What does Jihad mean?

[Ben Shniper]

What is Jihad
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
December 31, 2002
What does the Arabic word "jihad" mean?

One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with jihad.

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.


http://www.danielpipes.com/article/990

[ihixulu]

So Saddam Hussein, a secular dicatator, is suddenly the source of definitions for Islamic religious terms?

Calling for Jihad is a political ploy used to rile up people in a hurry. If one looks at the number of times leaders, both secualr and religious, have called for Jihad to no avail, it becomes clear that Islam is by and large a rather fragmented religion. Certainly more fragmented than the fear-mongers would have us believe.

Just because Saddam yells Jihad doesn't mean it is or that anyone will listen.

[Jon_in_london]

Ben, I thinks its all of the above. I have heard muslims argue that it is each of them (except number 4 wich they all deny for some reason, isnt that strange?)

Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger

An effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society

Struggle

Holy War


All 1,2 and 4 are all compatible with the definition of struggle, so this is prolly the most comprehensive.

Number 2, many muslims percieve the US to be evil to struggling against the US, or making holy war against it would be justifiable under definition 2.

Number one can be interpreted as just 2 said another way, since being worse at everything and having uncontrolled rage may be a manifestation of evil (I dont think they think acts of terrorism need the perpretrator to be angry). It would be a struggle to achieve this, and in the twisted lingo of the fundamentalist theist, the same thing as holy war.

[Mike B.]

Speaking of Jihad...
This sounds like an urban legend, but it might be true.
US News and World Report had an article by Michael Barone in which he states the Bali bomber was asked what he would say to the families of all the Australians killed. His only reply was "Convert to Islam!"

If that is true, I think it is safe to say that a Holy War to kill infidels and expand Islam is at least part of some Muslims' ideas of jihad.

[Jocko]

I agree that it's a no-questions-asked way to shoehorn legitimacy into someone's BS political agenda.

In the middle east, they call for jihad.
In America, you say "it's for the children."

BTW, if Hussein's calling his armed resistance "jihad," he's giving jihad a bad name... unless you want to add another poll option....

5) Drop your guns and surrender to CNN

[Bluegill]

"Jihad" is a pretty narrowly-defined term. Just like "art."


I wonder if any Muslims say, "I can't tell you what jihad is, but I know it when I see it"?
:D

[Crossbow]

Jihad is supposed to mean a war against those who are waging a war on Islam.

Since the religion itself is under attack, all Muslims are expected to help in its defense.

However, in more recent times, some Muslims describe their efforts to get rid of the Jews in Palestine, the Americans in Saudia Arabia, the Hindus in Pakistan, and so on, as a 'Jihad'. While their use of the term is inaccurate, it does serve to attact followers.

I hope this helps!

[Skeptic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crossbow
Jihad is supposed to mean a war against those who are waging a war on Islam.

Since the religion itself is under attack, all Muslims are expected to help in its defense.


Indeed so. This exists, in theory, in Judasim ("Milchemet mitzah", literally "a just war" or "a war commanded ") and in Christianity (the crusades, for instance.) But the rub is, what counts as islam being "under attack"?

The dirty little secret is that, according to islamic law, the mere fact of nation X refusing to convery to islam (or otherwise come under the heel of muslims) is, in itself, an "attack against islam". Muslims are instructed to "offer peace" to their neighbors before engaging in Jihad--but converting the neighbors to islam is an essential ingredient of the peace "offer", which gives you an idea what muslims REALLY mean when they say islam is a "religion of peace".

[B]However, in more recent times, some Muslims describe their efforts to get rid of the Jews in Palestine, the Americans in Saudia Arabia, the Hindus in Pakistan, and so on, as a 'Jihad'. While their use of the term is inaccurate, it does serve to attact followers.

Actually, it IS accurate. These people committed an intolerable act of agression against islam--they didn't convert, which makes them automatically "enemies of islam" and therefore a legitimate target for jihad.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Actually, it IS accurate. These people committed an intolerable act of agression against islam--they didn't convert, which makes them automatically "enemies of islam" and therefore a legitimate target for jihad. [/B]

I agree. We should all convert to Islam. That way the world will be totally at peace, just like Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Jordan never went to war or civil wars ever.

It would be equally ridiculous to say worldwide Judaism or Christianity or Communism (or even Atheism; look at Pol Pot) would bring peace. Hinduism maybe. But I wouldn't pay such a high price for world peace.

How the idiotic Muslim fanatics got to thinking the Muslim world is better than the rest is a wonder.

-Ben

[ihixulu]

How the idiotic Muslim fanatics got to thinking the Muslim world is better than the rest is a wonder.

Every group, fundamentalist or not, has a belief that their way is the better way. Jews proclaim they are the chosen, Christians say they're going to heaven, etc.

What exactly is the point of this shallow statement?

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by ihixulu


Every group, fundamentalist or not, has a belief that their way is the better way. Jews proclaim they are the chosen, Christians say they're going to heaven, etc.

What exactly is the point of this shallow statement?

That it sucks to be a Muslim in the Muslim world. You got war, poverty, destruction, derision, and disilusionment. If you disagree with your government you are dead. If you fight for Osama bin Laden you are dead. If you fight against Osama bin Laden you are considderred a traitor.

If you are a "Palestinian" you got 24-hour closures, and to get out you have to strap a bomb to yourself. If you are a Saudi you get stepped on by rich guys in bath robes who get richer as your economy goes south. If you are not a Palestinian or a Saudi, you are probably very very very poor.

You have a tyrant for a boss. You have a one-party state. You can't say what you want to say, but you can shout "Death to America" as many times as you want. You live in a society which is years behind the times. Men are expected, indeed encouraged, to beat their wives by the Koran.

If you are a woman in a Muslim world, life consists of making babies and serving your husband and no more. You will expect to be beaten. If you kill your husband in self defense, you will be killed. You have little recourse if your husband cheats on you or takes another wife. And if you cheat on your husband you can face the death penalty which your male partner will not. You are very poor, even if your family is not. If your husband is dead, you are dirt. No driving, no working, no complaining, in most of the Muslim world.

If you are non-Muslim, get out. Everybody hates you, and will kill you if they get the chance. You get to pay the Jizya, or special tax for non-Muslims. Your economic abilities is limmitted by the greed of the government you serve and their desire to take your money. If you have lost political power either demographically or politically, mass murder often follows as in Lebanon, Sudan, Pakistan, and Ivory Coast. If you value your land, as the quickly leaving Christians of Bethlehem do, you will find it stolen from you quickly by government forces, as Arafat redistricted Bethlehem so for the first time in ages it had a Muslim majority government and was a hotbed of terrorists hiding in Christian shrines.

Also, economic developement works the opposite way it does in the rest of the world. Economically, the Arab world and most of the Muslim world is worse off than ten years ago, and that was worse than twenty years ago. Population has boomed. There is no room for more people, and even the incessant war doesn't reduce the numbers.

War is everywhere. Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Algeria, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Chechnya/Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan/India, Ethiopia/Erritrea, Yemen, Philpines, Indonesia, even in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Islam, a "religion of peace" fails to deliver as always.

Democracy is only in one country, Turkey. Yet they have a declining economy and an over-population problem, the result of a backwards culture that rewards over-populating and punishes rational thinking about economic and political issues. Islamists regularly kill anyone who speaks their mind.

