What is the Goal of Jihad?

[planten]

You should read his other answers too (here). I’m beginning to think that a number of Muslims are brainwashed into believing lies and misconceptions about other religions, and a number of other things too. And I mean that with no disrespect.

**Eucharisted, why should Muslims be brain washed. All your stuff is well kown to every one. It is in the market for any one to see. Of course I am not brain washed and I would not believe anything wrong about the christians. Not without reasonable grounds. Welcome.

We do not love Jesus and Mary because of you. We love them because they deserve love and respect. And Quran teaches us about the respect of Mary and Jesus.**

 

[R_not]

**Eucharisted, why should Muslims be brain washed. All your stuff is well kown to every one. It is in the market for any one to see. Of course I am not brain washed and I would not believe anything wrong about the christians. Not without reasonable grounds. Welcome.

We do not love Jesus and Mary because of you. We love them because they deserve love and respect. And Quran teaches us about the respect of Mary and Jesus.**

I guess we call it brainwashing when a person can take something that is just bad, or evil, and say it is good, or holy.

When a whole group of people cannot question their own ‘religion’, or leave it, without the threat of death. When a whole group of people so obviously have, and tell, revisionist history so slanted and changed that it sometimes doesn’t even resemble the real truth.

How can a whole mass of people think that it is ok to kill, enslave, lie - basically treat others like they are less than dirt and feel that they will get to some orgy in heaven raping virgins and little boys?!? How can they follow a guy, willingly, who is of the same ilk as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il?

And how can people join such a religion freely unless they are lied to in the beginning about that religion. I think that a willingness to be led so they don’t have to think and in some cases as we know of a guy called Sabaya who led the Abu Sayaff in the Philippines - a pyschopath - he knew it was the only way to get to heaven by being a muslim. He couldn’t stop his murderous self so he thought that by joining islam he could get to heaven.

So, what do we have? Children brought up with the koran and in too many cases they are fed the hatred of the Jews, and others; people who prefer to not research their new religion because they would rather believe the garbage they are fed by clerics, and pyschopaths who are able to just do as their natures dictate because the religion instills in it that lying, stealing, killing non-muslims is a-ok. Hey, they can even beat up their wives and it is ok in islam. No sharia law will stop them.

That is why many think muslims are brainwashed individuals who have lost their ways.

this is why I think that ‘reverting’ to islam is an appropriate phrase since it is reverting back into the state of sin.

 

[Jay53]

How does the following fit in with the goal of jihad?

The Islamic Khilafah
(Friday speech delivered by Imam Mohamed Baianonie at the Islamic Center or Raleigh, NC on April 7, 2000)

What does Islamic Khilafah mean?
The Islamic Khilafah is the way of ruling the Islamic Ummah after the death of the prophet (S.A.W.). The Islamic Khilafah can be rightly guided, i.e., it is according to the prophet’s method. The rightly-guided Islamic Khilafah was established at the times of the rightly-guided Khalifahs after the prophet (S.A.W.) (Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali, and another Khalifah who is frequently mentioned among the rightly-guided Khalifahs; Omar Bin Abdul-Aziz) (R.A.) These Khalifahs were rightly called “the rightly-guided Khalifahs” because one of their unique situation was that they were chosen by the Ummah to rule.

Establishing the Islamic Khilafah is an obligation upon every Muslim. It is in the category of obligations of Kifayah, which means if it is established by a group of Muslims, the Muslims will be free of this obligation and they are not sinful. If it is not established, all Muslims will be sinning. The Muslims will be free of this great sin only if they work hard and make their utmost efforts to establish the Islamic Khalifah.

Imam Muslim reported that the prophet (S.A.W.) said: “…And whoever dies whilst there was no bay’ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a khalifah), he dies a death of jahilliyah (UnIslamic).” The Hadith clarifies that it is a must upon every Muslim to entrust a Khalifah to take care of his affairs. Otherwise, he will be sinning and die like the non-believers. This means it is a must to appoint a Khalifah. This way, Muslims will be free of this great sin.

