/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Give yourselves a Good-Beating!



أحمد
05-11-2005, 05:34 PM
:sl:

:D I think Jihad al-Akbar is a very important aspect of Islam that is left behind by many Muslims in understanding; although it is a very crucial part of Islam. Iman is not Iman without practical confirmation. Every Human being has two strenghs: :shade: Ruh (Good) and :mad: Nafs (Bad). Both are in conflict; this conflict (or battle) is known as Jihad al-Akbar (the Great Jihad), as its not a one day battle, nor a one year battle, but a battle which ceases only at the ceasing of ones life; it ends with the ending of ones life. So you can see its importance and why the Quran tell's us that without it; one cannot enter paradise.

One must know that this isn't fighting someone; it is fighting ones own desires . . .


:w:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Uthman
05-11-2005, 06:18 PM
:sl:

JazakAllahu Khayran for the reminder :shade: An internal struggle within oneself is an important type of Jihad :shade:

" . . . Jihad means effort or endeavour. In the religious sense, it probably applies to the whole effort of a Muslim to assert and establish the sovereignty of God in men's minds, by performing his religious duty as laid down in the Qur'an - an effort which should last through all his life, [and] should govern every action of his life or he is not a true Muslim. This duty may be summarised as the fight for good against evil in every connection and in every field, beginning with man's own heart and mind. Our Holy Prophet p.b.u.h. said:

"The greatest jihad is that against a man's own lust."
Which means that the best way of recommending the belief in Allah's universal sovereignty and extending the new realm of peace and brotherhood, is by the example of righteous conduct. The term Al-Jihad-ul-Akbar, "the greatest jihad," is also applied by the holy Prophet to the effort of the student to become learned and the effort of the learned to spread knowledge. . . . "

Source

:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-11-2005, 06:46 PM
:sl:

:zip: A very famous narration (not Hadith, nor in Hadith):

All mankind is to perish, except those who have knowledge.
And they are all to perish, except those who act upon their knowledge.
And they are all to perish, except those who act with sincerity.
And they are all to perish, Illaa bi Ithinillah (except those whom Allah wills (to save)).
:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-11-2005, 11:30 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
Every Human being has two strenghs: :shade: Ruh (Good) and :mad: Nafs (Bad).
Could you provide us with the source for this, Br. Ahmed?

My understanding is that the majority of scholars believed that the Ruh was the soul, and once it enters the human body it is called the nafs. Besides, your interpretation wouldn't fit because the Qur'an calls the nafs good in certaion cases:

89:27-30. (It will be said to the pious): "O you Nafs Al-Muta'mainna!
"Come back to your Lord, Well-pleased (yourself) and well-pleasing unto Him!
"Enter you, then, among My honoured slaves,
"And enter you My Paradise!"


format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
"The greatest jihad is that against a man's own lust."
Fabricated. Related by Bayhaqi and classified fabricated by Ibn Hajar. This is not a saying of the Prophet Muhammad saws, but a saying of a man named Ibrahim ibn Abi Ablah. Ibn Al-Qayyim said this fabricated hadith is obnoxious.

We always have to double check. :)

:w:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Ibn Syed
05-11-2005, 11:32 PM
Jazakallah for clarifying that brother. Otherwise it was a good reminder.
Reply

أحمد
05-13-2005, 09:26 AM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
My understanding is that the majority of scholars believed that the Ruh was the soul, and once it enters the human body it is called the nafs. Besides, your interpretation wouldn't fit because the Qur'an calls the nafs good in certaion cases:
:D Nafs (I wrote "bad" in brackets refering to al-ammaara) . . . You can find it mentioned in the Quran: Surah Yusuf 12: verse 53:

وَمَا أُبَرِّئُ نَفْسِي إِنَّ النَّفْسَ لأَمَّارَةٌ بِالسُّوءِ إِلاَّ مَا رَحِمَ رَبِّيَ إِنَّ رَبِّي غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-13-2005, 09:44 AM
:sl:

:D Hadith on Jihad al-Akbar (against Tyrant Ruler):

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ حَدَّثَنِى أَبِى حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ وعَفَّانُ قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ قَالَ أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِىُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ عَنْ أَبِى نَضْرَةَ عَنْ أَبِى سَعِيدٍ قَالَ خَطَبَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- خُطْبَةً بَعْدَ الْعَصْرِ إِلَى مُغَيْرِبَانِ الشَّمْسِ حَفِظَهَا مِنَّا مَنْ حَفِظَهَا وَنَسِيَهَا مِنَّا مَنْ نَسِىَ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ - قَالَ عَفَّانُ وَقَالَ حَمَّادٌ وَأَكْثَرُ حِفْظِى أَنَّهُ قَالَ بِمَا هُوَ كَائِنٌ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ - وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ « أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنَّ الدُّنْيَا خَضِرَةٌ حُلْوَةٌ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مُسْتَخْلِفُكُمْ فِيهَا فَنَاظِرٌ كَيْفَ تَعْمَلُونَ أَلاَ فَاتَّقُوا الدُّنْيَا وَاتَّقُوا النِّسَاءَ أَلاَ إِنَّ بَنِى آدَمَ خُلِقُوا عَلَى طَبَقَاتٍ شَتَّى مِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُولَدُ مُؤْمِناً وَيَحْيَا مُؤْمِناً وَيَمُوتُ مُؤْمِناً وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُولَدُ كَافِراً وَيَحْيَا كَافِراً وَيَمُوتُ كَافِراً وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُولَدُ مُؤْمِناً وَيَحْيَا مُؤْمِناً وَيَمُوتُ كَافِراً وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُولَدُ كَافِراً وَيَحْيَا كَافِراً وَيَمُوتُ مُؤْمِناً أَلاَ إِنَّ الْغَضَبَ جَمْرَةٌ تُوقَدُ فِى جَوْفِ ابْنِ آدَمَ أَلاَ تَرَوْنَ إِلَى حُمْرَةِ عَيْنَيْهِ وَانْتِفَاخِ أَوْدَاجِهِ فَإِذَا وَجَدَ أَحَدُكُمْ شَيْئاً مِنْ ذَلِكَ فَالأَرْضَ الأَرْضَ أَلاَ إِنَّ خَيْرَ الرِّجَالِ مَنْ كَانَ بَطِىءَ الْغَضَبِ سَرِيعَ الرِّضَا وَشَرَّ الرِّجَالِ مَنْ كَانَ سَرِيعَ الْغَضَبِ بَطِىءَ الرِّضَا فَإِذَا كَانَ الرَّجُلُ بَطِىءَ الْغَضَبِ بَطِىءَ الْفَىْءِ وَسَرِيعَ الْغَضَبِ سَرِيعَ الْفَىْءِ فَإِنَّهَا بِهَا أَلاَ إِنَّ خَيْرَ التُّجَّارِ مَنْ كَانَ حَسَنَ الْقَضَاءِ حَسَنَ الطَّلَبِ وَشَرَّ التُّجَّارِ مَنْ كَانَ سَيِّئَ الْقَضَاءِ سَيِّئَ الطَّلَبِ فَإِذَا كَانَ الرَّجُلُ حَسَنَ الْقَضَاءِ سَيِّئَ الطَّلَبِ أَوْ كَانَ سَيِّئَ الْقَضَاءِ حَسَنَ الطَّلَبِ فَإِنَّهَا بِهَا أَلاَ إِنَّ لِكُلِّ غَادِرٍ لِوَاءً يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِقَدْرِ غَدْرَتِهِ أَلاَ وَأَكْبَرُ الْغَدْرِ غَدْرُ أَمِيرِ عَامَّةٍ أَلاَ لاَ يَمْنَعَنَّ رَجُلاً مَهَابَةُ النَّاسِ أَنْ يَتَكَلَّمَ بِالْحَقِّ إِذَا عَلِمَهُ أَلاَ إِنَّ أَفْضَلَ الْجِهَادِ كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ ». فَلَمَّا كَانَ عِنْدَ مُغَيْرِبَانِ الشَّمْسِ قَالَ « أَلاَ إِنَّ مِثْلَ مَا بَقِىَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا فِيمَا مَضَى مِنْهَا مِثْلُ مَا بَقِىَ مِنْ يَوْمِكُمْ هَذَا فِيمَا مَضَى مِنْهُ ».

:w:
Reply

Noora_z3
05-13-2005, 10:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
:sl:

Could you provide us with the source for this, Br. Ahmed?

My understanding is that the majority of scholars believed that the Ruh was the soul, and once it enters the human body it is called the nafs. Besides, your interpretation wouldn't fit because the Qur'an calls the nafs good in certaion cases:

89:27-30. (It will be said to the pious): "O you Nafs Al-Muta'mainna!
"Come back to your Lord, Well-pleased (yourself) and well-pleasing unto Him!
"Enter you, then, among My honoured slaves,
"And enter you My Paradise!"



Fabricated. Related by Bayhaqi and classified fabricated by Ibn Hajar. This is not a saying of the Prophet Muhammad saws, but a saying of a man named Ibrahim ibn Abi Ablah. Ibn Al-Qayyim said this fabricated hadith is obnoxious.

