What is Jihad in Islam

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Islam
  3. » What is Jihad in Islam

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Justin
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 09:25 am
Jihad - I took some time to look it up and here is a few things that I had found in the wikipedia:

Quote:
Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ ), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle." Jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen.
A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
According to scholar John Esposito, Jihad requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society."[3][4] Jihad is directed against Satan's inducements, aspects of one's own self, or against a visible enemy.[1][5] The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf).[5] Islamic military jurisprudence focuses on regulating the conditions and practice of Jihad as-sayf, the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and thus the term Jihad is usually used in fiqh manuals in reference to military combat.[5][6]
OK, so it looks like Jihad is one of the ten practices of the Islam Religion. What is the practice, what does it mean and what lines in the sand are drawn when it comes to Jihad? I searched further and found an Islamic site out of Iran. It can be found here: Jihad: The Holy War of Islam and Its Legitimacy in The Quran

Quote:
And Fight those who have not faith in God, nor in the Hereafter, and (who) forbid not what God and His Prophet have forbidden and (who ) are not committed to the religion of truth, of those who have been brought the Book, until they pay tribute by hand, and they are the low.non-Muslims followers of one of the holy books, namely the Jews, Christians and perhaps the Zoroastrians.


The verse is one of war with the People of the Book, but at the same time, it does not tell us to fight them; it tells us to fight only those of them who have no faith in God, in the Hereafter, and who do not abide by the rule of God, allowing what He has forbidden - and who are not religious according to the religion of truth. It is these People of the Book whom we are to fight until they pay the Jezyah (tribute). That is, when they are ready to pay the Jezyah and are humble before us, we are to fight them no more.
OK, so they are to fight the people of the book. I'm not understanding this. The people of the book have long since passed on or refolded into the universe so I don't get it. Abiding by the rule of God... Which God? Which religion of Truth? They all claim to be religions of truth.

Quote:
It goes on to say:

Philosophy and Goals of Jihad

[INDENT]The fifth issue concerns the reason for the law of jihad in Islam. Some believe that there should be no jihad in religion at all: that religion should contain no law of war: that since war is a bad thing, religion must oppose it and not itself establish war as a law.

We, on the other hand, know that jihad is a basic principle in Islam. When we are asked how many are the subsidiary beliefs of Islam (furuedin) we say, "Ten - prayer, fasting, khoms, zakat, hajj, jihad, etc."(2)The idolaters are filth, so they must not approach the Masjid ul-Haram (in Mecca).
Christianity's Protest Against Islam

[INDENT]Previously we said that one of the points that, in its own view, the world of Christianity considers to be a weak point of Islam is the issue of Islamic jihad, which prompts it to say that Islam is a religion of war, not a religion of peace, while Christianity is a religion of peace. It says that war is totally bad and peace is good, and any religion that is divinely founded must advocate peace which is a good thing, and not advocate war, which is a bad thing. Until yesterday Christianity looked at things from the angle of morals; morals exclusive to Christianity; morals that have entered the stage of "turning the other cheek;" morals that foster limpidity. But Christianity today has switched positions. It has changed its face. It now looks at things from a different angle, and carries on its propaganda through a different channel, through the channel of essential human rights and the essential human right to freedom. Through the channel of "war being totally opposed to the right to freedom." To freedom of belief, to freedom of will, to freedom of choice of religion, nationality and other things. But we Muslims look at the issue from both angles, both from the moral angle and the standards of morals, and also from the angle of human rights and the "new" human standards. I stated the answer to this matter in the previous sitting. It is self-evident and clear that what the Christians are saying is not at all valid.

Of course peace is good. There is no doubt about it. And war, for the sake of aggression against other people - people who have no intentions against the aggressor, no intentions against that aggressive society - war for the sake of occupying that unsuspecting nation's lands and of grabbing their property, for the sake of enslaving its people, for the sake of subjecting them to the influence and laws of the aggressors, is undoubtedly bad. That which is bad is transgression and aggression. Aggression is bad.

But all war, on all sides, is not always aggression. War can be aggressive and it can also be a reply to aggression, for sometimes the reply to aggression must be given by force. There are times that force is the only reply that can be given.