Also, another a great and clear evidence that shows that appointing a Khalifah is obligatory is the consensus of the companions of the prophet (S.A.W.) after the death of the prophet (S.A.W.). The consensus of the prophet’s companions is divine evidence as we know and we must abide by. This is because the companions did not get to this conclusion only after knowing very well the greatness of this obligation from the verses and the Ahadiths. The companions of the prophet (S.A.W.) had a consensus that it is a must to appoint a Khalifah after the death of the prophet (S.A.W.), and had consensus to appoint Abu Bakr, then Omar, the Othman after the death of each and everyone of them. Their consensus was so clear that they delayed burying the prophet (S.A.W.) and got busy with something more important than burying the body of the prophet (S.A.W.) and that is appointing the Khalifah. This took them three days.

The importance of appointing a Khalifah becomes so clear when we know that a great percentage of the Deen can not be implemented except with the presence of a Khalifah. Many types of obligations are not performed like implementing the punishment system, and protecting the Ummah internally through the security system and externally through Jihad and carrying the Da’wa to the whole world. We know that if an obligation can be performed only with the presence of something, that something becomes obligatory. Ali (R.A.) said: "The people must have an Imarah good or bad. They asked: “We recognize a good Imarah, what about the bad one?!” He replied: “With it, the punishment system is implemented, the roads become safe, the enemies are fought, and the bounties are well divided.”

It is clear from all the evidence that appointing a Khalifah is one of the most important divine obligations. It is a great sin not to establish it, and a waste for Islam, and a waste for the Muslim Ummah. The period allowed for not having a Khalifah is only three days. This is based on the evidence that the companions of the prophet (S.A.W.) were busy for three days trying to appoint a Khalifah after the death of the prophet (S.A.W.). Also, Omar (R.A.) entrusted the people of As-shurah to appoint the Khalifah after his death and that they have only three days to do so. He also told them that if you could not agree on the Khalifah after three days, then kill the one who is not in agreement. This was heard by a lot of companions who did not object. This is an indication of a common consensus, which is evidence that the Khilafah is obligatory.

What are the tasks and duties of the Khalifah?

Imam Al-Mawardi said: " Khalifah must to fulfil ten duties in the affairs of the Ummah. (If we know these ten duties, we will realize how important his presence is and how dangerous his absence is).
1- Protect the Deen and the consensus of all the Salaf generation of this Ummah.
2- Implement the rules amongst those who are in conflict and removing the conflict so Justice will prevail
3- Protect the internal affairs of the Ummah.
4- Implement the punishment system to deter the criminals from attacking the rights of other people.
5- Beef up the borders with deterring force so that no Muslim or non-Muslim living amongst the Muslims is harmed.
**6-Jihad fighting against those who reject Islam until they accept Islam or live under the rules of Islam./**7- Collect Zakat and charities and another finance revenues.
8- Decide the amount of salaries to who works for the state with out over spending or stinginess and give the salaries on the due time.
9- Compensate the employees, and appointing the right people entrusted with jobs or with financial resources.
10- To look after the affairs of the Muslim Ummah by himself, and not to appoint someone else to do it for him because he is to busy enjoying this life or worshipping Allah (S.W.T.). {Book Al-Ahkamus-Sltanyyah}

Who is the current Islamic Khilafah? If there is not one, does this mean the whole Muslim Ummah is sinning?

What is the peaceful interpretation of #6 duty listed above?

 

[Jay53]

Bump

 

[Hamza]

Let us not forget that Jihad was prescribed by God in the Torah. The Children of Israel were the first ummah to be given the responsibility in fighting Jihad.

Of course, being Catholic, you would believe it came from Jesus, because he is God.

“For it was the Lord (Jesus) himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.”

Jesus also said in Deuteronomy 20:16-17,

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God (Jesus) is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them–the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites–as the LORD your God has commanded you.”

Also, Jesus says in, 1 Samuel 15:18, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.”

And upon the Return of Jesus, Jihad is on the cards again, just read Revelation 19:11-21

So, let us not throw stones in glass houses…

Jihad is from God The Jews believe it,Muslims blive it, Christians deny it.

Peace

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Jihad is from God The Jews believe it,Muslims blive it, Christians deny it.

