What the Qur'an Really Says About Jihad and Violence

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Proud_Syrian, Jul 23, 2003.

  1. What the Qur'an Really Says About Jihad and Violence
    Save a Life, Save All Humanity--Take a Life, Kill All Humanity
    from beliefnet.com

    ... Here are several of the Qur'an passages most frequently cited, and analysis from Islamic scholars.

    On Jihad or "Holy War"

    Chapter 2, verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." This portion of the Qur'an was written in about 606 C.E., when the Prophet Muhammad and his followers were under attack in the city of Medinah, says Imam Yahya Hendi, a Qur'anic scholar who is the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University. There, they had established their own state. But various coalitions of non-Muslim tribes--including Christians, Jews, atheists and animists--continued to go to war with them. This portion of the Qur'an explains their reasoning behind striking back.

    The passage actually refers to a defensive war. "You fight back. You go as far as it takes to stop the aggression but you do not go beyond that. So if you have to, you go as far as fighting verbally to get someone out of your home--but you don't shoot him after he is out. You don't keep going on with it--only if you are attacked, if there is an oppression applied to you. The idea is that justice prevails. You don't fight because you enjoy fighting, but because there is an oppression.

    "It could be military force or [in today's world] it could be media force, writing against you. But when the hostilities are over and the enemy offers a peace treaty, you should submit. Muslims are obliged to submit to a peace treaty offered by the enemy. You don't keep fighting."


    http://www.alhewar.org/SEPTEMBER 11/what_the_quran_really_says.htm
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Flores Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    Proud Syrian,
    Nice try and good informations, but it won't be effective with any of those that are already set to defame Islam at any cost.

    You are like a football player who is trying to teach the opposing team about your style and game, they only listen so that they can use the information againest you. Listen to me and score solid with those idiots by turning their own ball into their goal, but don't give them our cream and butter, that's only for our benefit.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Proud_Syrian,

    This is admirable but the concept is seriously flawed and cannot and doesn’t work. For example if you eject an aggressor from your home where does he go? If he is still aggressive then you face conflict when you leave your home. You must then eject him from your town. But then where does he go? You must eject him from your country. And then where? Your only true solution is to eliminate the aggressor completely. The result is as we see worldwide conflict and incidents like 9/11.

    Islam supports violent conflict as you have admitted, i.e. “You fight back. You go as far as it takes”. All the time your religion supports that tenet then the followers will feel free to interpret that guideline subjectively and wider conflict will always be inevitable.

    Either Islam has to amend its teachings or Islam should be eliminated from the world since it represents a threat to world peace.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Flores Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    Cris, thanks for the comments, I was hoping you intervene and put some sense to those empty discussions.

    Anyways, I think that the concept of ejecting an aggressors to their original limits is not a flawed one. First of all, aggressors are usually occupiers, people seeking more land, resources, ect...to supplement their own stuff.

    Let's take the British occupation for example. The Islamic teaching would instruct a country like India to expel the Brits, but it would prohibit the Indians in case they were powerfull and able from pursuing the Brits to their home in England and hurting them outside of India. So in case of 9/11, the hijackers has not followed Islam and has broken the rule of war. The hijackers has transgressed beyond their limit and affected the soverienty of another country and attacked people at their own home. This is againest all Islamic teachings.
     
  8. EvilPoet I am what I am Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,007
  9. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Flores,

    Islam has a significant history of violence; see the article from Evilpoet. But even though I believe most Muslims follow the peaceful intents of Islam the problem remains that the term Jihad encourages conflict. Even a defensive posture implies violence. The issue of limits is fine but the definition of the limits is significantly ambiguous and the interpretation is left to the individuals or more commonly the militant style clerics.

    Contrast that to Christianity where the key ingredients are ‘love your enemy’ and ‘turn the other cheek’. These positively discourage violence.

    The Crusades were a significant error by Christianity when the Pope at the time decided that ‘enemy’ only meant Christian enemies but that it was OK to kill non Christian enemies. That ruling has since been rescinded of course.

    Islam has a real credibility issue. Jihad tends towards violence but there isn’t a sufficiently strong mitigating opposing teaching that discourages violence as is the case for Christianity. When the two religions are compared Islam appears extremely violent. You can play with the intent and meanings of words like Jihad all you like but the evidence shows that Islam has instigated and causes significant violence and continues to do so.

    For Islam to gain respect from the rest of the world it MUST renounce all forms of violence, either defensive (reactive) or proactive.
     
  10. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    Cris

    Syrian said :

    You fight back. You go as far as it takes to stop the aggression but you do not go beyond that. So if you have to, you go as far as fighting verbally to get someone out of your home--but you don't shoot him after he is out. You don't keep going on with it--only if you are attacked, if there is an oppression applied to you.

    This is admirable but the concept is seriously flawed and cannot and doesnÂ’t work.


    It is not flawed one bit . You simply stop when he stops being the aggressor that means when it stops being defensive . You look at your position ,and you look it has . As long as he is the agressor you are permitted to defend yourself .

    The situation between one and oneother cna be seen is variying perspectives , from individual to national .

