What is Jihad in Islam

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 03:38 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;91024 wrote:
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.

No, my conclusion is accurate, for the following reasons.

1) There has never been a war without collateral damage.

2) Civilians still feel an emotional bond with people in the military, and will act to save them if they feel the need.

3) Most importantly - without an invasion there would be no perceived need for a resistance.

Quote:
Not if you go into it with bias.

Everybody reads everything with bias.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 04:22 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;91195 wrote:
No, my conclusion is accurate, for the following reasons.

1) There has never been a war without collateral damage.

2) Civilians still feel an emotional bond with people in the military, and will act to save them if they feel the need.

3) Most importantly - without an invasion there would be no perceived need for a resistance.


1) So? Civilians are never targeted and once the war is over no further harm is aimed at them.

2) If civilians act to save them they are no longer civilians, they are combatants. The majority of civilians do not become combatants in a war zone so the majority are never harmed.

3) A peace agreement would prevent an invasion in the first place.

Dave Allen;91195 wrote:
Everybody reads everything with bias.


That's a shame.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 04:27 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;91203 wrote:
1) So?

So? So you're wrong when you say there's no violence against civilians, that's what so. But, so what eh? Their tough luck I suppose.

Quote:
2) If civilians act to save them they are no longer civilians, they are combatants.

Not all acts are violent acts. Someone compelled to convert in the hope of preventing a war because their son is a soldier isn't a combatant.

Quote:
3) A peace agreement would prevent an invasion in the first place.

Simply not being an invader would be a more tangible effort for peace than drafting a treaty.

Quote:
That's a shame.

Fact of life. Being an apologist for invasions is a bigger shame - but apologists are a fact of life too, I suppose.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 04:28 am
@josh0335,
Here are a couple of letters sent by Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). I think a few of these letters are still preserved in a museum in Istanbul.

Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt.Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such
topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war. An English translation of that document is presented here:


"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
"Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."
[CENTER]____________[/CENTER]
A Letter from the Prophet Muhammad To The Assyrian Christians

"God has told me in a vision what to do, and I confirm His command by giving my solemn promise to keep this agreement.
"To the followers of the Islam I say: Carry out my command, protect and help the Nazarene nation in this country of ours in their own land. Leave their places of worship in peace; help and assist their chief and their priests when in need of help, be it in the mountains, in the desert, on the sea, or at home. Leave all their possessions alone, be it houses or other property, do not destroy anything of their belongings, the followers of Islam shall not harm or molest any of this nation, because the Nazarenes are my subjects, pay tribute to me and will help the Muslims. No tribute, but what is agreed upon, shall be collected from them, their church buildings shall be left as they are, they shall not be altered, their priests shall be permitted to teach and worship in their own way-the Nazarenes have full liberty of worship in their churches and homes. None of their churches shall be torn down, or altered into a mosque, except by the consent and free will of the Nazarenes. If any one disobeys this command, the anger of God and His Prophet shall be upon him.
"The tribute paid the Nazarenes shall be used to promote the teachings of Islam and shall be deposited at the treasury of Beth Almal. A common man shall pay one denar (piece of money), but the merchants and people who own mines of gold and silver and are rich shall pay twelve denars. Strangers and people who have no houses or other settled property shall not have taxes levied upon them. If a man inherits property he shall pay a settled sum to the Baitulmal treasury. The Christians are not obliged to make war on the enemies of Islam, but if an enemy attacks the Christians, the Muslims shall not deny their help, but give them horses and weapons, if they need them, and protect them from evils from outside and keep the peace with them. The Christians are not obliged to turn Muslims, until God's will makes them believers.
"The Muslims shall not force Christian women to accept Islam, but if they themselves wish to embrace it, the Muslims shall be kind to them.
"If a Christian woman is married to a Muslim and does not want to embrace Islam, she has liberty to worship at her own church according to her own religious belief, and her husband must not treat her unkindly on account of her religion. If any one disobeys this command, he disobeys God and his prophet and will be guilty of a great offense.
"If the Nazarenes wish to build a church, their Muslim neighbors shall help them. This shall be done, because the Christians have obeyed us and have come to us and pleaded for peace and mercy.
"If there be among the Christians a great and learned man the Muslims shall honor him and not be envious of his greatness.
"If any one is unjust and unkind to the Christians he will be guilty of disobeying the Prophet of God.
"The Christians should not shelter an enemy of Islam or give him horse, weapon or any other help. If a Muslim is in need the Christian shall for three days and nights be his host and shelter him from his enemies. The Christians shall, furthermore, protect the Mohammedan women and children and not deliver them up to the enemy or expose them to view. If the Nazarenes fail to fulfil these conditions, they have forfeited their right to protection, and the agreement is null and void.
"This document shall be entrusted to the Christian chief and head of their church for safe keeping."
The peace of God be over them all! This agreement is written by Moavijah Ben Sofian, according to the dictates of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, in the 4th year of the Hegira in the city of Medina.
[CENTER]___________[/CENTER]
Al Qur`an says: "And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits, they abuse Allah through ignorance. Thus to every people have We made their deeds fair-seeming; then to their Lord is their return so he will inform them of what they did" (6:109)