Peace

Jesus brought the new Covenant:

Matt 5

9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

43"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies* and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.*

 

[Jay53]

Let us not forget that Jihad was prescribed by God in the Torah. The Children of Israel were the first ummah to be given the responsibility in fighting Jihad.

Of course, being Catholic, you would believe it came from Jesus, because he is God.
“For it was the Lord (Jesus) himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.”

Jesus also said in Deuteronomy 20:16-17,

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God (Jesus) is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them–the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites–as the LORD your God has commanded you.”

Also, Jesus says in, 1 Samuel 15:18, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.”

And upon the Return of Jesus, Jihad is on the cards again, just read Revelation 19:11-21

So, let us not throw stones in glass houses…

Jihad is from God The Jews believe it,Muslims blive it, Christians deny it.

Peace

Thank you for your response, but it didn’t answer what the “goal” of all this fighting is. I do not believe that Jihad is from God - at all! I don’t believe God instructed His people to fight everyone else for all eternity. If He instructed us to fight Satan and his minions and wage war against sin, then OK I could understand that, but not fight those who don’t believe in Islam until either they do or become basically 2nd class citizens under Islamic rule. ???

I’m also confused by your response because I thought I read in the Muslim/Catholic debate thread that you used to be Catholic - therefore your reference to Jesus in the Old Testament is REALLY confusing! (Although I noticed that some other Muslims also do this.) Yes, Jesus was always God, but He was not manifested as man in the Old Testament. IMO, saying that Jesus said something in books of the Old Testament is really strange for an ex-Catholic. Just my opinion. If that was not you and I misread that, then I apologize.

 

[Sister_Amy]

And once again that old double standard pops up. Great.

It’s the double standards of the interpretation of the Koran. First Christians and Jews are called the believers:

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
(The Cow 2:62)

Then they are called those who do not believe in God or the Last Day:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day.
(At-Tawbah 9: 29)

So which is it? Are Christians and Jews believers or not? They cannot be disbelievers only when they fight Muslims, than become believers when they don’t fight Muslims, because that would be nonsensical. Nor can the Christians and Jews only be believers when they become Muslim, for as 2:62 shows, they are indeed believers in God and the Last Day. So are Christians and Jews believers or not?

The answer is not black and white.

If a Christian lived before Muhammad or in his lifetime never heard about Muhammad (and therefore never rejected or accepted his prophethood) then his belief would be considered complete, would it not? Or he wouldn’t know any better…

If he lived after Muhammad and deliberately rejected belief in Muhammad, however, his belief would not be complete. He would be rejecting part of it.

You need to be really careful when pulling verses out of the Qur’an–it’s all too easy to try to impose an incorrect interpretation on them. Being a “Christian” or being a “Jew” is not enough to establish a person as a “believer” or a “disbeliever.”

 

[Jay53]

Being a “Christian” or being a “Jew” is not enough to establish a person as a “believer” or a “disbeliever.”

What is the criteria then? Would it be believing in Muhammad and/or the Quran? Although as I’m typing that, that doesn’t make much sense either because if they did, they wouldn’t be Christian or Jewish, they’d be Muslim. ???

 

[R_not]

The answer is not black and white.

If a Christian lived before Muhammad or in his lifetime never heard about Muhammad (and therefore never rejected or accepted his prophethood) then his belief would be considered complete, would it not? Or he wouldn’t know any better…

If he lived after Muhammad and deliberately rejected belief in Muhammad, however, his belief would not be complete. He would be rejecting part of it.

You need to be really careful when pulling verses out of the Qur’an–it’s all too easy to try to impose an incorrect interpretation on them. Being a “Christian” or being a “Jew” is not enough to establish a person as a “believer” or a “disbeliever.”

An all too common complaint from muslims - that we misinterpret the koran. Another common complaint is that we don’t know Arabic. If we did would that be any different for us if we were not muslim? We got an accepted translation of the koran by muslims and we can interpret them just fine.

In fact, you guys keep saying we distort islam, or the radicals distort islam - and when it comes down to it - you only do something when those ‘radicals’ get their behinds handed to them.

