Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP, there is no secret or mystery. Jihad an nafs means struggling against your ego, your inner desires and impulses.
Jihad fi sabilillah means fighting/struggling/making an effort for a cause, the cause of God that is. This is an action you undertake by speaking, writing, accomplishing something for God, or fighting. It is most often used in the latter sense. This could be defensively, or offensively.
As for holy war, this is a christian concept. I note you opened two separate threads for the same term, but in the Quran or in arabic the is no difference in the meaning of the word. The Quran was revealed in arabic and is interpreted with the meanings of the arabic words that form the verses.
'Jihad = holy war' is not a Christian concept.
'Jihad = holy war' is in the English Dictionary, therefore it is an English concept. 'Jihad = holy war' is never a Christian concept.
In addition,
'Jihad = holy war' is also in the Arabic Dictionary, therefore it is an Arabic concept.
This is proven by the entries in the Arabic dictionaries in this OP. //www.city-data.com/forum/islam...-language.html
You can verify it by checking with other Arabic dictionaries.
On a matter of precision, there is obviously a difference between the Arabic used in the Quran and the MSA Arabic.
The linguistics in the Quranic Arabic is fixed and conditioned upon what is in the Quran, since the Quran from Allah is immutable [cannot be changed] and supposed to be perfected and complete.
When one come across Arabic in relation to the Quran, one must straightaway consider two categories of Arabic, i.e.
1. Quranic Arabic - fixed within the Quran,
2. Common usage Arabic which will change in time and circumstances.
Therefore on a matter of doctrinal precision, Quranic Arabic cannot be the same as MSA Arabic.
Yes the MSA dictionaries often do translate Jihad as Holy War as that is becoming a common usage of the word. but common word definitions do change over time. For example the word gay did not always relate to Homosexuality and Molasses was not always the name of a sweet syrup derifed from sugar cane. To know what Jihad meant at the time of the Qur'an you have to know the entomology of the word. MSA Dictionaries give the current definitions, which do not always agree with Qur'anic definitions.
While a "holy war" could be a jihad, Jihad does not specifically mean "Holy War"
From a Non-Muslim source This is what is required for a "Holy war" to be a Jihad
That is exactly my point as I mentioned as above.
When one come across Arabic in relation to the Quran, one must straightaway consider two categories of Arabic, i.e.
1. Quranic Arabic - fixed within the Quran,
2. Common usage Arabic which will change in time and circumstances.
Therefore on a matter of doctrinal precision, Quranic Arabic cannot be the same as MSA Arabic.
But as I had stated, "jihad = holy war" is correct as long as it is in the English or MSA dictionary.
Therefore one cannot condemned those English and Arabic speakers who interpret "jihad = holy war."
In the event of atrocities, evils and violence committed by SOME Muslims, it is not linguistic wrong if one says these Muslims [SOME] are doing Jihad in the name of Allah in English or MSA-Arabic. It is literally correct.
But it would be wrong in term of Quranic Arabic to say that the Muslims [SOME] are doing 'jihad' in accordance to specific verses in the Quran. This is because there are no specific verses in the Quran that interpret this Arabic word دجها as direct meaning of attacking or killing non-Muslims.
Even when the Quran did not link the term دجها directly with killing of infidels, the 'jihad' [English or Arabic] done by SOME Muslims that turned out to be evils and violence is not doctrinal wrong in the eyes of Allah.
The point is whatever the names, what is critical is whether the evils and violence acts identified as 'jihad' in English is accepted as just and right by Allah.
This part is incorrect. Muslim nations do have a God given right to conquer other nations in order to spread the message of Islam (when the intention is correct), which is exactly what the first generations of muslims accomplished. The majority of the Arab countries of today, were conquered by the early muslims.
Turkey, Chechnya, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Persia, and Spain were also conquered by muslims who spread the faith in these new territories. There is no shame in this, as all nations at some point or another saw there was an interest in conquering new territories. Locals were not forced to convert, but Islam became the ruling religion. Islam did not go from being practiced by a few thousand people in the arabian peninsula, to ruling several european, african, and middle eastern countries without military action.
