JIHAD: A comprehensive study.

[Mott1]

The purpose of this thread is to explore the meaning of jihad. My forum friend Sidhe and I have agreed to set about the task of examining jihad in its religious context.
This comprehensive study will take the form of debate where I will offer my viewpoint of jihad, whereby Sidhe will contribute his counter perspective. Just to make a brief clearification, a debate is not about "winning." An exercise of engaging in a polemic which results in a senseless competition of rethoric is an exercise in futility. The goal should be to unravel the truth and not to childishly try to win the argument at any cost. The prupose of debate is where opposing ideas contend whereby logic and reasoning become the mediators by default. Perhaps in the end we will come to a mutual understanding or at the very least, walk away with a little more knowledge.

This is an open forum so obviously anyone can participate and express opinions or offer their own arguments. However Sidhe and myself are not obligated to reply.

Note to moderaters: I am not sure if this thread is relevant to the OT forum or history forum, please make the necessary adjustment if needed.

Sidhe: I will begin with a general premise where you then can refute or counter the conjectures you find disagreeable. Or you can simply refute it in its entirety, either way the direction of debate will be dictated by the points that we are in disagreement. However keep in mind that the debate is on jihad, lets not stray from that premise.

JIHAD

The Arabic word jihad (noun of the verb jahada) literally means to strive, to struggle. Jihad is etymologically connected with a root which expresses strenuous exertion. In its religious context it may express a struggle against one's evil inclinations or an extertion for the sake of Islam and the ummah (Islamic community), for example, trying to convert unblievers or working for the moral betterment of Islamic society.
Jihad is established as a principle of Islam through the teachings, actions and lifestyle of Muhammad. The testimony of faith is the first pillar of Islam, the significance of this declaration is the belief that the only purpose of life is to serve and obey God and this is only achieved through the teachings and practices of Muhammad. There is no doubt that jihad is a fundamental principle, the confusion lies in its religious context.

The origin of the concept of jihad is traced back to the wars fought by Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and is reflected in the written text of the Quran.
It is clear that the concept of jihad was influenced by the ideas of war among the pre-Islamic Arab tribes, e.g. Battle of Badr, Battle of Khaibar which Muhammad participated.
The Quran frequently mentions jihad and is explicitly clear about fighting (qit'il) against the unbelievers.
The verses in the Quran define Jihad as a military system. Their are verses that deal with practical matters such as exemption from military service (Q 9.91, 48.17), fighting during the holy months (Q 2.217), the fate of prisoners of war (Q 47.4), safe conduct (Q 9.6), and truce (Q 8.61). And of course there are the many verses that exhort the believers to take part in fighting, (Q 9.5), (Q 9.29), promise reward to those who are killed in jihad (Q 3.157-58, 169-72), and promise those who do not fight with eternal torment in the afterlife (Q 9.81-82, 48:16).


The first treaties on the law of jihad were written during the second half of the eighth century. The legal doctrine of jihad was the result of ongoing discussions that had been going on since Muhammads death and through which the doctrine had been developed.
Now keep in mind that the period in which the doctrine of jihad was gradually formulated coincided with the period of the great conquest (the Great Jihad) which many of the Sahabah participated. The Sahabah were the original companions of Muhammad, Abu Bakr (632-634), Umar (634-644)
Uthman (644-656), Ali (656-661) in particular, were among the prophets first successors (caliphs) and understood Muhammads/Allahs mandates intimately. You can probably say that the sahabah were to Muhammad as the Christian apostles were to Jesus.

The doctrine of jihad, as laid down in the works of Islamic law developed out of the Quranic prescriptions and actions of Muhammad and the first Righteously Guided Caliphs (Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali) which is recorded in the hadith. The central bases of the doctrine is the existance of one single Islamic state, ruling the entire ummah. It is the duty of the ummah to expand the territory of this state in order to bring all people under its rule.
The most important function of the doctrine of jihad is that it mobilizes and motivates Muslims to take part in the wars against unbelievers. It is considered to be the fullfillment of religious duty. The motivating factor is the promise of eternal paradise to those that are killed in battle, called shahid (martyrs). The Quran vividly discribes the rewards awaiting in the afterlife for those who are slain in battle.
As a true believer, the prospect of eternal paradise makes dying in battle a simple matter. Would I be considered brave for charging in battle knowing I will meet certain death in a temporal life, in exchange for eternal life in paradise? Would I kill even though I did not hate those I kill in battle, in exchange for eternal life in paradise? These are questions a believer can only answer, however I am pretty confidant in what the answer would be.

With that, I will leave the stage for Sidhe to reply and we can go from there.

 

[Trajan12]

Just want to commend you on all the research you must have done. Glad some actually learn about religion before they attempt to discredit it.

 

[Sidhe]

You'll have to give me some time to research the issues in question, I am impressed with your efforts though. I will go back and look into the subject and come back with something that is worthy of discussion. I still maintain that the greater Jihad upholds the essence of self discovery, to struggle within yourself. And that a lesser Jihad is the struggle with others or warfare, but I couldn't do your research justice unless I equally did research myself. When someone puts that much effort into his case though, then win or lose becomes meaningless, I'd rather lose and learn something than win and learn nothing. In that case I hope I lose Give me a day or two, I need to find some sources.

 

[Quasar1011]

I still maintain that the greater Jihad upholds the essence of self discovery, to struggle within yourself. And that a lesser Jihad is the struggle with others or warfare,

A few years ago, Saudi Arabia was rocked by a tragedy: a girl's school in Mecca caught on fire. First on the scene were muttawas (religious police) from the Society for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, who actually sent the girls back into the burning building to put on headscarves to preserve their modesty before they could be rescued (many were injured and 15 girls died). They also impeded the efforts of the firefighters who wished to rescue the girls first and worry about propriety later.

Was that the inner struggle, or the struggle with others?

