Klingons: Love 'em or hate 'em, they are the Star Trek Franchise's most fleshed out alien species. But, how much backstory has been revealed? How much do you know about this singularly epic people? Here are a couple of great videos by Trekspertise detailing the history of the Klingon people.
I confess that I too was unsure at that statement at first. However, Klingon’s believe that it is the greatest honour to die in battle whilst murdering their enemies. Whilst Klingon's consider their actions to be honourable, their victims would not regard them as such. They even believe that in order to get into Klingon heaven (Sto-vo-kor) they need to die in battle or perform what is considered in their world view to be a heroic deed. Klingon's are not Jihadists, but I can see where this guy was coming from. Edit: I asked Trekspertise about the jihadist statement and he responded:
It's hard to draw that even as a solid thematic connection. A Klingon honorable death is different from martyrdom. Jihadists are fighting to kill people who don't follow the same religion as them. The Klingons don't care what religion you are, they're just killing you because honorable conquest.
I can kind of see what they mean, Klingons do fight primarily for religious reasons, that is they believe they have to fight and die in combat in order to get into their heaven, any other death is an automatic sentence to their hell.
They could have also said Crusade. A Crusade is just as evil as a Jihad. Crusade may have even been more apt, as Crusaders tended to conquer and rule, as Klingons do. Crusade is about a superiority complex and wanting to throw your weight around. Jihad is from a delusion of being a persecuted underdog and wanting to exterminate.
...Or then they are just synonymous names for a religiously formulated justification for sending your excess young hotheads to errands the exact nature of which doesn't matter much, as long as the kids no longer make noise back home. Which may be what Klingons do a lot, too. The one thing Klingons and humans have in uncommon here is that Klingons don't seem to care at all about their victims. Humans on Earth have human victims, so they have at least a bit of an innate interest - they know what makes the victims tick at least, and may wish to play with that. Klingons just use their non-Klingon enemies for target practice, from what we have seen. And while they may need to reconquer Klingon real estate now and then (Krios), onscreen they generally tend to vent their conquest urges at alien scum, a situation apparently very different from humans venting such at human scum. Timo Saloniemi
I won't engage with you guys on the political overtones of the use of the word "jihadist" in this, but I will say that I think the guy put together a pretty great little video. --Alex
Plus, he said "part Jihadist". It is not necessary to draw more than a single line of comparison between them for it to be legit. Anyway, good video as always. I particularly like the one he did on Dukat.
...My only real grievance is with the considerably less than Klingonlike choice of music. Shouldn't Klingon educational programs have disturbing rather than soothing accompaniment? (Or perhaps what we have here is what will maximally disturb a Klingon? Even I reached for nearby oddly shaped sharp implements a couple of times here...) Timo Saloniemi
I don't necessarily agree, but I see how that conclusion can be made. Doesn't necessarily lose credibility, but it isn't the best argument to use because it is more of a philosophy for Klingons to die in battle, than it is a religion. Not to mention, calling Klingons "jihadists" can be taken in a way that is insulting and even discriminatory to Muslim people. Personally, I have always equated the Klingons to more of a cross between Viking and Samurai cultures. Both considered death in battle honorable, and in the case of the Samurai, death before dishonor. The video probably should have used that aspect to make its point.
No, Jihadi is not apt at all. In modern nomenclature, jihad is a declared holy war to kill as many infidels as possible by any means possible, with martyrdom being the "ticket to heaven" - i.e. suicide bombings, bus hijackings and general terror and mayhem. Klingons view killing the weak and defenseless as dishonorable* (excepting casualties of war). Suicide as an end is considered to be a sign of weakness, however ritual suicide can atone for dishonor. To engage fully in battle with the intention of dying to serve a greater cause =/= suicide bombing.
Since when? It's their own damn fault for being weak and defenseless - they dishonor themselves by not being proper warriors, and should die for it. There doesn't seem to be an episode or movie, a person or a faction actually claiming that slaying the powerless would be un-Klingonlike. Say, taking them prisoner for the purposes of using them as shields is bad, because a Klingon shielding himself that way is cowardly - but taking them prisoner and then executing them en masse to set an example is just dandy. How so? The successful suicide bomber obviously pumps four full clips through his AK-47 and throws all his hand grenades before pulling the pin on his vest. If there's any difference, it's between engaging in suicidal combat against impossible odds, and doing so against possible odds. Klingons might believe more in the latter, as they are not powerless underdogs in most of the fights they pick. Timo Saloniemi
It's been a while since i've seen much of star trek, so forgive me for not quoting episodes/scripts. I do distinctly recall the idea of just mowing people down to be mocked as tasteless and dishonorable by other klingons. The Albino from DS9 incurred the wrath of the klingons for his dishonorable way in fighting his enemies - poising their sons, murdering colonies etc rather than open combat. Walking into a busy cafe in jerusalem and detonating a bomb designed to kill and maim hundreds of innocent people is part and parcel of the jihad-terrorist* mantra. That behavior is very anti-klingon.
Kor? Or whatever his name was, when he beamed over to the disabled klingon warship in order to save Martok's fleet knew he was going to die and sacrificed himself anyway because it would save his comrades and hurt the enemy. That was an honorable death in honorable combat.
The Messenger of Allah was asked about the best jihad. He said: "The best jihad is the one in which your horse is slain and your blood is spilled." -- cited by Ibn Nuhaas and narrated by Ibn Habbaan Sounds fairly Klingon to me.
Klingons aren't ideologues. They don't kill you because they think your beliefs and behavior insult God. They aren't punishing us for not believing in Klingon religion. -------------------- I'm interested in the history of TOS Klingons.
Klingons don't have gods, so it can never be EXACTLY the same. But then, "analogous" and "identical" don't mean the same thing either.
I, too, would like to know more about TOS Klingons. What happened to those smooth headed Klingons who wanted to remain smooth headed, for whatever reason, and refused to get "cured"? There are always outliers in any society. And what of those TOS Klingons who could not be cured? Did the Imperial Klingons put those smooth headed one in concentration camps, or did they commit genocide against the remaining smoothies in order to wipe them out? Afterall, Worf said that the Klingons didn't talk about it with outsiders. Klingons were ashamed of smooth headedness in Klingons. They wanted to erase them from history, right?
I can't spot such a reference - especially not in the specific context of "civilians" or "innocents" or the like. Indeed. But neither the sons nor the colonists were "innocent" nor "defenseless", except perhaps through their own fault. Klingons worry about how to fight, but this is purely as refers to the warrior him- or herself: the victims aren't a concern one way or another. I don't see the anti-Klingon part. You kill your enemies. You don't acknowledge the concept of "innocence", except perhaps as synonymous to "dishonor". If the enemy fights back, all the better for him - but if he doesn't, all the better for you. A thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man, as they say (in "Day of the Dove"), but presumably only if the victims don't resist much. "Murdered in his sleep" is the fault of the victim for being stupid enough not to wake up. The one difference between this and suicide-bombing a cafe is the quantitative one of the state of preparedness of the enemy. The cafe has knives... the Jem'Hadar have bayonets. Yet the archetypal jihadist attack comes in another common variant: the jihadist strikes against a police facility, a border control post or a recruitment office, a classic "soft target" in guerilla warfare. That's a rather good match to what Kor did. Timo Saloniemi