My heart really goes out to journalists charged with the daunting task of getting to the bottom of the neverending mayhem of the Middle East and Muslim world. The region's confusing and disturbing twists and turns are only made ever more inscrutable by the baffling way Muslims talk. Their perplexing words make it even harder for normal people to make sense of the screaming headlines we read every day reporting the latest outbreak of violence, irrationality, or hatred over there. But it needn't be quite so confusing.

What few outsiders realize, however, is that there are a number of closely guarded secrets among Muslims that once grasped explain all sorts of bizarre political and social phenomena that otherwise appear inexplicable. Once you realize that the rules of common sense don't apply to Muslims, most of these mysteries are solved. In the hopes of making the jobs of America's overworked journalists and pundits a bit easier, I'm going to share a few of the most important rules for understanding Muslim language:

Rule 1: Muslims always speak truthfully and literally... Muslims always mean exactly what they say and in as literally a sense as possible. It's a commonly known fact that all Muslims are born with (or acquire instantly upon conversion) dazzling, Ciceronian eloquence and supercomputer-like minds that allow them to effortlessly think through the political, social and theological implications of even the most off-the-cuff observation down to the smallest detail. As a result, Muslims never say things they don't mean in the heat of the moment, use ambiguous language that has to be judged by its context, or generally misspeak in any way.

At the same time, since the concepts of metaphor, exaggerations, or dramatic license are Western innovations that have yet to reach the lands of Rumi, Al-Ghazzali, and expressions like "The Mother of all Battles", Muslims always speak literally. Literally.

Ergo, if a Pakistani American Red Sox fan in Boston exclaims, "Damn those Yankees!", it is possible that he dislikes the New York Yankees, but his aim in speaking is to issue a fatwah on the final fate of all that baseball team's members. When a Muslim exclaims to a friend, "Man, I'm gonna kill you!" he is not expressing anger or frustration but rather informing his associate of the latter's imminent death. And when a Muslim states that a movie "bombed", he has no intention of conveying that the film did poorly at the box office or that it failed to meet his expectations as a moviegoer. He is reporting (happily㳥 Rule 4) that the film literally exploded in a fiery cataclysm in the theater, presumably maiming if not killing many innocent bystanders.

Rule 2: ...except when they're lying to trick you. There is an exception to Rule 1, namely when a Muslim states anything which is modern, enlightened, politically moderate or generally inspiring.

Muslims are deceitful by nature and come into the world hardwired with the most abhorrent and alien of values. (Just like those cunning Jews!) Consequently, the most reliable method of determining a Muslim's beliefs when he is saying something you agree with is to disregard his words and instead consider what views a civilized, modern person would hold on the topic in question. Then choose the opposite approach, no matter how chilling, seemingly implausible, or strenuously denied the reading is and you have the answer.

Wondering whether Palestinians consider their children disposable cannon fodder for jihad against the Jews? Don't waste your time analyzing their circumstances. Do normal people love and protect their children from harm? There you have it. Palestinians clearly don't love or care about protecting their children.

Also, it goes without saying that there is no such thing as a Muslim apology or change of heart.

Rule 3: Muslim words apply to all times and places. A fact that has long puzzled linguists is how the phenomenon discussed in Rule 1 applies to all circumstances and places. Muslim utterances retain their meaning, intent and political significance in translation - regardless of the translation's quality and even when a translation of translation is involved - and regardless of the historical and cultural circumstances to which they are transplanted.

Thus, the aforementioned malediction against the New York Yankees can not only be translated word for word into any human language without introducing any misunderstandings, but its theological commentary can be applied not only to fellow believers in an afterlife such as Christians and Jews, but also to atheists in New York, Wiccans in California, Shintoists in Japan, and Yuruba animists in southwestern Nigeria. Don't fret about authorial intent or context--he's a Muslim, so he thought it all through for you before saying a word.

Rule 4: Deep down, Muslims are always thinking about (and yearning for) violence. Muslims are by nature warlike and inclined to violence, so physically harming other people is never absent from their minds, regardless of the topic under discussion. In cases where they endeavor to conceal this fact, you need to just strap 'em down and break out the lie detector.