 

[Neomega]

A few years ago, Saudi Arabia was rocked by a tragedy: a girl's school in Mecca caught on fire. First on the scene were muttawas (religious police) from the Society for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, who actually sent the girls back into the burning building to put on headscarves to preserve their modesty before they could be rescued (many were injured and 15 girls died). They also impeded the efforts of the firefighters who wished to rescue the girls first and worry about propriety later.

Was that the inner struggle, or the struggle with others?

OT needs a refined debate sub-forum, where logical fallacies, flaming, trolling and poor grammar can get one perma banned from the sub-forum.

 

[Neomega]

I missed the whole spirit of this thread

OT needs a refined debate sub-forum, where logical fallacies, flaming, trolling and poor grammar can get one perma banned from the sub-forum.

 

[Quasar1011]

I merely asked a question: is Jihad an inner or outer struggle? Seems like a relevant Q to me.

 

[emzie]

A few years ago, Saudi Arabia was rocked by a tragedy: a girl's school in Mecca caught on fire. First on the scene were muttawas (religious police) from the Society for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, who actually sent the girls back into the burning building to put on headscarves to preserve their modesty before they could be rescued (many were injured and 15 girls died). They also impeded the efforts of the firefighters who wished to rescue the girls first and worry about propriety later.

Was that the inner struggle, or the struggle with others?

I'll respond even though I think you a troll on what looks to be a good thread. What you describe has nothing to do with Jihad. As to your attempt to bash Islam, I'll point out this: as you said yourself, the firefighters, themselves Muslim, were more concerned about the safety of the girls. That Saudi Arabia as a government holds a disgusting ideology does not reflect on Islam any more than the Spanish Inquisition reflected on Christianity.

If you wish to discuss this further, please do not derail this thread. PM me or start a different thread.

 

[Sidhe]

The purpose of this thread is to explore the meaning of jihad. My forum friend Sidhe and I have agreed to set about the task of examining jihad in its religious context.

<snip>

With that, I will leave the stage for Sidhe to reply and we can go from there.

Ok but I believe your doing Jihad somewhat of a diservice in emphasising the military aspects, yes in the period of Mohammeds life there was an emphasis on militray conflict but let's examine the entrity of what Jihad means to muslims.


First of all here are the five types of Jihad

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/caliphate/jihad.html

Classifications of Jihad by Muslims

Jihad has been classified either as al-jih&#257;d al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one's soul (nafs), or al-jih&#257;d al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting.

Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):

The Arabic word, jihad, is usually translated as "holy war" in English, but that is a limited definition of the word, since the word does not always have a military connotation. It is derived from an Arabic verb that means to strive, struggle, and work hard, and in Islamic theology it is applied to the particular struggle that all Muslims must undertake to protect and honour the Islamic faith. There are five types of jihad:

1. Jihad against oneself - the daily struggle against evil and temptation in life.
2. Jihad with knowledge - the struggle to use knowledge, particularly from the Qur'an, to fight ignorance and to gain converts to Islam not through battle, but through the power of Qur'anic knowledge.
3. Jihad with wealth - the struggle to give up material wealth for the benefit of Islam, through charitable donations.
4. Jihad with the sword - the physical struggle to defend Islam against harm from unbelievers. Muslims believe that if they give their lives in this military jihad they will be rewarded with eternal paradise.
5. Jihad through righteousness - the struggle to continuously undertake good deeds to please God and benefit humanity.

When the word, jihad, is used in a military context, as it often was in these early years of Muslim conquest of non-Muslim lands, it refers to the fourth type of jihad, in which Muslims take to the sword to defend Islam against unbelievers.

So what is the distinction between lesser and greater Jihad and why is such distinction made, this is because in order to fight the lesser Jihad one must first fight the greater Jihad to guard against hypocrisy, only in doing so will you then be be able to fight in good faith.

1. "Some troops came back from an expedition and went to see the Messenger of Allah MHMD sallallahu 'alayhi wa-Sallam'. He said: "You have come for the best, from the smaller jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." Someone said, "What is the greater jihad?" He said: "The servant's struggle against his lust"(mujahadat al-`abdi hawah).

.

Let me make it clear that, the idea that Jihad is a means to force Islam on others in violent struggle is against the tennants of Islam, also Jihad solely to gain territory or to gain wealth is also forbidden. However it must be made clear that many perverted Jihad to gain glory and power, much as the Crusaders perpetrated great wrongs in the name of the Crusades, here though are the rules of warfare under Jihad.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rules-of-war-in-islam

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in his book Mizan that after Muhammad and his Companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for Jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam only allows Jihad to be conducted by a Government[2] with at least half the power of the enemy.[3][4][5] Some Islamic scholars consider the later command only for a particular time.[6]

Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder" (Bukhari, Abu Dawood)...Booty of war from the battleground is altogether different. It consists of the wealth, provisions and equipment captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies and may legitimately be appropriated.

Muslims have been prohibited from taking anything from the general public of a conquered country without paying for it. If the Muslim army occupies an area of the enemy country, it does not have the right to use the things belonging to the people without their consent. If the army needs anything, it should purchase it from the local population or should obtain permission from the owners.

* "You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362
* "Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud).
* "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).

I find the laws of warfare amongst Muslims to be a deal more civilised than those of the Crusades which are repleate with great slaughters against men women and children and even such abominations as canabalism.

It must be mentioned though that much of Islamic law is turned upside down by the fundamentalist movements of the 19th and 20th century, the greater Jihad is seen to be that of war, the lesser for the soul. This is a general move away from the tennants upheld in the holy books though, and should not be confused with the words of Mohammed and his servants. I want to steer clear though of mentioning terrorism which is neither Quranic nor anything to do with Jihad, many think it is justified by the Koran but I find little to uphold this belief as I have shown that it breaks almost all the tennants of legitimate war.

I will sum up by saying that I am in agreement that Jihad has changed it's tone from Mohammeds day through to the present becoming more and less warlike as it progressed through history, beware though , there are many intepritations, but I find the language of the Koran upholds the most honest interpritation and so have striven to present that version.