Any religion, if it is a complete religion, must have thought about what it will do on that day when it is faced with aggression, or, let us suppose, it is not itself faced with aggression but another people are. It is for such a day that religion must have a law of war, a law of jihad. The Christians say that peace is good, and we agree; peace is good. But what about submission, humiliation and misery? Are submission, humiliation and misery also good? If one power is faced with another power and both advocate peace, both of them desire, in today's terms, to live in peaceful coexistence without one power wishing to aggress the other, but both of them willing to live in peace with reciprocal rights and mutual respect, then this is called peace and is good and essential. There is a time, however, when one group is the aggressor and, on the pretext of war being bad, the other group accepts surrender, which means that the humiliation of having to tolerate aggression becomes imposed upon it. The name of this is not peace. The name of this is willing acceptance of humiliation and misery. Such a submission in the face of force can never be called peace. For example, while you are passing a desert, an armed bandit attacks you suddenly and orders you to "get off your car quickly, raise your hand and give me anything you have."

Here you submit yourself and say to him: "I am an advocate of peace and opposed to war completely. I'll accept anything you order. I give you my money, my luggage and baggage, my car and I'll obey anything you say. Say anything you want and I will give it to you. Because I advocate peace." This is not advocation of peace. This is the acceptance of humiliation. In this case a man must defend his property, his prestige unless he knows that if he wants to defend, his property will be abolished, his blood will be shed and there will be no use in it. Of course it must be known that sometimes the blood is very effective and fighting is very worthful and it is not that someone's blood be shed at defile and then everything comes to end. No, resistance here is not wise and one must sacrifice one's money and wealth in order to save one's life.

There is a difference between the advocation of peace and the acceptance of humiliation. Islam never gives permission to be humiliated, while at the same time it strongly advocates peace.

What I want to stress is the importance of this issue which Christians and others have used to attack and protest against Islam, claiming it to be Islam's weak point, adding that the life of the Holy Prophet was exactly this: that Islam is a religion of the sword; that Muslims raised the sword over the heads of people and said, "Choose Islam or die;" and that people accepted Islam in order to stay alive. Therefore, I think it is necessary for us to discuss this issue thoroughly and minutely, and we will use not only verses from the Quran, but also confirmed traditions of the Prophet and glimpses from his life.
[/INDENT]It doesn't resonate. The author did a good job in describing but for discussion, what is Jihad and what does it mean and who are these enemies of the book? Personally, I can't buy into this crap. Everyone experiences humiliation at some point. Oh well, get over it and move on to more productive things.

This thread was started not to start a battle but to gain a greater understanding of Jihad and it's goal and purpose and Islam and to discuss it from a philosophical standpoint.

Please refrain from any bigotry and/or hateful expressions when responding to this thread.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 10:53 am
@Justin,
There are a lot of reasonably scholarly articles if you search on Google Scholar, or better yet an academic search engine like JSTOR.

Here's an interesting one, and it's clearly being written by a non-militant for a Muslim audience, which I find to be much more telling than looking at clearly militant messages and clearly anti-Muslim messages -- those are just too biased.

http://www.islamataglance.org/media/Articles/General/Jihad.pdf
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:34 am
@Justin,
On page two, paragraph two it says that they must rise up and do battle. Do battle against what exactly?
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 12:10 pm
@Caroline,
Quote:
It doesn't resonate. The author did a good job in describing but for discussion, what is Jihad and what does it mean and who are these enemies of the book? Personally, I can't buy into this crap. Everyone experiences humiliation at some point. Oh well, get over it and move on to more productive things.


Firstly, the site you posted the above from is a Shia site, and is therefore not a correct representation of the teachings of Islam.

As mentioned by the Wiki definition, jihad means to struggle in the cause of Islam. I take it you are specifically interested in military action? Essentially, all non-Muslim countries are possible targets for jihad. Now before you recoil in shock and disgust, understand that Islam is not a war-mongering religion. Peace treaties are more favourable as long as it does not require the Muslims to accept any injustices. If you look at the biography of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) you will find his first acts after establishing a state was to enter into peace agreements with his neighbours. Jihad is obligatory in the face of aggression, i.e. non-Muslims attacking or threatening the Muslims. Offensive jihad is optional, where other lands are invaded to spread the religion. This is only permissible where peace agreements have not been made.

 
xris
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 12:55 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;90363 wrote:


Firstly, the site you posted the above from is a Shia site, and is therefore not a correct representation of the teachings of Islam.

