commonly misquoted verses and narrations (from islamic texts)

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

I already know that Jihad can have two meanings; the lesser and the greater Jihad. One means internal quest/struggle and the other means…

actually, the word “jihaad” only has one meaning; struggle, striving. in islamic terminology jihaad includes any type of struggle the believer goes through for Allah’s sake. it has different levels and different types, but all of them are “struggling” and “striving”.

Ah, but the point is the context of this striving: striving with and within oneself is not the same as striving against someone else.

But then that is the beauty of the Arabic language – and that is why Muslims like to claim Jihad is peaceful: out trots the excuse that jihad means internal striving when we all know it means fighting when it comes to kafirs. Jihad is only peaceful when applied to the Muslim individual.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

please clarify the meaning of Jihad in surah 9. It is mentioned several times. I think six: 9:24; 9:41; 9:44; 9:73; 9:81; 9:86.

here are each of the verses cited by mr. bivar:
9:24 – say, "if your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kinsfolk, wealth that you commission, business whose recession you fear and dwellings you are pleased with are more beloved to you than Allah, His messenger and jihaad in His path, then wait until Allah’s command comes. and Allah does not guide the sinful people.

What is the meaning of this jihad? To fight or not to fight; that is the question.

r.gonzales:

9:41 – hurry lightly and heavily and strive with your wealth and yourselves in Allah’s path. that is better for you if you know.

9:44 – those who believe in Allah and the Last Day do not seek permission from you [to be excused from having] to strive with their wealth and their selves. and Allah is Knowledgeable of the pious.

9:73 – o prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. their abode is hell, and the outcome is wretched.

9:81 – those left behind rejoiced with their seat apart from Allah’s messenger and they hated that they strive with their wealth and their selves in Allah’s path. and they said, “we will not hurry in the heat.” say, “the fire of hell is more severe in heat,” if they would understand!

9:86 – and if a soorah were revealed that they are to believe in Allah and strive with His messenger, the possessors of might amongst them would seek permission from you [to be excused] and they would say, “leave us with the sitting ones.”

What is the meaning of this ‘striving’? Striving against whom? The non-existent Byzantine army at Tabuk? Or did Allah forget to tell Muhammad there wasn’t a Byzantine army there. Heraclius was never a coward as evidenced by his many battles and the Muslim explanation for why the Byzantine army was not to be found lacks credibility; he (or his commanders like his brother Theodore) never shirked battle before or since.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

technically, of those verses cited, the actual word “jihaad” ( جهاد ) only apprears in verse 9:24. in the other verses what is found is the verb “jaahada” ( جاهد ), which means “to struggle”, “to strive”, “to endeavour” and can be taken to mean “to make ‘jihaad’”. in the one verse it appears in it includes all the types and forms of jihaad; striving against the soul, striving against the disbelievers, striving against the people of desires and innovation, etc. as well as all the various means these struggles and endeavours can be carried out by. in all the instances the word means exactly what i mentioned above; to struggle, to strive, to endeavour, all for Allah’s sake.

One is a noun and the other is a verb. However, the root is still the same.

r.gonzales:

verses 41, 44, 81 & 86 were revealed specifically regarding the battle of tabook and are in the context of putting forth an effort in fighting or in spending wealth for the purpose of fighting against aggressive, hostile opponents. the battle of tabook was fought on account of the aggression and hostility displayed by the byzantinian romans in syria who were preparing an army to fight the muslims.

The Byzantines were so hostile they weren’t even there. So what ‘battle’ was fought?

Muhammad made a ghazwa (bandit raid) into Syria using the perceived Byzantine threat as a pretext. Like other ghazwas it was an act of aggression. Tabuk, to remind the readers, was in Syria, deep in Byzantine territory. It was about as defensive as 9/11.

r.gonzales:

verse 73 however, is a bit different. while 9:73 makes specific reference to striving against the hypocrites and the disbelievers, this striving isn’t restricted to “fighting” and “war”, but includes all the various means that struggling against the open enemies of islam can be carried out by.

How can one be ‘harsh’ with disbelievers if this striving is not violent? How do you expect kafirs to believe this striving is in any way peaceful if their abode is hell and their outcome wretched?

r.gonzales:

in explanation of a statement from muhammad bin abdil-wahhaab, muhammad al-uthaimeen, one of our era’s top scholars mentions this verse and gives a proper explantion of jihaad against the dibelievers and hypocrites. in his book kashf ash-shubuhaat ibn abdil-wahhaab said, “so Allah’s army, they are dominant with the proof and the tongue, just as they are dominant with the sword and the spear.” in commentary to this, ibn al-uthaimeen states:
the writer, may Allah have mercy on him, indicated that Allah’s army are His believing servants who aid Allah and His messenger, striving against the people in two matters.

the first, the proof and the clarification. and this is with respect to the hypocrites who do not make their enmity of the muslims apparent. so these ones, they are strived against with the proof and the clarification.