Sorry I didn't have time to do as much research as I would of liked, but I hope this will suffice as a prompter of discussion.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I admire the jihad but not their actions. They are pretty good fighters you must admit. They are loyal and are willing to die for their cause.

 

[Mott1]

You'll have to give me some time to research the issues in question, I am impressed with your efforts though. I will go back and look into the subject and come back with something that is worthy of discussion. I still maintain that the greater Jihad upholds the essence of self discovery, to struggle within yourself. And that a lesser Jihad is the struggle with others or warfare, but I couldn't do your research justice unless I equally did research myself.

Take your time, there is no rush. I've been pretty busy of late and probably will not be able to access the forum as much as I would like. I realize we have embarked on a prodigious endeavour, however this subject is not new to me and much of the informantion is at hand. I am content with taking a step by step approach to this debate.

When someone puts that much effort into his case though, then win or lose becomes meaningless, I'd rather lose and learn something than win and learn nothing. In that case I hope I lose Give me a day or two, I need to find some sources.

I am very pleased to read this and let me add that I admire your positive attitude and your commitment to truth. Now, I will start with our discussion.

Ok but I believe your doing Jihad somewhat of a diservice in emphasising the military aspects, yes in the period of Mohammeds life there was an emphasis on militray conflict but let's examine the entrity of what Jihad means to muslims.

My emphasis only lies in examining jihad in its religious context and as I have demonstrated, the Quran itself emphasises the military aspects.
You propose that we should examine jihad in its entirety and I couldn't agree more. However the argument you have presented betrays your proposition.
Your argument is dependant on a one-sided evaluation of jihad, it is not possible to examine jihad in its entirety by relying on one perspective.

Lets say jihad is an object, you and I see the same object from different perspectives. From where you are standing you may see the object as a disk,
therefor your interpretation and description of the object is dependant on your observation of the disk. Seeing the same object from a different angle I could say, no you are mistaken; its a cylinder. There is a depth to the object and thus the examination of the object in its entirety must pertain to all of its dimensions.
By relying on the commentaries of a single perspective we essentially do a diservice to ourselves. In our commitment to the truth it is our duty to remain objective observers, we are in essence freethinkers. Freethinkers are independent thinkers. Freethinkers listen to the words said but not to the persons who say it.

Let us for moment consider the meaning of jihad from this commentators perspective.

It is derived from an Arabic verb that means to strive, struggle, and work hard, and in Islamic theology it is applied to the particular struggle that all Muslims must undertake to protect and honour the Islamic faith. There are five types of jihad:
1. Jihad against oneself - the daily struggle against evil and temptation in life.
2. Jihad with knowledge - the struggle to use knowledge, particularly from the Qur'an, to fight ignorance and to gain converts to Islam not through battle, but through the power of Qur'anic knowledge.
3. Jihad with wealth - the struggle to give up material wealth for the benefit of Islam, through charitable donations.
4. Jihad with the sword - the physical struggle to defend Islam against harm from unbelievers. Muslims believe that if they give their lives in this military jihad they will be rewarded with eternal paradise.
5. Jihad through righteousness - the struggle to continuously undertake good deeds to please God and benefit humanity.

These five types of jihad do not condradict or oppose jihad as I have provided in its religious context.

This is how I have described jihad:

In its religious context it may express a struggle against one's evil inclinations or an extertion for the sake of Islam and the ummah (Islamic community), for example, trying to convert unblievers or working for the moral betterment of Islamic society.

All five types of jihad you have listed can apply to jihad in the religious context I have provided. What we must do is locate its origin, What did Muhammad/Allah mean by struggling for the sake of Islam? To do this we must look to the Quran.

So what is the distinction between lesser and greater Jihad and why is such distinction made, this is because in order to fight the lesser Jihad one must first fight the greater Jihad to guard against hypocrisy, only in doing so will you then be be able to fight in good faith.

It is irrelevant to even persue the argument of which jihad is the "greater" and which is the "lesser" when you have not provided two separate distinctions. Furthermore one does not negate the other. No matter how one tries to present a benign greater jihad there still exists the verses in the Quran that call for fighting against the unbeliever. They simply don't go away no matter how you look at it.
It is true however, that the word jihad is employed in the Quran and by some Muslim commentators with a double meaning. There are passages in which it refers to the strenuous exertion of the believer to fight the good fight of faith, as regards the conquest of himself and his passions, and the fullfilment of all his religious obligations which involves a considerable struggle with carelessness, indifference, and what we can call the natural disinclination of mankind.
Yet as interesting as all this may be, it is rather away from the point. The question of what jihad is, cannot be settled solely by reference to the etymology of the word jihad. The Quran specifically teaches in many passages the duty of fighting for the Faith or "in the way of Allah." When we ask the question, what is jihad? What are the duties of Muslims with regard to jihad? The real point of the question is, what does the Quran mean when it teaches jihad.

Let me make it clear that, the idea that Jihad is a means to force Islam on others in violent struggle is against the tennants of Islam, also Jihad solely to gain territory or to gain wealth is also forbidden. However it must be made clear that many perverted Jihad to gain glory and power, much as the Crusaders perpetrated great wrongs in the name of the Crusades, here though are the rules of warfare under Jihad.

You make it loud and clear that jihad as a violent struggle is against the tenets of Islam but you provide no evidence. You make it perfectly clear that many Muslims have perverted jihad or "hijacked" Islam yet I remain perplexed on the bases of your claim.
You state that it is forbidden to employ jihad solely for wealth or territorial gain. First there are many instances in Muhammads career that jihad was employed for wealth and territorial gain. Muhammad waged over sixty wars according to Tabari. With the exception of Uhud and Khandaq (Trench), all of them were incursions.

“The Messenger of Allah made a raid upon BanU Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others” Muslim 19, 4292

“Eat ye the spoils of war, it is lawful and pure,” (Q 8:69).