    For example if you eject an aggressor from your home where does he go? If he is still aggressive then you face conflict when you leave your home. You must then eject him from your town. But then where does he go? You must eject him from your country. And then where? Your only true solution is to eliminate the aggressor completely. The result is as we see worldwide conflict and incidents like 9/11.

    If he is not agressing you cannot attack him . It doesnt matter where he goes , he can sit there why should you chae him out of town out of the country into death if he is not aggressing ?

    And no the result is not worldwide conflict and 9-11 , thjat has factors going far , far beyond religion . Religion is merely a cover , a mantle , it is hardly ever cause .

    Either Islam has to amend its teachings or Islam should be eliminated from the world since it represents a threat to world peace.

    When self-defence threatens world peace we're in need of a world war .

    There is nothing wrong with teaching one to defend itself , it is highly virtuous to defend yourself , your family , your peoples .

    Are you disagreeing that defence is a worthy cause ?

    Islam has a significant history of violence; see the article from Evilpoet.

    Evilpoet or you should rather extract text from those links for worthy discussion and using it as argument .
    Or isnt it met for argument ?

    Id say it is since you conclude out of it , and your conclusion isnt that relevent as IMO violence isnt per-se bad , not being a hippy is acceptable as well .

    that the term Jihad encourages conflict

    No it doesnt . It encourage to solve the conflict .

    Even a defensive posture implies violence.

    So ? Are you seriously arguing the right of self-defense here ?

    The issue of limits is fine but the definition of the limits is significantly ambiguous and the interpretation is left to the individuals or more commonly the militant style clerics.


    Thats an issue allright , clerics . However the way it is used does not disprove its value .

    Islam has a real credibility issue

    In whoms eyes it needs credibility ? There are 1.3 B Muslims worldwide .

    Jihad tends towards violence but there isnÂ’t a sufficiently strong mitigating opposing teaching that discourages violence as is the case for Christianity. When the two religions are compared Islam appears extremely violent.

    Yes historically Christianity proved the most violent one .

    You can play with the intent and meanings of words like Jihad all you like but the evidence shows that Islam has instigated and causes significant violence and continues to do so.

    Violence is a part of human life and does not depend on religious intentions as much as emotions .

    Jihad is Arabic , my NAME is Jihad . Hey I mean come on now , the fact that the West cannot deal with this is not an Islamic issue , when I speak to my brothers or sisters nobody feels violence floating through their veines ......... I think western perspective cant start changing names here or banning them because they dont understand them .

    For Islam to gain respect from the rest of the world it MUST renounce all forms of violence, either defensive (reactive) or proactive.

    The west is NOT the rest of the world this western-centric view of things is rather disturbing . And how are you dismissing self-defense ? Honestly I cant grasp this thought .

    Let me ask you . Should a person rather face consequences and die when is attacked , or self defence ?

    Do you choose death ?
     
  11. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Ghassan,

    You assume that the aggression will eventually stop. It hasn’t for centuries which is why Islam is always in conflict without other cultures.

    Why would you need to protect yourself? Where is Allah?

    That is the hope but it doesn’t work. If you always fight someone who wants to fight then all you do is prolong the fight. To walk away takes the greater courage and is the way to end the circle of violence.

    The solution is to resolve the issue that caused the attack.

    And there are 5 B who are not.

    You would have to substantiate that with some proof, although I can’t say I’m particularly interested in discovering which ‘peaceful’ religion is the most violent. They are both equally ludicrous for claiming they are peaceful with a massive trail of blood behind them.

    But religion is entirely based on emotion; that is the essence of faith.

    I will kill without hesitation if threatened by deadly force. But then I am under no illusion that a god is around that might protect me or who might reward me if I die in his service, or that I have any type of a life prospect once I die. My life is incredibly precious and I will protect it at any cost. But those who believe in an afterlife have no excuse for violence or killing, their ultimate reward is with their god after they die. Why would you fight to stay out of paradise?

    But then we have the issue of Islamic suicide bombers who believe they will achieve paradise by defending their faith by killing others and themselves at the same time. This is the evil of religious belief.
     
  12. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    You assume that the aggression will eventually stop. It hasnÂ’t for centuries which is why Islam is always in conflict without other cultures.

    * Im sorry but if the aggression doesnt stop what is left ? Surrender ?

    Also your historical referring isnt really valid for this questioning of Jihad . Islam has suffered many different factors that caused conflict as Islam was carried by many different peoples in different times in different places . Your judgement of Islam as a whole over history in conflict is not an accurat one to make .

    Why would you need to protect yourself? Where is Allah?

    Allah is everywhere , and in me as well . Dont try to question my deity-worshipping because there isnt any , ok ?

    That is the hope but it doesnÂ’t work. If you always fight someone who wants to fight then all you do is prolong the fight. To walk away takes the greater courage and is the way to end the circle of violence.

    Walking away results rather in surrender and enslavement than peace . You assume your aggressor will let you walk . But if he wont stop aggressing you , why would he ever let you walk ?

    The solution is to resolve the issue that caused the attack.


    That issue isnt always solvable by the person suffering from the attack .

    And there are 5 B who are not.

