Jihad does not translate to "holy war." It comes from the Arabic word "Juhd" or "struggle" and it means "to strive or struggle", referring to striving in the Path of Allah.
When the Muslims returned from battle, the Prophet (s) told them: "You have come from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad - the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires."
There are thus two types of Jihad, the Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad.
The Greater Jihad is called "Jihad Al-Nufs". Al-Nufs means "the ego", so Jihad Al-Nufs refers to "the struggle against one's own ego." The Prophet (s) said: "The mujahid is he who makes jihad against his nafs (ego) for the sake of obeying Allah."
As Muslims, we believe that the human is continually being "attacked" by his ego, carnal desires, temptations, etc. The battle against these is the Greater Jihad, or rather, the Greatest Jihad.
As for the Lesser Jihad, this refers to "Holy War" and the defense of the oppressed against the oppressors.
My belief also, but Mott1 would disagree I'll route out the thread "A comprehensive study of Jihad", it died because we were both too busy to continue, and I'm not exactly the greatest authority on Islam anyway, but you might find it interesting reading?
Thanks for not answering the other question, it's been done already on other threads, too often IMO, I think it's best to ignore the issues there or take them to another thread as there not really of that much interest or that relevant.
Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi--perhaps the leading Islamic scholar of our times--has stated the opinion that the impermissibility of these games was based on the fact that they had elements of gambling in them, and if this element is removed, then there is nothing wrong in it. In his book, "Halal wal Haram", Shaikh Qaradawi says in the section "Playing with Dice: Backgammon" the following: "Al-Shawkani says that Ibn Mughaffal and Ibn al-Musayyib allowed playing with dice if it did not involve gambling, apparently interpreting the above Prophetic Sayings to refer to those who played for money."
If you read the book someday I'd be interested in your view. The author does not spare many countries, in particular the British, regarding many of the problems that exist today. Can you explain the Meccan phase (activist) and the hijra Medina phase (quietist)? What phase do you think the various Muslim countries are associated with today?
Another question: when the pope said that Islam is violent, a number of Muslims protested by threatening him. Leaving aside whether he should have said anything, do you see a problem with what they did - do you see it as hypocritical or foolish?
Yes, I think the reaction of those Muslims was ironic. And yes, they were foolish. I was 100% against the reaction of some Muslims during the Danish cartoon thing and the Pope thing as well.
However, you have to understand that Muslims are very, very, very angry nowadays. And they have a very *good* reason to be angry. The situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and other places have made the Muslim masses very upset, and so of course they are hyper-sensitive to things now. Had the situation been different--and had the West not been at war with Islam--then I am sure that the Muslims would *not* have reacted like that.
The example of this is Ariel Sharon's visit to the holy mosque, to which the Palestinians responded to with the Second Intifada. It was a lot of built up anger, and Sharon's visit was just what lit the fuse. The actual inciting event may not be that big of a deal, but it's just a lot of built up anger.
But yes, violence is unacceptable and so are violent threats. This is not befitting a Muslim who is advocated to be soft, courteous, and just. Allah says in the Quran:
"Do not let the hatred of a people towards you move you to commit injustice. Be just: that is next to piety, and fear God." (Quran, 5:8)
In one instance, the disbelievers had taken certain actions that were angering many Muslims, to which Allah revealed:
"...let not the hatred of some people (towards you)...lead you to transgression and hostility on your part. Help each other in righteousness and piety, but do not help one another in sin and rancour: fear God" (Quran, 5:2)
Thanks for not answering the other question, it's been done already on other threads, too often IMO, I think it's best to ignore the issues there or take them to another thread as there not really of that much interest or that relevant.
My belief also, but Mott1 would disagree I'll route out the thread "A comprehensive study of Jihad", it died because we were both too busy to continue, and I'm not exactly the greatest authority on Islam anyway, but you might find it interesting reading?
It's a bit long of a thread to read, so I only read the first post by Mott1. It's just a bunch of irrelevant points. I don't mean to be disrespectful towards him, but I just didn't find any relevance of most of the points in his opening post.
