Are terrorism and jihad the same thing?

Answer 1

Answer 1

No. Terror is quite different than Jihad. Refer to related questions below.

Answer 2

The two concepts are vastly different, but to say there is no overlap is incorrect.

Definitions

As concerns terrorism, it is determined by having the following definition with six distinct parts: (1) an act performed by a person who (2) uses violence (3) against civilian populations (4) in order to provoke fear among that civilian population (5) in order to instigate for political change in the country where the civilians were attacked (6) in line with the preferences of the person who used the violence.

As concerns the Greater Jihad, which is an introspective journey to conquer your internal demons and follow the Divine Laws more closely than previously, there should be no terrorism that derives from the jihad. As concerns the Lesser Jihad, this is usually in the form of warfare between Muslims and Non-Muslims or other Muslims. In this age where Muslims and Islamic countries cannot wage a successful war against Western powers or local autocratic regimes, those who fight in the Lesser Jihads around the world perform acts of asymmetric warfare and terrorist activities.

If we plug Islamic asymmetric warfare into the "terrorism definition", it satisfies, (1), (2), and (6) immediately. The reason it does not necessarily satisfy (3), (4), or (5) is because Islamic asymmetric warfare does not necessarily target civilians. Where it does not target them, it is not terrorism, but an insurgency.

Civilian Targets

Muslims are quick to point out that the attacking of civilians is a violation of the terms of a Lesser Jihad, but there are serious debates in the Islamic communities worldwide as to what a "civilian" is. A number of leading Sheikhs, including Egypt's Qaradawi, for example, have held that since almost all Israelis are drafted in the Israeli Defense Forces, there is no civilian population in Israel and targeting Israeli non-combatants is NOT a violation of the jihad requirements to avoid civilian deaths. Bin Laden and his ilk have expanded these rulings to say that all people in a democracy publicly vote on the government and are, therefore, responsible for its decisions. In that way, targeting the non-combatants in a democracy would NOT be a violation of the jihad requirements to avoid civilian deaths. Muslims who follow these perspectives are willing to perform violent acts against civilians and satisfy all six prongs of the terrorism definition.

Answer 2

It is unpersuasive to make the deliberate targeting of civilians a defining feature of terrorism, and states as well as non-state groups can engage in terrorism. In a democracy, voters responsible for a government's unjustifiable policies are not necessarily innocent, while conscripts are legitimate targets. Rather than being uniquely atrocious, terrorism most resembles small war. It is not always or necessarily more morally unjustifiable than war. All war should be avoided, but some war is more unjustifiable than other war. Comparable judgments should be made about terrorism. It is appropriate to compare civilians killed by those seeking political change and those using violence to prevent such change. Sometimes the debate should focus on the justifiability or lack of it of the aims sought. While violence should always be used as little as possible, those in power are responsible for making other means than violence effective in achieving justifiable political change. When considering the likely causes of violence, one that has received inadequate attention is humiliation. Humiliation is not the same as shame. Causing humiliation can and should be avoided.wer

AnswerBy definition, NO.

Without going into the details of justified vs unjustified wars, or illegal wars, or the like, and, similarly, avoiding the justifications (or lack thereof) for terrorism, the two are fundamentally different, both in practice and by design.

Also note that War does not always include revolutions, which are a distinctly different type of struggle.

War is violence practiced by "state-level" actors, against other state-level actors. That is, the parties in wars are organized groups with at least a substantial minority of a state's support, together in teams with other state-level actors fighting one or more similar opponents. War is conducted by the military of one such side, against the military and direct military-supporting structures of other other side. As such, Wars have very strict definitions of expected conduct and organization of each "team", and the allowable targets of each side. Obviously, this isn't always adhered to, but is certainly in the majority case. This "code of conduct" for Wars is enshrined in a variety of international agreements (the various Hague Conventions, Geneva Protocol and Conventions, et al.). In general, those failing to adhere to this code of conduct are not considered valid Wars, and instead lumped under some sort of other moniker (revolutionaries, terrorists, criminals, etc.)

Terrorism, on the other hand, is almost always practiced by "sub-state" actors - that is, groups that have no legitimate claim to represent a nation. As such, they cannot reasonably claim to be a government of any sort. They can lay no claim to sovereignty, and fail any sort of a "nation" test. Rather than use a designated (and distinct) military force to attack the military (and related support) of their opponent, terrorists rely on an advanced form of psychological combat. They attack targets intended to provide maximal psychological damage to their opponent, regardless of what that target may be. The intent is not to damage their opponent's ability to fight, but the will and viewpoint of their opponent's people. This includes attacking 3rd parties as a way of spreading terror. Terrorism is inherently reliant on the mass media and communication of both the victim and the international community.

In the end, the fundamental difference between War and Terrorism is that War is conducted between sovereign political entities - at the base level, it is governments competing against each other. Terrorism is conducted between small groups and their opponent's general population - it is about forcing a change in their target's political stance/structure due to internal pressure from the target's own populace.

It is thus a great irony that The War on Terror isn't either (i.e either War or Terrorism).