Jihad is not what you think it is

[TagliatelliMonster]

Muslims I know would say that the terrorists do not pray, and have no Qurans, therefore are not Muslims.

They'ld be wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is true. I find the saying, 'The greatest Jihad is the Jihad against one's own self' , very inspiring.

Unfortunately, the whole jihad philosophy has been hijacked by a few to serve their ends of petty religious nationalism by conditioning people to be petty instruments.

Looking at the actual numbers, "a few" is quite an understatement.
A minority: sure (as in less then 50%). "a few" - no, not at all.

"a few" aren't capable of gaining as much teritory as ISIS did. To combat "a few", you don't need an international coalition to fight for a couple of years to win the battle. To combat "a few", you might need a couple of SWAT teams or elite military units - not entire armies.

And that's just ONE group (isis). Then there's also all the others (boko haram, hezbollah, hamaz, taliban, al nusra, etc etc etc etc), or even entire countries.

At the time around 9/11, several polls in countries around the world show disturbingly high numbers of support or "understanding" / "sympathy" with jihadi suicide bombers and alike.

Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

Yes, it's a minority. But as you can see, FAR bigger then just a "mere few".

 

[Spirit of Light]

Is that why Mujahideens' seemingly official outfit includes a kalashnikof and a bazooka?

That you do not agree with me is no surprise but its ok
Yes a Buddhist can know a lot about other religion if they have studied parts or all of other religious texts and cultures. I personally have not studied every other religion, but religion is my number one interest in this life. so i kind of study it every day.
I am also starting to study teology soon so i can understand the christian faith better too.

As i stated in an other post too, i do not know every thing, and ofcourse i can be wrong both in buddhism and in other religious debates.

 

[sooda]

The idea of the "arab spring" seems to me to be completely nonsensical.
The words are used as if it was a good thing.

But it seems to me that only even more misery, radicalism and oppression came out of it.

 

[sooda]

The idea of the "arab spring" seems to me to be completely nonsensical.
The words are used as if it was a good thing.


But it seems to me that only even more misery, radicalism and oppression came out of it.

I agree, but its called Arab Spring.

 

[sooda]

Looking at the actual numbers, "a few" is quite an understatement.
A minority: sure (as in less then 50%). "a few" - no, not at all.

"a few" aren't capable of gaining as much teritory as ISIS did. To combat "a few", you don't need an international coalition to fight for a couple of years to win the battle. To combat "a few", you might need a couple of SWAT teams or elite military units - not entire armies.

And that's just ONE group (isis). Then there's also all the others (boko haram, hezbollah, hamaz, taliban, al nusra, etc etc etc etc), or even entire countries.

At the time around 9/11, several polls in countries around the world show disturbingly high numbers of support or "understanding" / "sympathy" with jihadi suicide bombers and alike.

Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

Yes, it's a minority. But as you can see, FAR bigger then just a "mere few".

That wasn't my experience.. All the Arabs I knew were horrified.. and they knew perfectly well that OBL had hung the atrocity on them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That you do not agree with me is no surprise but its ok

As I said earlier, I'm a practical person.

And in practice, the only people I see who are refered to as "mujahedeen" are people holding a kalashnikov or some other war weapon.

Just like in practice, the only time I see the word "jihad" being mentioned (by muslims themselves - not even including any western media or whatever), is when they are referring to their fighting. A type of fighting that we call "terrorism".

I have heared many times the apologetic of what jihad supposedly really means, including from imams during face to face conversation.

But NOT ONCE have I heared a muslim use that word in that fashion in everyday life.

Whenever a muslim mentions it and is NOT refering to terrorist activity, then every time, it is during a discussion / debate about islam with non-muslims and the muslim is put on the defensive.

But again: NOT ONCE have I EVER heared a muslim use that word in that fashion in every day life to refer to his "spiritual struggle" or whatever. Not once.

So then really... what use is it to point this out?
What does it matter if a word on paper means X, while 100% of people who actually use that word mean something else?

Again, what matters is what happens in practice.

You might be right, just like what that Imam told me, concerning this word "Jihad".
But it doesn't matter at all. It doesn't change anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That wasn't my experience.. All the Arabs I knew were horrified.. and they knew perfectly well that OBL had hung the atrocity on them.

Has it occured to you that people who support groups like al-qaida and ISIS, will likely have no interest in socializing with you?


Having said that...
The polls are what they are, no matter what your personal experience is with a handfull of a people.

 

[Lyndon]

I've never heard an atheist with anything positive to say about religion, a bunch of haters.

 

[sooda]

Has it occured to you that people who support groups like al-qaida and ISIS, will likely have no interest in socializing with you?


Having said that...
The polls are what they are, no matter what your personal experience is with a handfull of a people.

I am wondering how they went about polling in the Muslim world.. in the Gulf States or Lebanon..

 

[Flankerl]

Ii have watched testimony on CSPAN about Israel's support of HAMAS.

How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas - WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847
Andrew Higgins on how Israel's decades-long dealings with Palestinian Islamists reveal a catalog of unintended and often perilous consequences.

You aren't proving me wrong by repeating what I wrote.
What Avner Cohen speaks about is the time of the Muslim Brotherhood Chapter in Gaza prior of it becoming Hamas and taking up arms.

Which is literally what I wrote.


It's great that you agree.

 

[Ellen Brown]

They'ld be wrong.

You are not Muslim, so why do you think you are expert? You say you are Atheist, so how would you have any idea at all?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are not Muslim, so why do you think you are expert? You say you are Atheist, so how would you have any idea at all?

