What Muslims are taught in their mosques - unbiased

[Palladio]

I’ve book-marked their site now. Thanks

A site for those on the board in Oz can be found at Voice of the Martyrs - but it’s a Protestant site

Would one way to put your understanding of Jihad in Islam (as if it existed anyplace else!) be this, Montalban: Jihad is essential to Islam?

If that is fair, and true (I believe it is both), we have reason to fear and to prepare.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Here are some comments by Muslims from different corners of the world. I’ll let them speak for themselves about the place and importance of Jihad:
(Oh, btw, these were said in the context of conversations with other Muslims, not with me.)

brother
is any corner for jihad in this forum
:w:

Al-Mu'minah:

:wasalamex

No there isn’t. And I doubt there will be such a section

(Al-Mu’minah is one of the moderators.)

For Malaysian Muslims there is only 5 pillars of Islam, namely - shahada, salah, zakah, sawm and hajj… jihad is not included.

However it is still fard, when it comes to defending.
It was orderd in the Quraan in the same manner as fasting…

qutibbaaa alaikum as siyaam
PRESCRIBED FOR YOU IS THE FASTING (as a doctor prescribes medecine for it is better for you as it relinquishes your soul and cleans up your body)

qutibbaaa alaikum al qitaal
PRESCRIBED FOR YOU IS FIGHTING (and Allah knows it is good for you, though you may detest it, if you research you will find that fighting strengthens your nafs, wallahi i kno it will help my emaan so much… if i do it fillah wiv correct intentions…)

Just some thoughts.

What is the purpose of Jihad? Is not the purpose to protect Islam from the enemies of Islam? Is not the desired goal to remove and eliminate the enemies of Islam?

Who are the enemies of Islam? Are they not those who fear Islam and seek to destroy it?

What is the most effective weapon for destroying the enemies of Islam? Is it the sword, guns, bullets, bombs? Is it truth, wisdom and the ability to turn enemies into allies and brothers? It takes much less courage to fight an enemy to the death, than to face the enemy and in spite of harm to yourself, stand there and win him over to the truth of Islam. Are we afraid to face people with words. Do we fear that we can not stand up to our enemies and overcome them with our faith? Do we have so little Imaan that we believe bullets and bombs are stronger? Do we fear to stand up for the truth and turn and attack because we are not strong enough to defend Islam with our Imaan?

Yes, we are called to Jihad and we are called to defend Islam, We are called to face death without fear. A wise fighter chooses the best weapon available. Wisdom, courage and faith are the strongest weapons possible. We need not fear to use them and we must use them with wisdom and Justice.

We do have the strength to win jihad through the use of truth and we must not fear truth and be able to use it instead of relying on flimsy, ineffective weapons of destruction. To build and honestly spread Islam is our sword of today and we must have enough Imaan to not fear using it.

A coward can fight with a gun or a sword. It takes courage and much Imaan to be able to face an enemy and conquer his heart, without the use of a weapon.

Yes, we must stand up and fight the jihad. But we must do so bravely and not be cowards hiding behind weapons.

The term jihad is being widely misunderstood today and taken as fighting only. On the contrary the term qitaal has been used in Holy quran for fighting and that too for defensive mode only as pointed out by someone above.

As-Salaamu’alaykum
Brother Woodrow: Yes Taqwa, 'Ilm, Eemaan and Tawakkul are all weapons that can be used as Jihaad. This though, would mainly be tools used for the Da’wah type Jihaad. Da’wah can be understood as a form of Jihaad and Jihaad has many types.

But yet that does not mean weaponry is not associated with Jihaad. Jihaad is of many types and the physical Jihaad is something different from the Da’wah Jihaad which is why the distinction between the two should be set and understood. Jihaad is a broad concept consisting of a few branches and every single branch of Jihaad is part of Islaam (as long as it’s upon the Manhaj of the Prophet Muhammad [SAW]).

Brother with due respect, we have to very sure of, when we use the word Jihad. Today resistance and sectarian movements are also being considered as jihad. These topics are bound to lead towards controversies as we have varied opinions from esteemed scholars on the subject.