“The spoils of war were not lawful for any people before us. This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us” (4327).

When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

Muhammad and his ansar engaged the Meccans in battle, after defeating them he conquered the city.

’AlI was chosen to destroy the idols (which he did by mounting the shoulders of Muhammad) and ’Umar the pictures on the walls of the Ka’ba. Other men were sent to the neighboring areas for the same purpose and for looting the temple treasuries. KhAlid b. WalId was sent to Nakhl to destroy the idol of Al-’UzzA, the tutelary goddess of BanU KinAn and the Quraish; Umro b. Al’as to destroy the idol of SuwA; and Sa’d b. Zaid al-AshahalI to destroy Al-ManAt, the deity of the tribes of Aus and Khazraj (TabaqAt, vol. I, pp. 484-486).

First we must distinguish between the extension of Islamic rule and the propagation of Islamic faith. Its easy to see that wars might be waged for the extension of Islamic rule, which were not considered wars for the propagation and extension of Islam as a religion, however the ulterior motive in such wars may have been accompanied by a fixed belief that the inhabitants of the lands that came under the influence of Islam would eventually accept, as their own, the common faith of the state in which they lived.
It may be true that the object of jihad, as prescribed in the Quran, was not the direct propagation of faith, but there is no doubt that the extention of Islamic rule was one of its main objects.

I find the laws of warfare amongst Muslims to be a deal more civilised than those of the Crusades which are repleate with great slaughters against men women and children and even such abominations as canabalism.

I don't think this argument pertains to the subject, however I disagree with your observation nontheless. Perhaps this is a debate we can persue some other time.


It seems you have relied much on Ghamidi's perspective of jihad which as I explained is not conducive to a thorough or complete examination of jihad.
However I have followed Ghamidi's work and I am a big fan of his.
I strongly sympathize with his ideas, and I hope that those who advance ideas like Ghamidi's succeed in having them accepted by the ummah. But I repeat, it is the Quran that has absolute authority and it is the orthodox exegesis of Muhammads teachings that represent the views and practices of Islam with regard to jihad on the question of aggressive war. Ghamidi believes that the Islamic Common Law (shariah) is wrong on the point when it allows the unbelievers to be attacked without provocation.
We take that then as proven, the statement that Islamic Common Law allows unbelievers to be attacked without provocation.

I will sum up by saying that I am in agreement that Jihad has changed it's tone from Mohammeds day through to the present becoming more and less warlike as it progressed through history, beware though , there are many intepritations, but I find the language of the Koran upholds the most honest interpritation and so have striven to present that version.

The Quran upholds the most honest interpretation to the extent that it is the absolute authority, being that Muhammad is the architect of the Quran, the tone of jihad from Muhammads day would probably represent jihad accurately.

I apologise in advance if there are any points that I have not addressed, I am in a bit of rush. I will be sure to address them on my next post.

 

[Sidhe]

Take your time, there is no rush. I've been pretty busy of late and probably will not be able to access the forum as much as I would like. I realize we have embarked on a prodigious endeavour, however this subject is not new to me and much of the informantion is at hand. I am content with taking a step by step approach to this debate.

There is no rush so lets set about this in a manner that suits both our time frames. Don't feel you need to answer quickly, there's no pressure, take as long in your reply as you need.

I am very pleased to read this and let me add that I admire your positive attitude and your commitment to truth.

Of course I freely admit I am not an authority on this subject and so I have to approach this with my eyes wide open.

My emphasis only lies in examining jihad in its religious context and as I have demonstrated, the Quran itself emphasises the military aspects.
You propose that we should examine jihad in its entirety and I couldn't agree more. However the argument you have presented betrays your proposition.
Your argument is dependant on a one-sided evaluation of jihad, it is not possible to examine jihad in its entirety by relying on one perspective.

Lets say jihad is an object, you and I see the same object from different perspectives. From where you are standing you may see the object as a disk,
therefor your interpretation and description of the object is dependant on your observation of the disk. Seeing the same object from a different angle I could say, no you are mistaken; its a cylinder. There is a depth to the object and thus the examination of the object in its entirety must pertain to all of its dimensions.
By relying on the commentaries of a single perspective we essentially do a diservice to ourselves. In our commitment to the truth it is our duty to remain objective observers, we are in essence freethinkers. Freethinkers are independent thinkers. Freethinkers listen to the words said but not to the persons who say it.

Let us for moment consider the meaning of jihad from this commentators perspective.



These five types of jihad do not condradict or oppose jihad as I have provided in its religious context.

This is how I have described jihad:


All five types of jihad you have listed can apply to jihad in the religious context I have provided. What we must do is locate its origin, What did Muhammad/Allah mean by struggling for the sake of Islam? To do this we must look to the Quran.

I quite agree but let me say I only presented the other side of the struggle because I wanted to explain in more detail than you had presented: what it meant to combat evil on a personal level. There are 4 types of Jihad that do not have to be violent, in fact are more philosophical aspects of Jihad, and I wanted this to be clear to all reading this.

It is irrelevant to even persue the argument of which jihad is the "greater" and which is the "lesser" when you have not provided two separate distinctions. Furthermore one does not negate the other. No matter how one tries to present a benign greater jihad there still exists the verses in the Quran that call for fighting against the unbeliever. They simply don't go away no matter how you look at it.
It is true however, that the word jihad is employed in the Quran and by some Muslim commentators with a double meaning. There are passages in which it refers to the strenuous exertion of the believer to fight the good fight of faith, as regards the conquest of himself and his passions, and the fullfilment of all his religious obligations which involves a considerable struggle with carelessness, indifference, and what we can call the natural disinclination of mankind.
Yet as interesting as all this may be, it is rather away from the point. The question of what jihad is, cannot be settled solely by reference to the etymology of the word jihad. The Quran specifically teaches in many passages the duty of fighting for the Faith or "in the way of Allah." When we ask the question, what is jihad? What are the duties of Muslims with regard to jihad? The real point of the question is, what does the Quran mean when it teaches jihad.

