The retort's criticism of Nikhil's original essay entirely misses the point, and UrRong to say that suggesting honeybees invented jihad before it was cool is an "irresponsible and unfounded claim." While it's true that complex religious, cultural, and political histories are part of jihad's roots, Nikhil never suggested that bees have a capacity for reason or language. Instead, he noted the selfless act of honeybee stinging, which has been around for eons. To think that humans could be inspired by the behavior of a species who doesn't understand the concept of jihad is actually quite thought-provoking and isn’t as oversimplifying as suggested.
In addition, the retort conveniently ignores the fact that the notion of jihad has evolved over time, moving away from its roots in religious, cultural, and political contexts. It is now often used more generally to refer to a larger cause, such as the promotion of social justice. In this way, the idea of selfless sacrifice for a greater good isn’t unique to any particular species. The act of giving one’s life for a noble cause is shared by both honeybees and humans.
So when Nikhil said that honeybees invented jihad before it was cool, he was pointing to the concept of self-sacrifice for a greater good as a universal truth shared by all species, not just humans. To suggest that this idea is disrespectful or inaccurate is simply absurd. In fact, we can all learn something from the selfless sacrifice of the humble honeybee. And if we take that idea and use it not to spark violence, but to create a better world, then isn't that what jihad truly is? UrRong if you think otherwise!