I was thinking that maybe all of his post was leading somewhere, but I reached the end of his first post and was left hanging. Was his argument continued in another post?
In fact, I agree with his first post, which merely establishes that Jihad of the sword is important in Islam. This is established and agreed upon. However, I find no argument in that post that refutes that there is *another* type of Jihad which is the Greater Jihad and which is Jihad Al-Nufs (struggle over one's ego).
The existence of Jihad Al-Nufs is confirmed by both Quran and Hadith. In the Quran, we have these two verses for example:
"And whosoever STRIVES (JAAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAAHIDU) only for himself" (Quran, 29:6).
"As for those who STRIVE (JAHADU) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers." (Quran, 29:69)
These verses were revealed to the Prophet (s) when he was still in Mecca, and this was *before* the Jihad of the sword was in existence. In fact, permission to fight Jihad was *not* given until the Prophet (s) was expelled to Medinah. Therefore, these verses can *only* refer to Jihad Al-Nafs.
Shaikh GF Haddad also lists many other Quranic verses about Jihad Al-Nafs and says: "The above are among the many Meccan verses and Suras enjoining jihad al-nafs. One that denies that there was/is such a Divine command commits kufr (disbelief). Such a command cannot mean military jihad, as there was no permission - much less an order - for such a jihad until the Madinan period."
I place great emphasis on this: the Shaikh has said that the one who denies the Jihad Al-Nufs is considered an apostate.
The Shaikh goes on to say:
"Thus those that claim there is no jihad al-nafs in Islam have imperiled their Islam and might make their shahada, salat, zakat, sawm, hajj, AND jihad worthless. Allah is our refuge from this."
Here is the Shaikh's fatwa on this matter:
Spoiler:
Question:
I was listening to some girls talk the other day, and they were saying that there was no evidence for jihad al nafs, that all the evidence for it was fabricated, or so weak as to be worthless, and so jihad can only mean fighting physically. I am very confused by this. If you could explain this to me and show me the evidences, I would really appreciate it.
Answer:
Wa `alaykum as-Salam:
Allah Most High said:
{And whosoever STRIVES (JAAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAAHIDU) only for himself} (29:6). {As for those who STRIVE (JAHADU) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers.} (29:69) This is a Meccan Sura and the two verses refer to Jihad al-Nafs. There was no military jihad then.
Without jihad of the nafs, fighting leads to Hellfire.
Allah Most High said:
{WA NAFSIN WA MAA SAWAAHA, FA-ALHAMAHA FUJURAHA WA TAQWAHA. QAD AFLAHA MAN ZAKAAHA WA QAD KHAABA MAN DAS-SAAHA}
"By the nafs and the proportion and order given to it, and its inspiration as to its wrong and its right; Truly he succeeds who purifies it, and he fails that corrupts it" (91:7-10). This is also a Meccan Sura.
Without purification, the nafs remains a "soul that enjoins evil" (al-nafs al - ammara bil-su') until it surrenders itself in total obedience to the call of animal passions and shaytan.
Allah Most High said:
{Have you seen the one who chooses for his god his own lust?} (25:43). {He followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if you attack him he pants with his tongue out and if you leave him he pants with his tongue out} (7:176). These are both also Meccan Suras.
About the person who controlled the passion of his ego Allah says: {But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from lust, Lo! The garden will be his home} (79:40-41). This is also a Meccan Sura.
The above are among the many Meccan verses and Suras enjoining jihad al-nafs. One that denies that there was/is such a Divine command commits kufr. Such a command cannot mean military jihad, as there was no permission - much less an order - for such a jihad until the Madinan period.
Further, the Prophet said, upon him peace:
1. The mujahid is he who makes jihad against his nafs (ego) for the sake of obeying Allah.
- Ibn Hibban (#1624, 2519): Authentic;
- Shu`ayb al-Arna'ut (Commentary on Ibn Hibban): authentic;
- al-Hakim: sahih;
- `Iraqi confirms him;
- it is also in Tirmidhi, Ahmad, and Tabarani;
- Albani included it in the "Sahiha".