The statement was that islamic terrorists the likes of al-qaida, isis, etc "do not have a quran and do not pray". That statement is factually wrong.
To say that these people aren't muslims, is also factually wrong.

And if you must know, half my family is muslim - not that it matters to the above statements being factually wrong.

Also, being an atheist doesn't exclude one from having knowledge about religions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've never heard an atheist with anything positive to say about religion, a bunch of haters.

Are you referring to me?

Because I'm not talking about religion in this thread.

 

[Lyndon]

Are you referring to me?

Because I'm not talking about religion in this thread.

if the shoe fits........

 

[Ellen Brown]

The statement was that islamic terrorists the likes of al-qaida, isis, etc "do not have a quran and do not pray". That statement is factually wrong.
To say that these people aren't muslims, is also factually wrong.

And if you must know, half my family is muslim - not that it matters to the above statements being factually wrong.

Also, being an atheist doesn't exclude one from having knowledge about religions.

I am Muslim, but I won't argue with a person who just wants a fight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if the shoe fits........

What shoe?

You made quite an accusation, seemingly at my address.
At this point, it doesn't seem to be anything more then an ad hominim though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am Muslim, but I won't argue with a person who just wants a fight.

???

Fight? What fight?

You said that people you know would say that terrorists the likes of ISIS don't pray and don't have any qurans and therefor aren't muslims.

This is factually wrong on all counts.
They do pray.
They do have qurans.
They are muslims.

How is it "wanting a fight" to correct a falsehood?

It's factually wrong.

They DO pray (to Allah, facing mekka). They DO own and read qurans.

Apparantly it's "picking a fight" when one thinks it is important to be correct and accurate.

Whatever man.

This thread seems to be a severe case of head-in-sand.

 

[Firemorphic]

I have heared many times the apologetic of what jihad supposedly really means, including from imams during face to face conversation.

But NOT ONCE have I heared a muslim use that word in that fashion in everyday life.

Perhaps you just need to spend a little more time learning about etymology then. It's certainly not transliterated in it's appearances in English translations of the Qur'an as "jihad" because it's most common uses are more or less neutral in use, nor are it's uses in the Qur'an to do with war or even fighting either.

Well, when a word gets so blatantly misappropriated, abused and associated with atrocious things like terrorism, many have good reason to switch it for other words that mean the same thing and just not bring that particular word.

You might be right, just like what that Imam told me, concerning this word "Jihad".
But it doesn't matter at all. It doesn't change anything.

As for my sentence above, you have to re-appropriate it to it's proper meaning, else it's just senseless controversy over nothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps you just need to spend a little more time learning about etymology then.

Why? If I learn more about etymology, would then muslims around the world start using that word in that context?
Obviously not. Like I already said: I'm well aware of what is being talked about in this thread.
As I also said: it doesn't matter, because in practice, I see this word being used by muslims in only 2 contexts:

1. when the moderate is put on the defensive in a conversation, usually following an attack on islam by referring to "jihad" to only mean what terrorists mean by it
2. when a terrorist uses it.

So my question is: what is the point here?
Does it change anything about radical islam?
Does it change anything about what jihadi's do and believe?

No, it doesn't.
You could say "well, it shows that islam really is not about what terrorists say it is about".
And that's neat. But meanwhile, it again doesn't change anything about islamic terrorists.

And meanwhile, it's still the case that I never hear a muslim use the word "jihad" to refer to their internal spiritual struggle.

It's certainly not transliterated in it's appearances in English translations of the Qur'an as "jihad" because it's most common uses are more or less neutral in use, nor are it's uses in the Qur'an to do with war or even fighting either.
Well, when a word gets so blatantly misappropriated, abused and associated with atrocious things like terrorism, many have good reason to switch it for other words that mean the same thing and just not bring that particular word.

Sure.
However, this just reinforces the ill-informed's beliefs that Jihad is actually what terrorists say it is.....
And still the fact remains that the ONLY instances that I know of where that word was used, were the 2 contexts mentioned above.

I'm actually well aware of its actual meaning. I'm actually well aware of the meaning being much broader, more general and richter then the narrow meaning that terrorists give to it. I was aware of this long before I read the OP of this thread.

It doesn't matter though.
Just like it doesn't matter what some accomodating or moderate Imam in Belgium has to say about what shariah REALLY is all about and how it is SUPPOSED to work.
What matters, is how it is actually implemented. And in every country where "shariah" is implemented - it's not pretty.

Communism on paper sounds perfectly fine as well. In fact, to my ears, in theory, it actually also sounds a lot better then capitalism.
But the fact is that in practice, communism tends to end up quite horribly, while capitalism works much much better.

So to me, that's the exact same thing.
You could totally make a valid argument about how in theory, or on paper, Marxism / communism / socialism would be a great society to live in as some kind of utopian thing. But the fact is that in practice, we end up with countries like North Korea and Soviet Russia.
Ironically, the opposite is true for capitalism imo. On paper, it actually doesn't sound that nice to me. But in practice, it works rather well.

As for my sentence above, you have to re-appropriate it to it's proper meaning, else it's just senseless controversy over nothing.

Sure.

But again, it won't change terrorist beliefs and meaning.
I also feel like it's the responsability of the moderate muslim to set up this "marketing" campaign of re-appropriating this word if they feel it is important.
I myself, I couldn't care less about islamic theology.

Again, I'm a practical guy. I don't care about how these things are supposed to work "on paper". I care about how they are actually practiced in the real world.