Where else on Earth is the situation so bleak, besides Africa? The Western world, Russia, China, Asia, the Americas, are all sailing along just fine.

-Ben

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Jihad is supposed to mean a war against those who are waging a war on Islam.


From my Muslim friend, "Jihad" literally means "the struggle." According to her, there are two jihads - an inner and an outer struggle - not her terms, I'm paraphrasing.

(The rest is from my memory, so it's all my fault if it's inaccurate.)

The first jihad occured when Mohammed and his followers attempted to reclaim Mecca.

The inner jihad is, naturally, "An effort against evil in the self"

I have heard that the fight against Russian occupation of Afghanistan was considered a jihad - one of the reasons Osama bin Laden has so much clout in the Islamic world.

But, everyone here knows that Ben starts from the assumption that all Muslims are bad, and therefore it's easy for him to arrive at that conclusion.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

But, everyone here knows that Ben starts from the assumption that all Muslims are bad, and therefore it's easy for him to arrive at that conclusion.

Islam is bad. Muslims are following an inflexible warrior code that is ill-suited to a time of peace. The farther Muslims are from Islam, the better off they are (r.e. Turkey, American Muslims, and most European Muslims.) The ones who follow Islam the least are the wealthiest, most peaceful, most scientific, and most rational ones. This goes for all inflexible religions.

Nothing personally against the people, who I know from personal experience are no better or worse than you or I.

Surely, being on a skeptical bulliten board I should have home court advantage in bashing a religious order mercilessly.

-Ben

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper

Islam is bad. Muslims are following an inflexible warrior code that is ill-suited to a time of peace. The farther Muslims are from Islam, the better off they are (r.e. Turkey, American Muslims, and most European Muslims.) The ones who follow Islam the least are the wealthiest, most peaceful, most scientific, and most rational ones. This goes for all inflexible religions.

Nothing personally against the people, who I know from personal experience are no better or worse than you or I.

Surely, being on a skeptical bulliten board I should have home court advantage in bashing a religious order mercilessly.


You get a little slack ;)

(I don't know how to say this gently) It's just that little "hypocrite" lights go on in my head when a staunch defender of one culture attacks another so readily. It's just too easy to find examples of evil for any group, once you've decided that they're bad.

Also,
Of the few Muslim friends I have, they all would disagree with your assesment. Considering they're generally wealthier, more peaceful, tolerant and feel they're "in islam" much more than their deluded brothers in the middle east (my wording there).

[Hal 2001]

The post from specious_reasons, is the only one that correctly represents the dual meaning of Jihad. Though it can also be defined as the big jihad (the inner battle), and the small Jihad.

Someone allways beats me to it.

[ihixulu]

Ben,

You state rather clearly the challenges facing those who live in the greater Islamic world. However, you do not mention at any point the involvement of non-Muslims in the development of such situations.

For example, Iraq, and specifically Saddam Hussein's regime, was supported by by the US when it was convenient to do so (early 80's). Likewise, the only reason that the house of al-Saud is still in power in Saudi Arabia is because of the protection they receive from the US in exchange for oil. Same with Pakistan, the US is currently supporting a military junta, which makes a sham of democracy because it is convenient at this time. Trust me, when we don't need him anymore, Musharraf will be on the tyrant's list rather than the ally-against-terror list.

The current borders of Islamic polities were, by and large, not created naturally but haphazardly by colonial claims and subsequent exits. To use an easy example, Iraq again, its current borders do not reflect any common-sensical grouping of populations. That Kurds are divided over several recognized borders was not due to their wishes but rather the inevitable results of the conquest of the region by the British empire (following conquests by many others) and the compromise they reached with the defeated Ottomans post WWI.

If you are going to use the current situation as the yardstick for measuring the realtive civility of Muslims in general, it would behoove you to take into account the causal forces as well. In light of those factors, I see Muslims as being no more and no less "human" in behavior than any other group. Absent of history, you rant is simply bigotted propaganda.

BTW, how is Russia sailing along? They can't feed their military (soldiers routinely beg in the streets), their borders are crumbling, corruption is rampant, free press is sketchy and the economy is non-existent. You seem to apply different criteria for measuring success to different peoples, with the deciding criteria being their religion.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by ixihulu
...Absent of history, you rant is simply bigotted propaganda.
I think that sums the matter up nicely.

And Ben Schniper asking for the definition of a word? Could I suggest that the following are worth a look also:-
Fairness,
Tolerance,
Rationality,
Fact etc.

PS
originally posted by Ben Schniper
Surely, being on a skeptical bulliten board I should have home court advantage in bashing a religious order mercilessly.

Duh?
You just cannot make this sort of stuff up.

[kittynh]

OK, define "Crusade"?

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by ihixulu
Ben,

You state rather clearly the challenges facing those who live in the greater Islamic world. However, you do not mention at any point the involvement of non-Muslims in the development of such situations.

Challenges? Non-Muslims involved in these challenges?

No, no, no. That's not what I said at all!

I didn't say the Islamic world had challenges. I didn't say they had obstacles to overcome at all! They are, for the most part, what they want to be.

The only challenge that faces the Muslim fundamentalists, who rule the middle east along with fascist arab nationalists, is the existance of the rest of the world. That the rest of the world is rich and scoffs at them is not a big concern to them. That the rest of the world is not Muslim really tears at their sense of fairness and justice.

That's the real challenge that Arafat has. Not his poverty, or Israel's relative wealth, but Israel's existance. That's the challenge he faces daily. The real challenge Saddam Huessein faces is not the poverty of his people, but his incomplete control of the world. The real challenge Osama bin Laden faces is the existance of powerful non-Muslim countries. He doesn't try to make his people much better off, not while the real priority is killing infidels.

You say that I was pointing out challenges facing the Muslim world, but I didn't yet present the real challenges to you.

I say it with a very real anticipation of you shouting me down: "Some people don't want peace. Don't want tolerance. Don't value wealth over control. And don't want to be more like America."

This is, I believe, not just an opinion, or a theory, but a fact. You may think I am dehumanizing, but I'm doing just what most liberals ask: thinking like my enemy, getting to understand them, becoming aware of our differences. It's really not that hard. All you have to do is read their words, it's all in there.

-Ben

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Ben Schniper
No, no, no. That's not what I said at all!

It seems that you do not actually read your own posts Ben and appear to be incapable of accurately reporting the words of others.

You stated
'That it sucks to be a Muslim in the Muslim world. You got war, poverty, destruction, derision, and disilusionment. If you disagree with your government you are dead. If you fight for Osama bin Laden you are dead. If you fight against Osama bin Laden you are considderred a traitor.' etc.

At least stand by your own words.

[Plutarck]

I submit that Jihad means approximately whatever the hell the person using it wants to mean at any given time.


So I choose "All of the above, and some other stuff."

