Jihad is actually also fighting against injustice, and not just for the sake of Muslims either. Secondly it isn't only fighting for Muslim nations or even current Muslims. It is fighting for Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries (who are oppressed) and it is fighting for the freedom for anyone and everyone to practice Islam.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
When has Jihad ever meant self defence?
Always but not only for that.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
So never then
This expresses my understanding. I've split the paragraph for clarity:
The Arabic term jihad is properly defined as “struggle” or “striving” and is generally described as taking place at two levels: the inner (or greater) and the outer (or lesser).
According to the hadith (records of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad), inner jihad is the struggle within oneself to avoid sinful behavior and live according to the principles of the Qurʾan, Sunna (example of the Prophet Muhammad), and Sharia (values or principles elaborated into Islamic law).
Outer jihad, on the other hand, refers to the defense of the Muslim community under attack. This can be a “soft defense,” such as through verbal or written debate or persuasion (jihad of the tongue, or jihad of the pen), or “hard defense” (also known as “jihad of the sword”), such as through physical or military defense of a community. In the early 21st century, some Muslims engage the terminology of “civilian jihad” for nonviolent political action and civic engagement.
Jihad - Islamic Studies - Oxford Bibliographies
The Arabic term jihad is properly defined as “struggle” or “striving” and is generally described as taking place at two levels: the inner (or greater) and the outer (or lesser).
According to the hadith (records of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad), inner jihad is the struggle within oneself to avoid sinful behavior and live according to the principles of the Qurʾan, Sunna (example of the Prophet Muhammad), and Sharia (values or principles elaborated into Islamic law).
Outer jihad, on the other hand, refers to the defense of the Muslim community under attack. This can be a “soft defense,” such as through verbal or written debate or persuasion (jihad of the tongue, or jihad of the pen), or “hard defense” (also known as “jihad of the sword”), such as through physical or military defense of a community. In the early 21st century, some Muslims engage the terminology of “civilian jihad” for nonviolent political action and civic engagement.
Jihad - Islamic Studies - Oxford Bibliographies
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I thought it meant to subject others to the muslim yoke.
Fighting for Islam is not the same as fighting for everyone to be free to choose their religion, so "Fighting for the freedom to practice Islam" makes no sense. Just say "Fighting to practice Islam." Islam is submission, doesn't add to the freedoms of individuals to choose other religions, considers all other religions to be toast, antiquated or otherwise lesser and the practitioners thereof to be lesser people. Point being 'Jihad' doesn't mean fighting for freedom. Its just fighting for Islam, and fighting for freedom is separate. Two ideas.
I don't know. I know it doesn't mean fighting for freedom unless freedom has no meaning. Freedom means you and I have a moral basis for making individual choices. Its philosophically grounded. Its based in argument that individual choice is the best way for society to operate. You can't fight for freedom to eliminate choice. It doesn't make sense.
I never said it's "fighting for freedom" not the kind of freedom people want these days. But against oppression. Even oppression of non-Muslims.
Why doesn't "fighting for the freedom to practice Islam" make sense? "Fighting to practice Islam" would apply as well. But that would insinuate they are fighting for themselves only.
And you will continue to think so, I presuppose.
For freedom to fit in there it would have to be "Fighting for the freedom of individuals to practice Islam or not." It has to do with the importance and rich history of the word freedom, and it has specific provisions. The thing is that if you aren't fighting for individuals to choose Islam or not, then its not fighting for freedom. Its fighting for Islam.
Freedom starts with the concept of someone who has moral ability to choose, so its someone who doesn't need to be told what to do, influenced by the shock of the 12th century in England when the nobles enslaved the populace to build castles and tortured people in dungeons while the king ignored everything that was going on. Because of things like this people began to seriously consider the idea of a free and equal society, because they had been betrayed by the royals and the nobles. They discovered that there was no basis for the claim to moral superiority and saw that the titles were empty. They stopped by degrees believing in the pecking order and saw it as more of a practicality than a moral hierarchy. The laws gradually changed to recognize this as the term freedom grew in prominence and depth of meaning.
Freedom is a different way of living than the old ways. In the old days people referred to their betters as masters, but as the concept of freedom grew and as they developed its philosophy they gradually stopped doing that. The belief faded that a noble person was a better quality of human having some special quality which empowered them to make decisions for others. It became a mistrusted idea, then an antiquated one.
These days superiority is only acceptable in the military. Soldiers are required to call the officers their superiors as part of military discipline. The soldier doesn't choose when to kill, because the officer does. Therefore the officer is the superior in rank, the one making the moral choices. Once upon a time the entire world was ordered that way, and you had a pecking order of betters from the worst humans to the best. If your master told you to kill someone you just did it, because it was their responsibility to think not yours. If they said drop your pants you dropped your pants.
It is fighting for Islam. But I think your idea that the word 'individuals' must be there is only because you have a misconception about an individual's freedom to choose Islam or not. So it's only necessary for you not for the general meaning of the sentence to be understood.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Jihad seems more offensive than defensive to me.
Why?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Interesting. So the Christian nations conquered by Islam, were attacked and conquered so the conquerers could practice Islam in these nations ?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Maybe about Islam but about freedom I'm carrying the definition of freedom as understandable everywhere but the OP sentencing. Freedom and submission are opposite concepts, like opposite sides of a scale. When you increase one you decrease the other.