2. "`A'isha, Allah be well-pleased with her, asked: 'Messenger of Allah, we see jihad as the best of deeds, so shouldn't we join it?' He replied, 'But the best jihad is a perfect Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah).'" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #2784)
3. On another occasion, a man asked: "Should I join the jihad?" The Prophet asked, upon him peace, "Do you have parents?" The man said yes. The Prophet said: "Then do jihad by serving them!" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #5972)
4. Another man asked: "What kind of jihad is better?" The Prophet replied, upon him peace: "A word of truth spoken in front of an oppressive ruler." (Sunan Al-Nasa'i #4209)
5. The Prophet also said, upon him peace: The strong one is not the one who overcomes people, the strong one is he who overcomes his nafs [ego]. Al-Haythami declared it authentic in Majma` al-Zawa'id.
6. The Prophet, upon him peace, said to Abu Sa`id al-Khudri: "Even if one strikes unbelievers and idolaters with his sword until it breaks, and he is *completely* dyed with their blood, the Rememberers of Allah are above him one degree."
The above authentic hadiths provide additional explicit evidence - especially 1 and 5 - refuting the lie that "all the evidence for jihad al-nafs is fabricated or weak."
Further:
Allah Most High is Tayyibun and accepts only the Tayyib. He declares in the Qur'an that He accepts acts of worship only if they are based on:
- purification of the self (qad aflaha man zakkaha)
- soundness of the heart (illa man ata Allaha bi-qalbin salim)
- an humble spirit (wa-innaha lakabiratun illa `alal khashi`in)
Purification of the Intention is the general heading for these. That is why the Imams (e.g. Bukhari, Shafi`i, Nawawi) always began their books of fiqh with the hadith of intention: "Actions count only according to intention."
An act outwardly considered worship but performed without pure intention is not considered worship, even fighting and dying in defense of Muslims. The Prophet, upon him peace, explicitly said of one such fighter that he was bound for the fire.
In fact, purification of intention is needed for all five pillars of Islam. Such purification is a fard `ayn and is required of all.
Thus those that claim there is no jihad al-nafs in Islam have imperiled their Islam and might make their shahada, salat, zakat, sawm, hajj, AND jihad worthless. Allah is our refuge from this.
Just another type of questions :
In civ:
1)With which version of civ you started?
2)Did you play for some another civilization than muslim?
3)Which type of win you usually reached?
4)Do you have warlords?
5)What is your favorite combination of civics?
Haha, that is actually a big joke amongst us Muslims. But no, the "lowering the gaze" is not a literal reference. I guess "averting the gaze" is a more accurate phrase, but lowering is used to denote humility.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is a Kaffir (disbeliever) by Ijma (consensus) of the Sunni scholars.
Having said that, there are some scholars who hold the view that chess/backgammon are forbidden. This position is held by them as a precaution, because they feel that it is guesswork to say that the Prophet (s) forbade these things for the reason of betting. However, I do not agree with this view, and I believe that betting/gambling is the only reason that these things are forbidden, and there is a great deal of evidence for this opinion from the Prophetic Sayings.
The example of that is if someone today said that it is Haram (forbidden) to go to bars because bars have alcohol, dancing, and strippers. However, maybe in the future, bars would become places where none of these things happen but rather people go to the bar to simply read books. (Just a strange example I made up.) Then, some people might say "well, we think the bar was forbidden because of such-and-such, so because that's no longer an issue, it's ok"....and others might say "No, we don't know that for sure so we should stay away from bars anyways."
Nonetheless, Shaikh Qaradawi is generally regarded as the top scholar in this day and age, and that is his position on the matter, namely that they are not Haram (forbidden) so long as there is no gambling.
Can you explain the Meccan phase (activist) and the hijra Medina phase (quietist)? What phase do you think the various Muslim countries are associated with today?
Although I've seen some people applying these concepts to the modern day, I do not think this is appropriate. I believe that these two phases were specific to the events that were happening in the Prophet's life and cannot be translated to the modern day. I believe that we Muslims are in a new phase altogether and in a situation that has never occurred in history.
