Jihad is a central component of Islam

[Montalban]

Jihad means struggle. It can be by many means. For Moslems, it is a legitimate part of Islam.

Several religions seek out to convert the world. Christians, Moslems, et al.

For Moslems, Jihad is seen as a means for doing this.

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.”
usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.035

 

[paarsurrey]

Jihad means struggle. It can be by many means. For Moslems, it is a legitimate part of Islam.

Several religions seek out to convert the world. Christians, Moslems, et al.

For Moslems, Jihad is seen as a means for doing this.

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.”
usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.035

Hi

Quran prohibits any aggressive battles for religious conversion, but allows only defensive battles and that also with certain conditions, this is mentioned in many a verse of the Quran, and I think you know of them.

Please take context of the Hadith from the principled narratives of Quran, and I think you should do that now to clear your miscoceptions.

Quran is the basic and foremost source of Islam, then actions of the Prophet as mentioned in Quran, and then Hadith.

Thanks

NTBible of the Catholics/Orthodoxt is not even more authenticated than Hadith of the Muslim, third source of guidance. NTBible would be fourth or or fifth or sixth - - - -.
Please don’t mind.

 

[Montalban]

Hi

Quran prohibits any aggressive battles for religious conversion, but allows only defensive battles and that also with certain conditions, this is mentioned in many a verse of the Quran, and I think you know of them.
That’s not true. The Koran says slay the idolators whereever you find them

They had the choice of remaining idolators, and being killed, or converting.

 

[paarsurrey]

That’s not true. The Koran says slay the idolators whereever you find them

They had the choice of remaining idolators, and being killed, or converting.

Hi

No, sir, please read the context and also other places in Quran, then you would realize your mistake.

Thanks

 

[Montalban]

Hi

No, sir, please read the context and also other places in Quran, then you would realize your mistake.

Thanks

I’ve read the context. You’re wrong

And you say you’re not here to debate! Please make up your mind

The point is proven by the fact there’s no pagan Arabs today. They were all wiped out, or forced to become Moslem

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Jihad means struggle. It can be by many means. For Moslems, it is a legitimate part of Islam.

“Struggle” does not equal war or forced conversion. Mainstream Muslims are similar to Catholics and other Christians in their Struggle is the same our struggle as we try to work through life one day at a time.

 

[Montalban]

“Struggle” does not equal war or forced conversion.

Jihad certainly can be by means of war.

Mainstream Muslims are similar to Catholics and other Christians in their Struggle is the same our struggle as we try to work through life one day at a time.

Why do you think these people are *mainstream *Moslems?

Muhammed is seen as the example for behaviour for Moslems.

He advocated killing. He applauded the execution/murder of his enemies. He over-saw the slaughter of around 900 members of the Banu Quaresh tribe AFTER they had surrendered and thrown themselves on Islamic ‘mercy’.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

“Struggle” does not equal war or forced conversion. Mainstream Muslims are similar to Catholics and other Christians in their Struggle is the same our struggle as we try to work through life one day at a time.

Though the word Jihad means struggle, that is not the exact meaning of the external violent jihad. The Quran defines what the jihad actually means.

Muhammad did say that in a hadith that the greatest jihad was one within the self, but that is not in the Quran, as far as I remember. In the Quran, the jihad is the violent type towards the infidels.

Therefore, you are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation if you think jihad just means struggle and not war or forced conversion. True that Jihad does not mean forced conversion but the verses of the sword - linked to jihad - tell Muslims to fight (battle/kill/slaughter) all those who disbelieve in Allah or the last day, or if they are People of the Book who pay the Jizyah with humiliation.

The implication is clear - only Muslims are not fought/battle and subjugated dhimmi Christians and Jews. Everyone else must be fought to the death.

This command was too evil to be implemented and initially the Muslims forced all pagans and Zoroastrians and Hindus to convert or die - they weren’t given the choice of dhimmitude. But there were too many to kill and the Muslim rulers discovered that kill kafirs was bad business as it limited the flow of Jizyah into the treasury - so the ruling was made that some other people, e.g. the Hindus, could be considered dhimmis. But that was not the intention of Muhammad.

If you read the Quran you’d see the following characteristics of Jihad.