That is the only time muslims take to the streets, riot/protest, kill Jews and/or Christians because they are highly disturbed that non-muslims fight back.

Most sane people would reject mohammed because he was nothing but an Adulterer, Bandit, Immoral, Inhuman, Looter, Lecher, Misogynist, Murderer, Materialistic, assasin,
Narcissist, Pedophile, Raider, Rapist, Slavetrader, Sexmaniac, Terrorist, Torturer, Unfair, Vengeful Warlord.

What about the sane people who do accept such a creepy guy? I don’t know. I have no explanation for it, except maybe that you were lied to and you were too lazy to do some research on the guy before reverting back to sin, …oh …er, I mean islam.

There is a reason why muslims forbade non-muslims to discuss, read or even know anything about mohammed and islam - because if they did they couldn’t lie about him and get any reverts. It is the reason why they don’t even want muslims to do the same because many would leave.

 

[R_not]

Let us not forget that Jihad was prescribed by God in the Torah. The Children of Israel were the first ummah to be given the responsibility in fighting Jihad.

Of course, being Catholic, you would believe it came from Jesus, because he is God.

“For it was the Lord (Jesus) himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.”

Jesus also said in Deuteronomy 20:16-17,

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God (Jesus) is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them–the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites–as the LORD your God has commanded you.”

Also, Jesus says in, 1 Samuel 15:18, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.”

And upon the Return of Jesus, Jihad is on the cards again, just read Revelation 19:11-21

So, let us not throw stones in glass houses…

Jihad is from God The Jews believe it,Muslims blive it, Christians deny it.

Peace

Why are you bringing this up? The discussion is about ISLAM and jihad.

The Old Testament tells of what happened and NOT a command to kill others forever! Unlike in islam where it is a command to do forever, or until the world is under islam’s rule.

Your jihad is from a man, and a guy who took his moon god, allah, and made it into a distortion of his needs and desires. allah is not the God of Israel. mohammed is not a prophet. Because he changed the message of the previous prophets and because all he wanted was to be adored like a god - why else would the punishment for bad mouthing mohammed be more strict (death) that the punishment for bad mouthing allah (a person is given a chance to change their minds)?

mohammed got angry that his religion wasn’t being accepted by others so he went on the warpath. He would attack others who were unarmed and kill off the men and ‘boys with hair’ and steal the booty and enslave the women and children. He put the aura of holiness on these foul acts by saying it was for allah and these people deserved it because they were unbelievers.

Centrality of jihad in islam )

 

[inJESUS]

Why are you bringing this up?

it is a mistake common to Muslims.

 

[Sister_Amy]

How does the following fit in with the goal of jihad?

First of all, let me be really clear. The Islamic Khilafah is not the goal of jihad. In other words, establishing an Islamic state is not a goal of jihad.

It’s important to get that out of the way, because many Muslims do not even know that. But I’ve listened to the sheikh whom you quoted explain this very subject a number of times, so if you’ll allow me to briefly present the evidence. The first Islamic state was established not when Muhammad became a Prophet, not when Muslims were fighting with their enemies. It was established after 13 years of Islamic preaching., i.e., da’wah. After giving da’wah and preaching for 13 years in Mecca, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims migrated to Medina, where they established the first Islamic state. It was through da’wah, and not through jihad.

Today there is no Islamic state (in the above context. “Muslim countries” do not constitute an Islamic state.) and many Muslims are eager to see one established. They want one among themselves, not one imposed on other people, before you take that the wrong way. It’s kind of like saying the “Founding Fathers” of the USA wanted to establish a democracy amongst themselves–not to impose it on someone else.

Who is the current Islamic Khilafah? If there is not one, does this mean the whole Muslim Ummah is sinning?

There is at present no Khalifah (leader of Islamic state) nor any Islamic state. Does it mean the whole Muslim Ummah is sinning? Odd question.

Muhammad prophesied that after his death the Ummah would be led by successors who followed his guidance (the khalifahs) for 30 years or so, then they would be followed by kings, and the kings would be followed tyranny–i.e., dictatorships. And after that, again Muslims would be ruled by khalifahs.