Thus, if a Muslim American student activist talks about his personal interpretation of jihad (struggle in God's way) as striving to integrate Islam's values of justice and service to ones fellow citizens into his daily life as a patriotic American, you can be sure that he is in reality trying to slip in a plug for terrorists who behead and kill plane loads of those same citizens. Similarly, if some graduating Muslims students decide to wear green stoles at graduation that read in Arabic Rabbi ziddini ilm ("Oh Lord, grant me knowledge", a prayer from the Quran) on one side and the Islamic profession of faith or Shahada on the other, these provocateurs are obviously trying to turn their graduation ceremony into a tribute to the Hamas suicide bombers (who are known for wearing black armbands emblazoned with the Shahada). Don't let the fact that Muslims use those prayers in the most mundane of situations - even before going to bed - throw you off the scent.

Rule 5: It's always "jihad". Related to Rule 4 is the fact that any event involving Muslims is always jihad. Not the concept of a peaceful personal struggle to do the right thing that most Muslims, sly foxes that they are, claim to intend when using the word. Nor is it the noble campaigns for good causes that normal, Christian people think of when they talk about "crusades". Anything a Muslims does is always violent holy war directed against everyone around them.

Whether they're pinning prayers to their graduation gowns or just standing by the road licking an ice cream cone, it's jihad and you're under siege like the Viennese facing the Ottoman hordes in 1529. Don't let the social economic and political realities of near complete Muslim powerlessness in the modern, Western/Christian-dominated world distract you from the fact that you are an oppressed Dhimmi living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny.

So make sure you pepper your report with the word "jihad" and other buzzwords that remind readers of the mortal peril we all live in thanks to the existence of Islam. Don't forget to mention medieval Islamic concepts like jizya, slavery, and, everyone's favorite, houris. The fact that these concepts are about as relevant to most modern political problems as Danegeld is besides the point. Wherever context permits make hysterical allusions to Nazism since that hateful ideology developed in Germany, the heartland of Islamic civilization. (The world still shudders at the memory of their chilling symbol, the dreaded Iron Crescent & Star!)

Finally, always err on the side of innuendo, paranoia and stereotype. Remember that if you can't think of a good reason for inserting prejudicial language now, someone else will eventually dream up a retroactive justification. And then you'll be a prophet.

This is awesome! Thank you

This would be a little more convincing if the writer wasnít making the assumption that the behaviour wasnít mutual. As well as some westerners hitting the panic button at the word jihad some muslims also seem to throw their cots out of the crib at the mention of the word crusade and other terms that are have complex meanings.

>This would be a little more convincing if the writer wasnít making the assumption that the behaviour wasnít mutual. As well as some westerners hitting the panic button at the word jihad some muslims also seem to throw their cots out of the crib at the mention of the word crusade and other terms that are have complex meanings.

Well...I think the meanings of both words are quite clear in each culture. To the west, jihad means holy war. I believe to Islam it means struggle. To the west, crusade means a fight to stop evil things. I believe to Islam it means a war on Islam.

When you are speaking to an international audience, you should be aware that certain words or phrases which, are benign in your culture, may be offensive in other cultures.

How about a more impartial sentence such as ìTo the west jihad only means holy war. To muslims it can also mean struggle. To muslims crusade only means holy war. To the xtians it can also mean struggleî. I think that rather than either group stopping using the words in fear of causing offence both should be educated enough to understand contextual differences.

But if someone is going to use one of the terms they shouldnít protest the use of the other.

Good satire, but the fact is that actions speak louder than words. The problem is that so often Muslim words and actions are the same when it comes to violence.

The article is a sorry attempt to put humor where no humor should exist. I am talking about life, freedom and human rights. I do not find anything funny about Islam; or its tendency for intolerance and violence. Yes, of course, there are many Muslims who are neither intolerant or violent, yet they are as many who are both, and these two groups are surrounded by even more Muslims who are indifferent and in denial.