We always have to double check. :)

:w:

Salam

As far as I know, Ruh and Nafs r two diffrent things, well..i will check who thinks in that way. And yeahm jazakallah khairan bro Ansar for mentioin that the Hadith is fabricated, it is sadly, for some reason I dont know, very commenly spread especially between muslims livin in the west.
Reply

Bin Qasim
05-13-2005, 11:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:D Hadith on Jihad al-Akbar (against Tyrant Ruler):

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ حَدَّثَنِى أَبِى حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ وعَفَّانُ قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ قَالَ أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِىُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ عَنْ أَبِى نَضْرَةَ عَنْ أَبِى سَعِيدٍ قَالَ خَطَبَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- خُطْبَةً بَعْدَ الْعَصْرِ إِلَى مُغَيْرِبَانِ الشَّمْسِ حَفِظَهَا مِنَّا مَنْ حَفِظَهَا وَنَسِيَهَا مِنَّا مَنْ نَسِىَ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ - قَالَ عَفَّانُ وَقَالَ حَمَّادٌ وَأَكْثَرُ حِفْظِى أَنَّهُ قَالَ بِمَا هُوَ كَائِنٌ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ - وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ « أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنَّ الدُّنْيَا خَضِرَةٌ حُلْوَةٌ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مُسْتَخْلِفُكُمْ فِيهَا فَنَاظِرٌ كَيْفَ تَعْمَلُونَ أَلاَ فَاتَّقُوا الدُّنْيَا وَاتَّقُوا النِّسَاءَ أَلاَ إِنَّ بَنِى آدَمَ خُلِقُوا عَلَى طَبَقَاتٍ شَتَّى مِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُولَدُ مُؤْمِناً وَيَحْيَا مُؤْمِناً وَيَمُوتُ مُؤْمِناً وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُولَدُ كَافِراً وَيَحْيَا كَافِراً وَيَمُوتُ كَافِراً وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُولَدُ مُؤْمِناً وَيَحْيَا مُؤْمِناً وَيَمُوتُ كَافِراً وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُولَدُ كَافِراً وَيَحْيَا كَافِراً وَيَمُوتُ مُؤْمِناً أَلاَ إِنَّ الْغَضَبَ جَمْرَةٌ تُوقَدُ فِى جَوْفِ ابْنِ آدَمَ أَلاَ تَرَوْنَ إِلَى حُمْرَةِ عَيْنَيْهِ وَانْتِفَاخِ أَوْدَاجِهِ فَإِذَا وَجَدَ أَحَدُكُمْ شَيْئاً مِنْ ذَلِكَ فَالأَرْضَ الأَرْضَ أَلاَ إِنَّ خَيْرَ الرِّجَالِ مَنْ كَانَ بَطِىءَ الْغَضَبِ سَرِيعَ الرِّضَا وَشَرَّ الرِّجَالِ مَنْ كَانَ سَرِيعَ الْغَضَبِ بَطِىءَ الرِّضَا فَإِذَا كَانَ الرَّجُلُ بَطِىءَ الْغَضَبِ بَطِىءَ الْفَىْءِ وَسَرِيعَ الْغَضَبِ سَرِيعَ الْفَىْءِ فَإِنَّهَا بِهَا أَلاَ إِنَّ خَيْرَ التُّجَّارِ مَنْ كَانَ حَسَنَ الْقَضَاءِ حَسَنَ الطَّلَبِ وَشَرَّ التُّجَّارِ مَنْ كَانَ سَيِّئَ الْقَضَاءِ سَيِّئَ الطَّلَبِ فَإِذَا كَانَ الرَّجُلُ حَسَنَ الْقَضَاءِ سَيِّئَ الطَّلَبِ أَوْ كَانَ سَيِّئَ الْقَضَاءِ حَسَنَ الطَّلَبِ فَإِنَّهَا بِهَا أَلاَ إِنَّ لِكُلِّ غَادِرٍ لِوَاءً يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِقَدْرِ غَدْرَتِهِ أَلاَ وَأَكْبَرُ الْغَدْرِ غَدْرُ أَمِيرِ عَامَّةٍ أَلاَ لاَ يَمْنَعَنَّ رَجُلاً مَهَابَةُ النَّاسِ أَنْ يَتَكَلَّمَ بِالْحَقِّ إِذَا عَلِمَهُ أَلاَ إِنَّ أَفْضَلَ الْجِهَادِ كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ ». فَلَمَّا كَانَ عِنْدَ مُغَيْرِبَانِ الشَّمْسِ قَالَ « أَلاَ إِنَّ مِثْلَ مَا بَقِىَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا فِيمَا مَضَى مِنْهَا مِثْلُ مَا بَقِىَ مِنْ يَوْمِكُمْ هَذَا فِيمَا مَضَى مِنْهُ ».

:w:
:sl:
Akhi pls provide me with a translation. I am no scholar of Arabic languauge. :-[
:w: :brother:
Reply

أحمد
05-13-2005, 01:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Bin Qasim
:sl:
Akhi pls provide me with a translation. I am no scholar of Arabic languauge. :-[
:w: :brother:
:sl:

:D Jazak-Allah . . . I never thought about the translation before; I'll put this up in the Do u speak Arabic? thread Insha-Allah for someone to translate as an Arabic challenge . . .

:w:
Reply

Rafay
05-13-2005, 04:36 PM
"The greatest jihad is that against a man's own lust."
This hadith is often quoted but it is a weak hadith, i dont knwo the exact details, but never the less, jihad-al-nafs is a great thing.
Reply

أحمد
05-14-2005, 10:28 PM
:sl:

:p Here's a report on Jihad:
September 20, 1997

What Does Jihad Mean?

Douglas E. Streusand
This article was published by Middle East Quarterly in September 1997


Jihad, routinely translated as holy war, often makes headlines. For example, Yasir Arafat’s May 1994 call in Johannesburg for a “jihad to liberate Jerusalem”[1] was a turning point in the peace process; Israelis heard him speak about using violence to gain political ends, and questioned his peaceable intentions. Both Arafat himself [2] and his aides[3] then clarified that he was speaking about a “peaceful jihad” for Jerusalem.

This incident points to the problem with the word jihad: what exactly does it mean? Two examples from leading American Muslim organizations, both fundamentalist, show the extent of disagreement this issue inspires. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group, flatly states that jihad “does not mean `holy war.’” Rather, it refers to “a central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression.” CAIR even asserts that Islam knows no such concept as “holy war.”[4] In abrupt contrast, the Muslim Students Association recently distributed an item with a Kashmir dateline, “Diary of a Mujahid.” The editor of this document understands jihad very much to mean armed conflict:
While we dream of jihad and some deny it, while others explain it away, and yet others frown on it to hide their own weakness and reluctance towards it, here is a snapshot from the diary of a mujahid who had fulfilled his dream to be on the battlefield.[5]
Does jihad mean a form of moral self-improvement or war in accord with Islamic precepts? There is no simple answer to this question, for Muslims for at least a millennium have disagreed about the meaning of jihad. But there is an answer. Jihad as Warfare

Jihad is a verbal noun with the literal meaning of striving or determined effort. The active participle mujahid means someone who strives or a participant in jihad.

The term jihad in many contexts means fighting (though there are other words in Arabic that more unambiguously refer to the act of making war, such as qital or harb). In the Qur’an and in later Muslim usage, jihad is commonly followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, “in the path of God.”[6] The description of warfare against the enemies of the Muslim community as jihad fi sabil Illah sacralized an activity that otherwise might have appeared as no more than the tribal warfare endemic in pre-Islamic Arabia.

After the Qur’an, the Hadith (reports on the sayings and acts of the prophet) is the second most important source of Islamic law (Shari`a). In Hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare.[7] More broadly, Bernard Lewis finds that “the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the Hadith] . . . understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense.”[8]

These figures formed one distinct interpretation of jihad as war and Ibn Taymiya and his followers formed another. For the jurists, jihad fits a context of the world divided into Muslim and non-Muslim zones, Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) respectively. This model implies perpetual warfare between Muslims and non-Muslims until the territory under Muslim control absorbs what is not, an attitude that perhaps reflects the optimism that resulted from the quick and far-reaching Arab conquests. Extending Dar al-Islam does not mean the annihilation of all non-Muslims, however, nor even their necessary conversion. Indeed, jihad cannot imply conversion by force, for the Qur’an (2:256) specifically states “there is no compulsion in religion.” Jihad has an explicitly political aim: the establishment of Muslim rule, which in turn has two benefits: it articulates Islam’s supersession of other faiths and creates the opportunity for Muslims to create a just political and social order.

Jihad cannot imply conversion by force.

Islamic jurisprudence divides the inhabitants of Dar al-Harb (known as harbis) into two: People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) and polytheists. People of the Book, defined in the Qur’an as Christians, Jews, and Sabeans, have a distinct status in Muslim eyes because they follow a genuine—if incomplete—revelation from a genuine prophet. They may live undisturbed under Muslim rule so long as they accept a subordinate status (that of the dhimmi) which entails paying a tribute (jizya) and suffering a wide range of disabilities. As for polytheists, the law requires Muslims to offer them the choice of Islam or death, though this was rarely followed after the initial Muslim conquest of Arabia. Instead, Muslims generally treated all harbis as People of the Book. The jurists first sanctioned the inclusion of Zoroastrians in this category; Muslim conquerors of the Indian subcontinent extended it to Hindus as well, thereby effectively eliminating the category of polytheists.

The belief that jihad should continue until Dar al-Islam covers the entire world does not imply that the jurists expect Muslims to wage non-stop war. The Prophet Muhammad made a peace agreement with the Meccans in 630, the Treaty of Hudaybiya, and several of the early caliphs made peace treaties with the Byzantine Empire (some of which even required them to pay tribute to the Byzantines). Although there is no mechanism for recognizing a non-Muslim government as legitimate, the jurists built on these precedents to allow the negotiation of truces and peace treaties of limited duration. The jurists provide for military prudence, permitting the withdrawal of badly outnumbered or overpowered forces. And some jurists added an intermediate category, Dar al-`Ahd (Abode of Covenant) or Dar al-Sulh (Abode of Peace), for those countries where non-Muslim rulers govern non-Muslim subjects.

The jurists understand jihad not as an obligation of each individual Muslim but as a general obligation of the Muslim community. Only in emergencies, when Dar al-Islam comes under unexpected attack, do they expect all Muslims to participate in jihad warfare. Under normal circumstances, the failure of the community to fulfill the obligation of jihad is sinful; but an individual Muslim need not participate so long as other Muslims carry the burden. Shi`i writers make a further qualification, that offensive jihad is permissible only in the presence of the expected Imam--and thus not under current circumstances.

In contrast to this consensus view on a restricted doctrine of jihad, the prominent legal philosopher Ibn Taymiya (1268-1328) took a more activist position. He declared that a ruler who fails to enforce the Shari`a rigorously in all its aspects, including the performance of jihad, forfeits his right to rule. A vigorous critic of the status quo, Ibn Taymiya strongly advocated, and personally participated in, jihad as warfare against the Crusaders and Mongols who occupied parts of Dar al-Islam. Ibn Taymiya developed his outlook by building on a long tradition of dissidents in Islamic history who directed jihad against rulers they deemed insuffiently Muslim, including the Kharijis of the seventh century and the Assassins of the eleventh century.[9] Perhaps most important, he broke with the mainstream of Islam by his asserting that a professing Muslim who does not live by the faith is an unbeliever. Most jurists tolerated Muslim rulers who violated the Shari`a for the sake of the community, finding tyranny less bad than division or disorder, but Ibn Taymiya insisted on more.[10] Ibn Taymiya and his associates are the most important intellectual precursors of contemporary Islamism.[11]

Warfare as Non-Jihad

Islamic law condemns all warfare that does not qualify as jihad, specifically all warfare among Muslims. Military action against Muslims is justified only by denying them the status of Muslims, classifying them as apostates or ragainst legitimate authority.[12] For example, when Caliph al-Ma’mun and his brother al-Amin struggled for control of the caliphate in 809-13, Ma’mun called Amin an apostate.[13] Muslim writers use the term fitna, meaning trial or temptation, to describe divisions within the Muslim community. Though premodern Muslim writers do not say so, fitna became a permanent condition after 750, when the political unity of the Muslim community (umma) came to an end.

