What does Jihad really require of faithful Muslims?
Is it just an internal struggle for personal purification, as some on the Left seem to suggest, or does it mean pressure cooker bombs and shooting campus police, as the Right generally seems to believe?
I think the basic question there- is who gets to decide what the religion requires?
Not only what the religion requires but how the term is used in Arabic instead of how it is translated to other languages.
This is an interesting survey: Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Research Center
This. Islam isn’t a single unified church. Asking what Muslims are supposed to do is like asking what Christians are supposed to do; it depends on which sect and religious leader you are asking the question of.
None of those statistics are comforting.
Religion is supposed to be comforting.
Analyzing it never is.
I don’t think it’s a Left/Right issue.
Jihad means to put an effort into doing something. In the Quran, Allah doesn’t simply hand Islam to people; Allah intentionally puts obstacles in people’s way so they have to work for it. Allah, who is all powerful, could simply make everyone a perfect Muslim and create a perfect Muslim world. But this unearned perfection would be meaningless. People are supposed to put effort into becoming a Muslim and building a Muslim society.
The aspect of jihad that is struggling against non-Muslim outsiders is a fairly minor aspect of jihad. The main struggle is internal, where you work against your own doubts and desires.
As for attacks against non-Muslims, the Quran lays down some strict rules of acceptable war. Terrorist acts definitely do not qualify. Anyone bombing a crowd of people is violating Islam.
Little Nemo, your claims are certainly full of…hope. I don’t know if hope is enough.
Let’s bring everything into context
[QUOTE=Kunwar Khuldune Shahid]
Ever since Taliban’s attack on Malala Yousafzai, there’s almost universal condemnation of the act and of the ‘Taliban ideology’. Even though there are exceptions, most notably in Pakistan where a lot of people bizarrely consider the schoolgirl a CIA agent and the attack a US-staged hoax, the general consensus is that the Taliban and their religious understanding is to be blamed for the increasing violence that is being committed in the name of Islam. Muslim apologists claim that since Islam is inherently peaceful, whenever violence is committed in the name of their religion, the offender has taken the hostile and dubious teachings out of context – much like every single individual who dares to criticize Islam. However, a closer and unprejudiced study of the Quran reveals that in a lot of the cases when you actually ‘bring things into context’, the overall meaning of the controversial verses ironically becomes prodigiously more repugnant.
Quran, as ambiguous as it is in most other matters, quite unmistakably and repetitively asserts the need of violence to spread Allah’s message. However, the problem lies in the criteria for when violence is legitimate and when it isn’t, which seems to fluctuate haphazardly throughout the Quran. That particular problem is solved when one considers the time and the chronological order of the revealed Surahs, and Al-Nasikh Wal-Mansukh (The Doctrine of Abrogation). The Doctrine of Abrogation is an integral part of the study of Quran, and not at all “contentious” as the Generation Y apologists of Islam would have you believe. Claiming that the doctrine is debatable would mean directly questioning the four caliphs, the six Sahi Hadith compilers and pretty much every single Islamic scholar born before the 20th century AD. Hence, unless you are planning on slashing question marks over the teachings of the likes of Abu Bakr Siddiq, Umar Bin Khattab, Ali Bin Abi Talib, Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim, etc, you really can’t question the doctrine.
The primary reason the ‘Al-Nasikh Wal-Mansukh’ doctrine becomes a necessity while trying to interpret the Quran is because of the myriad contradictions. Let’s take a minor example of the prohibition of alcohol in the Quran, which was conjured up in three stages and in three different Surahs (4:43, 2:219, 5:93-4). If one were to ignore the doctrine then according to (4:43) which states:
“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying…”
Drinking alcohol, and even praying after recently consuming it, becomes permissible as long as you “know what you are saying”.