Is America ashamed of the vietnam or korean wars ? I personally think these wars were necessary to prevent the spreading of falsehood (in this case, communism).
Umar Ibn Khattab for example conquered most of the middle east, including Palestine. The Prophet peace and blessings upon him said that Allah put the truth on Umar's tongue. Some other hadiths about Umar :
لو كان بعدى نبى لكان عمر بن الخطاب
If there were to be a prophet after me, indeed he would be Umar, son of Khattab. [Sunan Tirmidhi, Hadith 3686]
ما زلنا أعزة منذ أسلم عمر
"We have become mighty since Umar became Muslim." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Companions, Hadith 3481]
There is a trend nowadays to deny the meaning of the jihad, or limit it in a way which would make it impossible. A better approach is to explain the truth entirely, as God does not order evil, or transgression. Jihad is an integral part of the religion, as is believing in it.
There is a wisdom behind jihad, including offensive jihad. It exposes falsehood for what it really is and removes a corrupt system to replace it with something better and does not aim to replace an existing population with another one, or pillage their resources, or anything detrimental to the well being of the people of the land . This is why Bosnians, Sudanese, Albanese, southern Bulgarians and Chechens are muslims to this day.
As a matter of fact, fighting offensively was already the way of the biblical Prophets. Joshua conquered Palestine, and David and Solomon strengthened the position of the muslims of that time through military action (sura an naml is a perfect example of Solomon's perspective on the matter). As strengthening the islamic nation, is strengthening the religion.
If we look at history, the only religion which justified colonization coupled with mass murder, enslavement, extermination, theft of resources and forced conversions is the christian religion. Religious edicts and biased biblical interpretations condoned those actions. Despite all this, south americans, caribbeans, africans and african americans were still honest enough to distinguish between the Bible, and the crimes perpretrated in its name by the christians. To this day, these people are still convinced of the truth they found by reading the Bible and have kept the religion brought to them by their former oppressors.
Theologically, the Ahadith do not carry any divine rights.
This will require a separate OP to justify.
Therefore it is wrong to insist the Ahadith authorized Muslim nations a God given right to conquer other nations in order to spread the message of Islam (when the intention is correct).
The only authority a Muslim can act and carry forward to Judgment Day is from the Quran only and no where else.
And there are verses in the Quran that endow Muslim nations [Muslims collectively] a God given right to conquer other nations in order to spread the message of Islam (when the intention is correct).
Allah stated in the Quran, Islam will conquer and dominate [with Allah's help] over all other religions and such domination will not stop till all religions are exterminated from the world.
32:2. The revelation of the Scripture [Quran] whereof there is no doubt is from the Lord of the Worlds. [Perfect] [see 2:2]
9:33. He [Allah] it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion [wadeeni] of Truth, that He may cause it [Islam] to prevail over all religion [alddeeni], however much the idolaters [infidels] may be averse.
61:9. He [Allah] it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion [wadeeni] of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion [alddeeni] however much idolaters [infidels] may be averse.
48:28. He [Allah] it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion [wadeeni] of truth, that He may cause it [Islam] to prevail over all religion [alddeeni]. And Allah sufficeth as a witness.
The only implied act that Allah can expect Islam to achieve the above objectives is by imbuing the default the Muslims must conquer new Nations. Since there will always be resistance, killings and forced conversions will be necessary in many instances.
There are verses re non-compulsion, do not begin hostilities, etc. but these few verses are merely 'side dishes' and not critical to the core drive of Islam as per Quran only.
Note the above is correct in accordance to what Allah revealed in the Quran.
Outside the scope of the Quran, from a universal humanity standards and values [re The Philosophy of Morality] the above are morally wrong and perverted.
Just because the Christians and other humans did it, that is not the justifications for Muslims [SOME] to do it.
What matters is the basic moral compass and universal human values & morality.
Last edited by Continuum; 01-03-2017 at 09:30 PM..