The earliest Muslim writer to codify the laws of war and peace, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan Shaybani,[14] wrote only after the unity had broken down, meaning that Islamic laws on these subjects was formulated only retrospectively, by deriving general principles from a situation that no longer existed and would never again exist. In effect, the law of jihad was formulated after the conditions it fit had passed. The jurists then sought to reconcile the division and disorder of later centuries with the theory, but they averted their gaze from the ugly reality of intra-Muslim warfare all around them. Instead, they primarily sought to establish the legitimacy of authority in the absence of an effective caliph ruling a unified Muslim community. Islamic law, in short, never addressed the reality of political division within the Islamic world.

The division of the Islamic world did not end its expansion. Jihad in the sense of warfare continued, though the jihad ideal rarely determined the policies of Muslim regimes and almost never permitted them to join together against a common non-Muslim foe. Often the term ghazi, literally raiding, was used as a synonym. The Ottoman Empire is often called the empire of the ghazis because success in jihad was a vital component of Ottoman legitimacy. But jihad was not the sole motivation, or even the sole ideology, for Ottoman expansion. Other factors included population pressure, competition with other Muslim states, and the lure of border warfare. In addition to the doctrine of jihad, Ottoman political ideology incorporated Turko-Mongol, Iranian, and Byzantine elements. A similar combination of ideological and other factors drove Muslim expansion in the Indian subcontinent.[15] In other contexts too, Muslim rulers such as Uzun Hasan Aqquyunlu, the ruler of western Iran and eastern Anatolia in 1453-78, and the Safavid Shah Tahmasp (r. 1524-76) participated in jihad not just for abstract reasons of faith but to enhance their legitimacy and acquire booty.

Jihad as Non-Warfare

Warfare is only one interpretation of the concept of jihad. The root meaning of effort never disappeared. Jihad may be an inward struggle (directed against evil in oneself) or an outward one (against injustice). A Hadith defines this understanding of the term. It recounts how Muhammad, after a battle, said “We have returned from the lesser jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).” When asked “What is the greater jihad?,” he replied “It is the struggle against oneself.”[16] Although this Hadith does not appear in any of the authoritative collections, it has had enormous influence in Islamic mysticism (Sufism).

Sufis understand the greater jihad as an inner war, primarily a struggle against the base instincts of the body but also resistance to the temptation of polytheism. Some Sufi writers assert that Satan organizes the temptation of the body and the world to corrupt the soul. Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1059-1111), probably the most important figure in Islam’s development after the prophet, describes the body as a city, governed by the soul, and besieged by the lower self. Withdrawal from the world to mystical pursuits constitutes an advance in the greater jihad. Conversely, the greater jihad is a necessary part of the process of gaining spiritual insight.[17] By the eleventh century Sufism had become an extremely influential, and perhaps even the dominant, form of Islamic spirituality. To this day, many Muslims conceive of jihad as a personal rather than a political struggle. But Sufism provoked opposition, most importantly from Ibn Taymiya, who condemned many aspects of Sufism which he believed contradicted the Shari`a. His disciple Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziya (1292-1350) explicitly condemned the doctrine of greater jihad, discarding as a deliberate fabrication the Hadith that originates this concept.[18]

Thus did three main views of jihad coexist in premodern times: the classical legal view of jihad as a compulsory, communal effort to defend and expand Dar al-Islam; Ibn Taymiya’s notion of active jihad as an indispensable feature of legitimate rule; and the Sufi doctrine of greater jihad. It is no surprise that the disagreement over jihad continues in the modern era.


Jihad as Warfare in Modern Times

Perhaps the earliest perspective on jihad from a modern sensibility (i.e., responding to the West) developed among Indian Muslims in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising (the so-called Indian Mutiny). Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and others, writing as much for a Western audience as for their co-religionists, argued that jihad meant only defensive war and could not justify further resistance to British rule as long as the British did not actively interfere with the practice of Islam. Sir Sayyid Ahmad treated Islam as a private religion rather than a public force, and presented it as virtually a pacifist creed.[19] Though clearly a reaction to British suspicions of Muslims after 1857, this view affected Indian Muslim attitudes.

Modernist writers, seeking to reconcile Islam with Western ways, looked to the Qur’an to find a Islamic model to guide Muslim states. They sought a fundamentally defensive vision of jihad, and toward this end argued that all the wars waged by the prophet and the first four caliphs were defensive. Contending that the Qur’an requires Muslims to make peace if their adversaries wish to do so, they include a Dar al-Sulh in their model of the world. Peace treaties may be permanent and Muslims may be neutral in international conflicts.[20] The modernists also work to reconcile Islamic law with international law. Thus, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an umbrella organization that includes as members most Muslim states, expressed an interest in establishing an international court to reconcile the Shari`a with international public law. Similarly, Muhammad Shaltut, a former rector of Al-Azhar, contends that the Shari`a’s emphasis on international peace and the legitimate right of self-defense prefigures the principles of the United Nations.[21]

Abu al-A`la Mawdudi (1903-79), the Indian and later Pakistani thinker, was the first Islamist writer to approach jihad systematically. He presents it not merely as warfare to expand Islamic political dominance, but also to establish a just rule, one that includes freedom of religion. Mawdudi’s political life began with participation in the Khilafat movement, a post-World War I agitation among Indian Muslims that, among other causes, supported Indian independence from Great Britain. In keeping with this outlook, jihad for Mawdudi was akin to war of liberation; Islamic rule means freedom and justice, even for non-Muslims.

Islam wants to employ all the forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal, all-embracing revolution. It will spare no efforts for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far-reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces employment of all possible means are called jihad.

Mawdudi’s outlook significantly changes jihad, beginning its association with anticolonialism and “national liberation movements” that seek not to expand Islamic rule but to establish independent states -- not to force non-Muslims to accept dhimmi status but to make them politically independent. Mawdudi’s approach paved the way for Arab resistance to Zionism and Israel to be called jihad. In this spirit, the rector of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University contended in 1973 that all Egyptians, Christians included, must participate in jihad against Israel.[23] And thus did the secular PLO make itself the leader of an secularized jihad -- as in Arafat’s statement about a “jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

Although Mawdudi’s conception opens the door to a secular and nationalist interpretation of jihad, neither he nor his acolytes went through that door. Such Islamist thinkers such as Hasan al-Banna (1906-49) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-56) followed Mawdudi’s emphasis on its role in establishing a truly Islamic government. For them, as for Ibn Taymiya, jihad includes the overthrow of governments that fail to enforce the Shari`a. Jihad here again subsumes the idea of revolution, though this time a purely Islamic one. Before directing jihad against external enemies, Muslims must first deal with their own rulers. If leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar as-Sadat are not true Muslims, they cannot lead jihad, not even against a legitimate target of jihad (such as Israel).Significantly, Islamists consider jihad mandatory for all Muslims, making it an individual rather than a communal duty.[24]

The Neglected Duty, a pamphlet produced by Sadat’s assassins to explain and justify this use of violence, is perhaps the purest expression of this Islamist perspective on jihad. (Its author, Muhammad `Abd al-Salam Faraj was executed along with the actual killers.) It argues that jihad as armed action is the cornerstone and heart of Islam; the neglect of jihad has caused the current depressed position of Islam in the world. Force must be used, for it alone can destroy idols. Abraham and Muhammad both began their careers by smashing idols; the Islamists propose to follow their example. The Neglected Duty defines the current rulers of the Muslim world (such as Sadat) as apostates, despite their profession of Islam and obedience to some of its laws, and advocates their execution. The Neglected Duty is explicitly messianic, asserting that Muslims must “exert every conceivable effort” to bring about the establishment of truly Islamic government, a restoration of the caliphate, and the expansion of Dar al-Islam; and their success is inevitable.[25]

Shi`i revolutionaries have a similar perspective. Ayatollah Khomeini (1903-89) contends that jurists, “by means of jihad and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil,[26] must expose and overthrow tyrannical rulers and rouse the people so the universal movement of all alert Muslims can establish Islamic government in the place of tyrannical regimes.” The proper teaching of Islam will cause “the entire population to become mujahids.”[27] Ayatollah Muhammad Mutahhari, a top ideologue of the Iranian Revolution, considers jihad a necessary consequence of Islam’s content; having political aims, Islam must sanction armed force and provide laws for its use. Mutahhari deems jihad defensive; but his definition includes the defense against oppression and this may require what international law would consider a war of aggression. For example, he endorses an attack on a country of polytheists, not to impose Islam but to eliminate the evils of polytheism. Mutahhari finds that the doctrine of jihad marks Islam’s superiority over Christianity, for Christianity lacks the political and social agenda necessary for a doctrine of jihad.[28]

This survey indicates that while the concept of jihad retains a special place among the Islamists, the spiritual descendants of Ibn Taymiya, other Islamic thinkers of the modern age have developed distinctive approaches to this issue.

Jihad as Non-Warfare in Modern Times

Two groups of contemporary Muslims have articulated doctrines of peaceful jihad. Modernists may see the concept as central to the religion but see it as encompassing all forms of political and social action to establish justice. Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani scholar and long-time professor at the University of Chicago, argued that it had to exist to accomplish Islam’s social and political agenda. “There is no doubt that the Qur’an wanted Muslims to establish a political order on earth for the sake of creating an egalitarian and just moral-social order. Jihad is the instrument for doing so.”[29] In this spirit, President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia used jihad to describe the struggle for economic development in Tunisia, much as Lyndon Johnson spoke of a “War on Poverty.” In this context, jihad imply no more violence than does crusade in today’s English.[30]

The Sufi doctrine of greater jihad remains alive. Though less influential than Islamism in the political realm, it may have more impact on the spiritual life of Muslims, at least in Egypt where one writer contends that the number of Egyptians active in Sufism may well exceed the number of Islamists.[31] Sadat wrote articles for the first issues of Sufi journals in 1958 and 1979, both entitled “The Greater Jihad,” in which he welcomed the diffusion of Sufi ideas.[32] On the basis of field work in Egypt, the Sudan, and Tunisia, an anthropologist mentions jihad only in the context of the Ramadan fast: “Fasting for the whole month is a . . . personal trial for Muslims . . . a form of personal jihad . . . part of the more difficult inner struggles with the flesh and worldy appetites.”[33]

The Sufi outlook remains important enough so that Islamists like Hasan al-Banna and The Neglected Duty feel compelled to repeat medieval criticisms of greater jihad.[34] This criticism, plus the prevalent definition of jihad as warfare, causes Sufis often to employ mujahada, a related word for al-jihad al-akbar.

