Thread: Defining Jihad: its early inception and modern use.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Yes.

Ibn Khaldoon defined it as: A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.

Which is fine. Making the world open to Islam is different to forcing Islam upon it.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Al-Mawardi defined it as: Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia).
http://www.islamic-world.net/islamic.../theobasis.htm

The link is dead, so I dont understand the context of this quote.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it.

Could you elaborate?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom....
This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth. ...
. After annihilating the tyrannical force, whether it be in a political or a racial form, or in the form of class distinctions within the same race, Islam establishes a new social, economic and political system, in which the concept of the freedom of man is applied in practice.
http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_li.../chapter_4.htm

This is from Qutb - a famous radical Islamist. Dix do you have ANY info on Islam that is seriously mainstream and non-radical?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Their fascination was arisen after the defenders of democracy and the
defenders of other such false ideologies (who have no religion) defended democracy simply for the sake of it, and they mixed the falsehood with the Truth.
..... They distort the Truth with Falsehood, and mix the Light with the Darkness, and the Polytheism of democracy with the Monotheism of Islam. But we, with the help of Allah, replied to all of these fallacies, and showed that democracy is a religion. But it is not Allah’s religion. It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
Maqdisi
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/DemocracyReligion.pdf

LOL! Another famous Islamist, although this time even more radical! haha

In responding yes, you have not proven this assertion, unless you take the words of extremists seriously, which I dont want to do.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Interpretation of islamic doctrine is called ijtihad. The Sunnis believe the "gates of jihad" were closed. Islamic scholars at the time took all the interpretations of Islamic doctrine, agreed to by the all the sunni, islamic schools of thought at the time, and declared them off limits to new interpretations. Essentially freezing Islam into a 10th century framework where it remains today.

And yet they continued to change, modify, discuss and reapply such concepts - and still do.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Thats the same intent it had from the beginning. The AK47 has simply replaced the sword.

LOL! If all you read is the literature of radicals and cherry picked quotes, of course you will think this.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

He copied and pasted it.

http://www.faisaly.jo1jo.com/dir/sho....php?t=1395080

LOL! PERFECT EXAMPLE OF YOUR SCHOLARSHIP! Haha did it not occur to you THEY may have copied it from here?!?

I can stack my entire membership on this forum on this essay here as being my own. So Dixon you can go and (*)(*)(*)(*) yourself if you disagree. This is just more evidence of how pathetic your debating skills are, and incidentally, evidence as to the fact others obviously thought I wrote something worthwhile - an Islamic website to boot.

Originally Posted by gypzy

Thank you, Dix!

You are that stupid as well?

Nice to see my work was that good my opponents denied it was mine!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Which is fine. Making the world open to Islam is different to forcing Islam upon it.

Well, it is for the idolaters

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

For the jews and christians a life of subjection is forced upon them.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

The link is dead, so I dont understand the context of this quote.

Its been interesting since 9/11 to see that writing disappear from one link after another. Shortly after 9/11 it was on several US University websites. Seems the last of them has been eliminated. Google search show it at another 126 sites

http://www.alkhilafah.net/s6.html

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

In responding yes, you have not proven this assertion, unless you take the words of extremists seriously, which I dont want to do.

Soooo you fancy yourself as the arbitor of who are and who are not "muslims".

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

And yet they continued to change, modify, discuss and reapply such concepts - and still do.

The shiite do. Not the Sunnis for the most part. Late 90s and Egyptian shariah court branded a professor an apostate for questioning Islamic doctrine that condones the owning of a slave girl and taxing the jews. Such things are settled law, no longer open to interpretation

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Well, it is for the idolaters

...?...

Originally Posted by dixon76710

For the jews and Christians a life of subjection is forced upon them.

Not really. These passages stipulated political requirements as much as the social condition they fit into. So, as I noted, when the early expansions of the Rashidun occurred, jizya was loosely enforced - sometimes not at all. It was a form of tributary tax which was lower than the overall burden placed on Muslims, although this changed. As I said this concept of taxation was as much a protectorate notion of political leadership as much as a form of citizenship. It was not one of 'subjection', although it did became an asset of such policy at certain stages.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Its been interesting since 9/11 to see that writing disappear from one link after another. Shortly after 9/11 it was on several US University websites. Seems the last of them has been eliminated. Google search show it at another 126 sites
http://www.alkhilafah.net/s6.html

I did not find one instance of the word jihad being used. The only thing stated here was that it was a duty to establish some form of Islamic rule, which practically speaking is essentially impossible at this point not to mention highly contested in the form it would take.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Soooo you fancy yourself as the arbitor of who are and who are not "muslims".

Of course, not you have taken that title for yourself clearly. My point is if you want a radical interpretation of Islam, you listen to radicals. If you want a liberal view you read a liberal Muslim. If you want a medieval perspective you read one etc etc. You delve entirely in extremist and radical literature, whilst cherry picking sections of Quran and hadith. I'm no arbiter, I'm just a guy with an opinion. Difference is I'm not insanely biased or out to prove a a personal view as you are.