[kittynh]

My daughter at age 14 went on an exchange program to a girls school in Amman Jordan - yes this was recently, and no the social workers did not take her away from us. When she returned her roommates at school here were girls from Jordan...and trust me, while they are happy with their lot, they are petrified at the idea of some crazies taking over and forcing them to wear "the hefty bag look". A lot of Muslim women from upper class families have are more than a little nervous. I would say the main thing my daughter learned was that it's more fun to be a teenager in Jordan, and that a lot of the "rules" she had to follow were there for a good reason. In fact, she's working hard at her Arabic so she can hopefully work in the Middle East one day...in Jordan though! But to say all Muslims are happy with their lot doesn't take into account all the women who are working hard to make sure what rights they have stay in place. There's a big difference between Jordan and Iraq and Indonesia...just because a nation has a large Muslim population doesn't mean they are alike.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by kittynh
My daughter at age 14 went on an exchange program to a girls school in Amman Jordan - yes this was recently, and no the social workers did not take her away from us.

Nothing is wrong with the people of the Arab world, of the Muslim world, or of Arabs or Muslims living abroad.

It is not the country of Jordan, nor the people of Jordan, nor the cultural exchange we may have with Jordan that I take issue with.

Islam calls on its people to go to Jihad, and in every generation many take this up as a violent campaign against infidels. It is Islam I take issue with, not Muslims. I put the blame for much of their situation on Islam. And if they personally wish to change their situation, they will find themselves not working through Islam, but against it in order to succeed in modernization.

A similar thingh happened in Jewish and Christian countries called the "enlightenment".

Islam, however, and Islamic leaders, and Muslims following Islam do not see their challenge as succeeding in a Western fashion, but in increacing Islam, building a stronger Islamic society, and destroying any others who would stand against this.

Thus the major challenge facing the "Islamic world" is Jihad, the struggle against infidels. The challenges facing the people in Islam, are different.

-Ben

[ihixulu]

A phrase that sent a chill down my spine:

I didn't say they had obstacles to overcome at all! They are, for the most part, what they want to be.

This is exactly what southern slavve owners used to say about Blacks in captivity... or what Nazi sympathizers would say to justify the ghettoization of Warsaw... Or what Afrikaaners would say about the Blacks living in their "care"...

Thanks Ben, you have really made it clear to me what kind of person you are.


A few responses to particular points:

Jews did not have an enlightenment (other than the First Kingdom). We scrounged around for hundreds of years getting by with what our oppressors would allow us to get by on. Indeed, our culture is shaped as much by our interaction with and contributions of our Christian and Islamic rulers as by our "unique" philosophies. Jews don't exist in a vacuum.

My point regarding fascisitc regimes in the Arab world (most of which are secular and therefore have nothing to do with Islam so far as political identity is concerned) is that in many instances they are supported by Western powers who have interests in that country. It is a simple FACT (what a stupid word, it gets bandied about here so wrecklessly... ) that the political machinations of seemingly disparate societies and polities are often intertwined in surprising and unpleasant ways.

That's the real challenge that Arafat has. Not his poverty, or Israel's relative wealth, but Israel's existance. That's the challenge he faces daily. The real challenge Saddam Huessein faces is not the poverty of his people, but his incomplete control of the world. The real challenge Osama bin Laden faces is the existance of powerful non-Muslim countries. He doesn't try to make his people much better off, not while the real priority is killing infidels.

Arafat is a secular politician, therefore introducing him into the argument is pointless, unless you want to expand the targets of your ire to Arabs in general, which wouldn't surprise me in the least. However, including a discussion of Arafat, the OT's and Israeli policy would take this thread totally off topic so... let's save it for elsewhere.

Regarding Saddam, you again seem to be unable to differentiate between a secular leader and a religious one. It appears, from you statemtns that to you an Arab is automatically a Islamist. This is just wrong. One of the reasons that Saddam's frequent calls for Jihad are routinely ignored is that he has no religious credibility. It is a dramatic statement, and judging from your reaction, it has had its intended effect of getting your attention.

Now, OBL is in fact a religious fanatic who envisions a world that runs acoording to the rules set forth in the Koran. The same way the Orthodoxy in Israel would like to dress all women in wigs and long skirts, censor movies and have the right to stone people who drive a car on Saturdays. Basically, so what? there are religious nuts everywhere. The issue, IMO, is not the particualrs of the religion but the existence of conditions that make such philosophies (including anything orthodox, nationalist movements, race based organizations) so attractive to the masses. Those conditions weren't always there. So what happened?

Regarding expansionist designs of governments: Why shouldn't the Arabs do what the Turks, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, British, Aztecs, Americans, and most recently Israel, have been doing throughout history? It is natural for a society to want to gain territory and it is natural for other societies to try to prevent that. You write as if you've never considered the processes of cultural and societal evolution...

Are you truly interested in learning about the religious, legal and political aspects of Jihad or are you just looking for a venue in which to hurl insults at a group of people? Maybe you should log in to a White Pride site and defend Jews... at least then you might be doing something good.

[ihixulu]

Just caught this:

Islam, however, and Islamic leaders, and Muslims following Islam do not see their challenge as succeeding in a Western fashion, but in increacing Islam, building a stronger Islamic society, and destroying any others who would stand against this.

With regards to the coverting of people to Islam, I would argue that the vast majority of conversions occur not under the threat of the gun but by individuals exercizing their freedom of choice. I have been more actively cruised by JW, Latter-Day Saints, the local Orthodox Temple and Jews for Jesus than Muslims.

Why should any culture not fight back if someone is trying to prevent them from building a stronger society? Isn't that the whole reason why people go to war, to strengthen their society? Should people just back down if they feel they are being oppressed?

It sucks to be on the wrong side of the gun. How do you think the rest of the world feels when the US uses its economic and military powers to get its way, whenever and wherever?

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by ihixulu
Just caught this:
It sucks to be on the wrong side of the gun. How do you think the rest of the world feels when the US uses its economic and military powers to get its way, whenever and wherever?

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Let's say that person A was falsely imprisonned, robbed of his right to vote, kicked around, had horrible things happen to him in prison, and then when person A gets out of prison, person A goes around killing people.

You can argue that the state that imprisonned me is truly responsible for the crimes of person A. But can you argue that person A is not responsible? Should person A go free, even if his victims had little or nothing to do with person A's plight?

Most of the world is at peace. The Islamic world is not. They say they've been kicked around and stuff. And they have. Actually, just about everybody has. But their books say to go to Jihad. So what does it mean when they declare jihad on me? Is it my fault? Am I the one who is supposed to apologize, take it, and if I lose, be forced to convert like the enslaved thousands of Sudan were?

Christians for centuries claimed "Jews killed Christ". We lost millions of people to that and other "Jews are wicked conspirators" stories. Yet there is no proof of the incident outside of Christian books, and Jews were absolved of the crime in that very story. Can it still be the Jew's fault?

Crusades happened hundreds of years after Jihad brought war to Europe. Yet Muslims claim Christians are to blame for the Crusades. Who is right?

Religious claims are sh*t. Muslims who fail to realize the dead end of their religious beliefs are doomed to continue to live in squalor. And everyone will take advantage of their weakened position who is able to do so.

-Ben

[Skeptic]

Democracy is only in one country, Turkey.

That might have something to do with Mustafa Kamel Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, destroying the power of the muslim clerics when he founded the state after the collapse of the (what else?) corrupt, inefficient, and backward muslim Ottoman empire.

But it really ISN'T Islam itself. This needs to be emphasized. After the first century or so of conquest, islam WAS peaceful and tolerant (at least relatively) for 600 years; that's because it was ruled by a set of Chalifs and Sultans in Cairo and Baghdad who established a liberal view of islam.