The Impact of Jihad

The concept of jihad as a moral struggle touches the daily lives of many Muslims, and not only Sufis. Jihad as warfare, though far better known, has had a narrower impact. In some cases, like the assassination of Sadat, jihad as warfare has had enormous consequences. But it has never mobilized Muslims en masse or transcended the ethnic and political divisions within the Muslim world. Few Muslim governments, and few individual Muslims, have acted in accord with doctrine. The conception of jihad as warfare in defense of the Dar al-Islam did not produce a Pan-Islamic resistance to colonialism. The many movements that arose to resist European expansion or occupation were regional or local, tied to a specific leader, regime, or other specific circumstances; at no time did a jihadjihad against colonialism formed a part of program of religious reform and renewal. movement arise which united Muslims with geographic, sectarian, or political differences. In most cases,

The most systematic attempt to mobilize Muslims against the West, the Ottoman declaration of jihad against the Allies in 1914, failed entirely. With its declaration of war, the Ottoman regime simultaneously published a fatwa (ruling according to the Shari`a) calling the war a jihad that every Muslim had to participate in -- including the Muslim subjects of Russia, France, and Great Britain. To secure the widest possible circulation, the fatwa was published in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and Turkish. But the fatwa did not cause significant Muslim defections from the Allied cause, nor did it prevent the Arab Revolt against Muslim rule.[35]

More recent invocations of jihad have been equally ineffective. Frequent calls for jihad against Israel have not overcome division among Israel’s opponents or produced an effective mobilization of their capability against Israel. Saddam Husayn’s call for a jihad against the United States, part of an overall effort to Islamize the image of his secular regime, may have resonated among Islamists but they did not affect the outcome of the crisis. The same applies to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatullah `Ali Khamanei’s similar designation of war against U.S. forces as jihad. Neither pronouncement had significant political or military results.

Even in Afghanistan, where resistance fighters went by the title mujahidin, the idea of jihad had surprisingly little power. The Afghan cause did attract considerable support from the rest of the Islamic world, but only three Islamic states (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran) actually allocated significant resources to the mujahidin. The other outside participants in the Afghan resistance wereindividuals who represented a marginal element within the Islamic world. (Marginal but not insignificant: they later formed an Islamist cadre blamed for Islamist extremism in other parts of the Islamic world, especially North Africa.) Moreover, the concept of jihad did not unite the Afghan resistance, which remained divided by social, political, ethnic, and ideological differences. Although the resistance groups all considered themselves mujahidin, they perceived different paths of God and sought to produce different results in human terms. These groups did not cooperate effectively and often fought each other rather than the Soviets. The concept of jihad had little direct influence on the course of the Afghan war.[36] After the Soviet withdrawal and the establishment of a new government they continue to fight each other.[37]

Most Muslims do not see jihad as warfare as an active obligation, upon either themselves or the Muslim community as a whole. Reinhold Loeffler, working in a tribal village in southern Iran, encountered cogent criticisms of the Islamic Republic’s conception of jihad. One informant asserted: “young men with no proper training go to the front and are senselessly killed. I don’t believe they are martyrs going to paradise.” Another one contrasted Khomeini’s preaching with the conduct of the Imam Husayn: “before his final battle the Imam Husayn exempted his followers from the obligation of jihad so that they might save their lives. Khomeini, however, pitilessly incites people to go to their deaths.” A father spoke of his son: “My son now is telling me about the true Islam; they have to fight a holy war (he says) and of necessity get killed. I tell him there is no holy war in the absence of the Last Imam.”[38] This anecdotal evidence suggests that the Islamic Republic’s invocation of jihad met with mixed emotions, not universal enthusiasm.

What Does Jihad Mean?

Muslims today can mean many things by jihad—the jurists’ warfare bounded by specific conditions, Ibn Taymiya’s revolt against an impious ruler, the Sufi’s moral self-improvement, or the modernist’s notion of political and social reform. The disagreement among Muslims over the interpretation of jihad is genuine and deeply rooted in the diversity of Islamic thought. The unmistakable predominance of jihad as warfare in Shar`i writing does not mean that Muslims today must view jihad as the jurists did a millennium ago. Classical texts speak only to, not for, contemporary Muslims. A non-Muslim cannot assert that jihad always means violence or that all Muslims believe in jihad as warfare.

Conversely, the discord over the meaning of jihad permits deliberate deception, such as the CAIR statement cited above. A Muslim can honestly dismiss jihad as warfare, but he cannot deny the existence of this concept. As the editor of the “Diary of a Mujahid” writes, “some deny it, while others explain it away, yet others frown on it to hide their own weakness.”

The term jihad should cause little confusion, for context almost always indicates what a speaker intends. The variant interpretations are so deeply embedded in Islamic intellectual traditions that the usage of jihad is unlikely to be ambiguous. An advocate of jihad as warfare indicates so through his goals. A Sufi uses the term mujahada or specifies the greater jihad. Bourguiba clearly did not advocate violence to improve education and development in Tunisia. When ambiguity does exist, it may well be deliberate. In the case of Arafat’s statement about a “jihad for Jerusalem,” he intended his Muslim audience to hear a call to arms while falling back on the peaceful definition to allay concerns in Israel and the West. Only his later actions reveal whether he was coopting Islamists by adopting their rhetoric or duping Israelis by hiding his violent intentions.



Douglas E. Streusand is the author of The Formation of the Mughal Empire (Oxford University Press, 1989) and The Islamic Gunpowder Empires in World History (Westview Press, forthcoming).

Notes:


  1. Text in Middle East Quarterly, June 1994, p. 50.
  2. Reuters, May 18, 1994; Chicago Tribune, June 10, 1994.
  3. The Boston Globe, May 24, 1994.
  4. At .
  5. At .
  6. For a listing of all appearances in the Qur’an of jihad and related words, see Muhammad Fu’ad `Abd al-Baqi, Al-Mu`jam al-Mufahras li-Alfaz al-Qur’an al-Karim (Cairo: Matabi` ash-Sha`b, 1278), pp. 182-83; and Hanna E. Kassis, A Concordance of the Qur’an (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 587-88.
  7. Muhammad ibn Isma`il Bukhari, The Translation of the Meaning of Sahih al-Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, 8 vols. (Medina: Dar al-Fikr: 1981), 4:34-204.
  8. Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 72.
  9. Tamarra Sonn, “Irregular Warfare and Jihad: Asking the Right Questions,” in Cross, Crescent and Sword: The Justification and Limitation of War in Western and Islamic Tradition, ed. John Kelsay and James Turner Johnson (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1990), pp. 132-38.
  10. Henri Laoust, Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politique de Taki-D-Din Ahmad b. Taymiya (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institute Francais D’Archeologie Oriental, 1939), pp. 360-370.
  11. Emmanuel Sivan, Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics, enlarged ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), p. 101.
  12. Fred M. Donner, “The Sources of Islamic Conceptions of War,” in John Kelsay and James Turner Johnson, eds., Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991), pp. 51-52.
  13. Albert Arazi and `Amikam El’ad, “L’Epitre a l’Arm?e,” Studia Islamica 66 (1987): 59-60.
  14. His work is translated into English: Muhammad ibn al-Hasan Shaybani, The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani’s Siyar, trans. Majid Khadduri (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966).
  15. Richard M. Eaton,The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 71-77.
  16. `Ali ibn `Uthman al-Hujwiri, The “Kashf al-Mahjub,the Oldest Persian Treatise on Sufism by al-Hujwiri, trans. Reynold A. Nicholson (London: Luzac, 1911), pp. 200-201./li>
  17. John Renard, “Al-Jihad al-Akbar: Notes on a Theme in Islamic Spirituality,” Muslim World 78 (1988): 225-242; Valerie J. Hoffman, Sufism, Mystics and Saints in Modern Egypt (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), pp. 196-200.
  18. Johannes J. G. Jansen, The Neglected Duty: The Creed of Sadat’s Assassins and Islamic Resurgence in the Middle East (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 22, 102.
  19. Maulavi Cheragh Ali, A Critical Exposition of the Popular “Jihad” (Delhi: Idareh-i Adabiyyat-i Delli, 1984; original publication 1885) is the best example. Its subtitle reads “Showing that all the wars of Mohammad were Defensive, and that Aggressive War and Compelled Conversion is not allowed in the Koran, with appendices proving that the word jihad does not exegetically mean warfare.”
  20. Mustansir Mir, “Jihad in Islam” in Hadia Dajami-Shakeel and Ronald A. Messier, eds., The Jihad and Its Times (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, 1991), pp. 119-122; Ann Elizabeth Mayer, “War and Peace in the Islamic Tradition and International Law” in Just War and Jihad, pp. 195-226.
  21. Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam: The Chapter on Jihad from Averroes Legal Handbook “Bidayat al-Mujtahid” and the Treatise “Koran and Fighting” by the Late Shaykh of Azhar Mahmud Shaltut (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), p. 66.
  22. Abu’l A`la Mawdudi, Al-Jihad fi Sabil Illah (Gujranwala, Pakistan: Dar al-`Arubat li’d-Da`wa al-Islamiya, nd.), pp. 9-10, trans. Tamarra Sonn, “Irregular Warfare and Jihad”, p. 141.
  23. Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism: the Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History (The Hague: Mouton, 1979), p. 134.
  24. Sivan, Radical Islam, pp. 16-21, 114-16.
  25. Jansen, Neglected Duty, p. 162.
  26. Qur’an 3:104, 110 commands Muslims to “enjoin the good and the evil.” This phrase covers the entire moral content of Islam.
  27. Ruhullah Khomeini, Islamic Government, text in Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, trans. and annotated Hamid Algar (Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1981), p. 108, 132.
  28. “Jihad in the Qur’an: First Lecture,” in Mehdi Abedi and Gary Legenhausen, eds., Jihad and Shahadat: Struggle and Martyrdom in Islam: Essays and Addresses by Ayatollah Mahmud Taleqani, Ayatullah Murtada Muttahari and Dr. Ali Shari’ati, (Houston: Institute for Research and Islamic Studies, 1986), p. 89.
  29. Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980), pp. 63-64.
  30. Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton, N.J.: Markus Weiner, 1996), pp. 116-17.
  31. Hoffman, Sufism, Mystics and Saints, pp. 357-58.
  32. “Al-Jihad al-Akbar.” Cited in Jansen, Neglected Duty, pp. 65-66, 74, 82.
  33. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Islamic Society in Practice (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1994), p. 28.
  34. Ibid., p. 22, 200; Tamara Sonn, Between Qu’ran and Crown: The Challenge of Political Legitimacy in the Islamic World (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990), p. 203.
  35. Peters, Islam and Colonialism, pp. 90-94.
  36. Olivier Roy, Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan, 2nd. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
  37. Olivier Roy, Afghanistan: from Holy War to Civil War (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995).
  38. Reinhold Loeffler, Islam in Practice: Religious Beliefs in a Persian Village(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), pp. 229, 235, 237.
:w:
Reply

Ibn Syed
05-14-2005, 11:13 PM
Are you trying to overwhelm me with all that brother? :lol: Good read!
:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-15-2005, 12:08 AM
:sl:

:D Laa Tahzan, there's more on its way Insha-Allah . . .