Do not complain about the media. More than not, the media has been very kind to Islam. It has, for the most part, given it preferencial treatment that it does not deserve, and has given respect where no respect is due. This is, of course, the opinion of one who things truth and equality should be the basis of all diologue. These, however, as we all know, are not the media's strong points.

Stereotypes, contrary to the PC police mentality, do serve a purpose and we all use them. We stereotype food, brands, cars, groups of people and even individuals based upon our experiences and understanding of life. Most stereotypes have a some truth in them, some more than others.

Mr. White, humor has a place and a time. Let us not pretend that many of the problems you make fun of do not exist and that they are not servere and that they cause suffering and death. This failure to address the intrinsic hate and violence in the Quran and in the life of Muhammad is the main reason that Islam is perceived as it is.

Oh yes, but the way, I didn't see much humor in the way Muslims reacted to the Muhammad cartoons... Of course, this is just another example of double standards so common among Muslims.

Take care,

John Kactuz


PS: Jihad, even among Muslims, if most often used meaning "holy war", except of course when explaining it to stupid infidels.

Ahh John Kactuz, the guy who doesn't 'give a damn'.

Even after reading that article you *still* fall into the exact same trap that the rabid islam haters Svend was talking about!

As for violence, it is the US that has been responsible for more mulims deaths than all the "terrorist" acts committed by so called 'muslims' combined! - So get it into perspective, sort out your own backyard before you criticize others.

I am glad you go around posting your uneducated and unbalnced hate on all these discussion websites, it must be a healthy diversion from the pains of real life for you!

Nafees

Nafees, considering your other post in which you state that Islam teaches that terorrism is wrong, do you count the deaths of terrorists in your count of all muslim deaths commited by the US? IE. Lets say a careless missile strike kills 5 terrorists and 5 innocent civilians. Does that = 10 dead muslims in your book? Or does it = 5 dead muslims and 5 dead heretics (since they are twisting the teachings of Islam)?

Good point, but in the wrong context. Maturity matters in conversations like this.

FallenChristian, I have lived in the United States my whole life and never once heard "crusade" used as a method of stopping evil. As a matter of fact, I've never heard a person say "crusade" and not have some mention of the sea or The Crusades. The difference lies insomuch that Jihad is an incredibly common word among the Muslim masses, and crusade does not have a deeply Biblical meaning. I was Christian for 17 years, and all I ever thought of when I heard "crusade" was The Crusades.

Kactuz, your PS is unjustifiable, since you are not a Muslim. The most common usage of Jihad is a personal struggle, or the "greater Jihad". Also, your claims about the media need to be backed up with substantial facts. 500,000 Muslims gathered in Iran in October 2001 to protest terrorism, but Muslims burning effigies made the front covers of newspapers and that event was hardly mentioned. I would not be surprised if you have not even heard of such things, and that is no fault of your own. It is the fault of the media. The intristic violence you talk about is also unjustified.

Please read the Qur'an yourself first, then consider what you have read deeply. The incredible outlash of violence you see isn't limited to a religion but a culture in strife, and the violence and anti-American sentiments are in no way limited to Islam. The violence is isolated to a region. Consider the French Revolution and you will understand that a group in duress can be incredibly violent. In 1991, immediately after the Gulf War, 94% of voters in Africa chose Saddam Hussein as "Man of the Year" simply because of his fight against the United States. The day of September 11th, South Americans rejoiced with gunfire in the streets. Media focused on the Eastern World.

In 2004 alone, the United States had over 1.3 million violent acts, over 16,000 reported cases of murder, and almost 100,000 cases of rape. The United States beats many Islamic Countries in the Murder Index and all Islamic countries in the Rape Index. Western Countries hold all the top 10 Suicide rates for teenagers, and the United States is #6 in total crimes per capita.

Still don't believe the media can throw you for a loop? Notice all the Dick Cheney hating going on? He donates 3/4 of his profits to charity... but that would never be reported in the evening news.

Please back yourself up with facts.

