| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| Jihad is "to Strive and Make an Effort" |
| 2007-07-31 |
| A Mythical Moderate Muslim speaks out in The Washington Post. WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS? The term “Jihad” is very much misunderstood by many non-Muslims and it is also very much abused by some Muslims. Jihad does not mean “holy war.” Jihad is an Arabic word, and its literal meaning is “to strive and exert effort.” In the Qur’an, this word is used several times. Sometimes it is used in the spiritual sense implying to strive and make an effort for self-purification from sin and evil. Sometimes it is used in social sense meaning to strive to keep good relations with others and to establish truth, justice and to do charitable deeds. Jihad is also used sometimes in terms of striving against oppression and aggression. As such, Jihad may involve combat and military action. However, this is only one aspect of Jihad. The more specific term for military action in the Qur’an is not jihad but “qital.” In Islam, warfare is allowed only for defensive purposes to stop oppression and aggression. There is no place in Islamic teachings for war or violence against any person, group or state simply because of the difference of race, color, language, nationality or religion. Islam does not allow any coercion in order to convert others to its faith. The Qur’an says, “There is no coercion allowed in religion.” (Surah 2:256). Basic Islamic teachings about warfare can be summarized as follows: 1. Warfare should be avoided; Muslims should not begin wars and should only use warfare as a last resort. 2. Warfare is a limited enterprise. Its purpose is only defensive and it should only be used to stop aggression and oppression. 3. War should be only conducted against those who fight. Non-combatants should never be targeted and every possible precaution should be taken to protect them. 4. Water resources, animals, agricultural lands and other resources should be protected from harm as much as possible. 5. Warfare should stop as soon as the enemy inclines to peace, and negotiations should be used. All treaties and agreements should be fully observed. These are almost unanimously accepted guidelines concerning warfare in Islam. In the past, and now in the present, some Muslims have violated these guidelines under some situations and conditions. Such aberrations or violations are, however, not a rule but an exception to the rule. Modern Muslim jurists of major schools of thoughts agree with the foregoing Islamic teachings and guidelines about warfare. Terrorism, suicide bombings or any other kind of bombings, shootings or violence that target civilians are totally forbidden in Islam and there is no justification for these acts. A body of Muslim jurists known as the Fiqh Council of North America has issued a strong Fatwa (religious ruling) against terrorism and suicide bombing. This Fatwa has been endorsed by hundreds of Islamic centers and mosques throughout North America. The Fatwa said: 1. All acts of terrorism targeting the civilians are Haram (forbidden) in Islam. 2. It is Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate or associate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence. 3. It is the duty of Muslims to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians. Those who invoke Islam to justify any acts of extremism, aggression or violence are not only committing sin but they are also defaming Islam and misrepresenting the majority of Muslims who are peaceful and law abiding. Their acts of violence have brought a lot of harm to many innocent human beings, including many Muslims. These foolish and desperate acts have not done any good to the alleged cause or causes that the perpetrators claim to defend. Muzammil Siddiqi is Chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America,a body tasked with interpreting religious law throughout the continent. He has been involved in a number of inter-faith initiatives, including participation in an inter-faith prayer service with President George W. Bush. And I hope he's right. Let the discussions begin! |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #5 But what if we say "NO" to Dhimminitude? What if we say "NO" to Jizaya? What then? Dhimminitude as an institution is a total REVERSAL of what Americans fought over to achieve in World War II and the Civil War. Hell, Jizaya, the selective imposition of taxes as a tangible statement of inferiority, is what the Revolutionary War of the United States was all about. To hell with respect for Muslims if, in their minds, respect from non-muslims MUST be in terms of submission to THEM. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-07-31 21:14 |