    That doesnt make the 1.3 B any less smaller .

    You would have to substantiate that with some proof, although I can’t say I’m particularly interested in discovering which ‘peaceful’ religion is the most violent. They are both equally ludicrous for claiming they are peaceful with a massive trail of blood behind them.

    Christianity has America , u simply cant beat that . I mean not even Hitler & Stalin would top that with their atheist ideologies .

    But religion is entirely based on emotion; that is the essence of faith.

    faith is indeed , religion in the sense of "faith in deity" indeed is as well . However Islam IMO has little to do with such . Rather Islam is Deen , and entire system of life that deals with much more than a theologic understanding we can debate about weither its accuratly interperted or not .

    I will kill without hesitation if threatened by deadly force

    So then what is your point against self defence .

    But then I am under no illusion that a god is around that might protect me or who might reward me if I die in his service, or that I have any type of a life prospect once I die

    Neither am I , but would I be then what is your point ?

    But those who believe in an afterlife have no excuse for violence or killing, their ultimate reward is with their god after they die. Why would you fight to stay out of paradise?

    Why is your love of life an excuse then ? Can they not protect something considered shitty ? Because you consider yourself to value it more , that means you can have rights with it more ?

    And yes I agree with a logical error in some peoples minds , hence the comitting of suicide during a bombing .

    However Islam teaches to value life as you spoke of it ,
    NO MATTER WHAT there is anywhere else .

    But then we have the issue of Islamic suicide bombers who believe they will achieve paradise by defending their faith by killing others and themselves at the same time. This is the evil of religious belief.

    Do you argue their suicide or their attack ? Because that is the only difference if they would be Christians , as Christian Palestinian militias perform assaults on peoples instead of blowing themselves up amongst them .

    Suicide is proghibited in islam and IMO thet should switch to razzia's and planted bombs and grenades instead of taking their own lives .

    But thats a political issue rather than a religious one .
     
  13. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Imagine this scenario: A nerdy kid in highschool who is picked on by a larger boy but fights back. He is pushed and he pushes back. For the next few years he is beaten up and attepts to do the same to the larger boy. A couple years later he brings a gun to school and blows the larger kid away and goes to gail until hes 40.

    Wouldn't it have been better to just take a little bit of picking instead of letting the whole thing escalate after every encounter? Same applies here.
     
  14. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    A nerdy kid in highschool who is picked on by a larger boy but fights back. He is pushed and he pushes back. For the next few years he is beaten up and attepts to do the same to the larger boy. A couple years later he brings a gun to school and blows the larger kid away and goes to gail until hes 40.

    IMO he had right to shoot him . I dont agree with the jail sentence at all .

    Wouldn't it have been better to just take a little bit of picking instead of letting the whole thing escalate after every encounter? Same applies here.

    Vurtuous does not necesarily mean better for his current practical situation .
     
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Again, I don't know enough about Islamic History, but the conquests of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, north Africa, Spain, Persia, etc . . . appear rather typical to me (normal human stuff). I wouldn’t expect anything different - - religious or a-religious. I find it interesting that some people think because of that ergo Islam is bad or at fault. It really wouldn’t matter if it was Islamic or not Islamic. People conquer – its in our nature.

    Having said that, how do Muslim historians reconcile the conquest of all these other people with their religious beliefs? Christians did the same thing (only 100Xs worse IMO) so their in the same boat - I wonder if they use the same rational for justifying their actions? Again, to me it’s just human nature to conquer. However, within the religious framework I would find it interesting to at least hear a bit of the rational behind the conquests. My Muslim friend here said there were no conquests – Islam spread by virtue not by the sword. Hmmm I don’t know about that? To me, that’s like saying Christianity spread via the love and salvation of Jesus – not that gun powder had anything to do with it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Another aside, I’m going to an Arabic BBQ this weekend. I hope it’s at least a little authentic. (really its more Syrian because the girls father was a diplomat in Syria) anyway – it should be good!
     
  16. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    Michael :
    To me, that’s like saying Christianity spread via the love and salvation of Jesus – not that gun powder had anything to do with it

    "Accept the love of Christ or drown in misery filthy Jewish murderer of Jesus" .

    Something Martin Luther might have said

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It got so crazy once , they expelled the entire Sefardi (Inquisition) .

    Now Islam was not like that , but ofcourse it wasnt spread only by virtue . It was spread by different peoples with different peoples from different places in different times in different situations .

    Another aside, I’m going to an Arabic BBQ this weekend. I hope it’s at least a little authentic. (really its more Syrian because the girls father was a diplomat in Syria) anyway – it should be good!

    I hope it is you go enjoy your hummus and kebab

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Syrian BBQ is the best . Enjoy !!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    I enjoyed reading <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/christ-muslim-debate.html">this</a>. Haven't gotten much better?
    Ghassan your quoting from Martin Luther whom some of us consider a heretic.
     
  18. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    I thought it was the Romans.
     
  19. DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    There are nobody here "trying to defame islam at any cost".

    Seeng how you are yourself an Islamic missionary, however, I'm not surprised to see such blanket statements from you.
     

Share This Page