Talking to your family about being an Atheist

[KichigaiNeko]

Thank you for your responses... I was browsing my facebook page and i saw this about what muslims think Jihad is...and i was wondering if any one here has anything to say about that.

I cannot see any way to attach pictures here. so i will upload it here

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?...3869553187

Please look at it and reply

Go here http://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html for all the "how to" for this site.



So what are you trying to say here? The islamists have it wrong? Or that islam has nothing new to say?

[pocaracas]

Thank you for your responses... I was browsing my facebook page and i saw this about what muslims think Jihad is...and i was wondering if any one here has anything to say about that.

I cannot see any way to attach pictures here. so i will upload it here

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?...3869553187

Please look at it and reply

Go here http://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html for all the "how to" for this site.



So what are you trying to say here? The islamists have it wrong? Or that islam has nothing new to say?

These people just can't post an image properly!



So what is jihad?
According to our friend the dictionary:

noun
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.
Also, jehad.

Origin: 1865–70; < Arabic jihād struggle, strife

.....

World English Dictionary
jihad or jehad (dʒɪˈhæd) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. Islam a holy war against infidels undertaken by Muslims in defence of the Islamic faith
2. Islam the personal struggle of the individual believer against evil and persecution
3. rare a crusade in support of a cause

[C19: from Arabic jihād a conflict]

jehad or jehad

— n

[C19: from Arabic jihād a conflict]

yeah... it's the media that misinterprets...

[Zarith]

If jihad is smiling, taking care of granny, and forgiving, then somebody should have told Muhammad and his crew:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." Sahih Bukhari, 1:2:24

Pretty sure the guy who created the religion, and the guys who spread it after him, were the ones who knew what jihad is supposed to be. Not sure how anybody can read the source material and study the early history and come away with any idea except that armed conflict in the name of spreading Islam is central to the idea of jihad.

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.

[ideologue08]

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.

[Minimalist]

Thank you for your responses... I was browsing my facebook page and i saw this about what muslims think Jihad is...and i was wondering if any one here has anything to say about that.

I cannot see any way to attach pictures here. so i will upload it here

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?...3869553187

Please look at it and reply

Must as with xtians, the chasm between what they are supposed to do and what they actually do is wide and deep. Worse, anyone can find support for whatever they wish because this shit is so poorly written.

[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?

[ideologue08]

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?

Well, believe it or not I became very interested in my religion in my late teens, as a result I have amassed many many books on Islam, and also Arabic resources, and I have done pretty heavy research on these kind of issues, the kind of research that goes way beyond what any layman would probably understand, although far far below the level of the actual scholars of Islam obviously. But you can ask me pretty much anything and I can give you the Islamic viewpoint citing the sources and also tell you if there's a difference of opinion on a certain issue and what those differences are.

Both verses you stated obviously mean exactly what they say, but they have to be understood in light of the other verses also, they can't be isolated. Verse 5:32 for example, says that it is a major sin to kill someone unlawfully, it said so in the Torah before and it extends to the Qur'an as well, but unlawfully obviously does not cover the death penalty for example, which is a lawful killing according to 17:33.

[Zarith]

Well, believe it or not I became very interested in my religion in my late teens, as a result I have amassed many many books on Islam, and also Arabic resources, and I have done pretty heavy research on these kind of issues, the kind of research that goes way beyond what any layman would probably understand, although far far below the level of the actual scholars of Islam obviously. But you can ask me pretty much anything and I can give you the Islamic viewpoint citing the sources and also tell you if there's a difference of opinion on a certain issue and what those differences are.

Both verses you stated obviously mean exactly what they say, but they have to be understood in light of the other verses also, they can't be isolated. Verse 5:32 for example, says that it is a major sin to kill someone unlawfully, it said so in the Torah before and it extends to the Qur'an as well, but unlawfully obviously does not cover the death penalty for example, which is a lawful killing according to 17:33.

OK, well, I'm going to take you up on this, because I'm actually interested to hear the opinion of someone who has studied this a lot.

So here are my questions, and I would be very interested to know what is the prevailing Islamic view and/or differences of opinion.

