Source: Jerusalem Post

Whilst addressing the Annual Islamic Society of North America in a convention, the organiser of the Women’s March, Linda Sarsour, has caused some outrage in using the term ‘jihad’ as she spoke of standing up against the Trump administration.

WATCH: Linda Sarsour, last week, calls for Jihad against Trump administration. A word with a loose definition…but she should know better. pic.twitter.com/eUzIqXS6Nu

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) July 6, 2017

“And I hope, that we, when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us, that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers. Not only abroad or in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these united States of America, where you have fascists, supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

Before we can even try to understand what Linda Sarsour meant by making use of the word, it’s important that we try to understand what the word actually means. Ibn Al Qayyim outlines four types of jihad in his book Zaad Al-Ma’ad – the very first is to strive against one’s soul, against one’s desires and lusts. And this is the highest level of ‘jihad’, a struggle on your own spiritual journey, to tame your soul.

Contrary to common thought, and the false depiction of Jihad across the media, Jihad is not a violent concept. Yes, it has been depicted in such a way but linguistically, the word ‘jihad’ – the root word being ‘juhd’, meaning effort, or to work hard or diligently – means to struggle and strive. The main sentiment behind the concept is to exert effort in achieving a particular goal. There are no connotations of violence.

In standing up against the Trump administration, which is vilifying, ostracising and marginalising particular groups of people – this is a struggle, this is a striving, this is a form of jihad – nothing more and nothing less. It is, by no means, an easy task to stand up to tyrant rulers like Trump and his administration, and voice anger and upset at the injustice that many are facing.

Many have expressed the sentiment that ‘jihad’ is heavily loaded as a term, with violence and political meaning. Is this with the belief that the word is actually, fundamentally problematic? Or is the fear of its use stemming from society – that society deems it problematic, so we can’t use it? Because if it’s the latter, that is problematic. How long will we continue to let go of matters pertaining to the religion to appease the general society? If we don’t talk about the word ‘jihad’ and use it in its rightful contexts – how will we ever unload the term? Even the shahadah – our testimony of faith, the very first pillar of Islam, the foundation of our belief – when written on a flag, become a political symbol. Does this mean that we then shy away from making mention of the shahadah because it’s loaded with political meaning?

If we don’t normalise the use of particular words and concepts – rightfully – that exist within the religion, we will never be able to challenge the very reason why they’ve become so misunderstood and misused.

We need to backtrack a little and ask why we’ve internalised notions that have been perpetuated by the media – and why we haven’t challenged or questioned them.

The problem isn’t that Linda Sarsour rightfully used the term ‘jihad’, the problem is that we’ve internalised that ‘jihad’ is a problematic term, when really – it isn’t.