Omer Sayadi

Abdullah Azzam, Ayman al-Dhawahiri, Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar, for example, are 4 figures with different intepretations on the jihad, and yet they're all collectively defined as part of the Jihadi movement. Conversely, Abd al-Karim al-Khattabi or Imam Shamil were apparently not?

This is an extreme secularization of a concept so inherently Islamic and the complete alienization of every single mujahid as a foreign element to the "moderate and normative" Islamic community as defined by secular standards.

Insignificant terms for any secular analyst, he proceeds to call them all "islamist jihadists", which actually creates an artificial dimension upheld by these analysts that has no worth on the actual ground and is irreconcilable with the Islamic worldview. Problematic.

The vast majority of (Sunni) Islamic scholars defined IS as khawārij and the Iranian-backed Shiite militants in #Syria and #Iraq as Rawāfiḍ. These are historical and religious terms used to understand the reality of said groups in a precise and religiously justified manner.

Secular academics avoid this, however, and fall back on their own terminological inventory, like the words "jihadists" or "islamists". Hollow, vague semi-scientific terms that have no basis in Islam whatsoever and fail to accurately define the subject.

Secondly, the secular academics' terminology lacks precision and accuracy. In the Islamic worldview, we use our own terminology to differentiate between different groups, like khawārij, murjiʾa or jahmiyya. These terms identify and classify accurately from a religious POV.

The only classification made in Islam is that of the muhājirūn (immigrants) and anṣār (local supporters). However, this isn't defined by national borders or ethno-cultural differences, rather by the geographical reality of the moment. Proof is the proximity of #Mecca to Medīna.

That means that no Muslim is foreign to his fellow Muslim in the institutional, identitarian sense of the word as was popularized throughout 19th century #Europe. Rather, he is equal to his international peers and entitled to answer the call of jihād when needed.

In the Islamic worldview, a Muslim is symbolically related through membership of the shared religion to any other member of this socio-religious group we call the "ummah" (the Muslim Community). That's the inside group. Those that do not share the religion are obviously not.

It enforces the idea of nationalism through the use of the term "foreign fighters". This term is foreign (pun intended) to the Islamic worldview, and is the result of the artificial, post-colonial borders dividing the #Muslim world into European-style nation-states.

I'm no fan of the secular academical approach to #Islamic militantism. We all know who I'm talking about. There're some aspects to it that make it inherently flawed and inconsistent with the reality of #Islam. I'll comment on two of these flaws, but there are many more.

If Muslims would just follow this guideline, both online and offline, relations and bonds would benefit and improve a lot. An insignificant word may lead to a severe misunderstanding, and simple mockery may lead to damage or regret. Words matter, and so do tweets. Be careful :)

Narrated by al-Bukhārī and Muslim. Al-Nawawī explains: "Every legally responsible person should refrain from saying anything except when there is a clear advantage to speaking. Whenever speaking and not speaking are of equal benefit, it is sunnah to remain silent."

Abū Hurayrah reported: I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say: "A person utters a word thoughtlessly (i.e., without thinking about its being good or not) and, as a result of this, he will fall down into the fire of Hell deeper than the distance between the east and the west."