And this is one of many examples of the doctrine which clarified how the contradictory verses are abrogated by the Surahs that chronologically followed the Surahs that had the contradictions. But since the focus of this piece is violence, we’ll just stick to that for the time being…(continued)
[/QUOTE]
Well, in a lot of the threads here, it seems that the atheists get to decide, and, at least with Christianity, they decide that only the only authentic versions of the religion are the conservative ones.
I don’t think Jihad really requires anything of faithful Muslims. Faithful Muslims, just like more ambivalent Muslims, get to decide for themselves. Some of them won’t admit they are deciding for themselves, believing that they are following God’s commands, but, in reality, they are deciding that they think those are God’s commands.
No; they aren’t the only authentic ones, just the only ones that matter much.
Unfortunately most people find it a lot easier to attack the sins in other people (or to just attack the sinners) than to address their own failings.
Everyone is basically making up religion as they go along, so how can anything be inherent to it? At any time, people can just make up something else. This is how we’ve gone with little fanfare from it being a terrible sin to wear mixed fibers to modern first world Christianity that often doesn’t require much of anything from adherents.
History shows that people are great at interpreting religion in ways that further whatever their aims happen to be. Politics and economics is what makes the world go round, the religion is mostly a prop.
So what does “jihad” mean? If you are a Canadian banker, it’s probably a philosophical concept. If you are an angry Afghan, it may be a call to an armed political movement. If you are an Indonesian night club queen, it might be some concept you thought you heard your obnoxiously religious parents talking about once.
In that case, why the double standard for Islam?
It depends on who you ask.
I have to confess to being a little confused by your comparison of “the left” and “the right” on the issue.
I don’t think this is true. Most religions are based on appeals to authority. You’re supposed to be doing what God said to do not making it up on your own. Generally the only free choices people have in religion is choosing which authority to accept.
Well…Look at Catholics. They recognize the pope’s authority, but half of them have no issue with disagreeing with what he says about, say, sexuality.
Then they obviously aren’t recognizing his authority on that issue.
My point is that those Catholics aren’t saying “God doesn’t want me to use condoms so I’ve decided to form a new religion that allows me to use condoms.” They’ll tell you they’re Catholics and are doing what God tells them to do - they’ve just decided that God isn’t telling them not to wear condoms.
They’re accepting that God is the authority while choosing what that authority is telling them. That’s easy to do when God’s commands are all relayed indirectly. You find one person who says God forbids condoms and another person who says God allows condoms and pick which one you think is relaying God’s command.
Same thing with Muslims. One guy goes to a particular mosque and the Imam tells him “Allah teaches us to be peaceful and not attack others. Your main goal in life should be to strive to become a better Muslim.” Another guy goes to a different mosque and a different Imam tells him “Allah teaches us we must defend Islam and the Muslim community. Non-believers are a threat to Islam so we must fight against them.”
One guy throws bombs and the other one doesn’t. But both would tell you they’re faithful Muslims who are just following the word of Allah.
Islam has some structure properties that make it somewhat flatter than other religions. By that I mean it’s flatter in hierarchy. Like other religions it’s possible to declare yourself a religious scholar/leader but it seems more prevalent. Among the larger Christian denominations there is a distinct hierarchy which passes down qualifications and also controls the various levels. Islam seems to mimic the smaller denominations which are more like individual fiefdoms.
When that aspect is combined with a “WWMD” (What Would Mohammad Do) moral imperative then the past actions of the prophet Mohammad are interpreted by a broader group of individual fiefdoms with no real hierarchy to oversee them. Deviations from the teachings of the Prophet were dealt with harshly by Mohammad himself (by today’s standards).
What it leaves us with is the application of the 80/20 rule. And it doesn’t matter the ratio, just the idea that a small but persistent percentage will cause a great amount of grief. And given the statistics posted earlier on how various Muslim’s feel on different subjects there is certainly a degree of penal code harshness attributed to Islamic laws that are broken (by Western standards).
And who decides what God said?
Bunch of people. Usually a bunch of people with their own political and economic agendas.