Yes, I think the reaction of those Muslims was ironic. And yes, they were foolish. I was 100% against the reaction of some Muslims during the Danish cartoon thing and the Pope thing as well.
However, you have to understand that Muslims are very, very, very angry nowadays. And they have a very *good* reason to be angry. The situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and other places have made the Muslim masses very upset, and so of course they are hyper-sensitive to things now. Had the situation been different--and had the West not been at war with Islam--then I am sure that the Muslims would *not* have reacted like that.
The example of this is Ariel Sharon's visit to the holy mosque, to which the Palestinians responded to with the Second Intifada. It was a lot of built up anger, and Sharon's visit was just what lit the fuse. The actual inciting event may not be that big of a deal, but it's just a lot of built up anger.
But yes, violence is unacceptable and so are violent threats. This is not befitting a Muslim who is advocated to be soft, courteous, and just. Allah says in the Quran:
"Do not let the hatred of a people towards you move you to commit injustice. Be just: that is next to piety, and fear God." (Quran, 5:8)
In one instance, the disbelievers had taken certain actions that were angering many Muslims, to which Allah revealed:
"...let not the hatred of some people (towards you)...lead you to transgression and hostility on your part. Help each other in righteousness and piety, but do not help one another in sin and rancour: fear God" (Quran, 5:2)
I am not going to pursue the issue any more in this thread, as it simply gets everyone emotional and leads to endless back-and-forth.
It's a bit long of a thread to read, so I only read the first post by Mott1. It's just a bunch of irrelevant points. I don't mean to be disrespectful towards him, but I just didn't find any relevance of most of the points in his opening post.
I was thinking that maybe all of his post was leading somewhere, but I reached the end of his first post and was left hanging. Was his argument continued in another post?
In fact, I agree with his first post, which merely establishes that Jihad of the sword is important in Islam. This is established and agreed upon. However, I find no argument in that post that refutes that there is *another* type of Jihad which is the Greater Jihad and which is Jihad Al-Nufs (struggle over one's ego).
The existence of Jihad Al-Nufs is confirmed by both Quran and Hadith. In the Quran, we have these two verses for example:
"And whosoever STRIVES (JAAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAAHIDU) only for himself" (Quran, 29:6).
"As for those who STRIVE (JAHADU) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers." (Quran, 29:69)
These verses were revealed to the Prophet (s) when he was still in Mecca, and this was *before* the Jihad of the sword was in existence. In fact, permission to fight Jihad was *not* given until the Prophet (s) was expelled to Medinah. Therefore, these verses can *only* refer to Jihad Al-Nafs.
Shaikh GF Haddad also lists many other Quranic verses about Jihad Al-Nafs and says: "The above are among the many Meccan verses and Suras enjoining jihad al-nafs. One that denies that there was/is such a Divine command commits kufr (disbelief). Such a command cannot mean military jihad, as there was no permission - much less an order - for such a jihad until the Madinan period."
I place great emphasis on this: the Shaikh has said that the one who denies the Jihad Al-Nufs is considered an apostate.
The Shaikh goes on to say:
"Thus those that claim there is no jihad al-nafs in Islam have imperiled their Islam and might make their shahada, salat, zakat, sawm, hajj, AND jihad worthless. Allah is our refuge from this."
Here is the Shaikh's fatwa on this matter:
Spoiler:
Question:
I was listening to some girls talk the other day, and they were saying that there was no evidence for jihad al nafs, that all the evidence for it was fabricated, or so weak as to be worthless, and so jihad can only mean fighting physically. I am very confused by this. If you could explain this to me and show me the evidences, I would really appreciate it.
Answer:
Wa `alaykum as-Salam:
Allah Most High said:
{And whosoever STRIVES (JAAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAAHIDU) only for himself} (29:6). {As for those who STRIVE (JAHADU) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers.} (29:69) This is a Meccan Sura and the two verses refer to Jihad al-Nafs. There was no military jihad then.
Without jihad of the nafs, fighting leads to Hellfire.