As mentioned by the Wiki definition, jihad means to struggle in the cause of Islam. I take it you are specifically interested in military action? Essentially, all non-Muslim countries are possible targets for jihad. Now before you recoil in shock and disgust, understand that Islam is not a war-mongering religion. Peace treaties are more favourable as long as it does not require the Muslims to accept any injustices. If you look at the biography of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) you will find his first acts after establishing a state was to enter into peace agreements with his neighbours. Jihad is obligatory in the face of aggression, i.e. non-Muslims attacking or threatening the Muslims. Offensive jihad is optional, where other lands are invaded to spread the religion. This is only permissible where peace agreements have not been made.

But the peace agreements meant that those who opposed Islam where conquered , it was revert or die. look at the whole of the ME it was conquered, not reverted by peaceful jihad. Look at Afghanistan a Buddhist country,the Buddhists where murdered. Look at the Indian subcontinent millions of pagans where killed in jihad, by the followers. Name me the countries that converted by peaceful jihad and those by the sword? Only opposition stopped aggressive jihad.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:19 pm
@xris,
Quote:
But the peace agreements meant that those who opposed Islam where conquered ,



Huh? No a peace agreement is where we agree we will not fight each other. There is no conquering when there is a peace agreement.

Quote:
it was revert or die. look at the whole of the ME it was conquered, not reverted by peaceful jihad.


It was never revert or die. Where did you get this info? The ME was indeed conquered via military means, but the people were not reverted by force. As I said before, offensive jihad was only allowed when there were no peace agreements in place, and of course the rules of engagement were strict. Civilians were not harmed.

Quote:
Look at Afghanistan a Buddhist country,the Buddhists where murdered. Look at the Indian subcontinent millions of pagans where killed in jihad, by the followers. Name me the countries that converted by peaceful jihad and those by the sword? Only opposition stopped aggressive jihad.


Which Muslim army conquered Indonesia? What Muslim sword fell on Nigeria? You are perpetuating a myth that conquered people were forced to convert to Islam. If atrocities were carried out by the Muslims then they went against the teachings of Islam. Study the biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and show me examples when he forced the people to revert. Muslim armies conquered nations just like the other powers of the time, being the Persian and Byzantine Empires. However, the religion was not forced on the people.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 02:06 pm
@josh0335,
I think your view of history is not the same as mine or others. How did Jews convert to a religion they refused to accept. Why did Muslims invade their neighbours lands, where they threatened? Are you denying the invasion of Afghanistan and India. Do you give a reason why they invaded Spain ? I'm not saying Muslims are any diferent to any other invading army but they acted through jihad, is the point i am making.
 
ahmedjbh
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 02:15 pm
@Justin,
Xris,

Did you even read his post?

"You are perpetuating a myth that conquered people were forced to convert to Islam. If atrocities were carried out by the Muslims then they went against the teachings of Islam"

I can not see how it can be any clearer than that.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 02:46 pm
@ahmedjbh,
ahmedjbh;90395 wrote:
Xris,

Did you even read his post?

"You are perpetuating a myth that conquered people were forced to convert to Islam. If atrocities were carried out by the Muslims then they went against the teachings of Islam"

I can not see how it can be any clearer than that.
Yes I did read his post, thank you. I dont understand your defence of Islamic invasion or the reasons why most defeated by the islamic invasion reverted. Become a second class citizen or even worse a slave and you might just revert to your invaders faith.

Those who invaded and committed crimes where muslims, if they did it without authority then convince me that jihad by the sword was not their motive. Why was Persia invaded ? had they threatened their neighbour? and why where other faiths made illegal, even to this day. Many Christians committed crimes but did they have authority? History is one long horror story and we can not judge each other by its passing but we must remember what caused these horrors, so hopefully we do not repeat those mistakes.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:01 pm
@xris,
Quote:
I think your view of history is not the same as mine or others. How did Jews convert to a religion they refused to accept.


Which Jews are you referring to? Coptic Christians are proof that conquered peoples were not forced to Islam. Coptic Christians exist to this very day.

Quote:
Why did Muslims invade their neighbours lands, where they threatened?


In Islam's infancy, yes the Muslims were threatened. But once the ME was conquered it is safe to say they were not under any immediate threat. The Persians and the Romans had there own internal problems and were not particularly interested in the desert people. However, the attacks on these two Empires had strategic and political value and most importantly allowed for the religion to spread. Muslims could not preach Islam in Byzantine or Persian lands freely. By conquering them, the religion could be propagated. You may not like this explanation but Islam makes it clear that civilians are never to be harmed. Once these lands were conquered, other neighbouring nations fell too. So essentially, other countries were invaded to spread the religion freely. This is offensive jihad. Do not confuse this with Christian armies who conquered and killed those who refused to convert.