And basically that’s exactly what’s happened. The rule of the four “rightly-guided caliphs” lasted for 30 years, followed by monarchies, and today we see corrupt dictators.

Officially the Islamic khilafah fell at the end of WW1–although at that point it was not led by the sort of leaders Muslims describe as the rightly-guided khulafah. It was pretty much a monarchy, a khilafah in name only, but at the point there was still some central leadership for the Muslims. But with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that leadership has been gone. Does it mean the Muslims are sinning?

The Muslims did not dismantle the khilafah, and they are trying to re-establish it. But not with jihad, mind you. As the sheikh says, the Muslims today are like that period of 13 years in Mecca–no jihad, only da’wah.

What is the peaceful interpretation of #6 duty listed above?

If there is a nation which prohibits people from following the religion of Islam, then the last stages of jihad would be against that nation, so that all people would be guaranteed the freedom of religion. Specifically, the freedom to be Muslim.

 

[Sister_Amy]

What is the criteria then? Would it be believing in Muhammad and/or the Quran? Although as I’m typing that, that doesn’t make much sense either because if they did, they wouldn’t be Christian or Jewish, they’d be Muslim. ???

Unless they lived before Muhammad and never heard about him, so never had the chance to accept or reject him.

Imagine if a Muslim decided to reject one of the Prophets–Jesus, for instance. It would cripple his belief, how could he call himself a Muslim, a believer without believing in everything he is supposed to believe in?

 

[Sister_Amy]

it is a mistake common to Muslims.

It’s not really a mistake. When someone chooses to argue that jihad is the root of all evil, or that it’s a totally foreign concept that could never have originated with God, they’re missing the facts of what was enjoined on the Children of Israel. Jesus was not the only messenger God sent, nor the first.

 

[Jay53]

Unless they lived before Muhammad and never heard about him, so never had the chance to accept or reject him.

Imagine if a Muslim decided to reject one of the Prophets–Jesus, for instance. It would cripple his belief, how could he call himself a Muslim, a believer without believing in everything he is supposed to believe in?

Sorry, but I don’t understand your answer.

Being a “Christian” or being a “Jew” is not enough to establish a person as a “believer” or a “disbeliever.”

This was what I was asking about. What establishes a person as a “believer” or a “disbeliever”?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Sorry, but I don’t understand your answer.

This was what I was asking about. What establishes a person as a “believer” or a “disbeliever”?

Let me try again. What makes a person a “believer” is what he actually believes in. If the person is supposed to believe in A, B, and C, in order to be a believer, then what if he believes in A and B only, and rejects C?

If he rejects C, then he would not be a believer.

But what if he never heard about C, so he doesn’t believe it or reject it? Then he is a believer, as far as we can tell.

Does this make more sense?

 

[R_not]

First of all, let me be really clear. The Islamic Khilafah is not the goal of jihad. In other words, establishing an Islamic state is not a goal of jihad.

It’s important to get that out of the way, because many Muslims do not even know that. But I’ve listened to the sheikh whom you quoted explain this very subject a number of times, so if you’ll allow me to briefly present the evidence. The first Islamic state was established not when Muhammad became a Prophet, not when Muslims were fighting with their enemies. It was established after 13 years of Islamic preaching., i.e., da’wah. After giving da’wah and preaching for 13 years in Mecca, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims migrated to Medina, where they established the first Islamic state. It was through da’wah, and not through jihad.

Today there is no Islamic state (in the above context. “Muslim countries” do not constitute an Islamic state.) and many Muslims are eager to see one established. They want one among themselves, not one imposed on other people, before you take that the wrong way. It’s kind of like saying the “Founding Fathers” of the USA wanted to establish a democracy amongst themselves–not to impose it on someone else.

There is at present no Khalifah (leader of Islamic state) nor any Islamic state. Does it mean the whole Muslim Ummah is sinning? Odd question.

Muhammad prophesied that after his death the Ummah would be led by successors who followed his guidance (the khalifahs) for 30 years or so, then they would be followed by kings, and the kings would be followed tyranny–i.e., dictatorships. And after that, again Muslims would be ruled by khalifahs.

