What is Jihad in Islam

@Justin,

Actually Nero, I have Asian girlfriends whom are treated fine although there are some extremists which I do not like the way they treat women, but it's not just within this culture it happens, it happens not just with white men either, it happens all over the world within all different races, sometimes I am grateful for where I was born.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;97905 wrote:

Yes, I might. Then you would have to become apologist with what I do...

Have you read any of my posts on this subject, i think you should.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;97891 wrote:

Let's cut the crap. I could respond in detail how your responses make no sense point by point.

I doubt that very much.

EmperorNero;97891 wrote:

Let's compare the Quran to the Bible if you look at the circumstances they were written in and leave out the religious elements. The Bible aimed at a new Jewish sect by appealing to that times underclass. Granted, it was a slave religion, but it tries to convince by being appealing to the individual.

Not quite. The Bible is a collection of books written at different times, many of the texts separated by several thousands of years. But I get the feeling you mean the New Testament.

Of course, I'm not sure why you bring up the issue on the first place; I don't know why you talk about Christianity as compared to Islam.

EmperorNero;97891 wrote:

The Quran was written to get people to willingly die in battle.

According to which scholar?

This is just silly. The Koran was not written to get people to die in battle. The Koran was introduced as a religious text by Muhammad, who learned religion from Jewish teachers, mainly to give the Arabs a faith to replace the ancient pagan beliefs which facilitated unending tribal violence. And you know what? The tribal violence was contained as a result.

EmperorNero;97891 wrote:

The aims of the two documents are fundamentally different. This is why saying "the Bible has mean stuff in it too" makes no sense.

I didn't say that, but, yes, such a thing makes no sense.

But the aims of the two documents are not fundamentally different. The styles are quite different (from New Testament to Koran), but the essential message is the same - peace and brotherly love. Each book is corrupted by some readers into an urge to violence and hate, but these corruptions are reflections of the incapable reader rather than the actual content of the document.

@Justin,

What is really annoying, is statements like this:

EmperorNero
The Quran was written to get people to willingly die in battle.

Unsupported, effectively worthless comment. At least give us some evidence or some reason to share you opinion.

@ahmedjbh,

ahmedjbh;98258 wrote:

What is really annoying, is statements like this:

EmperorNero
The Quran was written to get people to willingly die in battle.

Unsupported, effectively worthless comment.

I think he heard it on talk radio.

Or something.

@Justin,

It's hard not to think that when you read some of the stuff like the Holy War of Islam.

@Justin,

Can you share the text with us Caroline?

@Justin,

Search it, it's already in the forum if you look, infact I think you'll find it in this thread.
Thanks.

@Justin,

So could you people tell my why the Arabian peninsula was conquered by Quranic conquerers within the lifetime of Muhammad after he wrote the Quran?
If I start eating more vegetables the day after I get a book that says "eat more vegetables" how could anyone possibly say that that book didn't make me eat more vegetables?

@Justin,

http://www.islamataglance.org/media/Articles/General/Jihad.pdf
I think I've misread, I'm sorry, Ahmedjbh, can you translate it for me please into something simpler?
Thanks I would really appreciate it.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;98271 wrote:

So could you people tell my why the Arabian peninsula was conquered by Quranic conquerers within the lifetime of Muhammad after he wrote the Quran?

Largely because the Sassanids had stopped paying them.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;98276 wrote:

Largely because the Sassanids had stopped paying them.

Ah, conquering a bunch of unbelievers had nothing to do with getting a book that tells them to conquer unbelievers the week earlier?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;97891 wrote:

The Bible aimed at a new Jewish sect by appealing to that times underclass.

The bible was written by many people over the course of at least 1000 years. What was ultimately included vs excluded in the bible has to do with a lot of historical accidents. There is very little overarching theme or message in the old testament except that it's the story of a people.

@Aedes,

Didymos Thomas;98251 wrote:

The Bible is a collection of books written at different times, many of the texts separated by several thousands of years.

Aedes;98285 wrote:

The bible was written by many people over the course of at least 1000 years. What was ultimately included vs excluded in the bible has to do with a lot of historical accidents. There is very little overarching theme or message in the old testament except that it's the story of a people.

Which is true, but doesn't argue anything about the Quran or against my statements. Actually, it only makes a point for me: The Bible is not a document aimed at military conquest.

@Justin,

Neither is the Quran. But both it and the bible have been interpreted for this purpose. They've also been interpreted for peaceful purposes and literary purposes.

@Aedes,

Aedes;98289 wrote:

Neither is the Quran.

I direct you to post #112.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;98279 wrote:

Ah, conquering a bunch of unbelievers had nothing to do with getting a book that tells them to conquer unbelievers the week earlier?

Well, when I read it it failed to cast any sort of influence over me that forced me to slaughter unbelievers in an orgy of bloodlust.

If I were to judge it compared to other "holy" texts I'd say it was a degree more beligerant in tone than most. I'd say the Torah was a bit "worse" though - Deuteronomy has all that "kill every man woman child and goat" stuff.

But neither book is some sort of Grimoire that enthrals those who read it. The arab conquest may have come without Islam, as I say, these people had been mercenries for an Empire, and knew how to fight damn well, and all of a sudden lots of them found themselves out of a job - why go caravan raiding if a charismatic leader provides a vision of a bigger prize?

@Justin,

Caroline,

In a nutshell, Jihad means struggle, islamically, there are two types. The greater, which is the struggle within ones self to uphold all that is good, for example, telling the truth, being charitable etc, the lesser jihad is that of defensive military struggle. Its actually as simple as that, however some people will always wish to twist meanings to fit their agenda.

Emperornero,

Please explain why you believe such things? I dont object to you having an opinion, but when you state an opinion like a fact, but fail to mention any supporting evidence, it only reduces the weight of your comments.

I would like to direct you to what is termed Islams greatest victory, and this may shock you, but it is actually not a military victory, but a peace treaty that the Prophet made, called the treaty of Hudaybiyah.

I suggest you read about it first, as you seem to have little idea about the historical events.

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@ahmedjbh,

ahmedjbh;98349 wrote:

Caroline,

In a nutshell, Jihad means struggle, islamically, there are two types. The greater, which is the struggle within ones self to uphold all that is good, for example, telling the truth, being charitable etc, the lesser jihad is that of defensive military struggle. Its actually as simple as that, however some people will always wish to twist meanings to fit their agenda.

Emperornero,

Please explain why you believe such things? I dont object to you having an opinion, but when you state an opinion like a fact, but fail to mention any supporting evidence, it only reduces the weight of your comments.

I would like to direct you to what is termed Islams greatest victory, and this may shock you, but it is actually not a military victory, but a peace treaty that the Prophet made, called the treaty of Hudaybiyah.

I suggest you read about it first, as you seem to have little idea about the historical events.

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are here again with vague attempts at a whitewash of what is written. You know as well as I that jihad by the sword is about so much more than defence, in its language and historic actions. Its true that peaceful men will ignore the nasty bits but is also true that the nasty bits are there for those fundamentalists to use as an excuse to wage war, against the non believers. The whole world belongs to Islam and its every muslims solemn duty to make every living soul a muslim revert by any means, necessary. Now if certain muslims choose to use peaceful means that is ok but so many have openly stated that jihad by the sword is acceptable, it cant be denied.

@Justin,

Ahmedjbh, thank you so much, you know that is what I thought but needed clarification but what of the way the Koran thinks of women, this is not the extremist view is it? That women walk behind their husband for example, or is it please?
Thanks.
Caz.

Philosophy Forum

What is Jihad in Islam

Quick Links

My Account

able2know