(continued below)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

(continued from above)

The main point of my post was that Jihaad has alot of forms (i.e. Jihaad un-Nafs, Jihaad ush-Shaytaan etc.) and that the difference between each one should be realised. It is not limited to a single branch, but rather has alot of branches and neither branch should be belittled in any regard. I wasn’t calling for Jihaad or even simply trying to have an argument over it…my intention was to just make the point that it is not only limited to Da’wah or fighting against one’s desires but has many forms and the differences between them should be realised. Hope that makes sense Bro.

(posted in response to Woodrow’s comments above)
Wa alaikum salaam

You see bro, them are wise words, but the thing is, in this day and age, thats not going to work.
The kaffir these days are humiliating the muslim lands.
We have our brothers being tortured, sisters being raped, we cannot simply go to the kaffir, and show them our strength in Emaan. What would that do?

If we simply showed our strength in Imaan, it would have no effect no the kaffir. It is now cowardice to use weapons. In many ways that shows bravery.

You see in the time of rasulallah (SAW), as well as showing their Emaan, they showed their physical strength too, that is how Islam spread so widely. If it wasnt for Jihaad fi sabeelillah, most likely, we would not be sitting here as muslims.

So you are right to say, we should use our faith, but that does not mean, we shouldnt fight, does it? If we dont fight, we will be humiliated as the hadeeth states.

Md Mashud:

I will tell you now, do not blame the kufar for the worldly problems. Blame yourself, and muslims. You talk about that all this stuff is happening around the world to muslims. Did it occur to you why? Do you think muslims around the world are behaving how they should or even practicing Islam how it is meant? Ofcourse not, and you know when you disobey Allah, you will be punished. If all muslims were, as Woodrow explained, the Kafirs ** could NEVER** make us down. Muslims are the ones which let down the UMMAH, its not the kafirs for your information.

People who excessivly promote physicaly jihad, when they fail to practice the daily jihad that you need to strive at to follow Islam - it is crazy. It is dangerous for you to enter the battlefield with low imaan - Without strong imaan your intentions will not be pure and without pure intention you can easily enter the hellfire beleiving you are doing good.

Yes, bro, another good point.

One of the first to enter hell is the person who fought, but not in the way of Allah

It is important to take all hadiths into context when making statements - because nothing I said is neglecting Jihad, nor what Woodrow said… I think this discussion is worth talking about because today, too many are misguided and are taught to hate, hate those around - I have witnessed people of such manner and it is not the Muslim way. Extremism in Islam, is created in such a way, such things weaken Islam. To not fully understand Islamic duty and Jihad, you may misguide others. It is no bedtime story that there really are people who have twisted ideology of the current World and Ummah - which they subsequently affect others in following there wrong ways. Everything im saying is so people understand how Islamic people should act. Physical jihad is last resort - and we have yet to reach last resort seeing as the Ummah doesn’t even practice its religion properly.

(continued below)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

(continued from above)

(dialoging with Ibn Adam from above)

In the past when you had a visible enemy and you knew for certain that was the enemy and you knew for certain that was the person who was out to destroy you. It would not work. In todays world it is the only means that will work.

originally posted by Ibn Adam

(also responding to Ibn Adam’s comments)
Are you implying that, IF there was a way to resolve problems without resorting to killing people that we should not exaust those actions first? That wouldn’t be right would it… Brother today muslims have so many things to fix, it is trivial to think that picking up a sword and slashing would solve are problems today. Our problem lies in our imaan. Really its not such a complex matter as you are making it out to be.

(contnued below)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

(continued from above)
Woodrow:

As with all things, our words are our opinions. we each have separate opinions. Our opinions are based upon what we see and what we are told. the advantage of sharing opinions is we can see what works for others and it gives us a view to see other ways if our methods are not bringing about the desired result.

My views are based upon what i see and hear, here in Austin Texas and what I read of about other areas.

I am very impressed with the way Islam spread in Indonesia. Although the Muslims were not originally welcomed. Their presence soon became known and spread. a long time back Indonesia would have been considered an enemy of Islam. but, truth prevailed and as a result Indonesia has become the world’s largest Muslim nation. No physical wars were fought to defend Islam. But, the Jihad was won with the weapons of truth, wisdom and Imaan.

Similar things have happened and are happening in Malaysia.

Here in the USA Islam may be disliked in some sections, but in the areas were Muslims fight the detractors by showing their Imaan and using wisdom and truth as our weapons. We are winning. Islam is very much tolerated and new reverts are a daily occurrence. this never would have happened if the Muslims here had chosen to defend Islam with weapons. In the areas of the greatest growth and the winning of Islam, the weapons used are Peace, tolerance, truth, wisdom and Imaan.

