What is Jihad in Islam

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

xris
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:32 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;90894 wrote:
The army who fights may be slaughtered, yes, but the spread of the religion is not done via violence.
What reasons for fighting or attacking your neighbour. I do know what the Koran asks of Muslims , I'm just trying to get you to admit it.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:39 am
@Justin,
Why has it got to spread it to another country anyway? why can't you just respect that country?
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:41 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;90898 wrote:
Why has it got to spread it to another country anyway? why can't you just respect that country?
Because the Koran demands it, Caroline.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:42 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;90894 wrote:
The army who fights may be slaughtered, yes, but the spread of the religion is not done via violence.

Of course - the spread of the religion is down to whether or not people accept it (or pretend to).

But they are more likely to accept it (or pretend to) if the alternative seems to be war or death.

Evangelism isn't acceptance, it's spreading the word. Hence evangelism by slaughter - or at least the threat of slaughter - is an ineluctable result of offensive jihad.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:42 am
@Justin,
It does Xris?..................
 
josh0335
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:43 am
@Justin,
Quote:
What reasons for fighting or attacking your neighbour. I do know what the Koran asks of Muslims , I'm just trying to get you to admit it.


Why don't you tell me and I'll admit it if it is true?

Quote:
why can't you just respect that country?


Do you respect Zimbabwe and allow Mugabe to carry on?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:47 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;90905 wrote:

Do you respect Zimbabwe and allow Mugabe to carry on?
Im sorry I don't see the resmblance to be honest and isn't that off topic, we are talking about the spread of Islam? Also, would you mind learning how to quote properly please, there's a vid on it the video section, only it confuses me.
Thanks.

---------- Post added 09-17-2009 at 10:49 AM ----------

And no I don't respect Mugabe, never have! Thank you.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:50 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;90905 wrote:
Do you respect Zimbabwe and allow Mugabe to carry on?

I have yet to invade.

And so have you, as far as I can tell.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:58 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;90879 wrote:
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.

It may sound like I'm quibbling here, but be open to the possibility that I'm asking a valid question. Muslims believe the Qur'an is the actual words of God, right? God has condoned in the Qur'an jihad by the sword. The actual word is sword? A Boeing 767 jet is not a sword. I realize my point is subtle, but it's this: either God's words in the Qur'an can be interpreted poetically or not. To pick and chose over which parts we'll allow to be poetic is disingenuous. Either we'll allow the Qur'an to to be fully translated into a modern perspective which demands that tolerance is an ideal and war is the price we pay for our own past stupidity, or the whole thing has to remain in a 7th century perspective, swords and all. Or so logic would suggest.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:02 am
@Justin,
I think we really need to study the Koran don't you?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:11 am
@Justin,
It wouldn't help.

If you want to find advocacy of violent evangelism it's there.

If you want to find advocacy of magnaminous acceptance of other beliefs it's also there.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:12 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;90917 wrote:
I think we really need to study the Koran don't you?


Good point. I haven't read it. The last time I tried, it looked just like the Bible to me.
 
salima
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:29 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;90919 wrote:
It wouldn't help.

If you want to find advocacy of violent evangelism it's there.

If you want to find advocacy of magnaminous acceptance of other beliefs it's also there.


you really wrapped it up in a nutshell. hitting the thankyou isnt enough for this one-:flowers:
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:42 pm
@Arjuna,
xris;90822 wrote:

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?


As much as any invasion can be justified - either way, it's beside the point. You gave a narrative of the history which was incorrect. That's why I responded. If, in the face of correction, all you have is jingoism, by all means, enjoy yourself.

xris;90822 wrote:
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.


Except that I did not "so kindly point out" that the invasions are comparable much less that the reasoning could be accurately applied to Iraq.

Here's another history lesson for you - the citizens of Iraq were not begging the US to invade. I suppose you forgot that part, hmm?

xris;90822 wrote:
Now I will ask again, the two of you, give me proof of my bigotry or apologise.


Should I also prove to you that you have a nose?
 
josh0335
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:48 pm
@salima,
Dave Allen;90903 wrote:
Of course - the spread of the religion is down to whether or not people accept it (or pretend to).

But they are more likely to accept it (or pretend to) if the alternative seems to be war or death.

Evangelism isn't acceptance, it's spreading the word. Hence evangelism by slaughter - or at least the threat of slaughter - is an ineluctable result of offensive jihad.


I don't really know how many times I've said this but I'll say it again: there is no violence against civilians. So the conquered people do not need to accept Islam because the alternative is not war or death. War and death faces the soldiers or combatants who resist the Muslims. The people continue to live in peace with a guarantee of protection from their new Muslim rulers. So your conclusion is not accurate.