The word jihad for Allah
It is also a holy war
Because jihad is through war and fighting
And holy because it is from God legislation in pairing
So why Muslims deny these delicate translator
الجهاد في سبيل الله =الحرب المقدسة
For your information
The Natqiguen in Arabic use this word in its meaning war
But the meanings other words, using only the afterlife
Struggle and piety
And patience
So when we say it means a fight jihad
Regarding your remark about MSA and Quranic arabic, as I said, Quranic arabic is arabic. Classical arabic, not MSA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
Theologically, the Ahadith do not carry any divine rights.
This will require a separate OP to justify.
Therefore it is wrong to insist the Ahadith authorized Muslim nations a God given right to conquer other nations in order to spread the message of Islam (when the intention is correct).
The only authority a Muslim can act and carry forward to Judgment Day is from the Quran only and no where else.
.
This is incorrect. As stated by another poster, hadith carry the same weight as Quran verses as they are considered to be a revelation also. This is a fundamental teaching of the religion in which all muslims believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
And there are verses in the Quran that endow Muslim nations [Muslims collectively] a God given right to conquer other nations in order to spread the message of Islam (when the intention is correct).
Allah stated in the Quran, Islam will conquer and dominate [with Allah's help] over all other religions and such domination will not stop till all religions are exterminated from the world.
32:2. The revelation of the Scripture [Quran] whereof there is no doubt is from the Lord of the Worlds. [Perfect] [see 2:2]
9:33. He [Allah] it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion [wadeeni] of Truth, that He may cause it [Islam] to prevail over all religion [alddeeni], however much the idolaters [infidels] may be averse.
61:9. He [Allah] it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion [wadeeni] of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion [alddeeni] however much idolaters [infidels] may be averse.
48:28. He [Allah] it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion [wadeeni] of truth, that He may cause it [Islam] to prevail over all religion [alddeeni]. And Allah sufficeth as a witness.
The only implied act that Allah can expect Islam to achieve the above objectives is by imbuing the default the Muslims must conquer new Nations. Since there will always be resistance, killings and forced conversions will be necessary in many instances.
There are verses re non-compulsion, do not begin hostilities, etc. but these few verses are merely 'side dishes' and not critical to the core drive of Islam as per Quran only.
Note the above is correct in accordance to what Allah revealed in the Quran.
The verses in arabic say "to place it above all religions". Whether it is translated by "triumph" "prevail" or other terms, interpreting these verses are referring to military conquest is not just a stretch, it is fabrication. I don't see how it would be possible to arrive at this conclusion, or pretend that these verses call for forced conversions and killings. You were reasonable in your prior messages, so let's keep understanding the verses for what they say.
A religion can prevail by the dynamics of demographics and/or conversions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
Outside the scope of the Quran, from a universal humanity standards and values [re The Philosophy of Morality] the above are morally wrong and perverted.
Just because the Christians and other humans did it, that is not the justifications for Muslims [SOME] to do it.
What matters is the basic moral compass and universal human values & morality.
That's only your perspective and opinion. Morality without religion is definitely subjective. "Universal humanity standards and values" do not exist at all, it's a fantasy. As a matter of fact, most of humanity does not believe in pacifism and non aggression.
Regarding your remark about MSA and Quranic arabic, as I said, Quranic arabic is arabic. Classical arabic, not MSA.
You need to deliberate more on the nature of the Philosophy and Theory of Language.
Language is something that is evolving.
As with all languages, the Arabic language has an origin, i.e. started during the Iron Age [1000s years ago] and had changed ever since and will continue to change in the future.
Arabic is a Central Semitic language that was first spoken in Iron Age northwestern Arabia and is now the lingua franca of the Arab world.[4] -wiki
Like the English Language, Old English [Archive] has its specific meaning during a certain time which is not applicable or not use in the modern era. The meaning of an English word in the current era may not be used in the future [50 years from now]. 'For example not many people would use the word "gay = joy" in the present era but 'gay' is now popularly meant 'homosexual' by default without a need for qualifications.
It is the same with Arabic, many of the Arabic terms and language mode 1400 years ago would not be the same as the meanings in the MSA.
But the point here is the Quranic Arabic has to be unique because it was the language [specific to the period 710-732AD] used by Allah to reveal his revelations. The Quran is supposed to be immutable and thus its language and meaning has to be immutable, otherwise the original meaning will change. Therefore the Quranic Arabic has to be frozen and cannot be changed.