Now, I look at the nations that are using weapons to defend Islam.

Palestine
Iraq
Chechnya
Afghanistan

I do not doubt the bravery and the sincerity of the fighters. but, look at the results.The children are growing up in nations that can no longer afford proper schools, poverty is epidemic, the best and the bravest potential leaders are dieing and being killed at an astonishing rate, there is much fighting among brothers and sisters, unity is falling apart. Sadly, there is no end in sight. Tomorrows generation is facing even worse conditions. there are no reverts being made in those areas, Islam is not growing in those countries, it is at best stagnant and shrinking as people die. This makes me believe the war is being fought with the wrong weapons. Yes, it is a war and the people are trying to defend Islam, but the weapons they are using are backfiring and resulting in self destruction. The people become more angry. an angry solder is a very poor fighter, as he looses the ability to think and succumbs to depending on the protection of animal strength instead of the protection of Allah(swt).

Now, in reading this conversation, you will see that all Muslims believe in Jihad. And all even recognize that war is a form of Jihad. But not all approve of war as the means of Jihad that is to be practiced today. This means that war is NOT central to Jihad, for if it was all Muslims would support it. What all Muslims do support is a Jihad that seeks to strenghten Islam and the practice of Islam. That is the struggle. And remember that when translated, Jihad best translates as “struggle”. Sometimes that struggle does occur in the form of war, and you will find many Muslims – IMO, especially the young and impetuous and those who have political agendas in addition to religious issues – who support the use of war. But they do NOT represent all of Islam. There is NOT unanimity on this issue. That is why I can categorically state that while Islam recognizes the place of war as a form of Jihad and that Jihad is a key to understanding Islam, that nonetheless war is not central to Jihad but only one of its expressions, and not even the most favored expression of it.

And I think this comment that was part of another thread really makes the point that those who think of Jihad in terms of fighting others have really missed the point, be they Muslim or non-Muslim.

Peace:
Jihaad always means “struggle”
Struggle to avoid bad = Jihaad
Struggle to adopt good = Jihaad
Struggle to achieve knowledge = Jihaad
Struggle to serve humanity= Jihaad
The Quran has not used the word “Jihaad” in terms of “war” exclusively.For Holy war it has used the term"Qitaal".No doubt Qitaal is included in “Jihaad” but "Jihaad does not mean that is used only for Qitaal.
You will be surprised to know that Surahs in which “Jihaad” is mentioned were revealed in Mecca when the the Muslims could not even think of war.While the persmission of "Qitaal’ was granted during Madani era.

Non-Muslims may read world events and interpret them to mean that war is central to Islam, but the Muslim does not. I don’t believe even the most radical Muslim understands Jihad that way. Rather, the radical Islamists just is convinced by the state of their particular struggle that war is the type of Jihad that needs to be practice at this time.

 

[Palladio]

Hmm.

Still waiting to hear from Montalban, but in the meantime, just before lunch, two exceptions to register regarding the quotations:

steamrolling

relevance

Interesting that what these no doubt good people say informs one man’s opinion, but freely granting that as an opinion–as any view I could ever express on the subject also is–it would be nice to get beyond opinion to knowledge by referring to authoritative books and articles (possibly including the popular media, which is accessible seemingly from everywhere) about this important issue.

Again the totalitarian and oppresive nature of Islam is found easily on one website after another: I’ve mentioned the Barnabas Fund (Protestant, not Catholic) to almost no comment (on another thread, too) and could easily point to lots of media coverage of specifically Islamic crime and atrocity in the name of Allah.

Why else would we be interested in learning what’s going on in the mosques? Islam forms no essential part of the West, but has emigrated there in great number (the U. S. excepted) so the interest is natural and includes self-interest.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Hmm.

Still waiting to hear from Montalban, but in the meantime, just before lunch, two exceptions to register regarding the quotations:

steamrolling

relevance

Interesting that what these no doubt good people say informs one man’s opinion, but freely granting that as an opinion–as any view I could ever express on the subject also is–it would be nice to get beyond opinion to knowledge by referring to authoritative books and articles (possibly including the popular media, which is accessible seemingly from everywhere) about this important issue.

