What is Jihad in Islam

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;98293 wrote:

I direct you to post #112.

I find it disturbing that you would take such pride in that post's fount of ignorance and wanton bias to ask a thinking adult to actually read it twice.

We can direct you to myriad examples of peaceful behavior under Islam and belligerent behavior under Christianity, such that the thesis that scripture dictates behavior would be made ludicrous. I could also direct you to sufficient Koranic scholarship that the argument that it is a call to arms would fail.

I could also remind you that the epoch of "conquest" during the first 100-200 years after the death of Mohammed was carried out by a fairly small band of Arabic tribesmen, it has NEVER been repeated as a general Muslim movement in the last thousand years, and it's only cosmetically different than the behavior of the Mongols, the Huns, the Goths, the Vandals, the Vikings, the Incas, and the Christian Crusaders, only one group of which had a written scripture and none of whom followed the Koran.

But what's the point, I mean If you had enough of an open mind you'd know this already.

@Justin,

I find it confusing because some people say that the Koran portrays women as second class, could I get some clarification please ahmedjbh or from anyone else?
Thank you.
Caz.

@xris,

xris;98354 wrote:

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.

You claim I am whitewashing the issue, yet I brought facts, and you bring nothing.

You yourself know your own comments are wrong, because on another thread I have already clarified the issue, yet you seem to have "forgotten".

The jiza'a, or non muslim tax, is a tax paid so that non muslims can live freely in a muslim society, it gives them all the benfits of the state , yet they do not have to join the army and defend it. They are simply welcomed guests. The tax is also less than that muslim residents have to pay. This one point alone, shows that Islam is not out for some kind of colonisation of the world (unlike the British / west which have factually attempted and done so) but to live in harmony with those that want peace.

Im not interested in having any discussions with people that are only interested on ramming their opinion in everyones face as if its fact, you seem to be on tracks, as if you are unable to change you opinion or mind on anything , regardless of how many mountains of facts dispute your comments, you continue on your track of the same tired old points.

What I really want to know, is what is your purpose here?

As for my friend Caroline, I suggest we open a thread on Islam and women, as this is a doomed thread.

@ahmedjbh,

ahmedjbh;98374 wrote:

As for my friend Caroline, I suggest we open a thread on Islam and women, as this is a doomed thread.

It is oh dear, how come please? Thanks. Is it because it is true, that women are kind of second class, but isn't that a reflection of the times? Just like everywhere else, even here in England before Emily Pankhurst threw herself under a racing horse to win the women the right to vote. I don't know much about the koran towards women, do you mean a doomed thread that it's still portrays women as in traditional roles and that was a reflection of the times it was written, if this is right can it not be adjusted to a modern reflection, as I like to take the good things out and the leave the bad.
Thank you,
Caroline.

@Justin,

No, i mean I think this thread is going to be locked, so it makes more sense to start a new thread. It is always best to have separate threads for each topic.

@Justin,

Ok I'm half asleep, I leave that to you, if you like to open a thread I'd appreciate it thank you but I do have to turn in now, (sleep), but look foward to it tomrrow if you do feel like opening a thread on this subject as I'm very interested, but we must remember that it is not picking on the Koran as women are treated differently all over the world but I am interested in this particular topic at this particular moment.
Doomed oh dear! I thought it was going well.
Until tommorow then,
Your friend Caroline,
Goodnight and pleasant one to you.
Thanks.

@ahmedjbh,

ahmedjbh;98374 wrote:

You claim I am whitewashing the issue, yet I brought facts, and you bring nothing.

You yourself know your own comments are wrong, because on another thread I have already clarified the issue, yet you seem to have "forgotten".

The jiza'a, or non muslim tax, is a tax paid so that non muslims can live freely in a muslim society, it gives them all the benfits of the state , yet they do not have to join the army and defend it. They are simply welcomed guests. The tax is also less than that muslim residents have to pay. This one point alone, shows that Islam is not out for some kind of colonisation of the world (unlike the British / west which have factually attempted and done so) but to live in harmony with those that want peace.

Im not interested in having any discussions with people that are only interested on ramming their opinion in everyones face as if its fact, you seem to be on tracks, as if you are unable to change you opinion or mind on anything , regardless of how many mountains of facts dispute your comments, you continue on your track of the same tired old points.

What I really want to know, is what is your purpose here?

As for my friend Caroline, I suggest we open a thread on Islam and women, as this is a doomed thread.

You have not clarified anything, it was me who for peace sake refrained from pursuing the subject but you are still maintaining the idea that Islam does not recommend jihad by the sword. Scriptures encourage it and for you to deny such a thing is ludicrous and even more ludicrous to say that a conquered countries civilians should be ecstatic, that they have to pay a non believers tax. I'm not ramming my opinions down any ones throat, just reminding you not to be so relaxed with your interpretations of the Koran. My purpose on this thread is for the truth not some whitewashed ,cleaned up version of the Koran. The Koran the bible i have no favorites , they are all the same to me , a medieval books of no significance to 21c civilisations.