Al Qur'an says: "Those who restrain their anger and pardon men. And Allah loves the doer of good (to others)" (3: 133)

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 11:39 AM ----------

Dave Allen;91204 wrote:
Yeah, so what eh? Their tough luck I suppose.


Collateral damage is a reality of war. If fighting is the correct course of action then collateral damage is an unfortunate price which must be paid. This is not unique to jihad.

Dave Allen;91204 wrote:
Not all acts are violent acts. Someone compelled to convert in the hope of preventing a war isn't a combatant.


Why would someone feel compelled to convert? Convert to Islam you mean? Conversion is not necessary to prevent a war, simply an agreement of peace. Civilians who act to save their combatants may be classified as combatants dependant on what they are doing. Otherwise they are not harmed either as it is a natural reaction to want to save your countrymen.

Dave Allen;91204 wrote:
Simply not invading would be more tangible than a treaty.


Why would it be any more tangible than a peace treaty? Why would you not want to enter a peace agreement in the first place?

Dave Allen;91204 wrote:
Fact of life. Being an apologist for invasions is a bigger shame - but apologists are a fact of life too, I suppose.


I suppose.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 05:20 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;91037 wrote:
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.
Bigotry is assuming without debate you are right, that's what you have assumed. As for invading a country when all that was asked for was help in obtaining a victory over another's claim to a throne. Yes it was an aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation and your views support that action. So with that twisted mentality the invasion of Iraq was justified. You read the facts and don't put your views into a debate as if it is proven.


Now apologise for your childish behaviour.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 05:29 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;91205 wrote:
Collateral damage is a reality of war. If fighting is the correct course of action then collateral damage is an unfortunate price which must be paid. This is not unique to jihad.

No - but it is a comprehensively regretable attitude whoever espouses it, whether the espouser is George Bush or Salladin.

Quote:
Why would someone feel compelled to convert?

In the hope of preventing the proliferation of violence.

For example, many Zoroastrians pretended to be Muslims rather than 'zinni' during the arab conquest of Persia - because it meant paying less tax and an end to the violence. When it was noticed that they were uncircumcised violence flared up once more.

Quote:
Why would it be any more tangible than a peace treaty?

A treaty - piece of paper making a promise not to invade.

Not invading - actually not invading.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 07:17 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;91218 wrote:
No - but it is a comprehensively regretable attitude whoever espouses it, whether the espouser is George Bush or Salladin.


Collateral damage is unfortunate. Fighting in general is unfortunate which is why peaceful means are always the preferable.


Dave Allen;91218 wrote:
In the hope of preventing the proliferation of violence.

For example, many Zoroastrians pretended to be Muslims rather than 'zinni' during the arab conquest of Persia - because it meant paying less tax and an end to the violence. When it was noticed that they were uncircumcised violence flared up once more.