• fought in battle array,
• to forfeit life and property.
• jihad against unbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh with them.
• jihad so Muslims slay and/or be slain.

Now - all these are in the Quran. It is clear that the jihad referred to here is violent and hateful towards disbelievers. Jihad does not mean the day-to-day struggle. That ‘struggle’ is an English word. Jihad is an Arabic word and means something different.

Hope this clarifies your confusion.

Rodrigo

 

[Theist]

Jihad means struggle. It can be by many means. For Moslems, it is a legitimate part of Islam.

Several religions seek out to convert the world. Christians, Moslems, et al.

For Moslems, Jihad is seen as a means for doing this.

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.”
usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.035

Crusades/Holy Wars = Jihad.
Yes, Christians and Moslems are very much alike. We want to take over the world. Naturally our goals conflict with each others.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Crusades/Holy Wars = Jihad.
Yes, Christians and Moslems are very much alike. We want to take over the world. Naturally our goals conflict with each others.

It might be salient to remember that Muhammad formulated Jihad around 630AD and the Christians only got around to crusade in 1095, almost 500 years later. If anything the Christians learnt holy war from the Muslims. I am impressed that the Christian tolerance extended for so long before the long awaited reaction to Muslim aggression.

Please remember that the Muslims conquered all the way to Tours in France, sweeping the Visigoths aside in Spain, and destroying the great Eastern Roman empire all the way to the Danube. Some Christian reaction was bound to come. Pity it took almost 500 years.

 

[dolphinlove]

It might be salient to remember that Muhammad formulated Jihad around 630AD and the Christians only got around to crusade in 1095, almost 500 years later. If anything the Christians learnt holy war from the Muslims. I am impressed that the Christian tolerance extended for so long before the long awaited reaction to Muslim aggression.

Please remember that the Muslims conquered all the way to Tours in France, sweeping the Visigoths aside in Spain, and destroying the great Eastern Roman empire all the way to the Danube. Some Christian reaction was bound to come. Pity it took almost 500 years.

Rodrigo, did you study Islam, is that how you know so much about it?

 

[Theist]

It might be salient to remember that Muhammad formulated Jihad around 630AD and the Christians only got around to crusade in 1095, almost 500 years later. If anything the Christians learnt holy war from the Muslims. I am impressed that the Christian tolerance extended for so long before the long awaited reaction to Muslim aggression.

Please remember that the Muslims conquered all the way to Tours in France, sweeping the Visigoths aside in Spain, and destroying the great Eastern Roman empire all the way to the Danube. Some Christian reaction was bound to come. Pity it took almost 500 years.

Exactly. That still does not make it right.

 

[Moneo]

Crusades/Holy Wars = Jihad.
Yes, Christians and Moslems are very much alike. We want to take over the world. Naturally our goals conflict with each others.

I second what Rodrigo says, and I add:

It’s painfully obvious that you have no freakin’ idea what Christianity is all about if you can say something so blazingly ridiculous. “Take over the world”, the goal of Christianity? That’s so absurd it beggars belief.

It’s also painfully evident that you have have no freakin’ idea what the Crusades were really about. A defensive war which finally, after 500 years of standing your ground on your home turf (Europe), takes the battle to the Muslims AFTER A CALL FOR HELP FROM THE CHRISTIAN EMPEROR IN CONSTANTINOPLE in an attempt to a) secure the Christian holy sites which were being profaned and destroyed by the Muslims, b) aid the beleaguered Christians of Jerusalem, the Holy Land and the Byzantine Empire, c) restore what the Muslims STOLE, and d) protect Christian pilgrims travelling to the Holy Land is not, repeat IS NOT the same thing as an aggressive war of conquest waged in the name of a “prophet” who set the example for his followers by slaughtering every one who opposed him or called into question his false claims of prophethood.

This is the sort of false, putrid moral equivalence that plays well in politically correct Hollywood, the secular media and the “Marxism Light” environment of European socialist policymakers, but it’s a lie.

I’d suggest you start your re-education here, here, or here.

 

[dolphinlove]

I second what Rodrigo says, and I add:

It’s painfully obvious that you have no freakin’ idea what Christianity is all about if you can say something so blazingly ridiculous. “Take over the world”, the goal of Christianity? That’s so absurd it beggars belief.

