The Logical Fallacies of Etienne Vermeersch

In his reply to me (DM 19/1), Etienne Vermeersch cites a 14th-century book to argue that the concept of jihad in the 21st century is not open to interpretation but rather fixed, and that it is not merely defensive but also offensive. In doing so, he makes one fundamental error and two smaller ones.
First, the smaller errors:

Error 1: Methodological Flaw
Vermeersch reduces Islamic theology to the viewpoint of a handful of scholars based on a single 14th-century theological text (Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik). For him, this becomes the mainstream position of Islam. As proof, he refers to Al-Azhar’s certification of the book, without understanding that this certification pertains to two separate matters: first, the accuracy of its English translation, and second, the fact that the book is written within the tradition of Sunni Islam. Recognizing a book as part of orthodox Sunni theology does not confer absolute authority upon it—it merely acknowledges that it is not considered heretical. The fatwas contained in the book remain time-bound interpretations.
Moreover, this book represents the traditional doctrine of Shafi’i Islam, one of the four Sunni schools of thought. If Vermeersch truly wanted to engage with orthodox Shafi’i scholarship on jihad, he would have been better off citing contemporary Shafi’i scholars writing on the same topic. A far more relevant reference would be The Theology of Jihad  by Yusuf al-Qaradawi (a Shafi’i scholar and ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood). Alternatively, he could have referred to modern Shafi’i reformists such as Al-Bishri, Al-Awa, Howeidy, or Hanafi. But he does not. (Is it because he cannot go beyond a few Google searches and Wikipedia articles?) In this regard, Vermeersch’s approach is painfully amateurish and weak.

Error 2: Rhetorical Misinterpretation

Vermeersch fails to understand the difference between jihad as warfare that is defensive in its casus belli—but which may escalate into offensive warfare at a later stage—and outright aggression. Were the Allies who occupied Germany aggressors? Or was that still a defensive war, given that Germany had provided the casus belli with its invasion of Poland? Jihad can escalate, just as the concept of just war does in Christian theology, but it remains fundamentally defensive.
Holy war (bellum sacrum) is not an Islamic concept. It is never used in Arabic and is a purely Christian term. Vermeersch's conflation of offensive jihad with an endorsement of aggression is the same mistake that many (though not all) jihadists make. In this, Vermeersch, like Maarten Boudry and others, shares the same mindset as radical Salafi-jihadists, employing the same reductionist and superficial methods as they do.

Error 3: The Fundamental Flaw

Vermeersch attempts to refute my argument—that jihad in the Quran is a broad concept open to various interpretations—by citing an interpretation outside the Quran. In doing so, he refers to a source that actually confirms my position, as it presents two different interpretations of jihad, one of which (jihad al-nafs—the struggle against oneself) is considered the greatest jihad.
Additionally, he claims that I deny any role of culture in shaping human behavior. This is false. I simply refuse to see culture as the primary and all-encompassing determinant of human behavior. Culture is complex, multilayered, individually varied, and subjective. It is one piece of the puzzle, but not the entire picture. This is what I mean when I reject the culturalization of criminality. I reject essentialism and reductionism—but not culture as one of many contributing factors.
The world is shaped by an interplay of matter, ecology, economics, politics, power structures, six billion individual cultures, and a handful of overarching narratives about imagined collective cultures and identities. These narratives matter, but far less than people often assume—especially in times of globalization.

Dyab Abou Jahjah