I'm not sure what a 'zinni' is. I've already told you Islam does not allow violence against civilians. Dhimmi (is this what you meant?) who refuse to pay the tax are subject to the same penal system as Muslims who evade zakat. Therefore the only the reason Zoroastrians would pretend to be Muslims would be for tax evasion. But tax evaders are nothing new. If they suffered violence from the Muslims as civilians then this is a fault of the Muslims and not of the religion.

Dave Allen;91218 wrote:
A treaty - piece of paper making a promise not to invade.

Not invading - actually not invading.


Moot point. A treaty is a promise to not invade which is desirable for everyone.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 07:23 am
@Justin,
No, that's wrong. It's relevant to the conversation at hand and therefore not a moot point. Just not doing something is preferable to promising not to do it. Promises can be broken.

Quote:
I've already told you Islam does not allow violence against civilians.

You can tell me it a million times, but if you think offensive jihad won't result in harm to civilians you are unutterably naive.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 07:42 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen: Would you say that you're a pacifist?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 07:48 am
@Justin,
Not really. Nice idea though.

I think conflict in life is unavoidable and that war, even a war of invasion, might be the lesser of two evils.

But it always remains an evil, and pretending that you have divine approval for such a war is an abjugation of human responsibility (or a denial of human irresponsibility, or whatever). War is always an outcome of our limitations, not some metaphysical will.

I actually think the Muslim perspective on the issue is somewhat more honest than that of Christians, to be frank, because the need to fight in defence is acknowledged - meaning that those who do are not hypocrites. But I still think it's still ludicrous to pretend any offensive action can be regarded as fair play.

That's just wrong.

And I'm very dismissive of opinions such as "there is no violence against civilians".

Such an opinion just demonstrates that the utterer has no idea about reality.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 07:57 am
@Dave Allen,
What constitutes a civilian or a combatant? Im no soldier, at the moment, but I would defend my family and my country to the death.

Why should you attack a country just because it refuses to accept Islam?

Why should the combatants family be taken as slaves?
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 08:19 am
@xris,
Dave Allen;91250 wrote:
I think conflict in life is unavoidable and that war, even a war of invasion, might be the lesser of two evils.

But it always remains an evil, and pretending that you have divine approval for such a war is an abjugation of human responsibility

I relate very well to what you're saying. I think our attitude reflects the times we live in. In past cultures, war wouldn't have been possible if people saw things the way we do. They saw God as being involved in everything. If a soldier began to suspect that he was fighting against God, he would crumple. It was necessary for leaders to draw legitimacy to their cause: to confirm to the soldiers that they were on God's side. Today, the UN is a monument to a new attitude about war. The new reality demands that whatever parts of us still adhere to the idea of divinity get on board and rescript God as condemning war. In other words, holy people guide us, but if they aren't serving our needs, we get new ones that will... whether we realize it works that way or not. Just a point of view. What I understood from Josh, was that we've been touching on an issue that's private to him: his honor, commitment, that sort of thing, to the living legacy of Islam.

Dave Allen;91250 wrote:
I actually think the Muslim perspective on the issue is somewhat more honest than that of Christians, to be frank, because the need to fight in defence is acknowledged - meaning that those who do are not hypocrites. But I still think it's still ludicrous to pretend any offensive action can be regarded as fair play.

Dishonesty exists. But remember that the relationship between Christianity and Western culture is complicated. The image of William the Conqueror tempered by Lan Franc (sp?) is a prime example. Christian holymen are often in danger of being murdered by those they seek to pull back from the brink of meaninglessness.
[/QUOTE]

xris;91253 wrote:

Why should the combatants family be taken as slaves?

Another example of how times have changed: in the past slaves could be trophies, who would eventually fold their genotype into the inslaving population. Also, slavery at one time served the same role as social welfare does today. A slave as a commodity is a merchant class perspective: an issue could be seen as the most influential of the 20th century.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 09:04 am
@Arjuna,
Dave Allen;91243 wrote:
No, that's wrong. It's relevant to the conversation at hand and therefore not a moot point. Just not doing something is preferable to promising not to do it. Promises can be broken.