And basically that’s exactly what’s happened. The rule of the four “rightly-guided caliphs” lasted for 30 years, followed by monarchies, and today we see corrupt dictators.

Officially the Islamic khilafah fell at the end of WW1–although at that point it was not led by the sort of leaders Muslims describe as the rightly-guided khulafah. It was pretty much a monarchy, a khilafah in name only, but at the point there was still some central leadership for the Muslims. But with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that leadership has been gone. Does it mean the Muslims are sinning?

The Muslims did not dismantle the khilafah, and they are trying to re-establish it. But not with jihad, mind you. As the sheikh says, the Muslims today are like that period of 13 years in Mecca–no jihad, only da’wah.

If there is a nation which prohibits people from following the religion of Islam, then the last stages of jihad would be against that nation, so that all people would be guaranteed the freedom of religion. Specifically, the freedom to be Muslim.

And this is why I have a hard time trusting/believing muslims anymore. jihad - that violent kind - is mentioned more often in the koran and sira, in fact so often that it makes the others almost non-existant.

Measuring mohammed and Dhimmitude

When you read the Sira, you find that violence fills its pages. The first form of violence is verbal. After Mohammed’s first revelation, it only takes 12 pages until there is a fight and a Muslim bloodies a kafir. From that point on, Mohammed argues, threatens, curses, preaches, and condemns. So 98% of the text of Mohammed’s prophecy contains verbal violence against the kafirs (unbelievers).

Jihad starts 281 pages into his prophet-hood and it never stops for the next 409 pages. So 72% of the Sira’s report of his prophecy involves some form of jihad. Of course, the verbal abuse runs right along with the killing, torture, rape, theft, deceit and assassinations.

**Unfortunately for sister amy, the actions and in way too many cases, the past and present history of muslims worldwide do not make her words true. **

History of jihad.

Basically, mohammed was constantly pushing his followers to wage (that violent kind) jihad so he could get booty and slaves. And after he realized that he could subjugate people to do his will and get money and do things he didn’t want to do and he didn’t want his jihadists to do he established dhimmitude.

Now, to make her statements true we should see her, and others like her, stop supporting those who do violence against others such as in Israel! And India! And elsewhere! But we do not. We only read revisionist history from them.

 

[Jay53]

Let me try again. What makes a person a “believer” is what he actually believes in. If the person is supposed to believe in A, B, and C, in order to be a believer, then what if he believes in A and B only, and rejects C?

If he rejects C, then he would not be a believer.

But what if he never heard about C, so he doesn’t believe it or reject it? Then he is a believer, as far as we can tell.

Does this make more sense?

I guess so. In this day and age, I would think people in industrialized countries with access to information would all be “unbelievers” then if they’re not Muslim - or maybe it’s actually learning the teachings of Islam as opposed to just knowing it exists too. Would I then be considered an “unbeliever” because I have obviously heard of Muhammad and Islam and what it teaches and whole-heartedly and knowingly reject it?

 

[Sister_Amy]

I want to make an interesting observation. I recently started taking a class on the “Sirah,” the text for which is called Fiqh as-Sirat an-Nabawiyyah or something like that–Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography.

That’s what “Sirah” or “Seerah” (or even “Sira”) means or refers to–the life of the Prophet Muhammad.

Now, the interesting observation is that the typical text used by those who wish to attack Islam, as regards the Sirah, is something by Ibn Ishaaq. It’s a text that actually doesn’t exist, interestingly enough, except in pieces preserved in other writings.

The sirah by Ibn Ishaaq, however, was not a complete biography of Muhammad’s Life. In fact, it was a description of military expeditions! I can’t remember off-hand the title, but it was the Arabic for ‘military expeditions.’ It was not a description of Muhammad’s family life, sermons, etc., but a description of military expeditions.

So what would you expect to find in a book about military expeditions? Probably war and violence.

Moreover, many reputable scholars (like Imam Al-Bukhari) would not even use Ibn Ishaaq as an authoritative source.

So when you see someone trying to bash Islam, like R_Not above, who claims that the “Sirah” is “filled” with violence–look at what is actually being referenced.