For instance, the official physician to the Sultan of Egypt were often jews, and the courts both in Baghdad and Cairo were full of Jews and other non-muslims distinguished for their merit--a completely unthinkable possiblity in the Christian courts of the era. Literacy, science, and medicine flourished in the islamic world during that time.

But then came the radicals, led (in the 11th century) by Al-Ghazzali, and (later) by the Wahhabists. According to their view, science, modernity, and everything else that comes with that (e.g., democracy and human rights) are sins, since all that is REALLY needed is to meditate and study the holy scriptures to be with Allah.

This is an historical tragedy, first and foremost for the muslims themselves. Shutting themselves out from the "ifnidels", trade declined, science collpased. Who needs that, when all you need is God?

Of course, this quickly resulted in the removal of the islamic world from the world stage, and the ascent of europe. But the radicals couldn't imagine it's their own view that has something to do with it. The egpytians blamed the iraqis, the iraqis blamed the egyptians, and the iranians blamed everybody. Of course, the lastest bugbear is "imperialism", led by (who else?) the jews. But that's nonsense. Coloniamlism lasted a short time, and only started in the mid- to late-19th century, long after the decline of islam was complete.

So, yes, it IS true that it is "not islam, but the radicals who perverted it". But the radicals took over almost completely 800 years ago; it's a bit like saying that the problem is "not Christianity, but the protestants who perverted it".

[ihixulu]

I'm not clear on how the Person A/imprisonment analogy applies here. What is going on in the Islamic world is a political struggle, where the politics for some participants are based on religious principles. The Fundamentalists would like to overthrow the regimes they see as bad and have realized that one of the more effective ways to do so is to drive wedges between those regimes and their sponsors.

As to the man on the street: poverty is indeed rampant in the Islamic world as well as illiteracy and disillusionment. OBL and those of his ilk are providing alternate paths and solutions to these people. Agitating the ignorant masses is one sure way to build up an army quickly.

So... regarding personal responsibility. Seeing as how the choices for education, employment and self improvement are limited, and seeing as how the reset of the world will not easily grant a worker's visa, AND seeing as how if you make any noise about how crappy the government is you disappear, what responsible person wouldn't join a revolutionary cult? People get fed up, they start a revolution. In a global economy, everone is a target. What do we do about it? Live in gated communities and hope it boils over or act like moral, civilized humans and see what is pissing people off in the first place? How about WE, the American populace take responsibility for our behavior around the world as well?

Here's another example which will illustrate that the Muslim world is not as 2 dimentional as you think it is: Algeria. The Algerians had elections several years ago, and the radical Islamist parties won a good number of seats in parliament. Realizing the havoc that would be wreaked on Algeria by their participation, the president and military anulled the election. Thus we have a civil war, where the forces of democracy are fighting the Islamist parties who were elected democratically by people fed up with the corruption of the democrats in the first place.

So who's the villain here? The Islamists who want to reform the corrupt secular government by instituting aracane religious laws or the Muslim democrats who want to protect a democratic future by negating a show of democracy?

Most of the world is at peace. The Islamic world is not.

Yugoslavia, Chechnia, Cyprus, Korea, Congo, Ivory Coast, Israel, Rwanda, Spain gets bombed by the ETA, N. Ireland gets bombed by the IRA (who occasionally bomb London), Colombia, etc, etc, etc. You sir are either ignorant of the world or simply full of it.

Religious claims are sh*t. Muslims who fail to realize the dead end of their religious beliefs are doomed to continue to live in squalor. And everyone will take advantage of their weakened position who is able to do so.

Right, replace Muslims with Jews in the quote and you've paraphrased Goebbels, Himmler, Hess and Hitler. It's amazing how some Jews have taken on the moral bankrupcy of their Nazi oppressors as their own humanistic philosophy.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by ihixulu
Yugoslavia, Chechnia, Cyprus, Korea, Congo, Ivory Coast, Israel, Rwanda, Spain gets bombed by the ETA, N. Ireland gets bombed by the IRA (who occasionally bomb London), Colombia, etc, etc, etc. You sir are either ignorant of the world or simply full of it.



Wrong as usual. Like most liberal/conservative arguments, you think my arguments are evil, and I think your arguments are just dumb and wrong. Let's examine your argument:

Columbia, Congo, Rawanda , and Korea may be at war (with communists, mostly), but the rest of your list:

1. Ireland is no longer a full war.
2. Spain is not really at a serious war

3. In Yugoslavia, the people being massacred were mostly Bosnian Muslims, who arguably started the fighting, and the Muslims were mostly fighting back, and calling it a Jihad.
4. In Israel, the reason they are at war is because of a "Jihad" against Jews.
5. Ivory Coast has seen the "rebel" forces, aka Muslims, declare Jihad on the mostly Christian country.
6. Do I really need to point out that Chechnyans are muslims, fighting a Jihad that was sponsorred and aided by Al Queda?
7. Of the conflicts you mentioned that did apply, Columbian drug trade has ties to both Communism and Islamic militants. Congo has seen several bouts of religious fighting recently, and Korea's war is a throwback to the cold war.

My point that Jihad is the major cause of war today stands. (Post-cold war, of course). Stopping worldwide Jihads should be priority #1 to ALL who value peace and democracy and dream of worldwide government.

-Ben

[ihixulu]

>1. Ireland is no longer a full war.

That depends on who you ask, no?

>2. Spain is not really at a serious war

Again, tell that to the Basque separatists and see what they say. You may also want to consult with the Spanish authorities to see where they stand in relation to the ETA.

>3. In Yugoslavia, the people being massacred were mostly Bosnian Muslims, who arguably started the fighting, and the Muslims were mostly fighting back, and calling it a Jihad.

Where did you get this from? Croats were shooting at Serbs, Serbs at Bosnians, everyone was fighting everybody. And it did not start because of "Jihad". I do not remember one instance where the Bosnian conflict was labeled as Jihad. Please cite a source for this. If anything, the Bosnian conflict made the case that Muslims were unduly persecuted in Europe and therefore needed to rise up against the Christians.

>4. In Israel, the reason they are at war is because of a "Jihad" against Jews.

NO. Israel is at war becasue of a simple, and poorly executed, land grab which occured in 67 (with the territories left in limbo since then) and a self defence land grab in 47. There was no Jihad against Jews. In case you've forgotten there is a significant Christian population in the PA who favor independence. Are they part of a Jihad too?

>5. Ivory Coast has seen the "rebel" forces, aka Muslims, declare Jihad on the mostly Christian country.

Courtesy the BBC: Ivory Coast country profile (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1043014.stm)

It appears the Muslims didn't start this one.

>6. Do I really need to point out that Chechnyans are muslims, fighting a Jihad that was sponsorred and aided by Al Queda?

The religious aspect of the conflict was not made an issue until 9/11. It is a war of independence which happens to represent a largely Muslim population. No Jihad. Should all Soviet era colonies remain yoked to Moscow?

Thank you for giving me partial credit on 7. The point you made was that 'Most of the world is at peace. The Islamic world is not.". It is an inaccurate statement. Further if you want to change your point to state "...that Jihad is the major cause of war today" then I would say that the facts don't back you up.