Quote:
Are you denying the invasion of Afghanistan and India. Do you give a reason why they invaded Spain ? I'm not saying Muslims are any diferent to any other invading army but they acted through jihad, is the point i am making.

No, I'm not denying it at all. Yes, you have correctly labelled it as jihad. These countries were 'opened' (this is the Muslim terminology for a conquered nation) to allow for trade, movement of people, removal of possible threats and most importantly the spread of Islam. India remained a Hindu majority under hundreds of years of Muslim leadership. This is further proof that Islam was not spread by the sword, for if it was, India would have become a Muslim majority. I also don't deny that many evil acts have been committed by Muslim armies and leaders of the past. All I can say about that is that they deviated from the teachings of Islam. If you genuinely want to know the etiquettes of jihad, then you must study the military expeditions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and not latter day Muslims.


Quote:
Yes I did read his post, thank you. I dont understand your defence of Islamic invasion or the reasons why most defeated by the islamic invasion reverted. Become a second class citizen or even worse a slave and you might just revert to your invaders faith.

Or, maybe they liked the religion and converted? Why do you think the people became second class citizens? Conquered people carried on with their way of life, they were not made into slaves. You seem to be confusing Islam with the Roman Empire.

Quote:
and why where other faiths made illegal, even to this day. Many Christians committed crimes but did they have authority? History is one long horror story and we can not judge each other by its passing but we must remember what caused these horrors, so hopefully we do not repeat those mistakes.

I could answer this but it would stray away from the topic of jihad.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:26 pm
@josh0335,
Those who defended their land where classified as combatants, were killed and their wives taken as slaves. How many would not defend their country?

Those who refused to accept Islam where compelled to pay an unbelievers tax and could not hold high office, worship in their churches nor take certain occupations. Invasion was not just for revertion it was to control and govern. As for Christians ,they where just as bad .

The Indian sub continent by certain historians, when invaded, suffered 80 million murders over three centuries by Muslims. Now it might be an exaggeration but it begs the question ,how many then?
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 04:12 pm
@xris,
Quote:
Those who defended their land where classified as combatants, were killed and their wives taken as slaves. How many would not defend their country?


So?

Quote:
Those who refused to accept Islam where compelled to pay an unbelievers tax and could not hold high office, worship in their churches nor take certain occupations. Invasion was not just for revertion it was to control and govern. As for Christians ,they where just as bad .


The jizya (poll tax) was similar to zakat paid by the Muslims, so it wasn't as if they were worse off than their Muslim counter-parts. The poll tax ensured the protection from invading nations and meant the non-Muslims were exempt from serving in the army. The unbelievers were not allowed to hold high offices because it was a theocracy, and so if you are not a member of the ruling religion it would not make sense to have a position of authority. Worship in their churches was definitely allowed. No-one was forced to convert or leave their religion.

Quote:
The Indian sub continent by certain historians, when invaded, suffered 80 million murders over three centuries by Muslims. Now it might be an exaggeration but it begs the question ,how many then?


Even one person murdered is too many. As stated earlier, if this is true then this was against the teachings of Islam. But as I also said, the proof that Islam was not spread by the sword is in the fact that India was and still is a Hindu majority.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:14 pm
@josh0335,
Not to mention the fact that Muslims invaded Spain only after being invited to do so by the native population in order to expel the inept Gothic rulers.
 
ahmedjbh
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:43 pm
@xris,
xris;90409 wrote:
Those who defended their land where classified as combatants, were killed and their wives taken as slaves. How many would not defend their country?

Those who refused to accept Islam where compelled to pay an unbelievers tax and could not hold high office, worship in their churches nor take certain occupations. Invasion was not just for revertion it was to control and govern. As for Christians ,they where just as bad .

The Indian sub continent by certain historians, when invaded, suffered 80 million murders over three centuries by Muslims. Now it might be an exaggeration but it begs the question ,how many then?



This is a common misconcepton.

The jiza tax, which is paid by a non muslim who is freely able to reside in muslim lands is actually less than the overall tax paid by muslims (zakat + a 1/5 of savings after deductions). It also means that the non muslim has complete safety and is protected by the state, yet does not have to join any army or actually the defend the nation.