Again the totalitarian and oppresive nature of Islam is found easily on one website after another: I’ve mentioned the Barnabas Fund (Protestant, not Catholic) to almost no comment (on another thread, too) and could easily point to lots of media coverage of specifically Islamic crime and atrocity in the name of Allah.

Why else would we be interested in learning what’s going on in the mosques? Islam forms no essential part of the West, but has emigrated there in great number (the U. S. excepted) so the interest is natural and includes self-interest.

Well, my apologies for appearing to be steamrolling. I was debating not that there are not threads of violence in Islam, but its centrality to Islam. I don’t believe it is. I went to a place where I knew Muslims to be talking amongst themselves about the issue of Jihad, the type and place of it in Muslim society, and I cited all of that conversation, not wishing to edit it to present only my views. If you choose to not accept that conversation as representative of Islam, that is of course your choice, but I think it then becomes incumbant on you to show that another way of thinking is the dominant view and not that of only a minority BEFORE one makes claims that war is central to Isalm. (Or perhaps we have differing understandings of the word “central”? Maybe that’s the problem.)

 

[iamrefreshed]

Now, in reading this conversation, you will see that all Muslims believe in Jihad. And all even recognize that war is a form of Jihad. But not all approve of war as the means of Jihad that is to be practiced today. This means that war is NOT central to Jihad, for if it was all Muslims would support it.

I just wanted to interject on this point. Firstly, because it is discussed on an Internet forum does not make it right.

Secondly, in reference to what I bolded above, I think you are wrong. After all, Catholics don’t believe in birth control yet 90% use it.

 

[Palladio]

Well, my apologies for appearing to be steamrolling. I was debating not that there are not threads of violence in Islam, but its centrality to Islam. I don’t believe it is. I went to a place where I knew Muslims to be talking amongst themselves about the issue of Jihad, the type and place of it in Muslim society, and I cited all of that conversation, not wishing to edit it to present only my views. If you choose to not accept that conversation as representative of Islam, that is of course your choice, but I think it then becomes incumbant on you to show that another way of thinking is the dominant view and not that of only a minority BEFORE one makes claims that war is central to Isalm. (Or perhaps we have differing understandings of the word “central”? Maybe that’s the problem.)

I don’t know why you would say anything is incumbant upon me, whom you don’t know. I cannot make heads or tails of the quotations as proof for any claim: it’s a cacophony. But my point is that since we can all find anybody at all to give witness to anything at all we need a better standard of evidence and argument: I mentioned a website, while hearing nothing about other credible sources to discuss the op.

To point out one drawback to your method, if I were a church leader and had the gov. looking into my religion, I might well want to outlaw polygamy and racism–if you know which cult, I mean, religion I am alluding to: suddenly, the public face of that religion looks squeeky clean.

Likewise, if I lived in the M E or my relatives did and I had the largest military industrial complex in history breathing down my neck, I would find a lot of wiggle room for the terms in Arabic essential to Islam but threatening to the West.

I am not asking that any of us drop what we are doing to become Islamists, but that we start to read the people who are such or who are reporting on Islam with their boots on the ground.

I have a perfectly affable Muslim colleague who will placidly explain over lunch why wife beating is allowed in Islam.

I know a few dozen families, directly and indirectly, who lost friends and family on 9/11.

I think we owe it to ourselves to take a hard look at what most of us know next to nothing about, and that sort of look means reading serious literature and journalism about Islam in all its forms, some of which threaten us as plainly as the keys on this keyboard of mine.

God bless.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I don’t know why you would say anything is incumbant upon me, whom you don’t know.

Why?

I presented a theory, a point of view, and evidence that I believe substantiates that view. I am saying that if you disagree with that view, fine, but I believe it is incumbant on anyone who wished to debate the other side to back it up with at least as good of evidence. Given my position is that WAR IS NOT CENTRAL TO JIHAD, someone disputing that would have to show that WAR IS CENTRAL TO JIHAD (not just one aspect of it).

I cannot make heads or tails of the quotations as proof for any claim: it’s a cacophony. But my point is that since we can all find anybody at all to give witness to anything at all we need a better standard of evidence and argument: I mentioned a website, while hearing nothing about other credible sources to discuss the op.

To point out one drawback to your method, if I were a church leader and had the gov. looking into my religion, I might well want to outlaw polygamy and racism–if you know which cult, I mean, religion I am alluding to: suddenly, the public face of that religion looks squeeky clean.