BTW, I don't think your arguments are evil. I am starting to think that you are however. :p

[corplinx]

If jihad was truly a stuggle against one's vices, we wouldn't have any "moderate" muslims left since they did like the quran says and "martyred" themselves for the jihad. I haven't seen any mass suicides in the mideast lately though.

I really think this inner struggle stuff is baloney. Its as bad as any other religion who tries to put a postive spin on the negative parts of their own religious texts.

If there is one thing I cannot stand than someone blindly following a religion, its someone who blindly follows a religion as interpreted to be most comfortable to them.

[Skeptic]

NO. Israel is at war becasue of a simple, and poorly executed, land grab which occured in 67 (with the territories left in limbo since then) and a self defence land grab in 47.

Funny, the "land grab" in 1967 MIGHT have had SOMETHING to do with Nasser, Egypt's leader, repeatedly declaring all that year that any minute now he will destroy israel; kicking the UN out of the Sinai and moving his troops to israel's borders while telling them repeatedly they are on a mission to "liberate palestine"; asking--and recieving--enthusiastic help from Jordan and Syria in agreeing to a unified attack in the very near future, with the consequences of these nations, too, amassing troops on israel's borders with repeated declarations on how they will "liberate palestine" by butchering the jews any day now; closing the straights of Tiran (let alone the Suez Canal), a naval blockade which is an act of war by international law, which quite apart from everything else justified an israeli attack all by itself; and so on and so forth--these were hardly the only signs. Israel, in an act of awful agression and disgusting militarism, I guess, decided that under such circumstances it is perfectly justified in striking a week or so before the planned arab three-front war to destroy it. This is the long and short of the israeli "agression" and "land grab".

Of course, you could also add a few more facts: for example, the fact that the PLO was established, with the goal of destroying israel, in 1964, long before the "land grab" in question; that the palestinian leaders, to say nothing of the rest of the arab world, repeatedly declare to their own people that the "conflict"--actually, the arab war to destroy israel--has nothing to do with the "occupation" (that's just propaganda for the west, in an attempt to get as much land as possible before launching the next attack); that, instead, they decalred all day it has everything to do with the very fact of israel's existence, an "injustice" which must be "repaired" by its destruction; and so on.

Of course, the whole "land grab" theory makes no sense even in the never-never land of the liberal european view of the world, famous for such idiocities such as protesting american nuclear missles and troops in europe (despite the fact that it is the ONLY thing that kept these idiot protestors from living under stalinism) or for supporting the North Vietnamese in their attempt to eradicate South Vietnam, because it was fashionable to be a "marxist" in europe at the time (although, of course, not fashionable enough to actually go live in a marxist country.) Not to mention believing Hitler and his "last territorial demands" story, or Arafat and his "I want peace" claims. But I digess.

Let's assume for a minute that israel in 1967 was surrounded by peaceful, nice people who never wanted to harm it, and all the evil jews did in their secret councils was plan how to grab land from the peaceful arabs--a view pretty much accepted, for all its aburdity, as gospel truth in european iberal "we are not antisemitic, just anti-zionist" la-la land. Does it make sense that israel would risk its very existence, by starting a war on THREE FRONTS on FIVE DIFFERENT NATIONS that outnumberted it FIFTY TO ONE in population to achieve this goal? Was THIS the best plan the evil, scheming jewish mind could come up with to grab land from its peaceful arab neighbors? Anyboy doing the risk/reward calculation here? Hellooooooo????????

But, then again, logical self-contradiction and fantasy-world thinking were never a serious problem in any conspiracy theory, especially one seeking to blame the jews for something, such as surviving despite the arab's wishes to the contrary, or a you call it, "land grabbing".

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Ben Schniper
1. Ireland is no longer a full war.

You just cannot make this sort of stuff up. Ben Schniper said 'most of the world is at peace.' in order to try to make a typically unbalanced point about Islamic countries. Then tried to jusify it with the above rejoinder to ihixulu.

Why not ask the people of Omagh if they would rather have had their children blown up by Christian or Muslim terrorists Ben? Because there were no Muslims involved in that particular terrorist atrocity. Not one. Just people previously belonging to a terrorist organisation which had received funds from some Americans.

Or what aout the primary school children whose school had a pipe bomb attached to the railings in the last few days. Or the youths currently having their legs shot up for stealing cars or those innocents murdered over the last few months for merely belonging to the wider the family of others engaged in Loyalist terrorism. Sounds remarkably familiar somehow.

The IRA has been accused of continuing to accumulate intelligence about possible terrorist targets in recent months yet the American government is talking to members of Sinn Fein, its political wing. Some of Sinn Fein were active commanders/members of the IRA when innocent children were being blown to pieces in Northern Ireland. The IRA have persistently refused to destroy all their weapons to this day. Their representatives have turned up in Columbia accused of training Marxist terrorists yet Sinn Fein still has the ear of the American government. Why does a body supposedly keen on democracy and the rights ofordinary people need to hide guns in dumps if not to use them in the future against the democratic process demanded by ordinary innocent people?

Please keep on posting your fundamentalist views Ben so that everyone can see you for what you really are.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by ihixulu


>5. Ivory Coast has seen the "rebel" forces, aka Muslims, declare Jihad on the mostly Christian country.

Courtesy the BBC: Ivory Coast country profile (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1043014.stm)

It appears the Muslims didn't start this one.


The BBC doesn't like to point out the obvious.

For years the Sudanese government slogan was unchallenged. It was "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom". Then the BBC reports the change to something more concilliatory as "progress" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2195134.stm . Yet the Muslim government continues to murder Christians and Natives through starvation and war.

In Ivory Coast, something similar happened. The Rebels were Muslims from the north. They are fighting a jihad. They have moved millions of Muslims into the country, which like Lebanon, has shatterred the peaceful democratic prosperous Christian nation.

Ivory Coast went from being majority Christian to about half and half. Of course this caused Jihads, Civil strife, electoral changes as Christians fought to keep Muslims from taking over the Democratic process by overpopulating and crowding out Christians, and eventually the destruction of the country.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/09/37919.html

Government forces were reported by rebel and independent sources to have pulled back from the city and Korhogo, also in the north, is said to be under the rebels’ control. The north of the Ivory Coast is predominantly Moslem, while the south is Christian. The fighting broke out on September 19th in the economic capital, Abidjan, Korhogo and Bouake. Abidjan was brought quickly under control, but not the northern half of the country, which the rebels control.

The government of Ivory Coast has accused Burkina Faso of being behind the revolt, after Burkina troops were allegedly involved in the Liberia and Sierra Leone conflicts, while Ouagadougou replies with aggressive statements against “the barbarity of the Ivory Coast forces and their instrumentalised civil groups” who are attacking and killing Burkina Faso citizens.


It's quite clear. Muslims are great for an economy - up to a point. But if your country gets close to the number of Muslims in Ivory Coast or Lebanon or any other nation, they will try to take over by force and destroy your country. Yugoslavia faced the same problem, and decided to try to massacre the Muslims. That didn't work, as Christian nations stopped them.

We face a crisis of confidence. Either we can accept Muslims into our country, ignoring the Jihads that have destroyed others, or we can become so intolerant that we try to expell Muslims, and that can shatter a country as well, causing immense human suffering. It's not a pretty picture. Look at Saudi Arabia, where only Muslims can be citizens or go into the restricted areas. It's apartheid all over again.

