Jihad is it right or wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I totally agree.
But the question here is, does Jihad actually means terrorism? Is that the original idea of the word? or has been interpreted in that way for convenience by some?

Jihad literally means to "struggle", notably to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society."[1] Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants but there are other ways to perform jihad as well including civil disobedience.[2][3] In broader usage and interpretation, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can imply striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam, and fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.[4] In the languages of non-Islamic cultures, the term is usually used to refer to Muslim 'Holy War' or any violent strife invoking Allah.

The primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state. In the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, the rules associated with armed warfare are covered at great length.[3] Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas.[5] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[3] Although some Islamic scholars have differered on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[6]Some Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad regarded the inner struggle for faith a greater Jihad than even fighting [by force] in the way of God.[7]

Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by early movements like the Kharijites and the contemporary Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization (which assassinated Anwar Al Sadat) as well as Jihad organizations in Lebanon, the Gulf states, and Indonesia.[1] When used to describe warfare between Islamic groups or individuals, such as Al-Qaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq, perpetrators of violence often cite collaboration with non-Islamic powers as a justification.[8] The terrorist attacks like September 11, 2001 planned and executed by radical Islamic fundamentalists have not been sanctioned by more centrist groups of Muslims.[9]

Middle East Historian Bernard Lewis points out that some modern Muslims sources try to portray jihad in a spiritual and moral sense when addressing non-muslims. Muslims tell people that they shouldn't try to define jihad by the actions of extremists, but at the balanced Muslims. For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power. In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islamic Peace (Dar al-Salam), in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds—booty in this one, paradise in the next. For most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense. [10]

The word itself is recorded in English since 1869, in the Muslim sense, and has been used for any doctrinal crusade since c. 1880.

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's struggle for Indian independence would be called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither a struggle for Allah (despite religious support for it, the struggle was essentially nationalist and political) nor conducted violently; the same terminology could be applied for the fight for women's liberation.[11]

Jihad has often been misinterpreted as a 'holy war'. The main aim of Jihad is defensive rather than offensive. When Muslim populations are attacked on the basis of religion, Jihad becomes mandatory on the government of that particular state (and all Muslims) until all hostile forces are either eliminated or negotiated out of the occupied land. If the threat continues to persist, the Islamic State may have to eliminate the threat by any means necessary.


Quoted from Wikipedia.

Does that help?

The meaning of the word "Jihad" in the context of this thread means "holy war against non-muslims" as it is used by the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda, and any other group that has spawned, spawns, or shall spawn from fundamentalist Islam. Based on that definition, is "Jihad" Right or Wrong?

It looks like originally it wasn't intended to mean "holy war" it seems.

One thing to be aware of, unless you are a member of an Islamic culture, the way we percieve Islam is the way the media, which is mostly controlled by Zionist Muslim Haters who want us to hate them as well, tell us to, propogander is propogander.

There are some good videos on you tube that show for instance, the way the Palestinians are treated in thier own country by Israel who want to drive them out in oredr to stael even more of thier land.

You are not going to find this portraid in the Zionist press however, if you are really interested in this subject, you will have to look at it from both sides and make up your mind with impartiality.

I think if the Nazis had invaded Britain, I would be being portrayed as an evil terrorist by now.

Then maybe the right question should have been, "Extremist religion, is it right or wrong?" instead of "Jihad"?

Israel should back off from Palestine and get some decent anti-missile defences.

Avengers and Paladins would be cool. Use lasers!! !

If the media is run by "Zionists" then why is it so anti-Israel?

Or maybe, "If every religion were taken to a fundamental extreme, which would be most dangerous and for who?"

Where would they go to?

Funny that is was initially to capture land from non converts, then against heretics, now against America, Europe and Israel.

That sounds very familiar.
Christianity was like that as well, hundreds of years ago, now that has changed, divided into more sects, though there are a few fundamental/conservative christians with certain views unchanged, though not as radical as before, and not as radical as fundamental mulsims.

I know fundamentalist muslims in the middle east reject modern views and all things that come from western societies, which they probably think we all are full of evil and are doomed to hell, according to their dogma, although not everyone has the same dogmas, as it seems there are different denominations as it is on christianity.

I don't understand what point are you trying to make with this thread.

Once again, you are squawking nonsense. The PLO is a secular political movement that was formed as a reaction to the seizure of lands owned by Palestinians. It is overwhelmingly dominated by Fatah, which is nationalist (not religious) and other smaller groups that are Baathist or Marxist. They have zero interest in religious struggle. Their failure to win a just peace and their neutralization by Israel after the PLO recognized Israel and tried to talk peace is major factor responsible for the growth of groups like Hamas that truly are fundamentalist and reckless.

Likewise, the Chechen movement pictured in the film were (like so many other parts of the crumbling communist empire) originally mostly interested in getting their own homeland. After Russian tanks and planes pounded the s**t out of their cities, that independence movement did turn to radical Islam, and the 'black widows' of the war traveled to Moscow, where they engaged in retaliatory terrorism. The Russians had no problem in terrorizing the people of Afghanistan or the Chechen region or Dagestan, and they are surprised that anyone would terrorize them. Just like the Germans were surprised that anyone would firebomb their cities after they blitzed London.

Sorry, tweety, until you demonstrate some knowledge of the world, I am not going to let you set up the terms of the debate. I am opposed to fundamentalism of all stripes, and I think the world is all too violent. I would rather only fight the relatively small number of Muslims that really are out to inflict destruction on me and my countrymen, not all of the 1 billion plus Muslims that are out there that just want to have a job, a family, a hobby or a social life. Maybe I'm less gutsy for not wanting to shout "Bring it On!" but I would rather walk softly, carry a big stick, and use it to maximum effect only on my real enemies.

YES!! !!

Well said Monty, walk softly indeed for the world is definitely an all too violent place, peace j

IMO Muslims and the media sanitise what the Koran actually says, so as not to look too extreme or racist or incite anti moslem feelings. For example, you quote out of context:


And while the Koran says there is no compulsion in religion, the only choice is between following Allah and Shaitan (Satan). If you do not follow Allah, you follow Shaitan and are an enemy.



If what you say is correct, that Jews are "believers", why does Allah (remember the Koran are the words of Allah):


Christians are said to be polytheists, because of the Holy Trinity.

Last edited by BazzaMcKenzie on 18 Sep 2007, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.