This question cuts to the heart of the matter, but to understand this we need to delve into how the Koran's words are followed in practice to see if we can find a common thread to what it means to a follower of Islam to struggle. And what exact reasons there are for placing the Greater Jihad above the lesser, what initially springs to mind is, that without self examination, ther can be nor real understanding of Jihad, so I feel it is important to start with the self and then and only then when you have a good grasp to progress to force if it is required, so that you are struggling for the right reasons. I was broad in my contentions about Jihad because I didn't want to get too bogged down early on on details without first expressing the basics of both what I had understood myself, and what others have asserted.

You make it loud and clear that jihad as a violent struggle is against the tenets of Islam but you provide no evidence. You make it perfectly clear that many Muslims have perverted jihad or "hijacked" Islam yet I remain perplexed on the bases of your claim.
You state that it is forbidden to employ jihad solely for wealth or territorial gain. First there are many instances in Muhammads career that jihad was employed for wealth and territorial gain. Muhammad waged over sixty wars according to Tabari. With the exception of Uhud and Khandaq (Trench), all of them were incursions.

I apologise what I mean is that to instigate Jihad purely to gain territory or wealth is against the tennants of the Koran. Of course if the struggle is just and in good faith, then by taking overt action you will end up with wealth, it is not against the tennants of the Koran to obtain wealth or territory, but it must be in the name of Allah, and in the name of struggle against oppression against Islam.

First we must distinguish between the extension of Islamic rule and the propagation of Islamic faith. Its easy to see that wars might be waged for the extension of Islamic rule, which were not considered wars for the propagation and extension of Islam as a religion, however the ulterior motive in such wars may have been accompanied by a fixed belief that the inhabitants of the lands that came under the influence of Islam would eventually accept, as their own, the common faith of the state in which they lived.
It may be true that the object of jihad, as prescribed in the Quran, was not the direct propagation of faith, but there is no doubt that the extention of Islamic rule was one of its main objects.

I don't think this argument pertains to the subject, however I disagree with your observation nontheless. Perhaps this is a debate we can persue some other time.

I really wanted to clear up some general misconceptions from a western perspective in order to get us away from the stereotypical view of Jihad, but I agree, it is now explored in as much as is needed and does not need further address in this thread unless it's specifically appropriate to a point. Alot of people fail to recognise that Holy war could be carried out without barbarity and indeed that the Muslims are not warmongers per se. To compare I used the crusades to outline how it could be carried out if you forsook the tennants of your faith.

It seems you have relied much on Ghamidi's perspective of jihad which as I explained is not conducive to a thorough or complete examination of jihad.
However I have followed Ghamidi's work and I am a big fan of his.
I strongly sympathize with his ideas, and I hope that those who advance ideas like Ghamidi's succeed in having them accepted by the ummah. But I repeat, it is the Quran that has absolute authority and it is the orthodox exegesis of Muhammads teachings that represent the views and practices of Islam with regard to jihad on the question of aggressive war. Ghamidi believes that the Islamic Common Law (shariah) is wrong on the point when it allows the unbelievers to be attacked without provocation.
We take that then as proven, the statement that Islamic Common Law allows unbelievers to be attacked without provocation.

I looked around a great deal for different sources but many were conflicting so the sources I quote I hope are either tennants from the Koran or are views which dealt with general misconceptions, if they are not widely accepted then it seems we have alot of work to do.

The Quran upholds the most honest interpretation to the extent that it is the absolute authority, being that Muhammad is the architect of the Quran, the tone of jihad from Muhammads day would probably represent jihad accurately.

I apologise in advance if there are any points that I have not addressed, I am in a bit of rush. I will be sure to address them on my next post.

I am in complete agreement, but of course like any religion, the tennants have been stricken of context sometimes, or over emphasised at others, thus I would affirm that we need to examine historical context. Before we do so though, since context historically is such a broad subject I'd like to ask where you want to start. I suggest at the beginning, my history is very shakey on the exact history of Mohammed, and so I need to grasp the context of his actions and his words and beliefs. And will endeavour to spend the next few days looking into the subject.

As you appear to have the better of me on sources and learning I suggest you lead off and I'll follow as best I can, trying to ask questions and provide counter point as I feel necessary, when I'm more comfortable with the subject I'll attempt to grasp some of the ideas better myself and to work in some of my own ideas about perspectives. If this is agreeable feel free to post some links and some points so that we may further discuss Jihad. If you have your own ideas then feel free to go whichever route you feel would be most appropriate.

 

[Mott1]

Sidhe:I apologize for the late response but as you mindfully affirmed, this discussion is not constrained to a set time limit. Given my busy schedule I can only hope that my future responses will not be as delayed.

You have made two essential points in your previous colloquy on the subject of our first discussion, I will surmise them below before commenting.

i. You considered it necessary to present your position on the meaning of jihad which reflects the viewpoints of some contemporary Muslim scholars.
You have adequately expressed your position and are now satisfied to move on to the next part of our discussion.

ii. You have suggested that in order to discover the meaning of jihad, the concept of the double meaning and the significance of their relation, we must investigate the origin of Islam by analyzing the history of Muhammad, founder of Islam.


Now I will make a few comments on the points above.

On the first point I would like to add that, while I understand you are simply maintaining your position that certain actions or pre-emptive hostilities are against Islamic principles, we are in the process of exploring the meaning of jihad and it would not be judicious to establish a definate conclusion.
Furthermore, only through Muhammads teachings and actions can we ascertain what constitutes the right reasons or the struggle within the soul with regards to the double meaning of jihad.

In response to your second point you have expressed the need to explore Islam in its historical context. Assuming you have nothing more to add to your position on jihad, I agree that we should do exactly that. You have expressed that we should start from the begining of Muhammads career and also suggested that I should take the initiative in presenting his history. This is a reasonable request however there are a few points to consider.