1) 5:32 makes an (often redacted) exception, saying it is OK to kill people for both manslaughter and something variously translated as 'mischief' or 'corruption in the land'. What is 'corruption in the land'? If somebody were to argue that any action taken against Allah constituted 'corruption in the land', how would you respond? You said that lawful killings are permitted. Yet if the law comes from Allah, isn't this verse basically saying, it's not OK to kill people, except when Allah says it's OK? Wouldn't this mean that understanding the scope of the exceptions is critical to whether or not 5:32 is actually a verse of tolerance or not?

2) Is it not the case that some Muslim scholars (eg ibn Kathir) believe that 5:32's injunction applies only to the killing of Muslims? How would you respond to this?

3) 5:33 states that people who spread 'corruption in the land' should be killed, crucified, or hands and feet on opposite sides amputated. Do you believe that these are the appropriate punishments for 'corruption in the land' today?

4) Do you consider 2:256 to be abrogated or not? If so, by which verses, if not, what do you understand it to mean?

5) Is rejection of Islam by itself ever sufficient grounds for engaging in violence against a person or group of people? On what basis can you say yes or no? Is it true or not that the first leaders of the Islamic community (7th and 8th centuries CE) engaged in wars of conquest on this basis?

6) What do you believe is the specific directive being given by 9:29 (and context), and to whom? Do you believe that it is still in force today?

Thanks I'm looking forward to hearing your point of view.

[ideologue08]

OK, well, I'm going to take you up on this, because I'm actually interested to hear the opinion of someone who has studied this a lot.

So here are my questions, and I would be very interested to know what is the prevailing Islamic view and/or differences of opinion.

1) 5:32 makes an (often redacted) exception, saying it is OK to kill people for both manslaughter and something variously translated as 'mischief' or 'corruption in the land'. What is 'corruption in the land'? If somebody were to argue that any action taken against Allah constituted 'corruption in the land', how would you respond? You said that lawful killings are permitted. Yet if the law comes from Allah, isn't this verse basically saying, it's not OK to kill people, except when Allah says it's OK? Wouldn't this mean that understanding the scope of the exceptions is critical to whether or not 5:32 is actually a verse of tolerance or not?

2) Is it not the case that some Muslim scholars (eg ibn Kathir) believe that 5:32's injunction applies only to the killing of Muslims? How would you respond to this?

3) 5:33 states that people who spread 'corruption in the land' should be killed, crucified, or hands and feet on opposite sides amputated. Do you believe that these are the appropriate punishments for 'corruption in the land' today?

4) Do you consider 2:256 to be abrogated or not? If so, by which verses, if not, what do you understand it to mean?

5) Is rejection of Islam by itself ever sufficient grounds for engaging in violence against a person or group of people? On what basis can you say yes or no? Is it true or not that the first leaders of the Islamic community (7th and 8th centuries CE) engaged in wars of conquest on this basis?

6) What do you believe is the specific directive being given by 9:29 (and context), and to whom? Do you believe that it is still in force today?

Thanks I'm looking forward to hearing your point of view.

No problem.

1) Yes, it means “corruption in the land” and can also be translated as “mischief”. What this means according to the vast majority of the scholars is any grievous act of violence which is deemed to be worthy of the death penalty (such as rape, armed robbery etc.) or waging war against the State or any act intended to undermine the law of the land (incitement to wage war against the State for example). If you look at the Hanbali school of thought for example, as exemplified by some of the laws of Saudi Arabia, you can see this in action because Saudi Arabia considers drug trafficking/human trafficking/armed robbery/rape all to be part of “mischief” and so all of these have the death penalty. It has also been primarily used to mean rebels waging war on the State.

2) I don’t know the opinion of Ibn Kathir, but he did report from Ibn Abbas and others that the verse only applies to Muslims yes. But he also reported from Ibn Abbas’ students that it applies generally all of mankind, which is also the majority opinion as far as I’m aware. There’s a principle in interpreting the Qur’an that verses are always interpreted generally unless there are specific evidences which qualifies them and makes them exclusive. In this case, I have no idea what the evidence is exactly which makes the verse only applicable to Muslims, so the safer opinion is that it is a general verse.

3) 5:33 does not state that. 5:33 states that those who wage war on Allah and His Messenger and also spread corruption in the land, the only punishment that is befitting for them is that they are executed or crucified or have their limbs cut from the opposite sides or that they are expelled from the country. This is similar to verse 8:67 when Allah rebuked the Prophet for taking the prisoners alive from the battle of Badr, when in fact they deserved to be executed for waging war against Allah and His Messenger and spreading corruption in the land.