You can tell me it a million times, but if you think offensive jihad won't result in harm to civilians you are unutterably naive.


Someone not doing something can change their mind and do it anyway. So it is a moot point. Human beings function through communication and an understanding that when a promise is made it is to be kept.

I never said offensive jihad won't result in harm to civilians. Collateral damage is a reality of fighting. What I've said is that once fighting is over no harm will come to civilians. This is what Islam teaches so I shouldn't have to tell you a million times. Once should suffice unless you can show me that Islam does not teach this.

Dave Allen;91250 wrote:
I actually think the Muslim perspective on the issue is somewhat more honest than that of Christians, to be frank, because the need to fight in defence is acknowledged - meaning that those who do are not hypocrites. But I still think it's still ludicrous to pretend any offensive action can be regarded as fair play.

That's just wrong.


You need a standard of right and wrong. My standard is different to yours. Offensive jihad is fair play by standards set by Islam. What's the point of arguing for some sort of universal concept of when war is justified or when it is not when our sources are completely different?

Dave Allen;91250 wrote:
And I'm very dismissive of opinions such as "there is no violence against civilians".

Such an opinion just demonstrates that the utterer has no idea about reality.


This is not an opinion, it is a fact of Islamic teachings. Can you show me where the scriptures allow violence against civilians?

It is worth noting that since the Ottoman Empire there has been little or no ijtihaad (deriving laws) in the Muslim world to allow for progressive interpretations of the scriptures. It may be that offensive jihad is no longer viable in the 21st century, as it is not mentioned in the Qur'an. The reality of offensive jihad comes from the biography of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) which was relevant in that time and region. It would be up to the Muslims of today to revise the laws of jihad if need be.

xris;91253 wrote:
What constitutes a civilian or a combatant? Im no soldier, at the moment, but I would defend my family and my country to the death.

Why should you attack a country just because it refuses to accept Islam?

Why should the combatants family be taken as slaves?


A combatant is one who fights. If you fight, you are a combatant. An Islamic State would not simply attack another country just because it does not accept Islam. Peace is more desirable.

I've already told you before that slavery was phased out by Islam over the years. It just isn't practised anymore. Why do you insist on repeating yourself?
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 09:34 am
@josh0335,
So what should i be concerned with? the view that the koran has to be obeyed or that certain aspects are not adhered to?

If you read the Koran, you must not attach yourself to non believers , you should tell then of Islam and if they dont obey the will of Allah they are your enemy. That you can take as slaves, those combatants families you have killed. Now I would not be concerned if you did not say the Koran is the truth and it can not be denied. Now I understand that the possibilities of you coming to kill me and take my family as slaves is really remote but take the same reasoning say in North Africa , would that certain Muslim have the same common sense, to understand the historic value of this permission?

I know for certain many Muslims will not associate with non believers because of the Korans insistence.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 11:45 am
@xris,
xris;91271 wrote:
So what should i be concerned with? the view that the koran has to be obeyed or that certain aspects are not adhered to?

If you read the Koran, you must not attach yourself to non believers , you should tell then of Islam and if they dont obey the will of Allah they are your enemy. That you can take as slaves, those combatants families you have killed. Now I would not be concerned if you did not say the Koran is the truth and it can not be denied. Now I understand that the possibilities of you coming to kill me and take my family as slaves is really remote but take the same reasoning say in North Africa , would that certain Muslim have the same common sense, to understand the historic value of this permission?

I know for certain many Muslims will not associate with non believers because of the Korans insistence.


Every verse has a context and application. The verses regarding slavery make it clear that it is to be phased out. It's not that it is no longer adhered to, it is the fact that the times no longer require it. So you shouldn't be concerned.

I don't really know how to 'attach' myself to a non-believer, sounds kinda clumbersome. The Qur'an does not say that if you reject the religion you are my enemy.