First Islamic principles are derived from Muhammads examples, teachings and actions. To maintain, under any circumstance, that Muhammads actions and teachings conflict with Islamic principles would be fallible. Second the Quran claims to be the verbatim words of Allah. Allah is not fallible. To make an illustration, the angel Gabriel would represent the hand of Allah where Muhammad would represnt the pen. The Quran being authored by Allah Himself.
To assert our empahsis in our obligation to objective study, it would be beneficial to approach Muhammads history as orientalists. This is not to say that we can not refer to the appraisals of the ulema, however we must do so with caution and always with an objective eye. The sources I will refer to will comprise of the Quran, the hadith and sunnah. Just to show my appreciation to the quality of your presentation thus far, I will only utilizes the content Mr. Ghamidi deems authentic. I assure you that I will refer only to the Quran, the Sahih Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud) and the Sira (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd).

If this is acceptable to you, please let me know and will begin as soon as time allows.

 

[Sidhe]

Sidhe:I apologize for the late response but as you mindfully affirmed, this discussion is not constrained to a set time limit. Given my busy schedule I can only hope that my future responses will not be as delayed.

<snipped>

If this is acceptable to you, please let me know and will begin as soon as time allows.

It is more than acceptable it is exactly what I hoped: I am looking forward to learning more about your views on the subject.

And let me say, even if it's in a month I am keen to keep the diaologue flowing so take your time.

As promised I've been doing a little research on the web, but am deeply unsatisfied with what I have found, I'm thinking of visiting my local library to find out if there are any books which would cover the subject better, as web sites seem somewhat superficial and contradictory to say the least. And there are as many "tales" of Mohammed's life as there are supposedly factual accounts.

I will endeavour to look further tomorrow but I'm glad I asked you to lead off as I don't have a great deal in the way of credible sources at the moment, from western perspectives at any rate( I will try and find oriental sources, if you think these are more constructive) That said there are a few leads that bear further investigation.

I've also found accounts that say that even the Koran has been somewhat corrupted mainly by the Caliphs that followed Mohammeds rule. Pinning the man down and not the myth is going to be a real endeavour, so I'm hoping you'll have some better sources than I have found so far. I've even seen accounts that credit Mohammed with miracles, which I find hard to believe. Mohammed was a prophet figure not a Jesus figure so I have dismissed this as wishful thinking, although of course I'm keeping an open mind.

Anyway I look forward to getting to the heart of the matter, and I hope the knowledge you have showed so far is indicative of a deeper understanding than those I have heard bandied around, of the term Jihad.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Good thread.

I have only ever been able to make it to the answer "Jihad seems like a synonym of Crusade".

Before I get flamed for that comment, I must continue. I knew there was more to it than that. I once tried to learn more but muslims who I asked the question "How is Jihad different to a crusade" dismissed the question by saying "They are nothing alike". Apparently, the fact that I would see any similarities at all meant that the question wasn't worth answering. I never figured out the answer.

The five forms of Jihad described above I have read before, and to my eyes it does sound almost exactly like the more complete definition of "Crusade" that I remember growing up. I feel both terms are misused and misunderstood and the fact that I was dismissed so quickly when I tried to get an answer "What is the difference, they look alike to me?" tells me that I still don't understand and probably won't, like it's an inside joke on me.

 

[Mott1]

As promised I've been doing a little research on the web, but am deeply unsatisfied with what I have found, I'm thinking of visiting my local library to find out if there are any books which would cover the subject better, as web sites seem somewhat superficial and contradictory to say the least. And there are as many "tales" of Mohammed's life as there are supposedly factual accounts.

I always feel that the best way to research something is by studying the original sources first. In the case of researching Islam, the Quran and hadith would be the best place to start. However if you are looking for sources to back up your position on jihad, I would refer you to the material published by western Muslim apologists such as Karen Armstrong and John Esposito.

I've also found accounts that say that even the Koran has been somewhat corrupted mainly by the Caliphs that followed Mohammeds rule. Pinning the man down and not the myth is going to be a real endeavour, so I'm hoping you'll have some better sources than I have found so far. I've even seen accounts that credit Mohammed with miracles, which I find hard to believe. Mohammed was a prophet figure not a Jesus figure so I have dismissed this as wishful thinking, although of course I'm keeping an open mind.

Let me just say that from a strictly historical standpoint, it is impossible to know for sure that a man named Muhammad even existed. In all likelyhood he did exist, particularly in the way the aspects of his life are recorded that are thorn in the side of Muslim scholars who are confronted with the difficult task of representing Muhammads actions with modern predilections.
After all, its hard to imagine that an early devout Muslim biographer such as Ibn Ishaq would have invented Muhammads marriage comsummation to a nine year old girl, his marraige to his ex-daughter-in-law or his affinity for beautiful slave women.
Muslim scholars in general, have struggled (no pun intended) with these and other aspects of Muhammads life for centuries. Still some historians believe Muhammad is an amalgamation by way of the Quran, Hadith and Sira, constructed later to give him a sort of omniscient status.
However these historical speculations have had no effect on Islamic doctrine or practice. So for the purpose of our debate, it is less important to know what really happened in Muhammads life than what is accepted, among the Islamic ummah, to have happened, because the latter forms the foundation of Muslim belief, practice and law.

Now I will present the history of Muhammad from the begining of his career as a prophet up to the point before The Battle of Badr, which was Islam's greatest early jihad victory. I believe the meaning of jihad cannot be truly appreciated until we examine the scope of Muhammads military campaign, but I think that presenting the early part of his career can give us glimpses into the origin and meaning of jihad.