4) No, and I know of no scholar that has ever said this, with the exception of possibly Ibn Hazm al Andalusi, the great Spanish scholar. He was a war hawk, there’s no question about that, and his interpretation of fighting for Islam is the most far-reaching, he declared all of the verses that call for peace with Non-Muslims abrogated (he also declared the most number of verses abrogated out of any scholar of Islam, over 200 verses abrogated according to Ibn Hazm). Ibn Hazm, was of course entitled to his own opinion, even though the overwhelming majority of the scholars disagreed with him, he was also a product of his own civilization, and there’s no doubt that his opinion was influenced by the violence between the Christians and Muslims in Spain. So, the clear-cut majority all say that it has not been abrogated, and I’m not aware of any scholar of the modern era ever say this.

5) Never. It can be said on the basis of 2:256. The early Muslim conquests were fought for a variety of reasons, such as the fact of a lack of peace treaty between states, cross-border incursions resulting in all-out war, saving the oppressed, pre-emptive strikes etc. etc. That’s really a matter for the historians to deal with, this isn’t really a theological point.

6) It was revealed to Muhammad to fight those who still opposed him. It clearly is not meant to be in force today lol, I’ve not heard of any scholar who said this.

[Zarith]

No problem.

1) Yes, it means “corruption in the land” and can also be translated as “mischief”. What this means according to the vast majority of the scholars is any grievous act of violence which is deemed to be worthy of the death penalty (such as rape, armed robbery etc.) or waging war against the State or any act intended to undermine the law of the land (incitement to wage war against the State for example). If you look at the Hanbali school of thought for example, as exemplified by some of the laws of Saudi Arabia, you can see this in action because Saudi Arabia considers drug trafficking/human trafficking/armed robbery/rape all to be part of “mischief” and so all of these have the death penalty. It has also been primarily used to mean rebels waging war on the State.

2) I don’t know the opinion of Ibn Kathir, but he did report from Ibn Abbas and others that the verse only applies to Muslims yes. But he also reported from Ibn Abbas’ students that it applies generally all of mankind, which is also the majority opinion as far as I’m aware. There’s a principle in interpreting the Qur’an that verses are always interpreted generally unless there are specific evidences which qualifies them and makes them exclusive. In this case, I have no idea what the evidence is exactly which makes the verse only applicable to Muslims, so the safer opinion is that it is a general verse.

3) 5:33 does not state that. 5:33 states that those who wage war on Allah and His Messenger and also spread corruption in the land, the only punishment that is befitting for them is that they are executed or crucified or have their limbs cut from the opposite sides or that they are expelled from the country. This is similar to verse 8:67 when Allah rebuked the Prophet for taking the prisoners alive from the battle of Badr, when in fact they deserved to be executed for waging war against Allah and His Messenger and spreading corruption in the land.

4) No, and I know of no scholar that has ever said this, with the exception of possibly Ibn Hazm al Andalusi, the great Spanish scholar. He was a war hawk, there’s no question about that, and his interpretation of fighting for Islam is the most far-reaching, he declared all of the verses that call for peace with Non-Muslims abrogated (he also declared the most number of verses abrogated out of any scholar of Islam, over 200 verses abrogated according to Ibn Hazm). Ibn Hazm, was of course entitled to his own opinion, even though the overwhelming majority of the scholars disagreed with him, he was also a product of his own civilization, and there’s no doubt that his opinion was influenced by the violence between the Christians and Muslims in Spain. So, the clear-cut majority all say that it has not been abrogated, and I’m not aware of any scholar of the modern era ever say this.

5) Never. It can be said on the basis of 2:256. The early Muslim conquests were fought for a variety of reasons, such as the fact of a lack of peace treaty between states, cross-border incursions resulting in all-out war, saving the oppressed, pre-emptive strikes etc. etc. That’s really a matter for the historians to deal with, this isn’t really a theological point.

6) It was revealed to Muhammad to fight those who still opposed him. It clearly is not meant to be in force today lol, I’ve not heard of any scholar who said this.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I don't intend to argue any points, mostly I just wanted to hear your opinion as a Muslim and as someone who has studied the sources. I'm not a fan of any religion, but I do think it's good to know generally what they say.