Caroline;90906 wrote:
Im sorry I don't see the resmblance to be honest and isn't that off topic, we are talking about the spread of Islam? Also, would you mind learning how to quote properly please, there's a vid on it the video section, only it confuses me.
Thanks.

---------- Post added 09-17-2009 at 10:49 AM ----------

And no I don't respect Mugabe, never have! Thank you.


Sorry about the quoting! It wasn't off topic and you responded the way I was hoping you would. You do not respect the way Zimbabwe is run because its rulers do not deserve your respect. Nations who do not sign peace agreements with the Muslims similarly do not have the respect of the Muslims. To earn the respect of the Islamic State is to enter into a peace agreement.

Arjuna;90912 wrote:
It may sound like I'm quibbling here, but be open to the possibility that I'm asking a valid question. Muslims believe the Qur'an is the actual words of God, right? God has condoned in the Qur'an jihad by the sword. The actual word is sword? A Boeing 767 jet is not a sword. I realize my point is subtle, but it's this: either God's words in the Qur'an can be interpreted poetically or not. To pick and chose over which parts we'll allow to be poetic is disingenuous. Either we'll allow the Qur'an to to be fully translated into a modern perspective which demands that tolerance is an ideal and war is the price we pay for our own past stupidity, or the whole thing has to remain in a 7th century perspective, swords and all. Or so logic would suggest.


Well neither the word sword or Boeing 767 is in the Qur'an! Jihad of the sword is a term later coined by the scholars of Islam. Yes the words of the Qur'an can be interpreted allegorically but it would be impossible to do this when you have clarification of the meanings of certain words through the biography of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). In the case of jihad, the examples are pretty clear.

Dave Allen;90919 wrote:
It wouldn't help.


Not if you go into it with bias.
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:53 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;91022 wrote:
As much as any invasion can be justified - either way, it's beside the point. You gave a narrative of the history which was incorrect. That's why I responded. If, in the face of correction, all you have is jingoism, by all means, enjoy yourself.



Except that I did not "so kindly point out" that the invasions are comparable much less that the reasoning could be accurately applied to Iraq.

Here's another history lesson for you - the citizens of Iraq were not begging the US to invade. I suppose you forgot that part, hmm?



Should I also prove to you that you have a nose?
Your view of Spanish history is different than mine, not that your right but then only a bigot would assume he is correcting an others view, as if it was facts.

Shia muslims had requested help in ridding their country of Saddam on more than one occasion , does that excuse the invasion ? with your twisted logic , it should.

I tell you friend if you continue degrade yourself by silly childish remarks it will show. Don't make claims or insult me without proof, it has become obvious you have tried to substantiate your claims but have failed miserably.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 03:21 pm
@xris,
Except that I never attempted to justify the Muslim invasion of Spain - even though you so wanted me to do so. Thus, there is no "twisted logic" or any sort of logic whatsoever to extrapolate onto the US invasion of Iraq.

As for our different views of Spanish history - you claimed that one Prince called upon the Moors. And you were wrong. You were also wrong about the nature of Gothic rule in Spain. And you were flat wrong in the characterization of the Muslim invasion as an aggressive extension of Islam in that the Moors were invited by Spain to depose the Goths.

And, yeah, I am relying on facts. That's not bigotry, that's history. Grab a book.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 04:13 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;91024 wrote:

Well neither the word sword or Boeing 767 is in the Qur'an! Jihad of the sword is a term later coined by the scholars of Islam.


Sorry, my bad. All I know about Islam comes from reading history, not religious commentary.

Where I come from there's a maddening tendency of Christians to pull the Bible into a pretzel to make it say what they want. The Bible is confusing and contradictory, so it lends itself to that. My mistake isn't exactly projecting, but just learning.

Heidegger spoke about truth involving an openness on the part of the observer to let a thing be what it is... in the same way your eye is altered by the light, the mind must allow itself to be altered by what manifests in the "realm of relationship." Refusing to allow this alteration (or being unable to) is the origin of illusion. (At least that's what I took from it) When it comes to religion, all I can do is rely on my instinct for detecting emotional truth. Know what I mean?
 
josh0335
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 05:05 pm
@Arjuna,
I know exactly what you mean. Islam is not a static religion, rather it encourages, no, it demands, Muslims to use the teachings in accordance with the times. What I've been trying to do is give an accurate account of how jihad is understood from historical evidence. However, what modern day jihad may be I can't say because it may well be open for modification. This is called ijtihaad, where scholars derive rulings to suit the times and place. I don't always mention this because it can give the impression that I do not agree with the jihad of the Prophet and his companions, which I do absolutely.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 05:46 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;91048 wrote:
Sorry, my bad. All I know about Islam comes from reading history, not religious commentary.

I don't know anything about it, I would like to study it, hint hint.Smile
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 01/27/2023 at 07:20:41