On the other hand, MSA is an ordinary language and will change over time.
In such a circumstances, Quranic Arabic [must be fixed] has to be different from MSA [changing with time].
Therefore;
Quranic Arabic is the Arabic used by Allah and has to be fixed.
MSA is modern standard Arabic which is subject to change.
Quranic Arabic cannot be a universal evolving language like MSA.
This is why the context of which language [Quranic or MSA] is referred to is critical. One example is the Arabic term جهاد. جهاد is Quranic Arabic [710-732AD] is different in meaning from جهاد used in MSA.
Quote:
This is incorrect. As stated by another poster, hadith carry the same weight as Quran verses as they are considered to be a revelation also. This is a fundamental teaching of the religion in which all muslims believe.
It is not believed by ALL Muslims.
There are a small growing percentage of Muslims who believed the Quran is the only divine authority for Islam.
One has to be objective here.
Generally there is no way or need for an all-powerful, all-present God to assign his power to a fallible human being. The verses of the Quran support this point.
As I said, this is a serious issue which need a separate OP to deliberate.
Quote:
The verses in arabic say "to place it above all religions". Whether it is translated by "triumph" "prevail" or other terms, interpreting these verses are referring to military conquest is not just a stretch, it is fabrication. I don't see how it would be possible to arrive at this conclusion, or pretend that these verses call for forced conversions and killings. You were reasonable in your prior messages, so let's keep understanding the verses for what they say.
The term is "liyuẓ'hirahu" with the root, Za-ha-Ra, which can be any of the following depending on contex;
to appear, become distinct/clear/open/manifest, come out, ascend/mount, get the better of, know, distinguish, be obvious, go forth, enter the noon, neglect, have the upper hand over, wound on the back.
In the context of the whole Quran, we cannot stop a % [not all] of Muslims from interpreting "liyuẓ'hirahu" towards get the better of, have the upper hand over, and stretching in the guise of military conquests and forced [implicit or explicit] conversions.
Note 80% of Muslims may not agree with the above interpretation but 20% [300 millions] could be inclined towards the above interpretations.
As I had always argued, who on Earth can judge they are right or wrong.
You can ask this to your own self, can "you" judge on behalf of Allah on a final basis?
Btw, as I had stated we may not agree on everything. But my approach is to be as critical and objective as possible.
Quote:
A religion can prevail by the dynamics of demographics and/or conversions.
Note my explanation above.
Quote:
That's only your perspective and opinion. Morality without religion is definitely subjective. "Universal humanity standards and values" do not exist at all, it's a fantasy. As a matter of fact, most of humanity does not believe in pacifism and non aggression.
Note one of my forte is the Philosophy of Morality and I have done years of research on this area.
Morality from religions has its relative utility, but it is a kindergaten-level of morality with its pros and cons.
The most effective approach to Morality is a Framework and System based Morality and Ethics.
Quote:
"Universal humanity standards and values" do not exist at all, it's a fantasy.
'Thou shalt not kill' unconditionally is a universal humanity standard.
At present all Nations of humanity adopt such a universal standard 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.'
Within a Framework and System based Morality and Ethics, 'Thou shalt not kill' [unconditional with no buts or ifs] is a universal standard.
Exist or not, it is set as a standard without exception with the Principles of Morality.
It is only within its judiciary Laws which is not "morality" that exceptions are allowed.
In this judiciary environment, killing is a crime but exceptions are considered in justified circumstances.
In the case of Islam, the moral principles re 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is sliphod because its morality standard is condition, i.e. "That shall not kill but justified if .."
This sliphod with "if justified ..." open room for some to exploit the hole in such a standard.
On the other hand, note Christianity, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is absolutely unconditional without room for justified cause nor with ifs or but. This is an absolute moral standards.
Now if a Christians want to kill, he cannot exploit any verses to justify any killing.
However being human beings, Christians will definitely encounter a situation of self-defense or accidental killing. This issue will be dealt of Judgement Day and it is up to God to judge and make a decision whether to forgive [for justified self-defense, accidental, etc] or punish [if killing is deliberate].
