What is Jihad in Islam

@Justin,

Quote:

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.

Because it was peaceful. No one was forced to convert, all that changed was the leadership. This really isn't strange considering the time Islam came about. Romans, Persians and the Chinese were doing this too. The sole purpose of offensive jihad was to either spread the religion (without force once the country was taken) or to take control of a country to allow movement of people, trade and provide Islamic justice.

Quote:

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.

Indeed they must, and at no point have I tried to deny any wrong doings of past Muslims. However, you shouldn't use the actions of Muslims to claim the religion itself is barbaric. I urge you to study the life of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to better understand what jihad is and what its limits are.

@josh0335,

josh0335;90552 wrote:

Because it was peaceful. No one was forced to convert, all that changed was the leadership. This really isn't strange considering the time Islam came about. Romans, Persians and the Chinese were doing this too. The sole purpose of offensive jihad was to either spread the religion (without force once the country was taken) or to take control of a country to allow movement of people, trade and provide Islamic justice.

Indeed they must, and at no point have I tried to deny any wrong doings of past Muslims. However, you shouldn't use the actions of Muslims to claim the religion itself is barbaric. I urge you to study the life of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to better understand what jihad is and what its limits are.

I think we have explored this subject for long enough and it will become more than i wish it to be. For peace sake let us leave it where it is and i will leave you with the last word. thanks for you patients.xris

@Justin,

You're 0 for 2.

A non-answer is still an answer. The thing about bigotry is that it overlooks and ignores rather than reconciles and understands.

@Aedes,

Aedes;90559 wrote:

You're 0 for 2.

A non-answer is still an answer. The thing about bigotry is that it overlooks and ignores rather than reconciles and understands.

Your becoming a aggressive bore, are you calling me a bigot? if so prove your claim or leave me alone. I answered your question something you did not do to my message i sent you nor to all the other points i raised.

If you cant prove me a bigot, i will request an oppology.

@xris,

xris;90526 wrote:

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.

Except your narrative is incorrect.

The rulers were not simply "not very good", they viciously abused the populace with violence, impossible taxes, and complete neglect for the situation of the starving masses; instead of one prince asking for help, city after city requested Muslim aid, one after the other as the good news of Muslim success and fair treatment spread further north.

Before you talk about distorting history, try and get your own understanding of that history at least in the ballpark. Especially when you attempt to use the history to paint a diverse, massive population as somehow terrible.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;90566 wrote:

Except your narrative is incorrect.

The rulers were not simply "not very good", they viciously abused the populace with violence, impossible taxes, and complete neglect for the situation of the starving masses; instead of one prince asking for help, city after city requested Muslim aid, one after the other as the good news of Muslim success and fair treatment spread further north.

Before you talk about distorting history, try and get your own understanding of that history at least in the ballpark. Especially when you attempt to use the history to paint a diverse, massive population as somehow terrible.

Whose painting the whole of Islam as terrible? here we go again any debate on Islam and we have the usual crew marching out shouting foul. Give me one statement of mine that is bigoted or that defines all Muslims as terrorist or worse .. come on now give it your best..

Are you really serious that invasion can be classified as a good thing when the government is failing its citizens..so the invasion of Iraq was justified? I don't believe this debate, i cant even withdraw for peace sake..

@Justin,

Justin;90326 wrote:

Everyone experiences humiliation at some point. Oh well, get over it and move on to more productive things.

Sometimes wounds take time to heal. When a whole society experiences a psychic wound, it doesn't effect all the members equally. Some people are over it quickly. But they aren't the ones who are really attending to the healing process. It's the ones who continue to struggle with the pain in whom the change is taking place.

Americans know this phenomenon. The wounds of the Jim Crow era continue to heal. It may be a drag for those who would like to move on, but it is what it is: a natural process. We have to honor the part each of us plays. If someone rages about racism in America, I honor their feelings.

The motto of the USA is E Pluribus Unum. If any part of us is in pain, that pain is part of us.

In the same way, the pain/rage/malice/hope felt by Muslim extremists is part of us: the species. Jihad is just a word. Ask a linguist what it means... but I think this thread demonstrates that the word is loaded with emotion. For me, consideration of this topic has sometimes led to difficult emotions because it goes to the heart of who has hurt whom. It's a pathway to a wound.

It seems to me that we probably wouldn't be so interested in what jihad is if it weren't for the fact that we live in a time of evolving globalization. We could note that we're seeing signs that globalization, as it has progressed so far, has inflicted wounds.

Imagine that there's some Spirit of the West which has been the driving force behind globalization for more than 400 years now. Imagine that it speaks to the rest of the world and says it's sorry for the pain that has resulted. I don't think that apology would mean anything. Forgiveness is the final healing of the wound. And it comes when a person realizes that it's not about what other people have done: it's about me. It's about what lessons I've learned and how I contribute to the world. So instead of wondering what jihad means to some collective Muslims, I could just think about what it means to me, and go from there. Smile

@Arjuna,

xris;90576 wrote:

Whose painting the whole of Islam as terrible? here we go again any debate on Islam and we have the usual crew marching out shouting foul. Give me one statement of mine that is bigoted or that defines all Muslims as terrorist or worse .. come on now give it your best..

There is no need for me to wade through your post history from other threads, Xris.

xris;90576 wrote:

Are you really serious that invasion can be classified as a good thing when the government is failing its citizens.

I never characterized the invasion of Spain as good, bad, or anything else - I simply corrected your inaccurate historical narrative.

xris;90576 wrote:

so the invasion of Iraq was justified?