:shade: JIHAD AL-NAFS

FIGHTING THE EGO

Views of IMAM Al-GHAZALI
Translated from the 'Ihya' `Ulum al-Din' [The Revival of the Religious Sciences]:

Meaning of nafs:

It has two meanings. First, it means the powers of anger and sexual appetite in a human being... and this is the usage mostly found among the people of tasawwuf [Sufi’s], who take "nafs" as the comprehensive word for all the evil attributes of a person. That is why they say: one must certainly do battle with the ego and break it1, as is referred to in the hadith: "Your worst enemy is your nafs which lies between your flanks."2.

The second meaning of nafs is the soul, the human being in reality, his self and his person. However, it is described differently according to its different states. If it assumes calmness under command and has removed from itself the disturbance caused by the onslaught of passion, it is called "the satisfied soul" (al-nafs al-mutma'inna).

In its first meaning the nafs does not envisage its return to God because it has kept itself far from Him: such a nafs is from the party of shaytan. However, when it does not achieve calmness, yet sets itself against the love of passions and objects to it, it is called "the self-accusing soul" (al-nafs al-lawwama), because it rebukes its owner for his neglect in the worship of his master... If it gives up all protest and surrenders itself in total obedience to the call of passions and shaytan, it is named "the soul that enjoins evil" (al-nafs al-ammara bi al-Su')... which could be taken to refer to the ego in its first meaning.

Soldiers of the heart

God has armed soldiers whom He has placed in the hearts and the souls and others of His worlds, and none knows their true nature and actual number except He... [He proceeds to explain that the limbs of the body, the five senses will, instinct, and the emotive and interactive powers are among those soldiers.] Know that the two soldiers of anger and sexual passion can be guided by the heart completely... or on the other hand disobey and rebel against it completely, until they enslave it. Therein lie the death of the heart and the termination of its journey towards eternal happiness. The heart has other soldiers: knowledge (`ilm), wisdom (hikma) and reflection (tafakkur) whose help it seeks by right, for they are the Party of God against the other two who belong to the party of shaytan...

God says: "Have you seen the one who chooseth for his god his own lust?" (25:43) And "He followed his own lust. Therefor his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out" (7:176) and about the person who controlled the passion of his ego God says: "But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from lust, Lo! The garden will be his home" (79:40-41).

Know that the body is like a town and the intellect of the mature human being is like a king ruling that town. All the forces of the external and internal senses he can muster are like his soldiers and his aides. The ego that enjoins evil (nafs ammara), that is, lust and anger, is like an enemy that challenges him in his kingdom and strives to slaughter his people. The body thus becomes like a garrison-town or sea-outpost, and the soul like its custodian posted in it. If he fights against his enemies and defeats them and compels them to do what he likes, he will be praised when he returns to God's presence, as God said: "Those who strive in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary" (4:95).

Inspiration and insinuation

The thoughts that stir one's desire are of two kinds... praiseworthy, and that is called "inspiration" (ilham), and blameworthy, and that is called "whispering" (waswasa) The heart is owned mutually by a shaytan and an angel... The angel stands for a creature, which God has created for the overflowing of benefit, the bestowal of knowledge, the unveiling of truth, the promise of reward, and the ordering of the good... The shaytan stands for a creature whose business is to be against all this. Waswasa against ilham, shaytan against angel, success (tawfiq) against disappointment (khidhlan).

The Prophet (s) said: "There are two impulses in the soul, one from an angel which calls towards good and confirms truth; whoever finds this let him know it is from God and praise Him. Another impulse comes from the enemy which leads to doubt and denies truth and forbids good; whoever finds this, let him seek refuge in God from the accursed devil." Then he recited the verse: "The devil shows you fear of poverty and enjoins evil upon you" (2:268)3

Hasan Al-Basri said: "Two thoughts roam over the soul, one from God, one from the enemy. God shows mercy on a servant who settles at the thought that comes from Him. He embraces the thought that comes from God, while he fights against the one from his enemy. To illustrate the heart's mutual attraction between these two powers the Prophet (s) said: "The heart of a believer lies between two fingers of the Merciful"4... The fingers stand for upheaval and hesitation in the heart... If man follows the dictates of anger and appetite, the dominion of shaytan appears in him through idle passions [hawa] and his heart becomes the nesting-place and container of shaytan, who feeds on idle passions. If he does battle with his passions and does not let them dominate his nafs, imitating in this the character of the angels, at that time his heart becomes the resting-place of angels and they alight upon it...

The Prophet (s) said: "There is none among you in whom there is not a devil" They said: "Even in you, O Messenger of God?!" He said: "Even in me, but God helped me to overcome him and he has submitted to me, so he doesn't order anything except good"5... The mutual repelling of the soldiers of the angels and the devils is constant in the battle over the heart, until the heart is conquered by one of the two sides which sets up its nation and settles there. And most hearts have been seized by the soldiers of shaytan, who fill them with the whispers that call one to love this passing world and disregard the next.

The Jihad against the nafs

The Prophet (s) said: "The fighter against unbelief is he who fights against his ego in obeying God"6. Sufyan al-Thawri said: "I never dealt with anything stronger against me than my own ego; it was one time with me, and one time against me". Yahya ibn Mu`adh al-Razi said: "Fight against your ego with the four swords of training: eat little, sleep little, speak little, and be patient when people harm you. Then the ego will walk the paths of obedience, like a fleeing horseman in the field of battle."

This important topic was translated from the following parts of 'Ihya' `Ulum al-Din' [The Revival of the Religious Sciences]:

a) Definitions at the beginning of the book Kitab sharh `aja'ib al-qalb [Book of the Explanation of the Mysteries of the Heart]

b) Section entitled: "The Soldiers of the Heart" in the same book

c) Section entitled: "Shaytan's domination over the heart through whispering [al-waswas]" in the same book

d)Section entitled: "Proofs..." from the book Kitab riadat al-nafs wa tahdhib al-akhlaq wa mu`alajat amrad al-qalb [Book of the training of the ego and the disciplining of manners and the healing of the heart's diseases]



Notes

1 (la budda min mujahadat al-nafs wa kasriha)

2 Arabic: A`da `aduwwuka nafsuka al-lati bayna janibayk. Al-`Iraqi says it is in Bayhaqi on the authority of Ibn `Abbas and its chain of transmission contains Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghazwan, one of the forgers.

3 Tirmidhi: hasan; Nisa'i; `Iraqi did not weaken it.

4 Muslim, Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah.

5 Muslim

6 Arabic: al-mujahidu man jahada nafsahu fi ta`at Allah `azza wa jall, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, Tabarani, Hakim, etc


:w:
Reply

Ibn Syed
05-15-2005, 01:44 AM
I think I got brain damage now. Good read though.
:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-17-2005, 07:50 PM
:sl:

:D Just another paragraph or two . . .

Jihad (Struggle)

The meaning of jihad in Arabic is the exertion of ones effort and capability. In Islam, the meaning of jihad is the exerting of one's total effort and strength in repelling the enemies of Islam and fighting them directly or by aiding those who fight them directly with wealth or other means. This is the meaning of jihad and fiy sabeel Allah when used in the Qur'an and the hadith. This is the direct meaning although there are a few instances where it is used allegorically to apply to other things.

Types of Jihad:
Jihad against the self

The struggle against the "self" - i.e., the self which calls to evil (an-nafs al-ammaaratun bi as-suu') by denying it anything which it desires which Allah has forbidden, taking on aspects of good character and leaving the ways of foolishness and perservering in obedience to Allah even if it is difficult. This is NOT the greatest jihad and the popular hadith which says so is not authentic. It is nonetheless a vital aspect of every Muslim's practice. Allah said: {And as for the one who fears the standing before his Lord and forbids his self its desires * Surely, paradise is his shelter} An-Naazi'aat: 40-41

But, this overcoming of the lower desires is not accomplished by our efforts, but only by the grace and mercy of Allah. When we turn to Allah in belief and obedience, He blesses us with a shield or a protection against the evil inclinations within. Allah said:

{Those who prepared the abode and the faith before them love those who migrated to them and find no need in their hearts for what they have been given and the put others before themselves even if they are in need. And whoever is protected from the avarice of his own self is surely among the successful.} Al-Hashr: 9

Jihad against Shaitaan

By opposing and repelling both the desires and the intellectual confusion with which Shaitaan tempts Allah's slaves. This jihad is even more difficult than the jihad against the kuffar since at least we can see them and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Shaitan can see us while we cannot see him and his experience at leading astray goes back thousands of years to the creation of Adam. Allah said: {O you who believe, do not follow the steps of Shaitaan. Whoever follows the steps of Shaitaan [will find that] he commands obscenity and sin. If it were not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy none of you could ever have kept clean. But Allah purifies who He wishes and Allah is the Hearer, the Knower.} An-Nur: 21


Jihad against the disbelievers

This is be physically fighting them under a righteous Muslim Khalifa either by direct participation in combat or by donations of wealth or other methods of supporting the struggle - including idealogical struggle. This is the greatest jihad. The Prophet (sas) said: "Fight the polytheists with your property, your lives and your tongues." Allah mentions the greatness of fighting in the path of Allah in very many places in the Qur'an. Generally, these are all references to this type of Jihad.