@Caroline,

Caroline;98359 wrote:

I find it confusing because some people say that the Koran portrays women as second class, could I get some clarification please ahmedjbh or from anyone else?
Thank you.
Caz.

It's a matter of interpretation (like all religious writing).

The Koran permits a man to enter polygamous marriages, but not a woman. It does state that a man has to treat each wife with equal affection - which many muslims claim is impossible anyway, and so it is largely ignored (though not always, obviously).

Muslim tradition states that men and women both dress modestly. Ali (the founder of Shia Islam and mohammed's right hand man at the time of his death) particularly stressed the importance (as he saw it) of modest dress for women, which has become infamous for the full-body coverage of burkhas and yashmaks. many muslim women stress that it is a manifestation of their faith that they wear such garb - a free choice - however it's difficult not to imagine that they have been encouraged to do so by members of their community. Some muslim authorities and sects (such as Hamas in Palestine) demand women cover their hair at all times and have been known to punish those who do not.

Women walking behind men is a Kurdish tradition rather than an islamic one, though many Kurds are muslims (indeed Salladin was a Kurd and a hugely influential muslim leader).

Female circumcision is, by and large, a north African tradition. It is one that apparently horrified Mohammed, who states in the Hadith (the Hadith is things that Mohammed allegedly said that didn't go into the Koran) that it should not be attempted and if it has to be at least the perpetrators should do it in the least severe manner. This is seen by some as permission and by others as prohibition. It should be noted that some of the worst genital mutilation occurs in Christian or tribal faith areas of North Africa (such as Ethiopia) rather than Muslim areas - that said a lot of north Africa is muslim and it's a shame Mohammed wasn't more emphatic about not doing it.

In other ways Islam did trailblaze women's rights. The arabs were one of the first societies to allow women divorces and property rights.

@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?

Mohammed didn't write the Koran (it was dictated by him - or through him if you prefer - and kept alive via a largely oral tradition until he died - he was allegedly illiterate too) and the arabian peninsula was not conquered by Islamic warriors during his lifetime.

@Justin,

The topic is, "What is Jihad in Islam". Let's keep it on topic. It does look like other threads could be started as a result to narrow some interesting topics. Thanks.

@xris,

xris;98438 wrote:

You have not clarified anything, it was me who for peace sake refrained from pursuing the subject but you are still maintaining the idea that Islam does not recommend jihad by the sword. Scriptures encourage it and for you to deny such a thing is ludicrous and even more ludicrous to say that a conquered countries civilians should be ecstatic, that they have to pay a non believers tax. I'm not ramming my opinions down any ones throat, just reminding you not to be so relaxed with your interpretations of the Koran. My purpose on this thread is for the truth not some whitewashed ,cleaned up version of the Koran. The Koran the bible i have no favorites , they are all the same to me , a medieval books of no significance to 21c civilisations.

xris, please tell me about the treaty I linked to.

Then I want you to show me proof from authentic Islamic sources or scholars which says Islam should be spread by the sword . Until then your comments are meaningless.

@ahmedjbh,

Offensive Jihad, Futuhat and Islamic Conquests i dont like posting links but cast thy eyes on this and tell me jihad is never aggressive.

@Justin,

who ever said it's never aggressive?

the point you completely and consistently ignore is that it's not synonymous with aggression

@Justin,

woffle.

Im not referring to peoples opinion on other forums. Im talking about authentic statements fomr islamic sources. Eg Quran etc.

I can search the internet and find all sorts of opinions, it doesnt mean anything.

I could write on a forum that your a gay paedophile who recently married a goat, can I use that as a basis to form an opinion on you?

@Aedes,

Aedes;98567 wrote:

who ever said it's never aggressive?

the point you completely and consistently ignore is that it's not synonymous with aggression

Oh come now, the whole thread has been about the denial of its aggressive nature. I have admitted its more but no one has openly stated it has an aggressive portion. History has shown it advanced through aggressive jihad.

---------- Post added 10-19-2009 at 03:49 PM ----------

ahmedjbh;98568 wrote:

woffle.

Im not referring to peoples opinion on other forums. Im talking about authentic statements fomr islamic sources. Eg Quran etc.

I can search the internet and find all sorts of opinions, it doesnt mean anything.

I could write on a forum that your a gay paedophile who recently married a goat, can I use that as a basis to form an opinion on you?

So you are asking me for the scriptures that permit agressive jihad? You dont recall the verse that tells you to seek out the pagans and kill them where you find them?

@xris,

xris;98569 wrote:

Oh come now, the whole thread has been about the denial of its aggressive nature. I have admitted its more but no one has openly stated it has an aggressive portion.

