Talking to your family about being an Atheist

[Zarith]

People can and do claim otherwise, but they have very little to back it up. Weak hadiths, abrogated verses of the Qur'an, and ignorance of history is what it comes down to.

It depends on what you mean here, Jihad is an Arabic word and it has primarily two kinds of definitions; linguistic or Religious. The linguistic definition is pretty clear and there are various examples I have given throughout this forum because this question comes up again and again. As for the religious definition, it not only means an armed struggle, but also things like speaking the truth in front of a tyrant. It is true that many claims do come from weak narrations, but I can assure you that I never rely on weak narrations when speaking about Islam. That's dishonest, hypocritical and counterproductive.

I don't take issue with anything you say here, and I have no doubt that jihad does not always mean armed conflict, and that the word is used a number of different ways. I am not a speaker of Arabic, so I have to rely on the words of people like you (I'm assuming you are) and others. I respect that you only rely on reputable sources, because a lot of people don't, and like you say, it does nothing but undermine.

All that being said, while I think it's important that people agree on what terminology means, I think there is a larger and more important question, and that is, under what circumstances and to what extent is violence / armed conflict permissible (or even advisable or required) in the service of belief in a supreme being, against unbelievers, on the basis of their unbelief? This is a question that can be discussed even without 100% precise definitions.

I won't presume to tell you what your religion says -- I'm no expert -- but as an outsider looking in, it seems to me like it isn't unreasonable at all to come away with the impression that Allah might actually approve of a lot of the shitty things that are supposedly done in his name, at least based the contents of the Qur'an and Sunnah. I'm reluctant to credit any group of people who self-identify as Muslims as the "true" believers, just as I am reluctant to label any particular group as "outsiders", unless a compelling argument can be made based on actual, widely accepted doctrine and/or history. It's not clear to me that such an argument can be made against those who engage in violence in the name of Islam. 5:32 and 2:256 seem to be the most widely cited verses in support of tolerance, and yet in textual and historical context it seems like they don't exactly hold up.

What do you think and what do you base it on?