Jihad against the hypocrites


This is by establishing the proofs against them and calling the Muslims to adhering to the daleel - proofs from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, educating the Muslims to protect them against such fitan and opposing their mischief in every way. It should be noted that only Allah knows the identity of the hypocrites - we only have signs. Nonetheless, we must oppose distortions of Islam by all the means mentioned. Allah said: {O Prophet fight the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh to them. There abode is hell-fire and what an evil abode.} At-Tahreem: 9


Jihad against corrupt Muslims

This is jihad is by physical means (the "hand"), the tongue and the heart. The Prophet (sas) said: "Whoever among you witnesses wrongdoing, let him correct it with his hand. If he is unable, then with his tongue. If he is unable, then with his heart and that is the weakest of faith." Allah said: {And fight in the path of Allah [against] those who fight you and do not transgress, surely, Allah does not love the transgressors.} Al-Baqarah: 190

{Prepare against them all forms of strength of which you are capable and ranks of horses with which you strike fear [in the hearts of] Allah's enemy, your enemy and others besides those. You do not know them, but Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the path of Allah will be fully repaid to you and you will not be oppressed [in the least].} Al-Anfaal: 60

"Others besides those" in this verse is a reference to the internal enemy of this nation - i.e., the hypocrites, those who appear to be Muslim and practicing Islam externally but in whose hearts there is kufr and in whose actions there is mischief and destructiveness. The Muslim Ummah must be a strong and cohesive entity capable of meeting any military or other threat. This strength and unity based on the sound foundation of the Qur'an and Sunnah reflects inwardly and outwardly. It holds both the external and the internal enemy at bay and puts fear in their hearts. Without this strength, unity and means, we will continue to be afflicted by both the external enemy and the internal enemy.

*Ref: http://www.islam.co.kr/jihad.htm

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-17-2005, 08:00 PM
:sl:
here's mine:
http://www.load-islam.com/c/Islam/JihadExplanation

:w:
Reply

Link
05-17-2005, 10:29 PM
if one or two scholars grade a hadith weak or fabricated because of so and so in the cain, does it rule out all the other scholars who graded it sahih and think of so and so as reliable?

this is a dangerous thought cause there is not a consensus on ilmel rijal
Reply

Ibn Syed
05-17-2005, 10:47 PM
Nice link Ansar.
:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-17-2005, 11:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Link
if one or two scholars grade a hadith weak or fabricated because of so and so in the cain, does it rule out all the other scholars who graded it sahih and think of so and so as reliable?

this is a dangerous thought cause there is not a consensus on ilmel rijal
:sl:

:D A hadith may be fabricated in one book or chapter of a book, and yet in another; it may be authentic. The question of authenticity; we go to Ali (as); the cousin of the Prophet (saw). He said that there are 3 steps to ahadith authenticiation, from which even one being flawed fabricates the hadith.


  1. :thumbs_upSanad: Channel (chain) of narration; through whom is the narration narrated, and can they be trusted.
  2. :thumbs_upLuqa: Quranic compatibility with the hadith; the Prophet (saw) NEVER spoke against the Quran.
  3. :thumbs_upTa`weel ul-Athr / Ta`weel fil-Iman: meaning of the transmitted statement, and its effects on Iman.

:) I will Insha-Allah elaborate on this in the near future, if necessary. :p So please do ask if you want it explained Insha-Allah . . .

:w:
Reply

Eddi
05-17-2005, 11:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:D A hadith may be fabricated in one book or chapter of a book, and yet in another; it may be authentic. The question of authenticity; we go to Ali (as); the cousin of the Prophet (saw). He said that there are 3 steps to ahadith authenticiation, from which even one being flawed fabricates the hadith.


  1. :thumbs_upSanad: Channel (chain) of narration; through whom is the narration narrated, and can they be trusted.
  2. :thumbs_upLuqa: Quranic compatibility with the hadith; the Prophet (saw) NEVER spoke against the Quran.
  3. :thumbs_upTa`weel ul-Athr / Ta`weel fil-Iman: meaning of the transmitted statement, and its effects on Iman.

:) I will Insha-Allah elaborate on this in the near future, if necessary. :p So please do ask if you want it explained Insha-Allah . . .

:w:
:sl:
I am under the impression that you explained this in another forum in details anyway so I'll look for a link to put here inshallah
:w:
Reply

Ibn Syed
05-18-2005, 12:32 AM
Good posts here bros and sistas. I'm learning here. Keep it comin.
:w:
Reply

Uthman
05-18-2005, 07:22 PM
:sl:

Jazak'Allahu Khayran (again ;) ) brother Ahmed Waheed for posting all that info! :) I especially liked your explanation of how ahadith can be tested for authenticity. :) In a million words, I couldn't have put it better. :brother:

And that was an excellent article by you Ansar Mash'Allah :)

:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-20-2005, 07:08 PM
:sl:

:D:):shade::p;)
The most common questions about: Jihad, Jeehad or Jehad and terrorism
While many believe that Islam is a violent or evil religion, just believing so does not make it a fact. Islam is a religion that can be MISQUOTED just like any other religion. By answering these questions about Jihad (Jeehad or Jehad) and terrorism, we hope to present you with the true teachings of Islam.

No matter what, the conclusion is always yours, we only hope that you would consider the source where you get your information about Islam. Is that source - say the media- a legitimate source for information about any religion? Would that source be a good source for information about your own belief? Should we consider an Islamic source if we would like to find what does Islam teach?



What is Jihad?

How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword, or by force?

If Islam is the best religion, why are many of the Muslims dishonest, unreliable, and involved in activities such as cheating, bribing, dealing in drugs, etc.?

Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists?

Doesn’t Islam promote violence, bloodshed and brutality since the Qur’an says that Muslims should kill the Kafirs (Non-believers, pagans or infidels) where ever they find them as in (9:5)?

Is Islam intolerant of other religious minorities? Why do Muslims prosecute people of other religions in other countries?

Isn't true that the Quran teaches that if a Muslim wish to convert to another religion he should be killed? Why Muslims who convert to another religion should be killed?

What does Islam teach about killing innocent people?

Choose a section of the common questions about Islam:

General questions about Islam

Questions about women or woman in Islam

Questions about The Mosque (worshipping place) and prayers in Islam

Questions about Muhammad, Mohammad, or Muhamet peace be upon him.

Back to the main articles page

If you have a question or a comment that you would like to share with others and us, please feel free to e-mail it to: introducingislam@yahoo.com

Q1-What is Jihad?

The word "Jihad" means struggle, or to be specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God can be considered Jihad. One of the highest levels of Jihad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrong doings is also a great Jihad. One of the forms of Jihad is to take up arms in defense of Islam or a Muslim country when Islam is attacked. This kind of Jihad has to be declared by the religious leadership or by a Muslim head of state that is following the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Top

Q2-How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword or by force?

Without proofs, it is easy for anybody to make the "CLAIM " that Islam was spread by force. We will share with you some PROOFS of our claim, that nothing other than the force of truth, reason and logic spread Islam as we share with you some of the facts and some history of Islam.

1. WESTERN CONVERTS TODAY

If you get to visit any of the Islamic centers or Mosques in the Western Hemisphere, especially in big cities, you will find a large number of westerners, both men and women worshipping there. These people had the chance to find out about the true Islam and decided to become Muslims.

How did Muslims force these converts in their own western world to accept Islam? What weapon did Muslims use against those who were born and raised in other faiths except the force of truth, reason and logic to force them to accept Islam?

2. HUGE INCREASE MUSLIM POPULATION IN 50 YEARS

An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, yearbook 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At THE TOP WAS ISLAM, WHICH INCREASED BY 235%, AND CHRISTIANITY HAD INCREASED ONLY BY 47%…!?

May one ask: Which war did Muslims lead against the whole world between 1934 and 1984 that converted millions of people to Islam?

3. ISLAM IN THE DISTANT PARTS OF THE WORLD

Indonesia and Malaysia provide another example supporting that Islam was not accepted by force. The number of Muslims in these two countries alone exceeds the Muslims in all the Arabic speaking countries combined, which leave us with a few questions, such as:

· How did Islam flourish there?

· How was Islam introduced to these non-Muslim lands, which were simply too far from any "military" reach?

Islam was introduced to that side of the world through MERCHANTS, who went there for business. They were exemplary in character in dealing with the non-Muslims they encountered, by treating them with respect and trading in commerce honestly (two core attributes of Muslim character). Muslims did not have the ability to cross all that land and sea from Arabia to spread in Indonesia by force. Rather, through those good and honest Muslim MERCHANTS, Islam was accepted there by way of example.

4. LET THE 14 MILLION TESTIFY

Muslims were the rules of the Arab world, a good portion of Asia Minor and all of North Africa for about 1400 years and that's how the official language have become the language of the Quran, the Arabic language. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled the Arab world most of the time. Yet today, there is an estimated 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians, Christians, Catholics and also Jews. They have held their religion for all these generations through these 1400 years. If the Muslims had used the sword as many "CLAIM", there would have not been a single Arab who would have remained on his other religion. Especially when we consider that Muslims could have done with Non-Muslims as they please and did not have to worry about the Geneva Convention or the U.N at that time.

5. OLD BUILDINGS' TESTIMONY

In countries where the dominant religion is Islam, there are many old churches and synagogues that are older than the inception of Islam -- more than 1400 years. If Islam does not teach tolerance and respect to other faiths, then why would Muslims keep those buildings with their monks, priests and even their own scriptures, long before any of today's modern human rights and other world organizations such as the U.N?

6. NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION

It is very clear in (2:256): "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error, whoever rejects Taghut (anything other than the real God, false deities, Satan, idols and so on) and believes in God, hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things".

Again we find: "Say: The truth is from your Lord; Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject". (18:29)

7. MORE HYPOCRITES?

The Holy Quran also warned Muhammad (pbuh) and Muslims against HYPOCRISY and THE HYPOCRITES. The Quran describes the hypocrites as:

"Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in God and the Last Day, but they do not (really) believe". (2:8)

In fact there is a whole chapter (63) that is entitled The Hypocrites. Any rational mind will find it extremely difficult to believe that Islam teaches forcing others to accept it even if they were not convinced with it, only to create more HYPOCRITES.


  • These are some of our "ADULT PROOFS" that Islam was not spread by force. These are not some articles in a newspaper, a history book that was published by a specific interest organization or something that somebody said on the TV. These are logical, practical, true and indisputable proofs.
Top

Q3-If Islam is the best religion, why are many of the Muslims dishonest, unreliable, and involved in activities such as cheating, bribing, dealing in drugs, etc.?

1. The teachings of Islam

as Muslims we acknowledge that there are many who are strong in their faith who always do good and there are those who are weak faith who act with foolish. Any rational mind would have to agree; just because there are some Muslims who misrepresent Islam by doing many shameful acts, that does not mean that Islam teaches so. If you want to judge how good Islam is then judge it according to its authentic sources, i.e. the Glorious Qur'ân and the Hadeeth.

