The article deals with recent and still somewhat foggy phenomenon of so called „Arab spring“, which faces the area of the Middle East since last January. The author strives to avoid commonly operated journalist-like and superficial approach and describes in a kind of concise sythesis some of factors and motives of the „facebook generation“ and historical background of recent development in the respective societies. He points at the specific features of „modernity“ in the Arab region – like absolutely different structure of the society, means and ways of production, cultural, ethnical and spiritual values and stereotypes – if compared to the history and culture of the West, its „modernity“ and capitalist economic and social system. Special attention is paid on the crucial phenomenon of secularism, which – unlike the West – has been rather strange and (at least partly) unacceptable value for Arab (predominantly Muslim) societies. From these findings should originate the specific attitute from outside towards the role of religion in social and political life, specific political culture and behavior of both the official regime elites and „oppositionist“ strata of particular societies.
The article examines basic features of the discours on the term djihad in contemporary Islamic societies and states. The autor traces djihad as a phenomenon, which has been revived more than three decades ago and enters real politics and ideologies in the countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. The author strives to rethink the term djihad itself within various dissent structures of today‘s fundamentalism, as well as in the explanations of scholars more or less loyal to semi-secular regimes. The article is based on the analysis of the texts (mostly booklets and speeches) of prominent ideologues and religious leaders of fundamentalist (activist) movements and terrorist structures, such as al-Qaeda or Taleban. Most of presented views are explained in both the historical and religious (theological) context. The autor put the stress on the ambivalent and somewhat foggy semantical content of the term and explains, how this fact has been misused by various political subjects for absolutely different aims.