It’s also painfully evident that you have have no freakin’ idea what the Crusades were really about. A defensive war which finally, after 500 years of standing your ground on your home turf (Europe), takes the battle to the Muslims AFTER A CALL FOR HELP FROM THE CHRISTIAN EMPEROR IN CONSTANTINOPLE in an attempt to a) secure the Christian holy sites which were being profaned and destroyed by the Muslims, b) aid the beleaguered Christians of Jerusalem, the Holy Land and the Byzantine Empire, c) restore what the Muslims STOLE, and d) protect Christian pilgrims travelling to the Holy Land is not, repeat IS NOT the same thing as an aggressive war of conquest waged in the name of a “prophet” who set the example for his followers by slaughtering every one who opposed him or called into question his false claims of prophethood.

This is the sort of false, putrid moral equivalence that plays well in politically correct Hollywood, the secular media and the “Marxism Light” environment of European socialist policymakers, but it’s a lie.

I’d suggest you start your re-education here, here, or here.

 

[Montalban]

Crusades/Holy Wars = Jihad.
Yes, Christians and Moslems are very much alike. We want to take over the world. Naturally our goals conflict with each others.

Let me draw you an example from history to show where you’re wrong about things that seem similar.

In 1940 German forces fly against targets in Britain and bomb them.

Britain flys against targets in Germany and bomb them.

Ostensibly these are the same things. Bombing of targets. However for Germany this was a war of aggression to take over the world.

For Britain it was a desparate fight for survival against an aggressive and dangerous ideology.

Motives play a crucial part. Britain was not desiring the conquest, and occupation of all Europe.

Now we go to the Crusades. These were primarily to recover lands once predominantly Christian, and still with large Chrisitan populations. They were carried out 400 years AFTER Islam launched an unprovoked attack on Christendom.

They are therefore not the same thing.

“Jihad” is central to Islam.

“Crusade” is not central to Christianity.

 

[Montalban]

In effect Jihad means war. It has other meanings, but the violence of Islam shows Jihad really means struggle by outward aggression.

Else… we’d see Moslems undertake strong leaflet campaigns and ‘round table discussions’ rather than threatening to kill Danish cartoonists, or escapees from Islam (viz Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

 

[Montalban]

It might be salient to remember that Muhammad formulated Jihad around 630AD and the Christians only got around to crusade in 1095, almost 500 years later. If anything the Christians learnt holy war from the Muslims. I am impressed that the Christian tolerance extended for so long before the long awaited reaction to Muslim aggression.

Please remember that the Muslims conquered all the way to Tours in France, sweeping the Visigoths aside in Spain, and destroying the great Eastern Roman empire all the way to the Danube. Some Christian reaction was bound to come. Pity it took almost 500 years.

I’d like to point out that they also laid seige to Constantinople but the new Emperor, Leo defeated them with ‘greek fire’ amongst other weapons.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Quran prohibits any aggressive battles for religious conversion, but allows only defensive battles and that also with certain conditions, this is mentioned in many a verse of the Quran, and I think you know of them.

Please take context of the Hadith from the principled narratives of Quran, and I think you should do that now to clear your miscoceptions.

Quran is the basic and foremost source of Islam, then actions of the Prophet as mentioned in Quran, and then Hadith.

There is a Just war Doctrine which defines what is to be done when attacked or wronged. It is not attached with the NTBible but it has been practiced by the Catholics over the years in history, one must not deny it if one is impartial.

There are no verses in Quran that support general killing of people for conversion. Muhammad was truly a peaceful person so should be the Muslims if they follow him.
The subject becomes very clear when the real context is provided to verses as mentioned in the Holy Quran: Chapter 22: Al-Hajj:

[22:40] Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged and Allah, indeed, has power to help them.
[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’ And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty -
[22:42] Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

Thanks

 

[dolphinlove]

Dont people quote time and time again from the quran/hadith’s and actually prove they provoke violence?

 

[Montalban]

Dont people quote time and time again from the quran/hadith’s and actually prove they provoke violence?

There’s a causal link…

Muhammed practiced violence.

He advocated it.

His followers practiced it.

Commentators throughout Islam’s history have advocated it.

Moslems have practiced it - in the name of their faith.