2. Muslims are people like other People

Just like any other religion, in Islam there are also the same people. Those who hold wrong or foreign beliefs or simply misunderstand their own scriptures. Just as there are many Christian cults with foreign beliefs such as the KKK for example, there are some "so called" Muslims who hold some twisted beliefs that are foreign, strange and in many cases, contrary to the true teachings of Islam just as the KKK does. The religion of Christianity is not responsible for what some -the KKK- do in its name. And Islam can't be responsible for what wrong some do in its name.

Holding any religion responsible for the wrongdoing of its followers is not fair to:


  • That religion, whichever it is, because realistically, any religion is responsible only for what it teaches.
  • All religions, because there will always be somebody who is doing something wrong.
  • Ourselves, when we have to consider that all religions to be evil or bad.
3. Don’t judge a car by its driver:

If you want to judge how good is the latest model of the "Mercedes" car and a person who does not know how to drive sits at the steering wheel and bangs up the car, who will you blame? The car or the driver? But naturally, the driver. To analyze how good the car is, a person should not look at the driver but see the ability and features of the car. How fast is it, what is its average fuel consumption, what are the safety measures, etc. Even if I agree for the sake of argument that the Muslims are bad, we can’t judge Islam by its followers? If you want to judge how good Islam is then judge it according to its authentic sources, i.e. the Glorious Qur'ân and the Hadeeth.

4. Judge Islam by its best follower i.e. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh):

If you practically want to check how good a car is put an expert driver behind the steering wheel. Similarly the best and the most exemplary follower of Islam by whom you can check how good Islam is, is the last and final messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Besides Muslims, there are several honest and unbiased non-Muslim historians who have acclaimed that prophet Muhammad was the best human being. According to Michael H. Hart who wrote the book, ‘The Hundred Most Influential Men in History’, the topmost position, i.e. the number one position goes to the beloved prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh). There are several such examples of non-Muslims paying great tributes to the prophet, like Thomas Carlyle, La-Martine, etc.

5. Muslims best as a whole:

In spite of all the black sheep in the Muslim community, Muslims taken on the whole, yet form the best community in the world. We are the biggest community of tea-totallers as a whole, i.e. those who don’t imbibe alcohol. Collectively, we are a community that gives the maximum charity in the world. There is not a single person in the world who can even show a candle to the Muslims where modesty is concerned.

Top

Q4-Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists?

This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims.

1. Muslims are people like other People

Just like any other religion, in Islam there are also the same people. Those who hold wrong or foreign beliefs or simply misunderstand their own scriptures. Just as there are many Christian cults with foreign beliefs such as the KKK for example, there are some "so called" Muslims who hold some twisted beliefs that are foreign, strange and in many cases, contrary to the true teachings of Islam just as the KKK does. The religion of Christianity is not responsible for what some -the KKK- do in its name. And Islam can't be responsible for what wrong some do in its name.

Holding any religion responsible for the wrongdoing of its followers is not fair to:


  • That religion, whichever it is, because realistically, any religion is responsible only for what it teaches.
  • All religions, because there will always be somebody who is doing something wrong.
  • Ourselves, when we have to consider that all religions to be evil or bad.
2. Islam and killing an innocent

The ruling for killing an innocent in Islam is similar to the ruling that was given to the children of Israel (i.e. in the Old Testament):

"If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people". (5:32)

it is unrealistic to say that Islam encourages Muslims to kill innocent people Just because they are Non-Muslims, when it makes killing an innocent as much of a crime as to killing all people.

3. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’

A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practice the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practice the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics.

4. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same

One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fundamentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

5. Let the numbers do the talking

It is true that there are many Muslims who do shameful and evil acts, but how many are they in comparison with the total number of Muslims? There are about 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today, it will be illogical and unrealistic to judge 1300 million people according to what a few are doing because of their misguided belief.

6. The media and the negative news

In most cases, the media can only "sell" the "interesting" and usually the "negative" news. Have you ever heard about an airplane that took off and landed safely in the media? Even though there are hundreds of flights that take off and land safely every day, do we hear about them? But wouldn't we all hear about that one that crashes? Negative news is usually what drives the media. And most of us don't need a reminder that we can't just believe everything they tell us

It will be understandable then, why you would always hear negative news about Islam if your information about Islam were going to be through the "negative" media.

7. Consider the source

If one asked you where to find a source to learn about your own religion for example, would you tell him to watch the news to find out about your own religion?

Would you tell him to read the newspaper and that will be enough?

Or, would advice to read your scriptures or to read for a recognized scholar about your religion?

If you would like to know the truth about Islam, you need to consider the appropriate source, this is a logical and reasonable notion that no two would differ about.

8. Muslims best as a whole:

In spite of all the black sheep in the Muslim community, Muslims taken on the whole, yet form the best community in the world. We are the biggest community of tea-totallers as a whole, i.e. those who don’t imbibe alcohol. Collectively, we are a community that gives the maximum charity in the world. There is not a single person in the world that can even show a candle to the Muslims where modesty is concerned.

Top

Q5-Doesn’t Islam promote violence, bloodshed and brutality since the Qur’an says that Muslims should kill the Kafirs (Non-believers, pagans or infidels) where ever they find them as in (9:5)?

1. Misquoting any scriptures

All scriptures, no matter which ones, are subject to being misquoted by those who would use them to satisfy their own agenda or by those who simply lack an underlying understanding of the contextual elements of the verses at hand. If a scripture says; "God is one" it will be hard to misquote such a verse. However, other more layered verses become targets of misquotation. In this paper we will look at some examples of these misquotations that has been used against Islam. A proof of that is that we usually hear or read about all these negative verse, but not once we have heard the context or at least what does the following verse says…!

2. What's the context?

As a very basic right in any civilized community, Muslims as well as all other people are entitled to defend themselves. However, when the Revelation of the Quran first commenced, Muslims were not even allowed to fight back in self-defense.

The tribe of Quraish in Mecca saw their position as guardians for the "house of Abraham" threatened. They kept idols for different (gods), those idols were worshipped by many tribes in the area, while Muhammad (peace be upon him) called for belief in One God. Blinded by ignorance, the tribe of Quraish thought it must dismantle this new religion that called for submission to One God to replace their many Gods that were under their guardianship.

During the first few years of Islam, Muslims were persecuted in Mecca, where Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) started calling for Islam. Many were killed and others suffered persecution and humiliation. It was ten long years before Muhammad (pbuh) was commanded to migrate with whoever survived of his followers to Medina, which is about 260 miles North of Mecca. The powerful tribe of Quraish in Mecca, trying to finish off Islam and Muslims, was unable to stop the successful departure of Muslims from Mecca. For those still residing in Mecca, the Quraish decided to finish them all for good and they increased their hold on the city. They started by taking all the properties that belonged to Muslims, thus trying to prevent them from leaving Mecca on foot for the arduous 260 miles trip through in the desert.

Many Muslims still had the courage to leave the city on foot for the sake of God, so the Quraish plotted to kill everyone who left the city for Medina by intercepting them in the desert. After Muhammad (pbuh) made sure that every one of his followers had left the city, he too fled the city of Mecca with his closest friend, Abou Baker after miraculously surviving the assassination plot the tribe of Quraish had planned for him. Three years later, after a total of thirteen years of persecution, humiliation and killing, God allowed Muslims the right for self-defense by declaring to them the following verse: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors". (2:190)

Unfortunately, this self-defense has been generally misinterpreted and maliciously misconstrued by many, in an attempt to show that the commandments were a declaration of war for Muslims against everybody else. You might have heard this quotation from chapter 9, which states: "slay the Non-believers (infidels) wherever ye find them", which has been quoted repeatedly out of context. Let's take a closer look at this verse and its meaning:

Chapter 9 starts by clearly pointing out to whom the commandment apply. Specifically, these commandments were concerning:"…those of the pagans (Non-believers or infidels) with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances" (9:1). More specifically, those who did not honor the treaty and committed aggression towards Muslims, as we will see in (9:4), yet Muslims were still unable to dissolve their treaty until Allah (God in Arabic) had commanded Muslims to dissolve their part of the " treaty " too.

(9:2) "Go ye, then, for four months, (as ye will), throughout the land…" The Prophet was directed to give his enemies a four-month grace period, a cessation of hostilities, during which they could review their attitude and plans towards Islam and Muslims. Had the commandment been just to "storm them all and kill them all" there would be no need to allow such long period for warning.

Some also have misunderstood the word " people" in verse (9:3) which says: " This is a proclamation from God and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage…" to refer to all humankind. Or to make the verse sounds as if it is a command for Muslims to wage war against all people, overlooking the exception found immediately in the next verse. In (9:4), the exceptions are:

" … Those idolaters who have honored their treaties with you in every detail and have not aided anyone else against you"


  • THE MEANING COULD NOT BE CLEARER OR MORE UNEQUIVOCAL, IT ONLY CONCERNS THOSE WHO HAVE COMMITTED AGGRESSION AGAINST MUSLIMS AND VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH MUSLIMS HAD SIGNED A PEACE TREATY WITH THEM AND HONORED IT PEACEFULLY.
In (9:5) God commanded Muslims to fight back after they exercised patience for years, losing many lives and masses of properties. At that time The unbelievers (infidels) were the enemy who committed all forms of aggression against the Muslims, that's why God commanded Muslims at that time to fight back: "Slay the Pagans (Non-believers or infidels) wherever ye find them". With the exception found in (9:4): " … Those idolaters who have honored their treaties with you in every detail and have not aided anyone else against you"

3. Example from another history

We know that Great Britain once colonized many other countries in the world including the U.S. It is normal to expect all people of these "colonized" countries to seek independence from Britain. Suppose that George Washington as the commander in chief of the continental army in the American Revolution against Britain, was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war and he said: "Whenever and wherever you find the British, kill them". Today if I say that George Washington said: "Whenever and wherever you find the British, kill them", without giving the context, I will make him sound as if he was an evil butcher who's only goal is to kill the British people -not the soldiers- for no reason. Yet, considering the situation as a whole and quoting him in context as to when that statement was made, wouldn't what George Washington have said -in the example- sound logical?

4. What about those caught in the middle?

In every conflict there are innocent people who have no inclination to support either of the fighting sides. The prophet was instructed to guarantee such people safety and security and secure for them right of passage until they reached their safe lands. God said:

"If one amongst the Non-believers ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are people without knowledge" (9:6).