Which is exactly why I went to Muslim sources. Present-day, living Muslims who are in conversation with one another, not promoting for the general public as a PR campaign, some PC view of Islam.

If I you were to overhear me and a group of football fans discussing our abhorance of dogfighting, does that make us PC? Might it be that we actually abhor dogfighting? Your illustration is well taken. And if you were to examine the group you spoke of today, you would find some who still believe in polygamy, but if one spends time with Mormons, one finds that it is NOT central to Mormonism today, no matter how common it may once have been. This despite the fact that you can still find some who continue to support it.

Likewise, if I lived in the M E or my relatives did and I had the largest military industrial complex in history breathing down my neck, I would find a lot of wiggle room for the terms in Arabic essential to Islam but threatening to the West.

You might. But even if that was what was going on here (which I don’t believe it was) that still testifies to the desire of Muslims to practice Jihad without practicing war to practice Jihad.

I am not asking that any of us drop what we are doing to become Islamists, but that we start to read the people who are such or who are reporting on Islam with their boots on the ground.

Sorry, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

I have a perfectly affable Muslim colleague who will placidly explain over lunch why wife beating is allowed in Islam.

I know a few dozen families, directly and indirectly, who lost friends and family on 9/11.

And as sad as these things are, they don’t speak to the issue I have addressed. No, not even the reality of 9/11. To point to 9/11 and say this is THE face of Islam, or this is CENTRAL to Islam is equivalent to pointing to Virginia Tech and say this is THE face of Korea or this is CENTRAL to resident aliens, or to point to the Crusades and say that they are the face of Christianity. Surely you have heard Muslims do the later and rejected that as a way of establishing the truth about Christianity. Likewise I don’t think that these events show us the truth of Islam either.

I think we owe it to ourselves to take a hard look at what most of us know next to nothing about, and that sort of look means reading serious literature and journalism about Islam in all its forms, some of which threaten us as plainly as the keys on this keyboard of mine.

God bless.

And I think that in addition to that, that we have to learn what it is that is being said between Muslims, one to another. That is how the terrorists are being recruited and it is how Islam will relegate them to something apart from Islam – unless the Muslim people truly feel that it has become dangerous merely to be a Muslim. Then I expect the actions of a few, to become the cause of many.

One of my daughters is from Turkey. She has been a Muslim all her life. She was living with me at the time that the war in Iraq broke out. And her response to bin Laden and Sadam Hussein is that these men are not Muslims. They needed to be found and delt with, and dealing with them would include executing them. And one of the things she hated most about them, was their view on war and that they dared to abuse and hide behind Islamic rhetoric to justify it. But what the USA chose to do in response was just as horrific in her eyes.

 

[Palladio]

No, I can dismiss your evidence and I do. It’s that simple.

In fact, the opinion polls in the U. S. belie your random, unscientific, and unconvincing sample. An astronomical percentage of Muslims in the U. S. believe that suicide bombing of civilians is sometimes justified (Pew Research Trust).

Your dear Muslim daughter has a point of view I can at best call interesting: Afghanistan was fully justified, and is, after 9/11. I am only sorry that they did not bring more Jihadi and Taliban to justice.

No, the centrality of Jihad is not a question I suspect you are I are qualified to judge, and so I do not have either to disprove your claim, dubious as it is, or to prove the opposite. I am not even sure it is the right claim.

Jihad is but one kind of violence in Islam and the Barnabas Fund, a Protestant group, details persecution the world round by Muslims and Islamic states against Christians.

Of course there are PC Muslim chit chatters and lobby groups propagandizing their cause: this is a big thing in the UK, where Muslims make up a larger percentage of the populace: Civitas, a secular think tank, charts some of it as part of its mission, and the BBC does a good job of exposing the more virulent haters and warrriors on British soil in their mosques. Most Brits agree that it could do more–especially, I imagine, the young Scot who helped to fight off a Jihadi who was attempting to murder a policeman with the cry of Allah Allah last July.

I think you need to cite real authority to make the kind of claim you do, because no doubt like me you don’t read Arabic and have no wide experience of the Middle East. That was all I meant by pleading a certain ignorance for not being an Islamist (one who studies Islam professionally, like Bernard Lewis, emeritus professor at Princeton).

It’s not a seminar room here but our evidence has to be a lot better than chat room fodder to persuade.

