The word “jihad” is one of the most commonly misunderstood Arabic words currently employed in the English language. The OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY--our ultimate lexical authority--defines “jihad” as “a religious war of Muslims against unbelievers in Islam.” This is a definition with which many Americans are (at least vaguely) familiar. The beauty of the OED is the detailed etymology it provides for each and every entry. Note, then, that the word’s original Arabic definition--“struggle, contest, specifically for the propagation of Islam”--doesn’t quite correspond with the current English denotation.Yes, the difference between the English definition and the Arabic definition is seemingly minute. But a casual approach to language is liable to perpetuate a series of gross misunderstandings, and as learned individuals (equipped with dictionaries), we have the responsibility to examine the intricacies of such a disparity, however insignificant the disparity may seem.
There is a prepositional inversion that occurs between the Arabic definition and its English counterpart. The Arabic definition suggests that Muslims are struggling FOR--in support of--the growth of Islam. The English definition, on the other hand, suggests that Muslims are fighting AGAINST–-in opposition to--non-Muslims.
By employing a positive preposition, the Arabic definition figures Muslims as lionhearts, struggling to spread the word of their profit, Mohammed. Conversely, by employing a negative preposition, the English definition adopts a pejorative tone. It figures Muslims as antagonists and non-Muslims as victims. Furthermore, the Arabic definition utilizes the words “struggle” and “contest,” whereas the English definition replaces these words with the blatantly reductive and ultimately unfavorable word, “war.”
It is no wonder that the word “jihad” has such a negative connotation in our contemporary vernacular! Our Arabic lexicon is decidedly limited, and such limitations render us unable to speak about and, therefore, understand the complexities surrounding, say, “resistance movements” in Iraq. Over the years, the United States has come to view “jihad” as a form of “terrorism.” Well, how do you think Muslims feel about “a political war of Americans against unbelievers in democracy”?
3 comments:
You make some good points, Chris. It's sad, isn't it, how words get abused for propaganda.
I know how much you love the OED (and I love witnessing your excitement over each entry), but I'd also like to add that even the OED can fall short of understanding, particularly in the case of foreign words. Since I'm studying a foreign language now, I'm reminded that there are many words that defy translation. I'm reminded that true understanding relies less on a knowledge of word-for-word equivalents as it does on feelings, situations, relationships, and cultural contexts.
I think the OED is a useful tool, for sure, but even this "lexical authority" is only a starting point for really getting to the heart of a word.
Absolutely. That's part of the point, in fact. If, within our limited linguistic horizon, the word's accepted definition is a betrayal of its supposed origin, one can only begin to imagine the complexities surrounding the definition of this word in its native language.
The OED serves as a compass--it simply points us in the right direction. By no means does it do the leg work, however. That is up to us.
I want ice cream
Post a Comment