Its much more like being a guest and giving a tip, rather than a punishing tax as you imply.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 06:38 pm
@josh0335,
A couple of points:

From Aedes' post:
"The earliest wars of Islamic history which threatened the very existence of the young community came to be known as jihad par excellence in this outward sense of 'holy war'. "

This would have to refer to Muhammad's fight to unite the Arab tribes in the Arabian Penninsula. After Muhammad's death, the united Arabs poured out of Arabia and took over the Byzantine and Iranian domains. At that point, non Arabs were not allowed to become Muslims. This created a glass ceiling for people who wanted to progress in the new regime. Within about a generation, the Persian speaking Iranians took back over their own territory as Muslims. At this point, the leadership of Islam included former Christians and Zoroastrians. The reason they maintained Islam instead of returning to their original religion appears to be that they loved Islam. We could speculate that they particularly liked the order it brought to the region. Additionally, the Iranians, who had always been polylingual, loved the Arabian language. It's apparently an ideal language for poetry, science and philosophical expression.

By and large, Islam did not spread at the point of the sword (Richard Foltz ), but rather it spread throughout Central Asia and Africa by virtue of it's appeal.

The idea of jihad as 'effort required to secure balance or good' is both confirmed and opposed within the original Christian holy writings. Jesus said: "Look at the lilies of the field. Do they work hard? Do they worry? No. And look at how their Father in Heaven has adorned them." On the other hand, Paul said he beat his flesh and led it about as a slave (to ward off temptation.)

I've said it before. Christianity wasn't a recipe for how to build a functioning society. With some exceptions, it has always existed side by side with what we would call secular regimes. Therefore it's not correct to say that Christianity proposes pacifism. It has been expected that as soon as Jesus returns, it will become possible for all nations to become pacifist, subject to God's Kingdom.

The reason a Muslim would make that mistake is obvious: Islam has been religion and state in one. Which was one aspect of its appeal to areas without any centralized authority to maintain peace.

Lastly: The Koran was written more than 1200 years ago. It obviously contains an old perspective. Liberal Muslims seek the freedom to interpret the Koran into a modern perspective. They are strongly opposed by conservative Muslims. Liberal Muslims are in danger of being identified as Western sympathizers. This ends up hampering the desire of Muslim holy people to address modern issues within the framework of Islam.

It would as if Christian fundamentalists had the power to censor efforts of other Christians (or anybody else for that matter) to allow Christianity to grow and evolve. The conflict between liberal and conservative Muslims could be seen as the real war that's going on. The West is entangled by it's past systematic manipulation and violence toward Muslims, starting with the British Empire, evolving into the American lust for oil and it's use of the third world as an auxiliary chessboard for the Cold War. Saddam Hussein was placed in power by British Intelligence and the CIA because they thought his allegiance would give them a strategic advantage in regard to the USSR. If it turned out they'd loosed a maniac on the Iraqis, oh well.

After 911, G.W.Bush gave a state of the union address in which he explained that America's policy had changed. No more supporting maniacs. Blah Blah Blah... I could continue explaining why the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to appease Al Qaeda and thereby calm them down. But maybe I've rambled enough.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 09:09 pm
@Justin,
It is worth noting that under Ottoman rule, for 500 years the southeastern part of Europe was within the dominion of an Islamic empire, which at times included the Balkans and even into Hungary.

There is a sizeable Muslim population in the former Yugoslavia -- and it's only since ~1917 that the Ottoman Turks have been truly gone (including from what is now Palestine and Israel).

Yet I have NEVER heard of Bosnian Muslims calling for a jihad against Budapest, Zagreb, or Belgrade to make it a Muslim land again. Even as they became the subject of a genocide this never became a call.

So how do we square this with the generalization that Muslims always conquer by war and they REALLY do it with a vengeance when a Muslim land has been lost?
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 03:24 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;90419 wrote:
So?



The jizya (poll tax) was similar to zakat paid by the Muslims, so it wasn't as if they were worse off than their Muslim counter-parts. The poll tax ensured the protection from invading nations and meant the non-Muslims were exempt from serving in the army. The unbelievers were not allowed to hold high offices because it was a theocracy, and so if you are not a member of the ruling religion it would not make sense to have a position of authority. Worship in their churches was definitely allowed. No-one was forced to convert or leave their religion.



Even one person murdered is too many. As stated earlier, if this is true then this was against the teachings of Islam. But as I also said, the proof that Islam was not spread by the sword is in the fact that India was and still is a Hindu majority.
Im not sure what you mean by SO. This attention to detail and not answering the most serious allegations is a bit strange. The killings of defenders, the taking of slaves?