God bless.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

No, I can dismiss your evidence and I do. It’s that simple.

In fact, the opinion polls in the U. S. belie your random, unscientific, and unconvincing sample. An astronomical percentage of Muslims in the U. S. believe that suicide bombing of civilians is sometimes justified (Pew Research Trust).

Your dear Muslim daughter has a point of view I can at best call interesting: Afghanistan was fully justified, and is, after 9/11. I am only sorry that they did not bring more Jihadi and Taliban to justice.

No, the centrality of Jihad is not a question I suspect you are I are qualified to judge, and so I do not have either to disprove your claim, dubious as it is, or to prove the opposite. I am not even sure it is the right claim.

Jihad is but one kind of violence in Islam and the Barnabas Fund, a Protestant group, details persecution the world round by Muslims and Islamic states against Christians.

Of course there are PC Muslim chit chatters and lobby groups propagandizing their cause: this is a big thing in the UK, where Muslims make up a larger percentage of the populace: Civitas, a secular think tank, charts some of it as part of its mission, and the BBC does a good job of exposing the more virulent haters and warrriors on British soil in their mosques. Most Brits agree that it could do more–especially, I imagine, the young Scot who helped to fight off a Jihadi who was attempting to murder a policeman with the cry of Allah Allah last July.

I think you need to cite real authority to make the kind of claim you do, because no doubt like me you don’t read Arabic and have no wide experience of the Middle East. That was all I meant by pleading a certain ignorance for not being an Islamist (one who studies Islam professionally, like Bernard Lewis, emeritus professor at Princeton).

It’s not a seminar room here but our evidence has to be a lot better than chat room fodder to persuade.

God bless.

I’m not going to satisfy you. But you have similarly left me unconvinced.

Consider just your “astronomical astronomical percentage of Muslims in the U. S. believe that suicide bombing of civilians is sometimes justified(Pew Research Trust).” Did you read the actual report or do you just misrecall some of its headlines?
The first page of the report states: “The poll reveals that Muslims in the United States reject Islamic extremism…”
To the question, “Can suicide bombing be justified.” 83% said rarely/never.

Very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombing against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam.

I don’t know how short your memory is, but I remember that only a decade ago, in the middle of the bombings of abortion clinics in the USA, that Christian Americans would say that such bombings were wrong, but then a higher percentage than that of Muslims supporting suicide bombings said that in certain situations such actions were understandable as the lesser form of two evils. But I don’t think that makes the bombing of abortion clinics central to even the pro-life movement in America.

According to the Pew Research Trust, Muslims actually understand the case for dealing with terror, especially Muslims who have immigrated to the USA from overseas. As many of them support the USA in Afghanistand as are opposed to it. And less than 5% of all Muslims in the USA support Al Qaeda. I submit to you this is because Muslims do not see Al Qaeda or other terrroist groups as being true Jihad.

While some Muslims in some places teach terror, this is NOT what Islam is about, it is not only not universal (which I still submit it would be univesally found if it was central to Islam) it is seen as unIslamic by the majority when it is found in Isalm.

(contnued below)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

(contnued from above)

Jihad is not about terror. And when Montalban tried to create a syllogism:

Thus if Jihad is central to Islam and war is central to Jihad, then war is central to Islam.

He did so on a premise that is false. And a false premise will result in false logic and a false conclusion. Thus I challenged his false premise, namely that war is central to Jihad. This is what I dispute and no one has yet to show that it accurately represents Islam in anyway, even if it is true of some within it.

But as you don’t respect my comments nor those of Muslims themselves regarding the role of Jihad in Islam, perhaps you will respect this article from Christianity Today, “Four Jihads”.

Recently terrorist activities by purportedly Muslim groups have increased debate over the place of violence in true Islam. Moderate Muslims say violence has no place, because Islam is a religion of peace. In their minds, it is as unfair to judge Islam by extremists as it would be to judge Christianity only by the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Puritan witch hunts.