Nudge...I guess you never heard of Superman...or Batman...or any superhero. Do a google search for superman crusading. That is where I (and probably most Americans) first heard the word. It wasn't until history class that I heard about the Crusades. Perhaps it is a very important stage of history in Muslim countries but to the west it is a footnote (perhaps because the Christians lost in the end).

As a Muslim, I can say that I've rarely heard immigrants use "jihad" in anything except warfare. The only times I've ever heard it in any other sense in the US is among Black American Muslim who often use it in the sense of personal or communal struggle, especially in "jihad against drugs" or "jihad against gangs" and so on. Perhaps that only highlites the cultural disconnect between those just off the jet and those who were born here. I also have yet to find instances of when references to Jihad as personal struggle outnumber references to jihad as warfare for the Islamic state. Even in the Hadith books, the chapters about jihad almost all refer to rules of war. The only reference is the Prophet himself who did mention that the Greater Jihad is the one within the soul. It does seem that apologists, especially in the West have latched on to that Prophetic saying to redefine jihad. Unfortunately, most of the existing and past Muslim literature doesn't see it that way...

Go to Google and enter crusaders and the first organisations you find are an xtian childrenís charity, a football club and a rugby club. The charity has recently had to consider changing itís name because apparently it caused offence to muslim school children!

You would also be unlikely to hear it used as a term in other contexts unless you attended church or listened to the statements of religous people. The pope has recently announced a crusade against secularism of society in Europe, itís been used in the fight against homelessness and against drugsÖthe term is used constantly.

I find it hypocritical on a site complaining about how westerners fail to understand or learn about muslims that people living in the west canít even bother to familiarise themselves with the simplest terms which are indigenous to xtianity or post-xtian countries. If the term crusade is so offensive that it shouldnít be used then the same applies to the term jihad. Otherwise both groups should learn to live with the terms and differentiate between the contexts in which they are being used.

I'm going to weigh in briefly with a clarification:

I'm fully aware of the way "jihad" is employed in popular usage. I'm also fully aware of how debased some Muslims' understanding is.

What a lot of people don't understand is that jihad is first and foremost a moral act of striving for God's will. It is thus primarily an ethical metaphor, albeit one that has often been applied in a very specific manner.

[Note: "Crusade" is used in a peaceful and positive sense all the time in English. Take the phrase a "crusader for human rights" or the "Campus Crusade for Christ".]

Even when a Muslim glorifies a mujahid who dies violently in battle, THAT is why he does so. It is not because jihad is simply warfare. It is because he lived up to that principle and sacrified everything for it.

This is a crucial philosophical distinction and one that isn't easy for non-Muslims to grasp, I think.

Also, while I perhaps could have expressed this point better--this was just originally just a blog post--there's no question that the notion that jihad is primarily a personal spiritual struggle and secondarily a military act in special circumstances has been gaining ground around the Muslim world and is becoming the dominant interpretation among scholars.

Also, as the examples about Muslim students shows when I wrote this I was thinking about Muslims, especially Americans, who are in "normal" circumstances. I wasn't thinking of people who are in the middle of wars (which don't exactly bring out the best in people).

Finally, we must remember that, right or wrong, many Muslims perceive the world to be against them in a variety of ways (the world turning a blind eye to repressive governments and oppression by Israel, poverty, etc.). Such circumstances don't exactly encourage "make love not war" rhetoric that we Americans, safely ensconced in our wealthy, relatively peaceful society are so fond of, even when we're actually enthusiastically waging war.

>>there's no question that the notion that jihad is primarily a personal spiritual struggle and secondarily a military act in special circumstances has been gaining ground around the Muslim world and is becoming the dominant interpretation among scholars.

I think so, too and I applaud it. Yet, I can't help but to see this as a modern innovation. Perhaps the trend is that Muslims not living in Islamic states desire to interpret jihad differently (and rightly so) while in the past when people lived in powerful Muslim empires, the pressure to see jihad as anything other than "ghazwa" was fairly non-existent in my opinion. But, nevertheless, point taken and I hope the trend continues. Let's just recognize it for the (good) innovation it is...