In this case the Christian Moral Model is of a higher quality than the Islam model of Morality but it has it limitations in other cases.
A Framework and System based Morality and Ethics [non-religious but a human one] will rely on Universal standards but will not have any of the above weakness.
You need to deliberate more on the nature of the Philosophy and Theory of Language.
Language is something that is evolving.
As with all languages, the Arabic language has an origin, i.e. started during the Iron Age [1000s years ago] and had changed ever since and will continue to change in the future. [...] On the other hand, MSA is an ordinary language and will change over time.
Thanks for the advice. Like I said, I am not referring to MSA, but classical arabic, the language of the desert tribes, the human language in which the Quran was revealed and the one we use when understanding it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
It is not believed by ALL Muslims.
There are a small growing percentage of Muslims who believed the Quran is the only divine authority for Islam.
This fringe sects is not considered to be a part of Islam. The numbers are not growing, and they are so small I have never even heard of them having an mosque. Hadiths are a part of the revelation in Islam and this is a belief shared by all muslims. Pointing a few individuals here and there, whose belief has no scholars, mosques, or writers representing it, is not evidence of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The term is "liyuẓ'hirahu" with the root, Za-ha-Ra, which can be any of the following depending on contex;
to appear, become distinct/clear/open/manifest, come out, ascend/mount, get the better of, know, distinguish, be obvious, go forth, enter the noon, neglect, have the upper hand over, wound on the back.
In the context of the whole Quran, we cannot stop a % [not all] of Muslims from interpreting "liyuẓ'hirahu" towards get the better of, have the upper hand over, and stretching in the guise of military conquests and forced [implicit or explicit] conversions.
Note 80% of Muslims may not agree with the above interpretation but 20% [300 millions] could be inclined towards the above interpretations.
As I had always argued, who on Earth can judge they are right or wrong.
Where are you getting your statistics from ? This verse to the best of my knowledge, has bever been used in defense of jihadist theories. Only you so far has been interpreting this verse in this manner.
You need to stop talking about forced conversions. This is a phenomenon that is non existent in the history of the muslim religion, and not mentioned in the Quran. We do not debate fiction, but facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
You can ask this to your own self, can "you" judge on behalf of Allah on a final basis?
Yes, judges apply the ruling of God. You may disagree, but if you agreed you would become muslim. Your disagreement is only caused by your disbelief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
Morality from religions has its relative utility, but it is a kindergaten-level of morality with its pros and cons.
The most effective approach to Morality is a Framework and System based Morality and Ethics.
This is your own personal belief, and that's fine. Most people on this planet believe in God and in religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
'Thou shalt not kill' unconditionally is a universal humanity standard.
At present all Nations of humanity adopt such a universal standard 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.'
The death penalty exists in most countries in the world, including the USA. Therefore, your premise is invalid. All nations recognize the notion of justifiable killing, whether in a context of self defense, military action, or as punishment for committing a capital crime.
You should not murder is closer to the biblical meaning. As the same God who forbade murder, also commanded that entire nations should be exterminated in the same Bible.
What makes killing justified, is determined based on the system belief that people adopt. There are no "universal morals values". In Arizona killing someone who tried to wrestle you is deemed justified while in New York this would be murder.
Of course I believe the islamic standards morals and values should the universally accepted standard.
You need to stop talking about forced conversions. This is a phenomenon that is non existent in the history of the Muslim religion, and not mentioned in the Quran. We do not debate fiction, but facts.
I will address the above point [the others later].
Max Rodenbeck [Islam apologist] claimed that the Muslim practice of forced conversion was “historically rare” and “revived only recently by ultra-extremist groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria or ISIS in Iraq.”