The article goes on to discuss whether or not that is a fair characterization of Islam. As I read it, it seems that it really depends on where you stand. Certainly those Muslims I know who declare Islam are religion of peace are sincere in understanding it that way. But I have never denied that there is a bloody history to Islam and that history is not just ancient history; it is very much in evidence in the present as well. What I deny is that this violence is the true face of Islam, and certainly it is not the central tenent of Islam. As I have said already, it isn’t even central to an understanding of Jihad. Again, I turn to the article from Christianity Today:

The word jihad is often translated as “holy war,” but it literally means “struggle” or “exertion.” In its religious context, it always involves a fight against evil, but this can take many forms: jihad of the heart, of the mouth and pen, of the hand, and of the sword. Jihad of heart, mouth, and pen are sometimes spoken of as “spiritual jihad,”

So what of Jihad as war?

The last and most troublesome form of jihad is that of the sword…

Some modern Muslims downplay this understanding, arguing that in Islamic tradition war is called the “lesser jihad.” Indeed, according to one disputed tradition from the hadith (the collection of texts concerning Muhammad’s actions or statements, second only to the Qur’an in authority), when Muhammad returned from the field of war he said, “We have all returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

Some companions asked, “What is the greater jihad, O prophet of God?”

He replied, “Jihad against the desires.”

This is the Islam as practiced by those family and friends I personally know who practice Islam. This is the Islam I have heard preached with my own ears in mosques. This is the Islam I see spoken of by those I am in regular conversation with on the internet, and when the rare person suggest anything otherwise, they are told in polite but firm language that what they are trying to promote is not true to the teaching of Isalm.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Grace Seeker,
You quote the peaceful jihad from the hadiths. Montalban and I have quoted the violent jihad from the Quran. Sorry - but you’re trumped.

The Quran tells us the characteristics of the violent jihad - which means nothing except war.

1. The word associated with jihad is qatiloo - meaning fight to kill, slaughter or battle.
2. Jihad in battle array.
3. Jihad to forfeit life and property.
4. Jihad to slay and be slain.
5. Jihad the disbelievers, hypocrites, those People of the Book who don’t want to pay the Jizyah with humiliation (i.e. qatiloo them).

Now, try telling us jihad does not mean war?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Grace Seeker,
You quote the peaceful jihad from the hadiths. Montalban and I have quoted the violent jihad from the Quran. Sorry - but you’re trumped.

The Quran tells us the characteristics of the violent jihad - which means nothing except war.

1. The word associated with jihad is qatiloo - meaning fight to kill, slaughter or battle.
2. Jihad in battle array.
3. Jihad to forfeit life and property.
4. Jihad to slay and be slain.
5. Jihad the disbelievers, hypocrites, those People of the Book who don’t want to pay the Jizyah with humiliation (i.e. qatiloo them).

Now, try telling us jihad does not mean war?

OK. Jihad does not mean war. It means struggle. And Islam recognizes 4 types of Jihad as mentioned in the article.

And, for your information, in Islam, the Qur’an is interpreted by the Hadiths. So, it doesn’t trump them.

But, again, I am not saying that Jihad never includes war. I am simply saying that war is not central to it. That is there are other aspects of Jihad besides war. Islam will go to war, but that is not what Jihad is about. If the same goals can be accomplished other ways, the Muslim will still have to practice Jihad, but will not have to go to war. Hence, while Jihad is essential and central to Islam, war is not central to Jihad. That you can find Jihad being practiced by war does not make it central to it. You can find Chrsitians who speak in tongues and even some who think it is the only acceptable sign that one is actually saved. That does not make tongues essential to the Christian faith.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

OK. Jihad does not mean war. It means struggle. And Islam recognizes 4 types of Jihad as mentioned in the article.

So what? The only one that concerns us kafirs is the deadly one. The rest doesn’t matter to us at all. The Muslims can peacefully jihad themselves till the cows come home and we wouldn’t even know.
Grace Seeker:

And, for your information, in Islam, the Qur’an is interpreted by the Hadiths. So, it doesn’t trump them.

Sure it does when the Quran does not even mention the other 3 types of jihad.
Grace Seeker:

But, again, I am not saying that Jihad never includes war. I am simply saying that war is not central to it. That is there are other aspects of Jihad besides war. Islam will go to war, but that is not what Jihad is about. If the same goals can be accomplished other ways, the Muslim will still have to practice Jihad, but will not have to go to war. Hence, while Jihad is essential and central to Islam, war is not central to Jihad. That you can find Jihad being practiced by war does not make it central to it. You can find Chrsitians who speak in tongues and even some who think it is the only acceptable sign that one is actually saved. That does not make tongues essential to the Christian faith.