Mecca

According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad was born in Mecca on the year 570. Visitations by the angel Gabriel began in Muhammads adulthood, he would later interpret these visitations as revelations from Allah and they would continue sporadically for the rest of his life.
At the age of 40 he proclaimed himself prophet of Allah and first began preaching his revalations to the people closest to him. His first wife Khadija became the first convert to his newfound faith, followed by Ali (who would later play a large role in the Sunni-Shiite schism), Bakr and a few others.
Three years after Muhammad proclaimed himself prophet of Allah he began preaching publically, this was the initial step toward injecting his religious ideas into the actualities of social and political life. Muhammad called upon his Meccan tribesmen (the Quraish) to embrace his faith with a warning from Allah, "I am a warner to you in face of a terrific punishment." His preaching was not recieved well by his fellow kinsmen and even his uncle Abu Lahab rejected Muhammads claim to prophethood. He called out to Muhammad, "May your hands perish all this day. Is it for this purpose you have gathered us?" Allah himself gave Muhammad his response to Abu Lahab in a new revelation: "May the hands of Lahab perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with ******s, shall have a rope of fibre around her neck!" (Q 111.1-5), (Bukhari #293). As we shall see, Muhammad often became frustrated by skeptics of his preaching.
Muhammad continued to preach with little success, his anger and fustration over his failure to convert the Quraish began to grow. On one occasion he came upon a group of Quraish at the Ka'ba. He walked around the stone three times and on the third pass he stopped and declared: "Will you listen to me, O Quraish? By him who holds my life in His hand, I bring you slaughter" (Ishaq:130/Tabari VI:101). Ultimately, Muhammad would turn from violent words to violent actions.

At the time before Muhammad the Arabs where among the most religious tolerant people, pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times worshiped 360 gods. Mecca thrived on religious pilgrimages, it was known as a center of trade and pilgrimage, travelers from all the surrounding regions passed through Mecca. The Meccan merchants made great profits from the pilgrimages to the Ka'ba, local deities from all surrounding tribes were represented in the shrine. The Arabs tribes were frequently at war with each other, but among them all, the Meccans had an envious position. The holy place of all the sorrounding Arab tribes was in Mecca and that meant power and money for Meccans. So it is not difficult to understand why relationship between the fledgling Muslim cult and the Quraish worsened, as Muhammad became more vocal and his demands more persistant the Quraish became more hostile.

Madina

After years of increasing tension with the Quraish, Muhammad ordered his followers to leave Mecca and in 622 he himself fled to the nearby town of Medina at the invitation of some of his Muslim converts.
This emigration from Mecca to Medina is known as the Hijra and was a major turning point in Muhammads career, here he evolved from an ordinary apocalyptic preacher to a political and military leader.
In Medina Muhammads divine revalations began to change, the brief illustrational verses of the early revalations of the Quran surrenderd to long and straight foward language, much of which was concerned with laws for the new Muslim community. It should be noted that three Jewish tribes resided in Medina: The Banu Qaynuqa, Bani Nadir and the Banu Quraiza all of which exerted great influence in Medina and welcomed Muhammad and his newfound cult. It is evident that Muhammad was influenced by Judaism, many of his laws were formulated through dialogue with the Jews and soon he elevated himself among the ranks of Jewish prophets. He wanted to gain their acceptance of his prophetic status and adopted many Jewish rituals, such as forbidding pork and the practise of several daily prayers; Muhammad even had his adherents face Jerusalem for their prayers.
However, like the Quraish, relationship between the Jewish tribes of Medina and Muhammad became strained. The Jews would not accept Muhammad as their prophet and Muhammad did not take rejection well.

Muhammad began gaining power and influence among the residents of Medina, with the combination of the muhajiroun (Muslims who came from Mecca) and the flourishing ansar (Muslims who converted in Medina) Muhammad had a strong base of support. He now felt confident in confronting the Quraish, whom he begrudged, and began raiding their caravans.
These raids kept the young Muslim movement resolved by amassing wealth and prestige, consequentially these raids helped form Islamic theology. In one inccident a band of Muslims raided a Quraish caravan at Nakhla, a settlement not far from Mecca. The raiders attacked the caravan during the sacred month of Rajab, when fighting was forbidden.
Upon returning back to the Muslim camp loaded with booty, Muhammad refused to share in the loot or have anything to do with them, he said: "I did not order you to fight in the sacred month." Muhammad was now afflicted with a political dilemma because the Quarish attested that "Muhammad and his companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood therein, taken booty, and captured men" (Ishaq 287-288).
But then Muhammad recieved another revelation, Allah deemed that the Quraish's opposition to Muhammad and their failure to acknowledge his prophethood was more offensive than the Muslims violation of the holy month, the raid therefor was justified.

"They question thee, O Muhammad, with regard to warefare in the sacred month, Say: warfare therein is a great transgression, but to turn men from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and the Inviolable Place of Worship, and expel His people thence, is a greater transgression with Allah: for persecution is worse than killing" (Q 2.214).

The sin the Nakhla raiders commited in violating the holy month was nothing compared to the Quraish's sins. Their sins being that of opposing Muhammad and rejecting him as prophet. Once Muhammad recieved this revelation, he took his portion of the booty and prisoners.
Now this was a very signifcant revelation, because it led to the fundamental structure of jihad and Islamic principles that has had repercussions throughout the history of Islam. 'Good' became identified with Muhammads revelations (teachings and examples) and anything that was conducive to the benefit of Muslims and 'evil' became associated with anything that opposed Muhammads teachings or harmed Muslims, without reference to any larger moral standard. You can say that the Moral absolutes were swept aside in favor of an overreaching principle of self interest.


I think this is sufficient information to continue our discussion. However consider these questions: at this point in Muhammads history, what can we deduce from Muhammads actions that can reveal a significant moral standard to jihad?
What inner struggle did Muhammad and his followers overcome that allowed them to engage in the ''Jihad with the sword," or the what you call the "lesser jihad"?

 

[Katheryn]

Oh no, dare I get involved in this? Hmmm....