But later he revised his claims to;
Regarding forced conversion and Islam, it is far from my intent to whitewash a long and mixed record. I stand corrected in my injudicious use of the word “rare.” There are indeed numerous instances of forced conversion to Islam…
The point re "forced conversion" is this;
The Hindu population of India was very large, the number of Muslim invaders comparatively very small. Conversion of such numbers took time; what impresses is not how few Hindus became Muslims but how many. There are now 840 million Hindus in historic India (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) – lands once almost entirely Hindu (with a small admixture of Buddhists). And there are now 502 million Muslims in historic India (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh), where at the beginning of the eighth century there were none. Caldecott thinks the more telling figure is that of the 502 million Muslims; Rodenbeck would have us be impressed that the Muslims left so many Hindus alive, which he thinks shows the “absence of forced conversions” rather than being simple testimony to the size of the task.
The definition of “forced conversion” ought to include not only conversion at the point of a sword or a scimitar, but all those conversions by Hindus in India to avoid the jizyah and the host of other disabilities imposed on those Hindus who were allowed to live as a matter of policy. But why were those Hindus allowed to live? Not out of the goodness of Muslim rulers’ hearts, as Rodenbeck implies, but in order to have enough people to continue paying the jizyah, on which the Muslim state relied.
Rodenbeck seems to think that the survival of any non-Muslims under Muslim rule, no matter how few, testifies to Muslim mildness. He swerves from his his discussion of India to the East Indies (present-day Indonesia), where he claims – correctly –that on the island of Bali, 85% of the 4 million Balinese are Hindus. But that is the only island, out of hundreds, where the Hindus held out. Surely more meaningful is the fact that Hindus now constitute less than 2%, and Buddhists 0.8%, of the overall population of Indonesia (now 260 million) that, before the Muslim traders arrived, was 100% Hindu and Buddhist.
K. S. Lal and other historians, both Indian and Western, have calculated that more than 80 million Hindus were killed by Muslims during 250 years of Mughal rule in much of India. Rodenbeck does not address this issue of genocide at all. Perhaps, since those tens of millions of Hindus were not subjected to “forced conversion,” he may think these figures are not relevant to the discussion — after all, they were quite dead.
Thanks for the advice. Like I said, I am not referring to MSA, but classical arabic, the language of the desert tribes, the human language in which the Quran was revealed and the one we use when understanding it.
Classical Arabic (CA), also known as Quranic Arabic or occasionally Mudari Arabic, is the form of the Arabic language used in literary texts from Umayyad and Abbasid times (7th to 9th centuries). It is based on the medieval dialects of Arab tribes. -wiki
The above is not precise enough. The Quran was revealed in 610-632 and by 50 years and more the language [naturally very fluid] & meanings etc. could have changed significantly. Note the meaning of 'gay' and 'lesbian' changed suddenly within 10 years or so from the introduction of the new term in English communication.
The Quran do not have high respect for desert tribes [الْأَعْرَابِ 9:90] and treat them as very inferior people, thus their language as well.
To be very precise, the language of the Quran is the Arabic of the Qureshi Meccans within the period 610 - 632 AD only as supposedly used by Allah to reveal the Quran.
The Arabic language of the Quran is very specific only to the period 610-632AD of the Qureshi Meccan. It cannot be more than that.
I have downloaded a few sets of books re "The Language of the Holy Qur'an" and learning it. http://www.kalamullah.com/language-of-quran.html
In the present situation we must take into account MSA because that is the current and modern standard. The task is we need to reconcile Quranic Arabic [fixed] with MSA [changing] at all times.
Quote:
This fringe sects is not considered to be a part of Islam. The numbers are not growing, and they are so small I have never even heard of them having an mosque. Hadiths are a part of the revelation in Islam and this is a belief shared by all muslims. Pointing a few individuals here and there, whose belief has no scholars, mosques, or writers representing it, is not evidence of anything.
The Quran-Only was a fringe group long ago but the number of Quran-Only Muslims are growing and increasing steadily in time and into the future.
There are already many [an increase over last 20 years] internet sites representing Quran-Only Muslims.
The Quran-Only Muslims will increase in the future because their approach is more rational than those of the Sunni and Shia group.
The majority is has never been correct all the time especially if they have been stuck with old ideas and concept. 100 years ago, nearly 99% of people believed the Earth was flat or the Sun move around the Earth from East to West.
The trend from 1000s years ago is, new knowledge has been replacing outdated ideas and concepts in every aspects of human life. Religions is hardcore and more resistant to change but ideas are changing fast within religions and it will be so within Islam from Ahadith-based to Quran-Only Islam.