Firstly Jihad Akbar is not mentioned in the Quran. It is mentioned only in a weak hadith which many Muslims deem unauthentic.

peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad03.htm

The hadith in which Muhammad is said to speak of “greater” vs. “lesser” jihad is of doubtful authenticity. It does not appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah. In fact, a number of scholars maintain that this hadith is a forgery (2). One scholar analyzes this hadith and considers a number of factors, such as chain of transmission and other more reliable, contradictory ahadith (3). He quotes one authority:

“There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet [peace be upon him] said after the battle of Tabuk: ‘We have returned from Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] to Jihad Akbar [greater jihad].’ This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.”
And so after a meticulous examination of sources the article comes to a decision:

On the basis of the above statements we can conclude by saying, that the evidence used as proof or the basis for establishing that Jihad against disbelievers on the battlefield is Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] and Jihad against the desires and Shaitaan [Satan, the devil] is Jihad Akbar [greater jihad], are weak if not false Hadith.
One of the counter-hadith with a better chain of transmission (and the author quotes others as well) goes like this:

A man asked [the Prophet]: “…and what is Jihad?” He [peace be upon him] replied: “You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield).” He asked again: “What kind of Jihad is the highest?” He [peace be upon him] replied: “The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood.”
This seems to leave little doubt as to how Muhammad understood jihad. But let us not make the case on just one example. There are many ahadith on jihad, and they make its meaning quite clear. First and foremost, jihad meant combat on the battlefield, and specifically against non-Muslims.

I think you’re basing your entire premise on a possibly weak or fabricated hadith. The fact that it is not in the Quran tells us it is suspect.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Montalban]

OK. Jihad does not mean war. It means struggle. And Islam recognizes 4 types of Jihad as mentioned in the article.

And, for your information, in Islam, the Qur’an is interpreted by the Hadiths. So, it doesn’t trump them.

The Hadiths give backing for war, examples of Muhammed congratulating murderers, etc.

But, again, I am not saying that Jihad never includes war. I am simply saying that war is not central to it. That is there are other aspects of Jihad besides war.

No one denies that there’s other aspects. The centrality part comes from the fact that the only absolute guarantee a Moslem has in getting to Moslem heaven is by dying for the cause.

Islam will go to war, but that is not what Jihad is about. If the same goals can be accomplished other ways, the Muslim will still have to practice Jihad, but will not have to go to war.

So you’re saying what? That Muhammed exahausted all legal and other means before going to war?

This seems to be in effect what you’re arguing; Moslems struggle by all other means BEFORE war or INSTEAD of and therefore it’s not central.

I’ve already cited one Islamic opinion that says you don’t even have to have an organised war, or a war leader. You can “Jihad” by war all by yourself.

Hence, while Jihad is essential and central to Islam, war is not central to Jihad. That you can find Jihad being practiced by war does not make it central to it. You can find Chrsitians who speak in tongues and even some who think it is the only acceptable sign that one is actually saved. That does not make tongues essential to the Christian faith.

You’re trying to prove something by a false comparison

The only thing I would change here is ‘violence’ instead of ‘war’.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think you’re basing your entire premise on a possibly weak or fabricated hadith. The fact that it is not in the Quran tells us it is suspect.

No. My premise is based on the actual lives of Muslims, their beliefs and their practices.

 

[Montalban]

Would one way to put your understanding of Jihad in Islam (as if it existed anyplace else!) be this, Montalban: Jihad is essential to Islam?

If that is fair, and true (I believe it is both), we have reason to fear and to prepare.

As noted above I would only modify my stance by saying “Violence” is central to Jihad - which is central to Islam.

This is because when Muhammed urged the massacre of the Banu Quaresh after their surrender, one could say that this was no longer war.

Likewise when Muhammed spread the faith through murders and fear, this too could be deemed to be not war - although it was a kind of war waged on those who did not believe.

GraceSeeker has offered false comparisons. I have talked about Islamic history.

Moslems are promised 70+ virgins if they’re martyred. They’re not promised this if they undertake a strongly worded leaflet campaign against the infadel!

 

[Montalban]

No. My premise is based on the actual lives of Muslims, their beliefs and their practices.

No. Your premise might be based on observation of Moslems you know, but it’s divorced from the bulk of Islamic opinion over the course of Islamic history. Bostom’s very important book shows this.