Pakistani-born Christian preacher Robinson Abid has been crusading against Islam in America for the past six years under the name "Mujahid el-Masih," or Warrior of Christ. The stage name he has chosen for himself is derived from the Arabic root "j-h-d," which gives us the word "jihad." "Mujahid," then, means one who makes jihad or, in today's media and political parlance, jihadist.
Mujahid el-Masih's own agenda is to warn Christian Americans about the "silent jihad" in which Muslims plan to take over the country by the year 2020. Regardless of the unlikelihood of his claim, Mujahid el-Masih deserves to be asked about his choice of pseudonym. It seems that somebody giving himself the title of Jihadist has little credibility warning others against jihad, just as a man employing the moniker "Marx" shouldn't go around speaking out against Marxism. Imagine a self-proclaimed Democratic Party with an anti-democracy platform, or an anti-homosexuality movement calling itself the "Gay Way." It just wouldn't make sense.
And what does it mean to be a Jihadist for Christ, anyway? Is Mujahid el-Masih pro-jihad or anti-jihad? If he is relying on the often-quoted, but mis-translation of jihad as "holy war," then what is his objective? Is war evil when waged by Muslims, but just and good when waged by Christians? If that is so, then why didn't Christ lead a war against the Romans and Jews of his time, especially when he was offered support in doing so by his own disciples? WWJD?, or What Would Jesus Do?, is quite in vogue among Christian Americans youth today. How could we know what he would do? The only evidence available to work from is in The Bible, or What Did Jesus Do?, or in this case, what didn't he do? Answer: He certainly didn't wage jihad, so why would he ask you to do so? He was peaceful even when confronted with his own persecution, detainment and crucifixion. After all, Christ is known to his followers as the Prince of Peace. So, how credible is a jihadist in the name of the Prince of Peace?
Christians can't be jihadists any more than Muslims can be crusaders. The concepts are self-contradictory. Mujahid el-Masih is an oxymoron.
One defense Mujahid el-Masih may offer is that "jihad" doesn't mean "war," but rather "struggle," particularly in the sense of the our inner struggle to overcome the demons and vices leading individuals, families, and societies to our own ruin. This has also been the response of mainstream Muslims since the term jihad entered the English lexicon. To think of jihad solely in terms of violence towards non-Muslims is ignorant. Similarly, the word crusade in English does not limit itself to the bloodbaths perpetrated by European Christians some 1,000 years ago. To invoke such images is meant to provoke hatred towards the very people Mujahid el-Masih claims he is duty-bound to love. This is odd, indeed.
The only way Mujahid el-Masih can avoid being a walking, talking paradox, is to adopt the latter, introspective and non-violent definition of jihad as the avenue he is pursuing in his own ministry. In this case, he should be truthful in his use of the word jihad in reference to Muslims and Islam. Irrespective of the truthfulness of his claim that the "jihad" is referenced more than 35,000 times in the Qur'an, including the definition of "mujahid," he should make it clear that the meaning of the word is not restricted to the current violent interpretations utilized by non-Muslim media, politicians, and preachers.
For the full article, click here.