As long as you are asking for posts that do not exist, how about I ask you for some - where did I say this?

xris;90576 wrote:

I don't believe this debate, i cant even withdraw for peace sake..

I can't either. On the one hand, there is history. On the other, there is ahistorical propaganda. Man, propaganda gets old quick.

@Didymos Thomas,

There is need for you to clarify your accusations, you need to prove the slander on my name was justified.

You are giving me a history lesson on the justification of the Islamic invasion of Spain and so is that point your making or what? was it justified or not, come on tell me?

I made reference to Iraq because with your reasoning of the invasion of Spain, as you so kindly pointed out, could be applied to the invasion of Iraq..I know your retreat on this point is because you realised the stupidity of your suggestion, that invasion can be justified.

Now I will ask again, the two of you, give me proof of my bigotry or apologise.

@xris,

If I could but in:

xris;90526 wrote:

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.

When it comes to justification, a person is always justified in acting according to his nature. Or you could say justification isn't necessary.

A society is justified in acting according to its nature. The question arises: were the Muslims ever justified in invading a foreign territory?

One view point: The Muslim culture is not military based. It's a merchant based culture. It's not in the nature of a merchant based society to wage war. It's in their nature to profit from war, as they profit from everything else people do. So fundamentally, Muslims can't be justified in invasion.

A historical fact muddies the waters: the economy of the Arab tribes, who united to become the first Muslims, had involved raiding and tribute. When the Arabs became united, they no longer took tribute from each other. This created a need for tribute from outside their ranks. Historians explain their first eruption out of the Arabian Peninsula by virtue of this issue. They didn't come out to convert people. In fact at first, they would not allow non-Arabs to convert. Conversion would stop the flow of tribute. Therefore invasion and domination was part of the nature of original Islamic culture. An important point: within about a generation the situation changed. Poetically speaking, Arabia was the ground the seed started in. The pattern of life we call Islam sprouted and grew throughout the world, transforming everything in it's path. It's a historical fact that by and large, this growth took little effort on the part of Muslims. People converted because they wanted to. Islam created relative order that's required for trade.

Since I don't know much about the invasion of Spain, I don't know if it was in the nature of Islam or not. If it was intended to open profit making avenues, then it would have been.

I think that Muslims who hear a call to return the world to the 10th century are an aberration. There is an apocolyptic aspect to Islam, just as in its kin: Judaism and Christianity. Apocolypticism is usually ignited by stress.

@Arjuna,

I thank you for your reasoned response. I do believe that the vast majority of Muslim only wish to be free to worship, bring up a family and be reasonably happy. The christian bible recommends all types of horrendous things to homosexuals adulterers and non believers, thankfully they do not abide by the scriptures as they did in recent history. Muslims are the same, I believe, but the problem arises for Christians and Muslims when these horrors are used to convert disadvantaged youths into fundamentalist nutters.

We cant ignore the extremes of scriptures but we must ensure they are not used to make Jihad by the sword an acceptable practice in the 21century.I thank you again.xris

@xris,

xris;90868 wrote:

We cant ignore the extremes of scriptures but we must ensure they are not used to make Jihad by the sword an acceptable practice in the 21century.

Too true.

The ready availability of Kalashnikovs makes it a needless mess.

@Dave Allen,

I wasn't going to contribute to this thread further but some points have been made which I'd like to address..

Quote:

One view point: The Muslim culture is not military based. It's a merchant based culture. It's not in the nature of a merchant based society to wage war. It's in their nature to profit from war, as they profit from everything else people do. So fundamentally, Muslims can't be justified in invasion.

Muslim culture, fundamentally, is neither military based nor trade based; it is Qur'an based. The Qur'an teaches jihad by the sword and so the Arabs were justified in doing so. This must be acknowledged first and foremost before any further analysis can take place.

Quote:

We cant ignore the extremes of scriptures but we must ensure they are not used to make Jihad by the sword an acceptable practice in the 21century.I thank you again.xris

It is not for you to ensure how Muslims should or should not follow their scripture. Jihad by the sword is acceptable in any century because the Qur'an says so, and this is not considered extreme by Muslims. Defensive jihad is obligatory on all Muslims. Offensive jihad is acceptable in some situations, but as stated very early on in this thread, peace treaties are more desirable in general.

@Justin,

"Offensive jihad is acceptable in some situations"

For example?

@josh0335,

What of the scriptures that are brought to our attention that command muslims to approach others to become believers and if they dont they are forced into submitting to islamic law. If they dont respond to peaceful jihad they must use jihad by the sword. Am I wrong in my understanding of islamic scriptures?

@Justin,

When there is no peace treaty in place. When there could be a military threat in the future from another state. When there is an opportunity for Islam to spread in another country as a result of an invasion (with modern communications such as internet and ease of travelling, this type of jihaad is probably no longer necessary i.e. the religion can spread freely without an invasion). To allow free movement of people and trade. And to establish Islamic justice. There may be other legitimate reasons but I'm not fully versed Islamic law.

@Justin,

So you are advocating evangelicism by slaughter if that is perceived to be the only way to spread the word?

@Justin,

You cannot force people to enter a religion, so no.

@Justin,

But you just wrote that offensive jihad is acceptable when there is an opportunity for Islam to spread in another country as a result of an invasion.

How is this not evangelicism by slaughter?

@Justin,

The army who fights may be slaughtered, yes, but the spread of the religion is not done via violence.

Philosophy Forum

What is Jihad in Islam

Quick Links

My Account

able2know