Man's inhumanity to man never stops, whether you are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. We know the Christian intolerance that caused world wars, colonization, imperialism, and fascism. We know the Jewish fanaticism that spawned Christianity and Islam. We know the stories of the bible. But Islam can be, and has been, just as bad, colonizing from Arabia to Spain and destroying countless cultures on the way killing millions in a Jihad in the name of Allah.

Surely, if we reject imperialism and colonization, shouldn't we reject Islamic attempts to take over countries as well through "holy" war?

Why doesn't the BBC call this what it is, a Muslim power grab? Methinks they doth protest too little.

-Ben

[Hal 2001]

Ben Schniper. You are wrong here again.

Having just spent several month there (just before the conflict started, both march and later) In Abidjan, Bouake and Gagnoa, and following the crisis in the medias and by my local contacts, I can assure you the conflict is not religious driven at all.

First the facts the rebels of the North are composed of Animist and Moslems.

They have conveyed no religious message during their struggle.

No leaders of the MPCI, like Tuzo Foe, are saying they fight a Jihad.

The sources of the conflict are very difficult to discern. But it is a mix of dissatisfaction from the northern ethnies side about their unequal treatment, Political intrigue, Involvement from foreign countries, Rivalry between military chiefs, and so on.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Ben Schniper. You are wrong here again.

Not again Ben. How could you get yet more facts wrong? Is there no shallowness to your ignorance?

How many facts will Schniper abuse before he gets the idea that it might be useful to, you know, learn something about the world before spouting more fundamentalist propaganda on a site devoted to discovering the true nature of things?

I am not sre what Schniper's mission is on this site. But the folowing quote might just be heading in the right direction. Please prove us wrong Ben.

BTW, I don't think your arguments are evil. I am starting to think that you are however.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, the whole "land grab" theory makes no sense even in the never-never land of the liberal european view of the world, famous for such idiocities such as protesting american nuclear missles and troops in europe (despite the fact that it is the ONLY thing that kept these idiot protestors from living under stalinism) or for supporting the North Vietnamese in their attempt to eradicate South Vietnam, because it was fashionable to be a "marxist" in europe at the time (although, of course, not fashionable enough to actually go live in a marxist country.) Not to mention believing Hitler and his "last territorial demands" story, or Arafat and his "I want peace" claims. But I digess.

No you don't Skeptic. It shows us exactly how wierd your world really is.

Keep on telling us like it is otherwise we might not understand why the nervous miusic sounds when the guy dressed in black with the pockmarked face comes onto the stage. We do need people in white suits after all. Some more than others.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by ihixulu

>3. In Yugoslavia, the people being massacred were mostly Bosnian Muslims, who arguably started the fighting, and the Muslims were mostly fighting back, and calling it a Jihad.

Where did you get this from? Croats were shooting at Serbs, Serbs at Bosnians, everyone was fighting everybody. And it did not start because of "Jihad". I do not remember one instance where the Bosnian conflict was labeled as Jihad. Please cite a source for this. If anything, the Bosnian conflict made the case that Muslims were unduly persecuted in Europe and therefore needed to rise up against the Christians.


I don't know how reliable the book "Holy War, Inc." is, but Islamists took up the Bosnian conflict as the trendy cause in the '90s, after "liberating" Afghanistan. I don't know if it was called a jihad by anyone (expect possibly extremist organizations like Al-Queda). Al-Queda did help to train and support freedom fighters to help in the war.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Hal 2001
Ben Schniper. You are wrong here again.

Having just spent several month there (just before the conflict started, both march and later) In Abidjan, Bouake and Gagnoa, and following the crisis in the medias and by my local contacts, I can assure you the conflict is not religious driven at all.

First the facts the rebels of the North are composed of Animist and Moslems.

They have conveyed no religious message during their struggle.

No leaders of the MPCI, like Tuzo Foe, are saying they fight a Jihad.


Why should they declare it a jihad? Arafat and Sudanese leaders get away with it - not everyone does. But the religious tension is the reason why the Prime minister was denied access to run again, why the Muslim population has swelled, why the coup was made, and why the country's economy has fallen. The spread of Islam is very clear - and very destructive and violent. The most prosperous countries of the world once - Persia, Armenia, Egypt, Babylon, now lie in ruin under the weight of the constricting Muslim religion. Any gains Turkey has made has been _because_ of harsh repression of Muslim militants, and they haven't gained much.

Lebanon, Ivory Coast, and Sudan are now on the chopping block. Kashmir, Chechnya, and Israel hang on the balance. When will the people of the world call a spade a spade and realize a failed, destructive, counter-productive system like Islam really is a terrible system to live under or fight against?

We should unite against ALL Islamic expansionism, especialy Russia, Israel, India, and America. If we are against Christian imperialism we should be ten times as much against Islamic imperialism. If we want Israel to make concessions and remove borders we should demand the very same of Muslim borders and expansionism.

-Ben

[Ben Shniper]

I mean this, of course, IMHO. I don't like expansionism in religion period, whether by prostelitising or invading and rioting and murderring.

-Ben

[Hal 2001]

Sorry Ben but you are not right here

ADO (ouatara) was refused to run for president, not because he was moslem, but because of an ongoing debate about l"ivoirete"(Ivoirian citizenship). 30% of the population in Ivory Coast are so called Immigrants.

Many of them are born in IC or have lived there for decades. Not all those immigrants are moslems.

Funnily enough the first the first law about Ivoirete was passed while ADO was still prime minister, and Boigny(Former dictator although one of the kinder ones) president.

When Boigny died, Konan Bedie (he presided the assembly, Boigny had a habit of dividing power between major ethnies to keep peace) took over power. Fearing the popularity of ADO (who was well respected and had good international connections) he managed to used the law on "ivoirete" to exclude ADO from running.

ADO having his strongest allies in the northern part of the country (although at that time he had strong supporters all over the country), this was the start of an allienation of the northern parts of IC. Since the political lines along different ethnies are much stronger.

Although all of this is very schematical, it gives a little idea of the present conflict. I havent included events since 1999 like the coup d'etat of General Guei.

IC is a very religious country with many churches (in fact the biggest church in the world ;-) "Notre Dame de la Paix" an awesome sight almost in the middle of the jungle )and mosques. But the religious leaders both moslems and christians (I exclude the 30 % animist), both in the rebel north and in the south have been calling to tolerance and understanding and not war.

Just laying the cause on religious divergence is a severe oversimplification of the situation, and only shows a lack of knowledge about the whole deal. The fact is if you dig into it is that religion is not really an important part of the conflict itself. It's significance is almost null.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Hal 2001
Just laying the cause on religious divergence is a severe oversimplification of the situation, and only shows a lack of knowledge about the whole deal. The fact is if you dig into it is that religion is not really an important part of the conflict itself. It's significance is almost null.

Incorrect. The Rebels are mainly Muslims and government forces are mainly Christian. The whole reason ADO said they were discriminating against "northern" Ivory Coast is because he was trying to confuse the real issue, as does the whole "Palestinian" label.