| #4 Jihad is also used sometimes in terms of striving against oppression and aggression. Which makes violent jihad a logical extension of how Muslims regard the mere existence of Infidels as a form of “oppression and aggression” against them. 1. Warfare should be avoided; Muslims should not begin wars and should only use warfare as a last resort. Unless it’s on a day in the week whose name ends in the letter “y”. 2. Warfare is a limited enterprise. Its purpose is only defensive and it should only be used to stop aggression and oppression. Which says little in light of how all Muslims deem anything not Islamic to be a form of “aggression and oppression”. 3. War should be only conducted against those who fight. Non-combatants should never be targeted and every possible precaution should be taken to protect them. Unless it’s a month in the year whose name ends in the letter, “y”,“h”,“l”,“e”,“t”or “r”. 4. Water resources, animals, agricultural lands and other resources should be protected from harm as much as possible. But only if these things belong to Muslims. Otherwise they are tools for “aggression and oppression” against Islam and must be destroyed. 5. Warfare should stop as soon as the enemy inclines to peace, and negotiations should be used. All treaties and agreements should be fully observed. Until such a time as Muslims have sufficient strength to violate them with impunity. While I’m sure that Muzammil Siddiqi means well, his observations simply are not reality based. He himself may believe he’s telling the truth. However, the vast majority of Muslim actions turn his words into taqiyya. We are fools to believe someone like Siddiqi when daily evidence tells us the exact opposite. The Fatwa said: 1. All acts of terrorism targeting the civilians are Haram (forbidden) in Islam. Notice how this leaves the door wide open for terrorist attacks against military or political targets? 2. It is Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate or associate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence. Unless this occurs within a calendar year whose last place contains a numerical digit. 3. It is the duty of Muslims to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians. Unless those “civilians” are not Muslim in which case all bets are off. Those who invoke Islam to justify any acts of extremism, aggression or violence are not only committing sin but they are also defaming Islam and misrepresenting the majority of Muslims who are peaceful and law abiding. Except for how the vast majority of Muslims are not “peaceful and law abiding”. They knowingly contribute zakat despite its regular use to sponsor global terrorism. They also support shari’a law which demands violent overthrow, subjugation or punishment of those who do not follow it. They also practice Abject Gender Apartheid which makes them violators of human rights. In plain speech, total bullshit. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-31 15:50 |
| #3 eeeehhh...I wage jihad everynight on the toilet |
| Posted by: Boss Craising2882 2007-07-31 14:18 |
| #2 Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch is 'Blogging the Quran', and his comments on 'no compulsion of religion" are printed below. Seems fair and balanced.... and open to a lot of interpretation itself. Immediately following is the famous statement that “there is no compulsion in religion” (v. 256). Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently quote it to disprove the contention that Islam spread by the sword, or even to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29). Many see v. 256 as contradicting the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers, but actually there is no contradiction because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order. Says Asad: “All Islamic jurists (fuqahd’), without any exception, hold that forcible conversion is under all circumstances null and void, and that any attempt at coercing a non-believer to accept the faith of Islam is a grievous sin: a verdict which disposes of the widespread fallacy that Islam places before the unbelievers the alternative of ‘conversion or the sword.’” Quite so: the choice, as laid out by Muhammad himself, is conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or the sword. Qutb accordingly denies that v. 256 contradicts the imperative to fight until “religion is for Allah” (v. 193), saying that “Islam has not used force to impose its beliefs.” Rather, jihad’s “main objective has been the establishment of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other religious creeds, may live in peace and security” – although not with equality of rights before the law, as 9:29 emphasizes. For Qutb, that “stable society” is the “Islamic social order,” the establishment of which is a chief objective of jihad. In this light verses 256 and 193 go together without any trouble. Muslims must fight until “religion is for Allah,” but they don’t force anyone to accept Allah’s religion. They enforce subservience upon those who refuse to convert, such that many of them subsequently convert to Islam so as to escape the humiliating and discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude — but when they convert, they do so freely. Only at the end of the world will Jesus, the Prophet of Islam, return and Islamize the world, abolishing Christianity and thus the need for the jizya that is paid by the dhimmis. Then religion will be “for Allah,” and there will be no further need for jihad. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-07-31 10:14 |
| #1 Takiyah. The fact is that in the Koan itself every mention of Jihad is a bout exterminating and enslaving infidels. Period. Takiyah or lying to himself. The mentions about "pacific Jihad" are in haddiths and 99,9% og Haddiths are apocryphal. The question is if they were invented by Muslims whoi wanted to curb Islam's violence or if they were for Kaffir cosnumption so they didn't knew that there would never be lasting be with Islam and didn't move to crush it. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-07-31 09:13 |