Jihad is considered the “sixth pillar” of faith in Islam because it is the constant fight towards good. It is the idea of focusing on God and turning away from those that oppose God (David E. Long, 91). The terrorists believe that their religion is what everyone should follow, so they would naturally require personnel in power in Muslim states to either convert to their religion or resign from their terms. They will first threaten a leader that if they do not change, the terrorists will use violence. Sometimes, violent acts come about without any warning or previous threats (“Of True Muslims and Terrorists”). Islam is a proselytizing religion, which means it uses violence to convert people to its faith. This is because, in the ...
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
The word terror dates back to the French Revolution. “A terrorist was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin who ruled France during la Terruer” (Moeller 20). Terrorism has clearly become much broader in the years since its origination. Since the concept was first birthed in France it has been used for separatist, nationalistic, political and religious ends, etc. In the book “Packaging Terrorism”, author Susan Moeller states that, “the goal of terrorism is to send a message, not to defeat the enemy”.
A lot of people believe that Muslims, Islam, and/or the Holy Quran encourages killing, fighting, and terrorism. Events such as the 9/11 attack in the United States, the Boston Marathon Bombing, and conflicts in the Middle East causes the media to label Muslims as terrorists. When a specific group of people cause violence to another group it is categorized as ‘hate crime’, but if a Muslim does the same act, the media immediately labels it as ‘terrorism’ (Frater, 2009). As a matter of fact, regarding to the attacks of the mosques in Israel, the media did not use the acts to victimize or stereotype Judaism. Moreover, some extremist groups use Islam as a tactic to gain followers even though a lot of their practices go against the teachings of the Quran. A person would not be considered a Muslim if they spread fear or terrorize others. The Quran clearly states, “You shall not take life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law.” (Quran, 6:151). Islam is against any force or violence towards another person. Often the word ‘Jihad’ is taken out of context by violent militants; it means to strive or struggle for the sake of ones’ self improvement with respect to their spirituality. Religious and political groups use Jihad to justify ...
Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks, but instead the result of partisan advancement. Acts of terrorism have been around throughout the evolution of mankind. Terror attacks have even been traced back as far as the religious roots of an ancient middle east (Ross, Will Terrorism End?, 2006). However as man evolved, so did terrorism. Today’s extremism involves some of the main characteristics of ancient terrorism, but much more developed. Political advancement is no longer the root cause of terrorism acts. Instead influxes of “holy” wars have been appended the prior definition of terrorism. Mistakably modern terrorism has been confused for Political violence with political objectives, but research will establish that the nature of terrorism is fundamentally different from other forms of political violence.
... matter how many lives were affected. After acquiring money terrorists rely on an overabundant amount of money laundering and financial concealment schemes. Without money laundering significant sums of legitimate money would be very hard to produce in the short spans of time between terrorist attacks and reorganization. The possibility of defeating such enormous amounts of illegal money laundering and illegal terrorist financing schemes would require a global effort. Every nation would have to establish anti-money laundering and terrorist financing legislation, along with support from the United Nations and groups such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on money laundering. Is this even a possibility? Could every nation in the world put their political, racial, religious...differences behind them in order to prevent the financing of terrorism?