Quote:
Where are you getting your statistics from ? This verse to the best of my knowledge, has bever been used in defense of jihadist theories. Only you so far has been interpreting this verse in this manner.
The starting point is the glaring evidences of evils and violence committed by SOME [not all] Muslim who are evil prone around the world.
The evidence is a % [not all] of Muslims interpreted "liyuẓ'hirahu" as "get the better of", "have the upper hand over", and stretching in the guise of military conquests and forced [implicit or explicit] conversions.
Re forced conversion note the article I linked above.
I have read of many tafsirs and articles from Sunni and Shia scholars who promote 'jihad = holy war' don't have the like off hand, will produce when I come across it.
Quote:
Yes, judges apply the ruling of God. You may disagree, but if you agreed you would become muslim. Your disagreement is only caused by your disbelief.
Allah do exhort Muslims to judge in accordance to the Quran for Earthly matters and this can only be done within the scope of the Quran and not according to the Ahadith. There is no verse that permit Muslims to judge outside the scope of the Quran. Show me proofs of this from the Quran [Allah's words] if you have it.
A Muslim has to judge in accordance to the Quran-only to the best of his ability and an earthly judge can make mistakes, be bias or take bribes, but in no way can an judge on earth confirm 100% his judgment can guarantee a Muslim will go to Paradise. Only Allah can be the final arbiter whether a Muslim go to Paradise or Hell.
Now if a jihadist keep killing infidels with his justification from the Quran, what can anybody to do to stop him. A judge or any one can judge the jihadist is wrong and threaten him with hell. Such a threat will have no effect and the jihadist will not give a damn with Muslims [humans] judgment on Earth. To the jihadists what counts is s/he had done the right thing and leave it for Allah to judge on Judgment Day.
Quote:
This is your own personal belief, and that's fine. Most people on this planet believe in God and in religion.
My argument for a a Framework and System based Morality and Ethics will be very rational and can be easily be proven to be effective on paper. This will need a thesis for it.
Quote:
The death penalty exists in most countries in the world, including the USA. Therefore, your premise is invalid. All nations recognize the notion of justifiable killing, whether in a context of self defense, military action, or as punishment for committing a capital crime.
You should not murder is closer to the biblical meaning. As the same God who forbade murder, also commanded that entire nations should be exterminated in the same Bible.
What makes killing justified, is determined based on the system belief that people adopt. There are no "universal morals values". In Arizona killing someone who tried to wrestle you is deemed justified while in New York this would be murder.
Of course I believe the islamic standards morals and values should the universally accepted standard.
As for the Bible you need to differentiate between the Old Testament and New Testament. I agree the OT has a lot of violence.
But in the NT, the violent verses are overridden by the pacifist maxims of Thou Shalt Not Kill' [no ifs and buts] 'Love your enemies' 'Left -right cheeks' and other pacifist elements.
In Christianity, the pacifist maxims of;
Thou Shalt Not Kill' [no ifs and buts]
'Love your enemies'
'Left -right cheeks' and other pacifist elements.
are absolute universal moral values because there is no ifs or buts to it.
There are no provisions for any justifications to do otherwise.
The NT did not state, "Thou Shalt Not Kill, except ...."
There are no provision for exceptions.
How the Morality System works in Christianity is this;
The Moral Law re Killing is an absolute universal Law,
Thou Shalt Not Kill! there is no exception to it.
Therefore a Christian who want to kill will have to think 100 times in order to get forgiveness for any killing.
Christians are human beings and killings will happen, then it is up to God to deal with the individual on Judgement Day.
Earthly courts to deal with Christians who kill are a separate issue and has nothing to do with God directly.
The Problem with Islam's Morality is it has holes, e.g. 2:193, i.e.
Thou Shall not fight [kill] except .. on wrong doers.
Since 2:193 [God words] stated one can kill if they are wrong doers, so SOME Muslims will kill infidels if infidels commit wrong doings which are vaguely defined in the Quran.
This is what I meant by the Quran has holes within its Morality System.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