No thank you. You can talk to me but don’t ‘strive’ against me. That I construe to be rather aggressive.

r.gonzales:

the second is the one who is striven against with the sword and the spear. and they are those who are apparent in their enmity. they are the pure disbelievers who are known for their disbelief.

Just because I am a kafir doesn’t give Muslims the right to use sword and spear against me. It is this sort of thinking that causes so much ‘strife’ in the world. Instead of ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘offering peace’ and all that, what surah 9 offers is ‘strife’ and ‘striving’.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

and regarding this and that which is mentioned before it, Allah says, “o prophet, endeavour against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh against them. their abode will be hell. and the outcome is wretched.” (66:9)

striving with the proof and the clarification is for the disbelievers first, then they are striven against with the sword and the spear second. and they are not striven against with the sword and the spear except after establishment of the proof against them.

If kafirs disbelieve Islam that doesn’t give the Muslims the right to fight them with sword and spear. It is the kafirs’ right to disbelieve. I think it is your apologetic to suggest that there are two levels of striving against kafirs; with proof and clarification first and then sword and spear. The verses above make it very clear there is only one form of striving against kafirs and that is the latter. Proof and clarification certainly aren’t in surah 9. Muhammad didn’t go to Tabuk to talk to the Byzantines. He went to fight them.

Thus surah 9 makes it very clear that jihad in relation to kafirs means fighting.

r.gonzales:

the obligation upon the islamic nation is to fight every weapon directed towards islam with what befits it.

The obligation upon the kafir nations is to resist. You keep your own religion and don’t step into my territory and we’ll get along just fine.

r.gonzales:

so whoever wages war against islam by way of ideologies and statements, it is obligatory to clarify the falsehood of what they are upon with logical theoretical evidences linked to the legislative evidences. and those who wage war against islam from the direction of economy, it is obligatory that it be defended against, rather, it is to be attacked if possible, by the likes of what they age war against islam with. and those who wage war against islam with weapons, it is obligatory that they be opposed by what befits those weapons.

Like the non-existent Byzantine army at Tabuk waged war against Islam?

Even if kafirs hold ideological positions diametrically opposite to Muslims, it is incumbent on Muslims to stay within their own borders. Surah 9 was revealed when Muhammad had conquered Arabia and was preparing the next stage of the Islamic evolution and that is conquest of foreign countries. Tabuk, you must admit, was deep in the Byzantine empire.

There was no declaration of war by the Byzantines against the Muslims. In fact, the Byzantines never once invaded Muslim territory, except in attempts to reclaim what was stolen by the Muslims (as is the right of the Byzantines). The threat posed by the Byzantine army was either:

1. a figment of Muhammad’s imagination.
2. an excuse by Muhammad to invade a foreign country.

I discount the possibility that the Byzantine army lost its nerve as the Muslims claim. Muhammad only stayed in Tabuk for 20 days. They could have returned and reclaimed their territory after he left but they didn’t. In truth, it was only a ghazwa, a bandit raid, unworthy of much of a response. The Muslim threat only grew after Muhammad died. The other possibility, given credence by historians, is that the Byzantines were exhausted from their war against the Sassanians and were in no position to field an army at that time – leaving the way clear for Muslim exploitation of their weakness. It is certainly a tragedy for the world that the Muslims couldn’t stay put in Arabia. One cannot help but feel that jihad is not a concept that lends itself to peace between nations.

Summary:
9:24 sets the scene and implores Muslims to jihad. The rest of the jihad verses in surah 9 explain what this jihad means – and that is to ‘strive’ against the kafirs. What does ‘striving’ against the kafirs mean? It is clear it means fighting. The Muslim has to strive with wealth and body against the kafirs and deal harshly with them. It is frowned upon the ‘stay behind’ in this ‘jihad’ against the kafirs as was the case of the Mushrikeen (hypocrites – i.e. Arabs who embraced Islam outwardly but inwardly disbelieved) who refused to join in Muhammad’s campaign against the non-existent Byzantine army at Tabuk. Instead, Muhammad’s army went on a rampage through Syria, exacting jizyah and subjugating the Christian fiefdoms that belonged to the Byzantine empire.

There was no prior Byzantine aggression against the Muslims – in fact, no Byzantine invasion against Arabia was ever made.

Thanks again, dear Gonzales. You’ve clearly shown us what jihad means. It’s not something likely to endear Muslims to kafirs.

 

[MugenOne]

You can struggle against sins within you and your God all day long. Nobody cares. If you bring that struggle outside of you and into us (infidels) off course, we gonna raise up. What would you do if someone wants to exterminate you and your family from the face of the earth? Yes, this is what we are facing now.