The real distinction between Northern and Southern is not geography, but political and religious makeup. I.E. the immigrants are mostly Muslim, the northerners are mostly muslims, and hence the Rebels and Ado disguise their intentions to the western press by pointing out they are fighting for "northerners" and "immigrants." The root cause is Jihad, the expansionism of Islam, and I have given the best evidence yet that this is the real root cause - almost all conflicts today involve Muslims fighting against non-Muslims!

-Ben

[Hal 2001]

First let's assume that the Northern rebels are only composed of moslems. Does that mean that religion is necesarely the reason for the conflict? And that it is a Jihad? As I said above that is an oversimplification. There are so many more reasons for conflicts specially in this part of the world, as I said in my post above.

In fact the rebels are not only Moslems (I agree though that a majority are), They are also composed of Animist.

I never said that the differece between South and North is geografca. I postulated that it was Ethnic and Political, and for a little part religious. To give an example, you can see that the repartition of voices for the different political parties, is more done along an ethnic line than a religious one. Ado in the northern part The dead general Guei's party in the Man region. Bedie's party and Gbabo's party have a double homeland. They are strong in Abidjan, and in their respective ethnic home region.

I can obviously not make you change your mind about your preconceived idea. I only want to discuss IC because I here no it is not so. As I said before I know this country quite wel. I have friends who come from there and I have been there recently.

I'm not interested In defending any religion. I think all religion are pretty "stupid". I make no difference. I merely know some facts about IC, and a little about Islam.

Apart from IC, the thread first interested me because I wanted to see If anyone knew enough about the discussed subject to come up with the real answer to the Jihad Question. I think only one knew the answer and this part of his post was largely ignored. I mean the answer in the way it is actually taught by the Coran and understood by the majority of moslems, not the way it is practices by some even more crazed fools.

Mss Hal

[Supercharts]

FWIW
Islam in Malaysia isn't a threat. Malaysia is an Islamic society and they are fine people who are level headed and polite. Most women wear the tudong - many do not.
The observation I have is that many Muslims in other parts of the word do not like the centrist arab view of the middle-east in terms of religious interpretation of the Quoran.
Too often we look at Muslims with a preconceived idea relating them to middle-east fanatics. "Arabs" do not have a lock on interpreting Islam for the rest of the world.
I am not a Muslim but I visit Muslim countries often but not in the middle east.

[TexasBEAST]

Man, the original question seemed like a handful by itself, but you guys sure know how to go off on tangents!

Originally posted by specious_reasons
From my Muslim friend, "Jihad" literally means "the struggle." According to her, there are two jihads - an inner and an outer [...]

The first jihad occured when Mohammed and his followers attempted to reclaim Mecca.

The inner jihad is, naturally, "An effort against evil in the self"
Agreed. From my readings, "al-jihad" literally translates as "the striving" or "the struggle". That's the denotative meaning. As with all words, it also has more subjective, connotative meanings. Thus, for modern people, we get all kinds of definitions like "inner turmoil", holy war, etc. etc.

As I understand it, Muhammad didn't "reclaim" Makkah. The city was full of pagan *shirk* (idolatry), and after a lifetime of being brought up with that and interacting with monotheistic traders from Europe, Muhammad decided to start a different path. His efforts to rid Makkah of idolatry were not any sort of return to the past or reclamation project. (The really ancient Arab world was as polytheistic and idolatrous as any other, after all.) Rather, Muhammad's efforts were a unilateral conversion process. He supposedly tried peacefully at first, was harassed out of town, regrouped and amassed a personal army in the city of al-Madinat, and then returned in a bloody massacre. That was Muhammad's way. Don't let modern revisionists lead you astray. That is the Qur'an's way. It is the Muslim way.

Muhammad tried to win the support of some of the JYehudim (Jews) and Khristianoi (Christians) in the area to overthrow the *Mushrik* (idolater, idolatrous) establishment in Makkah, but they waffled on the idea of joining him in actually going to war. Though the JYehudim and Khristianoi did not like the rampant idol-worship there, the leaders of Makkah were generally tolerant towards all religious views, including their own. The monotheists saw no reason to rock the boat.

For that, Muhammad declared that they must die too. Any future "people of the book" who migrated to the area would have to pay a tax and be subject to constant proselytization. But those first Jhehudim and Khristianoi, they were in his way. So their blood was spilled along with that of the Mushrikin establishment. He commanded, in the name of Allah (really, *al-Ilah* {"the God"}, contracted to form a personal name), that all Muslimin (Muslims) must take up the sword and fight to the death against all who opposed them (meaning all who hadn't readily joined with them). It was a Muslim duty to kill.

"I must kill Infidels, this I know,
For Muhammad tells me so,
All their lands to us belong,
They are weak, but we are strong."

For Muhammad, it may have started out originally as an inner struggle, but he sure as hell proceeded to promptly physically drag all of his neighbors into it outwardly as well, and made a real mess of it, at that. And for that, he is a religious and cultural hero.

(BTW, the ancient JYisre'Elim {Israelites} also had a similar word as "al-jihad"-holy war: *ha-kherem*--"the cutting-off, the elimination, the eradication". It's what they rallied behind in their legends whenever they wanted to steal land from the ancient neighboring peoples of Holy Land.)

As far as modern peaceful Muslimin go, I don't want to start nothing. But it still sticks in my craw that they think of themselves as good Muslimin, claim to be following al-Qur'an more faithfully than the extremist radical terrorists, yet they so clearly do not follow Muhammad's example at Makkah. They conveniently pick and choose the peaceful sections out, and throw the embarassing stuff out. As religions, go, I guess it's good to have one that ignores its scriptural duty to kill non-believers. But it's best to have one that doesn't even have a scriptural duty to kill.

Or not to even have one at all. :D

[DialecticMaterialist]

Excellent article on the meaning of Jihad:
http://secularislam.org/jihad/exegesis.htm

The author makes this good point:


Honestly, I am not very much impressed by the various bookish meanings of the Arabic word “Jihad.” We know very well that in every language certain words may have many different meanings depending on its usage. That does not mean one can elude people the actual meaning of the word with some different meanings of a particular word.That does not mean one can elude people the actual meaning of the word with some different meanings of a particular word. Because the word meaning is always understood by its practical or circumstantial use only. Consider the word Jihad that means struggle. This struggle may have various circumstantial effects. Struggle can be in your mind, in your own life, in your work, in your way to office with the traffic, or struggle may be fighting with the enemy. You can say: “I am fighting with my mind whether I should accept it or not,” or “I am fighting with my wife over the decision of changing our house” or you can say—“I am fighting a war with my enemy.” Now, a simple human being will see the meaning of the word “fight” (usual meaning of which is armed collision) varies greatly with it’s circumstantial use.



Hence the word can mean many different things literally but have a specific meaning within the religion. I think this is the case in Islam and I doubt it means "personal struggle."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Speaking of Jihad...
This sounds like an urban legend, but it might be true.
US News and World Report had an article by Michael Barone in which he states the Bali bomber was asked what he would say to the families of all the Australians killed. His only reply was "Convert to Islam!"

If that is true, I think it is safe to say that a Holy War to kill infidels and expand Islam is at least part of some Muslims' ideas of jihad.

i don't think there has ever been much debate about that.

From what i have heard a muslim say, jihad literally means 'struggle'.

From there, it has as much common meaning for believers as the bible has.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by TexasBEAST
Man, the original question seemed like a handful by itself, but you guys sure know how to go off on tangents!