 

[Katheryn]

Here is a study on JIHAD from USC:


Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 19:
The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar)


INTRODUCTION

The word Jihad is derived from the verb jahada which means:" he exerted himself". Thus literally, Jihad means exertion, striving; but in juridico-religious sense, it signifies the exertion of one's power to the utmost of one's capacity in the cause of Allah. This is why the word Jihad has been used as the antonym to the word Qu, ud (sitting) in the Holy Qur'an (iv. 95). Thus Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears.

Qital fi sabilillah (fighting in the way of Allah) is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this qital in Islam is not an act of mad brutality. It has its material and moral functions, i. e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world. The verdict of all religious and ethical philosophies-ancient and modern-justify war on moral grounds. When one nation is assailted by the ambitions and cupidity of another, the doctrine of non-resistance is anti-social, as it involves non-assertion, not only of one's own rights, but of those of others who need protection against the forces of tyranny and oppression.

A Muslim is saddled with the responsibilities to protect himself and all those who seek his protection. He cannot afford to abandon the defenceless people, old man, women and children to privation, suffering and moral peril. Fighting in Islam, therefore, represents in Islamic Law what is known among Western jurists as" just war".

The very first revelation in which the permission to wage war against the forces of evil sums up the aims and objects of qital in Islam:

" Permitted'are those who are fought against, because they have been oppressed. and verily God is more Powerful for their aid. Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: 'Our Lord is Allah, ' for had it not been for 'Allah's repelling someone by means of others, cloisters and churches and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft-mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helps one who helps Him. Lo! Allah is Strong. Almighty" (xxii. 39. 41).

These verses eloquently speak of 'the fact that it is neither for the acquisition of territory nor for the love of power and distinction that the Muslims have been permitted to raise arms against the enemy. They were allowed to do so because their very existence had been made difficult by the high-handedness of the Meccans. The Holy Qur'an has elucidated this point in the following verse:

" And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah and for the oppressed among men and women and children who say: Our Lord! take us forth from the town whereof the people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper" (iv. 75).

The war in Islam is waged with a view to securing liberty and freedom for those who are groaning under the oppression of heartless tyrants. It is the bounden duty of the Muslims to alleviate their sufferings and create for them an atmosphere of peace and security.

Then in the succeeding verse a distinction is also drawn between two types of war: one which is fought for the sake of Allah and the other which is waged for evil ends:

" Those who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of devil. So fight against the friends of Satan; verily weak indeed is the strategy of the devil" (iv. 76).

It has been made clear that those people who fight for self-glorification or for the exploitation of the weak are in fact friends of the devil; wheres those who raise arms to curb tyranny and aggression, to eradicate evil from the human society, fight in the way of Allah. Mere fighting is not, therefore, Jihad in Islam; it is the noble objective alone which makes it a sacred pursuit like devotion and prayer. It is narrated on the authority of Abu Musa Ash'ari that once a man went to the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and said: One man fights for the sake of spoils of war, the second one fights for fame and glory and the third to display his courage and skill; which among them is the fighter for the cause of Allah? Upon this the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) replied: He who fights with the sole objective that the word of Allah should become supreme is a Mujahid in the cause of the Lord.

A Mujahid is thus a noble person who offers his life for the achievement of lofty ends. He is actuated by human considerations lifts arms not under the impulse of fury and revenge, but with will, fore-thought, tenacity and fellow-feeling, and his conduct bears the imprint of human intellect, human sympathy and sense of justice.

The Holy Qur'an has explained this point in Sura Anfal in these words:

" O you who believe, when you meet an enemy, be firm, and remember Allah much, that you may be successful. And obey Allah and His Apostle. And fall with no disputes, lest ye falter and your strength fail; but be steadfast! For Allah is with those who patiently persevere. Be not as those who came forth from their dwellings boastfully. And to be seen of men and debar (men) from the way of Allah. And Allah encompasses what they do" (viii. 45-46).

Here the Muslims have been exhorted to observe five principles of war:

Be steadfast in the face of the enemy.

Have full reliance on the help of Allah and remember Him much.

Have the unity of purpose and solidarity of corporate life always before your eyes.

Be fully aware of the lofty purpose before you in fighting.

Don't be proud and boastful in your attitude and behaviour.

Islam has purified even war of all its cruelty and horrors and has made it a" reformative process" to deal with evil. The Holy Qur'an bserves:

" And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you and transgress not the limits. Verily Allah loves not the transgressors" (ii. 190).

[/QUOTE]

You can read more here:


http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294

 

[Katheryn]

So, here is the sole justification for jihad:

The war in Islam is waged with a view to securing liberty and freedom for those who are groaning under the oppression of heartless tyrants. It is the bounden duty of the Muslims to alleviate their sufferings and create for them an atmosphere of peace and security.

The problem with this is that all Muslims MUST live under Sharia. If he is not living in Sharia, then they are living under oppression.

Also, here is an example used by the USC Muslims Student Association about jihad:

Chapter 43: THE BATTLE OF AHZAB OR KHANDAQ (THE TRIBES OR THE DITCH)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 019, Number 4442:
It has been reported on the authority of Barra' who said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was carrying the earth with us on the Day of Ahzab and the whiteness of his belly had been covered with earth. (While engaged in this toil) he was reciting:

By God, if Thou hadst not guided us

We would have neither been guided aright nor practised charity,

Nor offered prayers.

Descend on us peace and tranquillity.

Behold I these people (the Meccans) refused to follow us.

According to another version, he recited:

The chieftains (of the tribes) refused to follow us

When they contemplated mischief, we rejected it.

And with this (verse) he would raise his voice.

It seems that these Meccans simply didn't want to submit to Mohammed. They declared jihad against them and killed them, taking Mecca for Mohammed.

 

[HannibalBarka]

It seems that these Meccans simply didn't want to submit to Mohammed. They declared jihad against them and killed them, taking Mecca for Mohammed.

He did not really kill them since he conquered Mecca without a fight.
But let's say he did, He was just following a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooog judeo-christian tradition of killing who ever doesn't submit to God (Sodome and Gomorra, the Flood, etc)