I'm wondering where it is you learnt about Islam?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 12:36 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;91250 wrote:
Not really. Nice idea though.

I think conflict in life is unavoidable and that war, even a war of invasion, might be the lesser of two evils.

But it always remains an evil, and pretending that you have divine approval for such a war is an abjugation of human responsibility (or a denial of human irresponsibility, or whatever). War is always an outcome of our limitations, not some metaphysical will.

I actually think the Muslim perspective on the issue is somewhat more honest than that of Christians, to be frank, because the need to fight in defence is acknowledged - meaning that those who do are not hypocrites. But I still think it's still ludicrous to pretend any offensive action can be regarded as fair play.

That's just wrong.

And I'm very dismissive of opinions such as "there is no violence against civilians".

Such an opinion just demonstrates that the utterer has no idea about reality.
Which reality is that? The one man created, through out history, if man created it then he can destroy it and rebuiled it, you are only going by what has happened and you do not DaveAllen reflect the potential for change.

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 01:38 PM ----------

Which man is capable of, (change), and I'm also confident and believe in him that he will.
Thanks.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 12:53 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;91343 wrote:
Which reality is that? The one man created, through out history, if man created it then he can destroy it and rebuiled it, you are only going by what has happened and you do not DaveAllen reflect the potential for change.

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 01:38 PM ----------

Which man is capable of, (change), and I'm also confident and believe in him that he will.
Thanks.

If you can name a single war where no civilians have been hurt I'll agree that a different reality might be worth contemplating (I doubt war is a uniquely human thing, by the way).

Until then though, it's clear that the opinion that civilians don't suffer or die in war is unadulterated fantasy and that we aren't - as a species - adult enough to face up to the reality we support.

If you feel it's a situation we are moving towards then I have to wonder why the wars of the last century or so have been unparralleled in terms of civilian death. The latest war in Iraq, for example, featured deployment of depleted uranium shells - a weapon we know deforms the unborn whilst still in the womb!

And before any change can occur - those who are apologists for civilian death will have to stop saying "it doesn't happen" or "well it's sort of acceptable under condition x" and start going "yes we're responsible for this - it's wrong - let's quit it".
 
Caroline
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 01:00 pm
@Justin,
War destroys and we are now at a critical point where none of us can afford war, and where pray tell does war exist other than amongst humans please?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 01:07 pm
@Dave Allen,
xris;91216 wrote:
Bigotry is assuming without debate you are right, that's what you have assumed.


No, that is not what bigotry is, Xris. You might try a dictionary. Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, or having the characteristics of a bigot. And a bigot is ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

I am not obstinate in that I am only too happy to hear claims that run contrary to my own, though I should not be expected to take them seriously when they come without evidence (or some source) and when they directly conflict with the evidence I have at my finger tips. If you'd like a reference, I'd be more than happy to provide.

Further, I am not intolerant - you're more than welcome to display your views, regardless of their accuracy or merit: in fact, that is exactly how a discussion forum functions.

Therefore, me correcting your ahistorical narrative is not bigotry.

xris;91216 wrote:
As for invading a country when all that was asked for was help in obtaining a victory over another's claim to a throne. Yes it was an aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation and your views support that action. So with that twisted mentality the invasion of Iraq was justified. You read the facts and don't put your views into a debate as if it is proven.


Again, I never once commented on the Iraq war in this thread, nor did I justify the Moorish invasion of Spain. Instead, I pointed out how your narrative of that invasion was incorrect, in that it did not correspond to the facts of the invasion as understood by the vast majority of historians.

Why you feel so compelled to turn my correction of your fuzzy history into a debate about the justification for a contemporary invasion is beyond me.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 01:08 pm
@Justin,
Almost all social omnivores and carnivores will fight to protect or expand their group's territory, or if resources run low and they need to exploit a new territory.

Wha is unusual about human war is the degree of cooperation it entails and inspires, and our talent for inventing weaponry.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 01/27/2023 at 05:50:23