Allah Most High said:
{WA NAFSIN WA MAA SAWAAHA, FA-ALHAMAHA FUJURAHA WA TAQWAHA. QAD AFLAHA MAN ZAKAAHA WA QAD KHAABA MAN DAS-SAAHA}
"By the nafs and the proportion and order given to it, and its inspiration as to its wrong and its right; Truly he succeeds who purifies it, and he fails that corrupts it" (91:7-10). This is also a Meccan Sura.
Without purification, the nafs remains a "soul that enjoins evil" (al-nafs al - ammara bil-su') until it surrenders itself in total obedience to the call of animal passions and shaytan.
Allah Most High said:
{Have you seen the one who chooses for his god his own lust?} (25:43). {He followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if you attack him he pants with his tongue out and if you leave him he pants with his tongue out} (7:176). These are both also Meccan Suras.
About the person who controlled the passion of his ego Allah says: {But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from lust, Lo! The garden will be his home} (79:40-41). This is also a Meccan Sura.
The above are among the many Meccan verses and Suras enjoining jihad al-nafs. One that denies that there was/is such a Divine command commits kufr. Such a command cannot mean military jihad, as there was no permission - much less an order - for such a jihad until the Madinan period.
Further, the Prophet said, upon him peace:
1. The mujahid is he who makes jihad against his nafs (ego) for the sake of obeying Allah.
- Ibn Hibban (#1624, 2519): Authentic;
- Shu`ayb al-Arna'ut (Commentary on Ibn Hibban): authentic;
- al-Hakim: sahih;
- `Iraqi confirms him;
- it is also in Tirmidhi, Ahmad, and Tabarani;
- Albani included it in the "Sahiha".
2. "`A'isha, Allah be well-pleased with her, asked: 'Messenger of Allah, we see jihad as the best of deeds, so shouldn't we join it?' He replied, 'But the best jihad is a perfect Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah).'" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #2784)
3. On another occasion, a man asked: "Should I join the jihad?" The Prophet asked, upon him peace, "Do you have parents?" The man said yes. The Prophet said: "Then do jihad by serving them!" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #5972)
4. Another man asked: "What kind of jihad is better?" The Prophet replied, upon him peace: "A word of truth spoken in front of an oppressive ruler." (Sunan Al-Nasa'i #4209)
5. The Prophet also said, upon him peace: The strong one is not the one who overcomes people, the strong one is he who overcomes his nafs [ego]. Al-Haythami declared it authentic in Majma` al-Zawa'id.
6. The Prophet, upon him peace, said to Abu Sa`id al-Khudri: "Even if one strikes unbelievers and idolaters with his sword until it breaks, and he is *completely* dyed with their blood, the Rememberers of Allah are above him one degree."
The above authentic hadiths provide additional explicit evidence - especially 1 and 5 - refuting the lie that "all the evidence for jihad al-nafs is fabricated or weak."
Further:
Allah Most High is Tayyibun and accepts only the Tayyib. He declares in the Qur'an that He accepts acts of worship only if they are based on:
- purification of the self (qad aflaha man zakkaha)
- soundness of the heart (illa man ata Allaha bi-qalbin salim)
- an humble spirit (wa-innaha lakabiratun illa `alal khashi`in)
Purification of the Intention is the general heading for these. That is why the Imams (e.g. Bukhari, Shafi`i, Nawawi) always began their books of fiqh with the hadith of intention: "Actions count only according to intention."
An act outwardly considered worship but performed without pure intention is not considered worship, even fighting and dying in defense of Muslims. The Prophet, upon him peace, explicitly said of one such fighter that he was bound for the fire.
In fact, purification of intention is needed for all five pillars of Islam. Such purification is a fard `ayn and is required of all.
Thus those that claim there is no jihad al-nafs in Islam have imperiled their Islam and might make their shahada, salat, zakat, sawm, hajj, AND jihad worthless. Allah is our refuge from this.
I tend to agree here, maybe you should post some rebuttals when you have the time. It was a good discussion anyway, that trailed off, If you have a spare ten minutes read the thread, it isn't that long.
I tend to agree here, maybe you should post some rebuttals when you have the time. It was a good discussion anyway, that trailed off, If you have a spare ten minutes read the thread, it isn't that long.