Agreed. From my readings, "al-jihad" literally translates as "the striving" or "the struggle". That's the denotative meaning. As with all words, it also has more subjective, connotative meanings. Thus, for modern people, we get all kinds of definitions like "inner turmoil", holy war, etc. etc.

As I understand it, Muhammad didn't "reclaim" Makkah. The city was full of pagan *shirk* (idolatry), and after a lifetime of being brought up with that and interacting with monotheistic traders from Europe, Muhammad decided to start a different path. His efforts to rid Makkah of idolatry were not any sort of return to the past or reclamation project. (The really ancient Arab world was as polytheistic and idolatrous as any other, after all.) Rather, Muhammad's efforts were a unilateral conversion process. He supposedly tried peacefully at first, was harassed out of town, regrouped and amassed a personal army in the city of al-Madinat, and then returned in a bloody massacre. That was Muhammad's way. Don't let modern revisionists lead you astray. That is the Qur'an's way. It is the Muslim way.

As far as modern peaceful Muslimin go, I don't want to start nothing. But it still sticks in my craw that they think of themselves as good Muslimin, claim to be following al-Qur'an more faithfully than the extremist radical terrorists, yet they so clearly do not follow Muhammad's example at Makkah. They conveniently pick and choose the peaceful sections out, and throw the embarassing stuff out. As religions, go, I guess it's good to have one that ignores its scriptural duty to kill non-believers. But it's best to have one that doesn't even have a scriptural duty to kill.

Or not to even have one at all. :D

The bible has plenty of examples of violence too. plenty of wars have been fought in the name of xians, and don't forget the spanish inquisition.

We have a family friend who is a muslim, he is very, very gentle.

All religions have had to 'accomodate' the teaching and the history with modern morality and civility.

[TexasBEAST]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The bible has plenty of examples of violence too. plenty of wars have been fought in the name of xians, and don't forget the spanish inquisition.
Here's how I see it. They all suck! :mad:

The OT bragged about how powerful the ancient JYisre'Elim (Israelites) *wished* they were, fabricating tales of violent bloodbaths alloverdedamnplace. But little if any of those legends were true. Just sick, morbid chest-thumping. Archaeological record just doesn't support the OT's claims. Regardless, the fact that the forerunners of JYehudim (Jews) chose warmongering as their romanticization of the past is a pretty good indicator of how deeply entrenched violence is in the ideology of the religion--even if it is all just a big lie.

Now with Khristianismos (Christianism, Christianity), I would beg to differ a little. The NT tells Khristianoi not to get involved with the affairs of this world, because the end is just around the corner. That means no wars, no political struggle, no nothing. Just constant prayer. And if you get whacked in the process, so be it. It is not a Biblical Khristianos' (Christian's) duty or authorization to take any actions with regard to this world's affairs. That's the job of the angeloi (angels) when the end-time comes. At Har-Megiddo (Armageddon), they'll open up a can of divine whoop-ass on all us naysayers and sinners, WWE Smackdown-style! But only then, and not a day before. Thus, the Crusades, while fought in the name of religion, were so not based on anything remotely found in the NT scriptures that I wouldn't use them as a criticism of Biblical religion. Radical religion, and especially theocratic regimes, sure. But not the Bible itself. The prevalence of the end-time violence stories, though, hardly qualifies Khristianismos as a religion of peace. A religion of thinly-veiled threats and only-delayed universal destruction.

And with al-Islam, just face it. The religion started because Muhammad couldn't tolerate the shirk (idolatry) of his town, so he vowed to kill 'em all in order to force his views through. The entire religion was founded upon the idea of violent revolution and imperialism. Muhammad only said to chill and be peaceful when he had glutted himself on the booty of his wars and needed some time to kick back and rest. That a warrior pauses to rest hardly makes him a peacemaker. And it hardly makes al-Islam a religion of peace.


All religions have had to 'accomodate' the teaching and the history with modern morality and civility.
True. But they lie to us and to themselves in claiming that they are holding steadfastly to their scriptures and not changing over time to accommodate other philosophies. They reinterpret their scriptures in order to find whatever they want to find in them. And then they tell us our souls are in jeapardy unless we convert to their religion.

Uh, was that Christianity version 1.2., or version 7.0.? Do you have a copy of the upgrade patch, because my parents raised me with version 5.3., and I think there might be some initial incompatability problems...;)

I say let's just have the courage to scrap the whole thing and start over with a new operating system altogether. Have the courage to admit that you're not really going by the old-ways, and a new way is called for in modern times. Stop hanging onto the bloody, shameful past. Let it go. Let it go.

[wolftrax]

Edit

[Sporanox]

Here's how I see it. They all suck! :mad:

The OT bragged about how powerful the ancient JYisre'Elim (Israelites) *wished* they were, fabricating tales of violent bloodbaths alloverdedamnplace. But little if any of those legends were true. Just sick, morbid chest-thumping. Archaeological record just doesn't support the OT's claims. Regardless, the fact that the forerunners of JYehudim (Jews) chose warmongering as their romanticization of the past is a pretty good indicator of how deeply entrenched violence is in the ideology of the religion--even if it is all just a big lie.

Now with Khristianismos (Christianism, Christianity), I would beg to differ a little. The NT tells Khristianoi not to get involved with the affairs of this world, because the end is just around the corner. That means no wars, no political struggle, no nothing. Just constant prayer. And if you get whacked in the process, so be it. It is not a Biblical Khristianos' (Christian's) duty or authorization to take any actions with regard to this world's affairs. That's the job of the angeloi (angels) when the end-time comes. At Har-Megiddo (Armageddon), they'll open up a can of divine whoop-ass on all us naysayers and sinners, WWE Smackdown-style! But only then, and not a day before. Thus, the Crusades, while fought in the name of religion, were so not based on anything remotely found in the NT scriptures that I wouldn't use them as a criticism of Biblical religion. Radical religion, and especially theocratic regimes, sure. But not the Bible itself. The prevalence of the end-time violence stories, though, hardly qualifies Khristianismos as a religion of peace. A religion of thinly-veiled threats and only-delayed universal destruction.

And with al-Islam, just face it. The religion started because Muhammad couldn't tolerate the shirk (idolatry) of his town, so he vowed to kill 'em all in order to force his views through. The entire religion was founded upon the idea of violent revolution and imperialism. Muhammad only said to chill and be peaceful when he had glutted himself on the booty of his wars and needed some time to kick back and rest. That a warrior pauses to rest hardly makes him a peacemaker. And it hardly makes al-Islam a religion of peace.


True. But they lie to us and to themselves in claiming that they are holding steadfastly to their scriptures and not changing over time to accommodate other philosophies. They reinterpret their scriptures in order to find whatever they want to find in them. And then they tell us our souls are in jeapardy unless we convert to their religion.

Uh, was that Christianity version 1.2., or version 7.0.? Do you have a copy of the upgrade patch, because my parents raised me with version 5.3., and I think there might be some initial incompatability problems...;)

I say let's just have the courage to scrap the whole thing and start over with a new operating system altogether. Have the courage to admit that you're not really going by the old-ways, and a new way is called for in modern times. Stop hanging onto the bloody, shameful past. Let it go. Let it go.

I find it interesting how you treat the Old and New Testaments as if they are irreconcilable. They are not.