If the claim that Islam is the fastest spreading religion in Europe and the US is true, one cannot deny it. However, one cannot pin too much hope on the fast growing number of converts because the fact that from nowhere these individuals are getting a centred-motivation or coordinated leadership makes us believe that such a conversion becomes hostage to certain beliefs within the world of what is a prime target of coordinated propaganda. The other day I read an article, The vicious cycle of jihadism and patriotism, written by a 27-year-old former US marine, Ross Caputi, who took part in the second battle of Fallujah in November 2004, but became openly critical of the US military and was therefore discharged in 2006. He is currently a student at Boston University and is the founding director of the Justice for Fallujah Project. He was so depressed by the US forces’ naked aggression and the destruction caused by the operation against innocent and unarmed people that his heart went out to the Palestinians, on whom he is working on a book titled, Both Ends of the Gun. In his article, he has tried to dispel the wrongly perceived concepts that lead to the belief of ‘a clash of civilisations’. There are obvious differences between the Islamic world and the US, and the greatest perceived difference is the belief in jihad, a very scary word in the US, quickly associated with terrorism. Unfortunately, he says, jihad is pitifully misunderstood in the US. When he was in the Marine Corps boot camp, his drill instructors told them that they were fighting terrorists because Islam taught them that if they killed an American, they would go directly to heaven when they die and receive 72 virgins. For a while, he believed it. He said he believed it all the way to Fallujah, where his command told them that Fallujah had been taken over by terrorists and they were going to ‘liberate’ the city by killing everyone who picked up arms against us. Evidence of their acts of terrorism was lacking (and attacking the US troops when they were clearly the aggressors was not an act of terrorism), but the fact that they believed in jihad and fought back against them was enough to condemn them. He says jihad is a broad and complex topic in Islamic theology. It literally means ‘struggle’ or ‘effort’, and it is a duty for all Muslims. Jihad usually takes on three forms: an internal struggle to refrain from sin and be the best Muslim one can be (which is often referred to as Jihad al-Akbar, the greater jihad); an external struggle for justice and to build a good Islamic society; and a holy war, which most Islamic scholars today agree can only be a war of self-defence and cannot harm civilians. “Most Americans would be surprised to learn that jihad shares many values with our concept of patriotism, and that it is a religious analogue to western ‘just war’ theory. There are considerations of jus ad bellum (just cause for war) and jus in bello (just conduct in war) in jihad, as well as the notion of a duty to defend one’s community when it is under attack,” Caputi added. About ‘patriotism’, Caputi calls it an equally broad word that gives rise to intellectual debates about its ideal meaning, use, and virtues. Such debates usually define patriotism as love for or devotion to one’s country, and generally hold that patriotism is not a duty, nor does it consist of duties. However, in the popular use of the term, duty is an integral part of what average Americans mean when they use the term patriotism. To love one’s country is an internal state that requires no outward behaviour, and what is ‘devotion’ if it is never manifested in behaviour? Most Americans would not deem a closet patriot to be a patriot at all. Most expect love and devotion for one’s country to be manifested outwardly for it to be considered patriotic. Most Americans use the term patriotism to refer to behaviour, not internal states. Therefore, to be patriotic is to do things or make statements that demonstrate one’s love or devotion to one’s country. Some demonstrate their love for their country by putting up flags in front of their house, by teaching their children about the American ancestors, or by supporting the troops with either care packages or moral support. Others demonstrate their devotion to their country by enlisting in the military and being willing to die in the name of national defence. Professor Andrew Bacevich wrote: “Patriotism” up until the Vietnam War “implied deference to the state, shown most clearly in the willingness of individuals to accept the government’s authority to mandate military service; the embodiment of patriotism, risking life and limb to defend the country.” But the Vietnam War caused many Americans to question the conventional meaning of patriotism, and led some to try to redefine it as opposition to state policies that are ‘misguided, illegal, or immoral’. This debate has continued into the current war on terror (WOT). Anti-war figures like Howard Zinn, who said, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” have harshly criticised the US government for committing war crimes in Iraq. There are very obvious differences between the concepts of ‘jihad’ and ‘patriotism’, writes Caputi, adding these differences should not be ignored, because they tell us important things about each community’s conception of authority and how morality is justified. However, three common values shine through these differences: devotion, duty, and self-defence. Devotion to a certain set of values and teachings — neither of which exclude the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ — duty to one’s community, and the right and virtue of defending oneself or community when under attack. Furthermore, jihad is no less reflective about the moral issues surrounding war than our own tradition of just war theory.” Certainly, there are some lunatics out there who have twisted the notion of jihad to condone terrorism against Muslims and non-Muslims alike — al Qaeda immediately comes to mind. Yet jihad under its most extreme and violent interpretation seems no worse than patriotism under its most extreme and violent interpretation, which requires obedience even when we are committing war crimes and human rights violations. All of these considerations raise the question, “What is so scary about jihad?” Caputi says, “I don’t believe that we have asked this question seriously as a society. Our collective misunderstanding of this concept has led us to nearly equate it with terrorism, and the WOT in reality has been a war on jihad. It is of the most bitter irony that those who have responded to our aggression by shouting jihad in the name of self-defence were condemned as our enemies and were met with more aggression. The circularity of our justifications for our aggression and the Islamic justification for self-defence has spun us into a bloodbath that has shown little signs of abating. Islam is now actually under attack.” While concluding, the author of The Vicious Cycle of Jihadism and Patriotism says, “Whether or not we will be able to sensibly remove ourselves from the vicious cycle of violence that has been the WOT remains to be foreseen. Anyone still clinging to the analysis that the WOT is a clash of civilisations is going to have to contend with the possibility that we may not be so different after all. It appears to be just the foreignness of the word jihad that scares Americans, and not the concepts it invokes.” The writer can be reached at schuma.raja@yahoo.com