Is there a specific post where he negates the idea that there could be another type of Jihad in addition to Jihad of the sword? Can you point me to that post. The opening post definitely does *not* negate this at all. It simply states that Jihad of the sword exists, which I already agree with.
I've answered this in an earlier post. Well, I answered about Israel/Palestine in general.
I believe that it belongs to Palestinians. To give a Civ example, I believe that they stole a city, and thus declared war on the Muslim civ. The Muslim Civ should fight back with the goal of retaking the lost city, but if the opposing Civ offers a fair enough peace settlement, then we will accept it.
If the Israelis offered a *fair* peace, then we would accept it. Even willing to split Jerusalem in two. Two state solution as it is called. But so far Israel has not offered a true and fair peace. Not even the dumbest civ would accept a Peace Treaty if you clicked all of its cities and said "will you accept this deal?"
The Palestinians must defend themselves as long as Israel continues oppressing them. If the Israelis stop their oppression and if they lean towards peace, then Allah loves peace over war.
Is there a specific post where he negates the idea that there could be another type of Jihad in addition to Jihad of the sword? Can you point me to that post. The opening post definitely does *not* negate this at all. It simply states that Jihad of the sword exists, which I already agree with.
We didn't get that far, and it's a shame, I was kinda hoping he'd go further, but it was meant to be a complete analysis, and the earlier posts are foundations. Unfortunately we never got further than the foundations.
Essentially we established our thoughts about Jihad, went into a small part of history, but never really refined it, kind of like a debate that trails off after the opening arguments.
To give a Civ example, I believe that they stole a city, and thus declared war on the Muslim civ. The Muslim Civ should fight back with the goal of retaking the lost city
Up until 1917, the Jews owned 2.5% of the land of Palestine, and Palestinians owned 97%. By 1948, the Jews still only owned 7% of the land, and the Palestinians owned 93%. It was 1948 when Israel attacked and occupied the remaining 93% of the land.
If you are making the argument that the Jews *used* to live in Israel thousands and thousands of years ago (and then moved out), then this is invalid logic as well, since it was *not* the Muslims who kicked them out. The Turks of Central Asia lived in various parts of Asia, and eventually they settled in Turkey. Now would the people of Turkey have the right to claim those parts of Central Asia that they left thousands of years ago?
Furthermore, even if we accept such absurd logic, the Jews were *not* the first people in the land of Israel. And here's the kicker: the Jews themselves invaded and conquered Palestine from its original inhabitants. According to Jewish tradition, twelve tribes entered Canaan from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses approximately 1240-1200 BC.
In fact, the very first inhabitants of Palestine were ARABS and NOT Jews. These were Pre-Islamic Arabs. Before 1240, the ancestors of the Arabs lived on that land, way before the Jews came in, and the Jews stayed in Palestine for a very short time, a mere blip on the radar. The Arabs are the ones who established Jericho, far before any Jews came.
So seriously, on *what* basis is it Jewish land? Can you please give one intelligent reason? The only one I can come up with is that they have more guns.
That's like me saying that Washington DC should be made a universal city and not an American city...or saying that Houston should be made a universal city since it's so important to space and all humans should be in on space.
Jerusalem is Palestinian land. Again, in 1917, Palestinians owned 97% of the land of Palestine. You can't just take land because your religion says it's important.
That's like me saying that Washington DC should be made a universal city and not an American city.
Jerusalem is Muslim land. Again, in 1917, Palestinians owned 97% of the land of Palestine. You can't just take land because your religion says it's important.
civ1,2 and 3 didn't have any (in civ, Persia seems more like the ancient Persia, so it is not muslim yet - otherwise we would have to count Babylonians as muslims too, and that is incorrect). Civ3 had Ottomans and Arabs in Play the world, I played PtW with Ottomans once and Greeks once.
So seriously, on *what* basis is it Jewish land? Can you please give one intelligent reason? The only one I can come up with is that they have more guns.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
(Or at least make her perceive that)
(And no, that has nothing to do with being a Muslim!!!!!)