Can this thread end if you say "I acknowledge that jihad is not synonymous with aggression, and aggressive jihad does not characterize the attitiude of most Muslims" and if we say "I acknowledge that there has been and continues to be aggressive jihad"?

xris;98569 wrote:

History has shown it advanced through aggressive jihad.

Yes, during the 7th - 9th centuries AD. Since then it has been a multi-state, multi-continent, multi-philosophy, multi-sect, multi-ethnic amalgam of peoples that have in some cases advanced by jihad, in some cases been peaceful, and in other cases led military campaigns in self-defense (everything from the Crusades to the defense of Spain to the defense of Afghanistan).

@Aedes,

Aedes;98573 wrote:

Can this thread end if you say "I acknowledge that jihad is not synonymous with aggression, and aggressive jihad does not characterize the attitiude of most Muslims" and if we say "I acknowledge that there has been and continues to be aggressive jihad"?

Yes, during the 7th - 9th centuries AD. Since then it has been a multi-state, multi-continent, multi-philosophy, multi-sect, multi-ethnic amalgam of peoples that have in some cases advanced by jihad, in some cases been peaceful, and in other cases led military campaigns in self-defense (everything from the Crusades to the defense of Spain to the defense of Afghanistan).

I would most certainly accept that conclusion, I have never said the majority of Muslims pursue aggressive jihad , most actively avoid it.

@Justin,

Ok -- and thank you. It's much easier to have these conversations if we start from common ground.

I think that if this is your position, then it's a reasonable one that I share. But I also think that you need to be careful to not be perceived as overgeneralizing, especially about a negative attribute as applied to a whole ethnic or cultural group. I don't think you're a bigot or racist or whatever, but I think you have inadvertently come off that way when making your arguments. A little pause before posting a reply helps some times, because we all can be guilty of overstating a position -- but it's a bigger problem when the overstatement can be read as bigoted.

@xris,

xris;98569 wrote:

Oh come now, the whole thread has been about the denial of its aggressive nature. I have admitted its more but no one has openly stated it has an aggressive portion. History has shown it advanced through aggressive jihad.

---------- Post added 10-19-2009 at 03:49 PM ----------

So you are asking me for the scriptures that permit agressive jihad? You dont recall the verse that tells you to seek out the pagans and kill them where you find them?

Show us the verses, surely if you have such strong opinions, it must be based on some evidence?

If you are referring to this verse:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful." [Surah al-Tawbah: 5]

This refers to those that broke the treaty that I asked you to tell me about, the one you have ignored twice in 2 days, the treaty I hoped you would read, but seem very keen to avoid. If you read the verses just before, you will find:

"There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him." [Surah al-Tawbah: 1-2]

"Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous." [Surah al-Tawbah: 4]

But please, bring your evidence, and lets discuss it.

@xris,

[QUOTE=xris;98579]I would most certainly accept that conclusion, I have never said the majority of Muslims pursue aggressive jihad , most actively avoid it.[/QUOTE]

You've made plenty of sweeping categorical statements about muslims and their supposed violent beliefs in the past. You once asked me (and have many times asked others) to justify this claim with evidence, so here goes:

[QUOTE=xris;90707]...you worry me friend when you blame the west on an obvious problem the muslims have with killing each other by suicide bombings... [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xris;90590]...why Muslims should feel the need to kill each other...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xris;90405]...get real please, admit it muslims are killing each other for hatred and power...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xris;90154]...I was making the point that Muslims have this mind set about suicide Jihad...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xris]...A muslim warrior kills the husband then takes the children as slaves and his wife as a concubine.Before the husbands body is cold he rapes the wife and condemns her to a life of slavery...the muslim kill any who fought him or refused revertion.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xris;45285]...Muslims rejoice in their conquests and see no harm in jihad by the sword.[/QUOTE]

Now, in light of this clear 'evidence', I would hope that yourself and perhaps the moderating staff could review the FAQ, under the "bigotry and stereotyping" heading, posted here on this forum, which states:

[quote]Users are expected to refrain from statements that are bigoted or stereotypical. Examples of this may take many forms but is primarily concerned with unwarranted whole-group judgments of people in an insulting, derisive or negative fashion.[/quote]

You could have been more prudent in many of your judgmental posts and simply written "extremist muslims", rather than "muslims", but you didn't. And you've failed to do this not once, or a couple times, but in many instances.

These categorical statements are just ignorant, and should not be tolerated here at a philosophy forum. I don't know if they're the result of bigotry or not, but they do violate the rules, regardless. You also stated in a couple of different posts quite clearly that you are on a "crusade" against dogmatism, and are wary of Islam, in particular. Well, the religion forums can only work here if you and your ilk are kept out of them, and reasonable discussions held. :brickwall:

Philosophy Forum

What is Jihad in Islam

Quick Links

My Account

able2know