India is a sub continent and if you can recall, all of Pakistan was Hindu and only the defence of the rest of India saved it from complete destruction. Large swathes of India lay desolate for years after the massacres by invading Muslims

If you invade a country for the sole purpose of reversion then you have no defence of jihad by the sword, the evidence is there, no need to try hide its significance in Islamic teachings. There is a demand that every Muslim must advance Islam till the whole world believes. Its gods earth and all must bow to Allah. Be honest with your scriptures and confess them to us.

---------- Post added 09-16-2009 at 04:28 AM ----------

Didymos Thomas;90439 wrote:
Not to mention the fact that Muslims invaded Spain only after being invited to do so by the native population in order to expel the inept Gothic rulers.
A reason for invasion the rulers are not very good and one upset princes asks for help from a neighbouring country. Well how history can be distorted to fit the posters views.

---------- Post added 09-16-2009 at 04:32 AM ----------

Aedes;90484 wrote:
It is worth noting that under Ottoman rule, for 500 years the southeastern part of Europe was within the dominion of an Islamic empire, which at times included the Balkans and even into Hungary.

There is a sizeable Muslim population in the former Yugoslavia -- and it's only since ~1917 that the Ottoman Turks have been truly gone (including from what is now Palestine and Israel).

Yet I have NEVER heard of Bosnian Muslims calling for a jihad against Budapest, Zagreb, or Belgrade to make it a Muslim land again. Even as they became the subject of a genocide this never became a call.

So how do we square this with the generalization that Muslims always conquer by war and they REALLY do it with a vengeance when a Muslim land has been lost?
Do you recall the terrorist attacks on the trains in Spain? Their motives ? Spain is still a Muslim country in their view and it has to be returned. Having the intentions and the ability is two different things.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:16 am
@Justin,
Quote:
Im not sure what you mean by SO. This attention to detail and not answering the most serious allegations is a bit strange. The killings of defenders, the taking of slaves?
The killing of defenders is generally what happens in wars, if you haven't already noticed. As for slavery, this was phased out by Islam over the years.

Quote:
India is a sub continent and if you can recall, all of Pakistan was Hindu and only the defence of the rest of India saved it from complete destruction. Large swathes of India lay desolate for years after the massacres by invading Muslims
If you recall, Pakistan was created after British rule, not during the Mughals. Do you know how long the Muslims ruled India? In that time, how would the Hindus have defended themselves if the Muslims genuinely wanted to destroy them and convert them by the sword? I'm not sure how you've come to understand that the heroic Hindus of India bravely defended their faith against their barbaric Muslim dictators. There would have been no hope for the Hindus if fighting had been the priority. After all, they were conquered in the first place. Anyway, I've already said that any murders or forced conversions were against the teachings of Islam and against the laws of jihad.

Quote:
If you invade a country for the sole purpose of reversion then you have no defence of jihad by the sword, the evidence is there, no need to try hide its significance in Islamic teachings. There is a demand that every Muslim must advance Islam till the whole world believes. Its gods earth and all must bow to Allah. Be honest with your scriptures and confess them to us.
I've already confessed our beliefs and I'm not hiding anything. The sole purpose of jihad is to struggle in the cause of Islam. Jihad of the sword is ordained by the Qur'an where it is necessary. Countries were opened to spread the religion freely, but not through force. Yes, there is a demand that every Muslim advance Islam, but whether the whole world believes is between the people and Allah.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:38 am
@Justin,
I didn't ask you about Spain, big guy, so why don't you try again and answer the damned question I asked you. And you accuse everyone else of obscuring things...
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:46 am
@josh0335,
How can you claim peaceful reversion when Islam invaded those countries,for the sole reason to make them revert. When was slavery outlawed by Islamic scriptures? KSA only banned this horror in the 1960s.

I'm not claiming all Muslim invasions of the sub continent of India was strewn with the dead of Hindus but the first three hundred years was one of total barbarity and it did not matter if they fought the Muslims or not they stilled killed them in their millions.

I appreciate that certain Muslims do not carry these dogmatic views with them but from an objective view they do still exist. Just as we in the west carry the burden of our history,so to must Muslims.

---------- Post added 09-16-2009 at 06:49 AM ----------

Aedes;90541 wrote:
I didn't ask you about Spain, big guy, so why don't you try again and answer the damned question I asked you. And you accuse everyone else of obscuring things...
With your attitude you can find the nearest wall to abuse , cos you aint abusing me. Be polite and say sorry and i might just answer your question again.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Islam
  3. » What is Jihad in Islam
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/16/2018 at 08:12:41