5. Chapter 9 verses 1-6… promote violence, bloodshed and brutality against Non-Muslims?

Now that you have seen for yourself the context and the situation in its reality as to when were these verses revealed, not as some misquoted it. How could these verses be simply an advocacy of aggression or warmongering? As you have seen, a careful examination of the above verses reveals the following critical points:

  1. Muslims, as well as others in any civilized community, are entitled to SELF-DEFENSE.
  2. The enemy who Muslims had to defend themselves against -at the time- happened to be A CERTAIN GROUPof infidels (Non-believers).
  3. It could have not been simply a declaration of war against all the Non-Muslims or infidels because of:
    1. The exception of those who did not violate Muslims rights or committed aggression towards them in (9:4).
    2. The commandment of offering protection of those caught in the middle in (9:6).
6. Prisoners of war

The Islamic law, "the Shari'a", is a comprehensive law, it covers most aspects of life in the most practical way, when taken as a whole or in its complete form, not when misquoted. If it so happen that a war situation arises and if Muslims should have the upper hand, then what should be done with captives of war (P.O.W)?

With the (false) idea that Muslims are out there to fight and kill all those who are Non-Muslims, one should expect that Muslims would not grant captives their lives, especially those who are warriors who could return to fight again later. This would be the only logical action against the P.O.W, if Muslims goal were to kill the infidels. Yet, according to the "Shari'a", Muslims cannot kill children, women, elders, Monks or the enemy warriors who surrender or those who were injured and their injuries prevent them from causing harm to Muslims. As the Holy Quran teaches:

"…When ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind (the captives) firmly: Thereafter (is the time for) either generosity (i.e. free them without ransom) or ransom". (4:8)

If Islam commands Muslims to rage war against all others, why would it forbid them from killing everybody even the captives? Over fourteen hundred years ago, while every army at the time cared only of achieving a sweeping victory taking no prisoners, over thirteen hundred years before the civilized Geneva Convention?

What does Islam teach about killing innocent people?

The ruling for killing an innocent in Islam is similar to the ruling that was given to the children of Israel (i.e. in the Old Testament):

"If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people". (5:32)

Top

Q6-Is Islam intolerant of other religious minorities? Why do Muslims prosecute people of other religions in other countries?

Unfortunately, many make this claim that Islam does not tolerate other religious minorities ignoring these important facts:

1. LET THE 14 MILLION TESTIFY

Muslims were the rules of the Arab world, a good portion of Asia Minor and all of North Africa for about 1400 years and that's how the official language have become the language of the Quran, the Arabic language. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled the Arab world most of the time. Yet today, there is an estimated 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians, Christians, Catholics and also Jews. They have held their religion for all these generations through these 1400 years. If the Muslims had used the sword as many "CLAIM", there would have not been a single Arab who would have remained on his other religion. Especially when we consider that Muslims could have done with Non-Muslims as they please and did not have to worry about the Geneva Convention or the U.N at that time.

2. OLD BUILDINGS' TESTIMONY

In countries where the dominant religion is Islam, there are many old churches and synagogues that are older than the inception of Islam -- more than 1400 years. If Islam does not teach tolerance and respect to other faiths, then why would Muslims keep those buildings with their monks, priests and even their own scriptures, long before any of today's modern human rights and other world organizations such as the U.N?

3. MORE HYPOCRITES?

The Holy Quran also warned Muhammad (pbuh) and Muslims against HYPOCRISY and THE HYPOCRITES. The Quran describes the hypocrites as:

"Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in God and the Last Day, but they do not (really) believe". (2:8)

In fact there is a whole chapter (63) that is entitled The Hypocrites. Any rational mind will find it extremely difficult to believe that Islam teaches forcing others to accept it even if they were not convinced with it, only to create more HYPOCRITES.

4. NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION

It is very clear in (2:256): "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error, whoever rejects Taghut (anything other than the real God, false deities, Satan, idols and so on) and believes in God, hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things".

Again we find: "Say: The truth is from your Lord; Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject". (18:29)

5. MODERN HISTORY AND POLITICS

A few hundred years ago, Jews were welcomed and flourished in Muslim Spain even when they were persecuted in the rest of Europe. They consider that part of their history as the Golden Era. In Muslim countries, Christians live in prosperity, hold government positions and attend their church. However, the same religious tolerance is not always available to Muslim minorities as seen in the past during Spanish inquisition and the crusades, or as seen now by the events in Bosnia, Israel and India. Muslims do recognize that sometimes the actions of a ruler do not reflect the teachings of his religion

6. GOVERNMENTS DO WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO

Almost anywhere in the world, there are governments or rulers who are doing something that is against the teachings of the major religion in their countries. In the west where the major religion teach "don't kill", governments allow the killing of the unborn children. There are other example you probably are already aware of where governments do what they like, and in many cases what they do is against the teachings of the major religion. If we are to consider that Islam is a bad or evil religion because some Muslims people or governments do something wrong or evil in its name. Then how should we regard other religions when countries with the majority of its people believe in that religion, yet the governments allow the killing of the unborn children.


  • That religion, whichever it is, because realistically, any religion is responsible only for what it teaches.
  • All religions, because there will always be somebody who is doing something wrong.
  • Ourselves, when we have to consider that all religions to be evil or bad.
Top

Q7-Isn't true that the Quran teaches that if a Muslim wish to convert to another religion he should be killed? Why Muslims who convert to another religion should be killed?

This is another misconception about Islam. You might have heard or read for somebody who made that claim, we should not just consider anybody's CLAIM to be a FACT Consider the source

There is no such verse that teaches so in the Quran. Further more, when you search the Quran you will find to the contrary of that. The Quran is rich with verses that teaches tolerance to other religions and to those who choose not to believe in anything at all, here are some examples:

(2:256): "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error, whoever rejects Taghut (anything other than the real God, false deities, Satan, idols and so on) and believes in God, hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things".

(18:29): "Say: The truth is from your Lord; Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject".

(109:6): "You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion".

Of course the Quran does not encourage one to leave Islam, but it offers him the freedom to be convinced with what it teaches. This way one do not become a Muslim just because his father, mother or somebody always told him so, but after being convinced with Islam without any doubts in his mind, so that a Muslim accepts Islam with conviction and devotion. This is also the reason why it will be very hard to find one who converts from Islam to another religion. I can not say it is impossible, I can only say that under the normal conditions, it will be very hard to find somebody who would convert from Islam.

Top

Q8-What does Islam teach about killing innocent people?

The ruling for killing an innocent in Islam is similar to the ruling that was given to the children of Israel (i.e. in the Old Testament):

"If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people". (5:32)

Choose a section of the common questions about Islam:

General questions about Islam

Questions about women or woman in Islam

Questions about The Mosque (worshipping place) and prayers in Islam

Questions about Muhammad, Mohammad, or Muhamet peace be upon him.



Back to the main articles page

If you have a question or a comment that you would like to share with others and us, please feel free to e-mail it to: introducingislam@yahoo.com


:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-25-2005, 09:32 PM
:sl:

:D More Jihad on www.tafsir.com

Surah Al-Baqarah2 Jihad is made Obligatory


Surah Al-Baqarah2 Abandoning Jihad does not alter Destiny


Surah An-Nisa4 Refraining from Joining Jihad is a Sign of Hypocrites


Surah An-Nisa4 The Encouragement to Participation in Jihad


Surah An-Nisa4 Encouraging Jihad to Defend the Oppressed


Surah An-Nisa4 The Wish that the Order for Jihad be Delayed


Surah An-Nisa4 Allah Commands His Messenger to Perform Jihad


Surah An-Nisa4 The Mujahid and those Who Do not Join Jihad are Not the Same, [and Jihad is Fard Kifayah]


Surah Al-Ma'idah5 Commanding Taqwa, Wasilah, and Jihad


Surah Al-Anfal8 Encouraging Believers to fight in Jihad; the Good News that a Few Muslims can overcome a Superior Enemy Force


Surah At-Taubah9 Among the Wisdom of Jihad is to test the Muslims


Surah At-Taubah9 Providing Pilgrims with Water and maintaining the Sacred Masjid are not equal to Faith and Jihad


Surah At-Taubah9 Admonishing clinging to Life rather than rushing to perform Jihad


Surah At-Taubah9 Jihad is required in all Conditions


Surah At-Taubah9 Why Hypocrites would not join in Jihad


Surah At-Taubah9 The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites


Surah At-Taubah9 Hypocrites are barred from participating in Jihad


Surah At-Taubah9 Admonishing Those Who did not join the Jihad


Surah At-Taubah9 Legitimate Excuses for staying away from Jihad


Surah At-Taubah9 Rewards of Jihad


Surah At-Taubah9 The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas


Surah Al-Hajj22 Permission to fight; this is the first Ayah of Jihad


Surah Al-Hajj22 The Command to worship Allah and engage in Jihad


Surah Muhammad47 The Situation of the True Believer and the Sick-Hearted when the Command for Jihad was revealed


Surah Al-Fath48 Allah conveys the News that there will be Many Cases of Jihad, and that Jihad distinguishes the Ranks of the Believers and exposes the Hypocrites


Surah Al-Fath48 Acceptable Reasons for not joining Jihad


Surah At-Tahrim66 The Command for Jihad against the Disbelievers and the Hypocrites


:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-26-2005, 04:58 PM
:sl:

:D More Jihad . . .

[Dr. Riffat Hassan is a member of the Islamic Research Foundation International and is an award winning scholar, an inimitable voice for moderate Islam & interreligous dialogue and Professor for Religious Studies and Humanities at the University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. In February 1999, she founded The International Network for the Rights of Female Victims of Violence in Pakistan (INRFVVP), a non-profit organization with a worldwide membership, which has played a noteworthy role in highlighting the issue of violence against girls and women, particularly with reference to “crimes of honor” (website: www.inrfvvp.org; E-mail: inrfvvpe@athena.louisville.edu)]

On September 11, 2001, four domestic flights within the United States were hijacked by persons identified by American intelligence agencies as being of Muslim and Arab origin. Two of these planes hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, while a third one hit the Pentagon in Washington, D. C. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania, killing all aboard. The nature of the assaults and the efficiency with which they had been conducted shocked not only the Americans but also the rest of the world. Horror-stricken, millions around the globe, watched the massive tragedy unfold before them on television screens. As the reality of what had happened - the damage done to buildings which were symbols of American power and prestige - and the loss of thousands of human lives - sank in, many people in the United States began to feel that the world had changed forever.

The post September 11 world was - and is - radically different from the world which had existed until that fateful day. The sense of invulnerability and invincibility which had characterized the consciousness of the only remaining superpower in the world was suddenly, and irrevocably, lost. The crumbling of the gigantic structures of the World Trade Center towers seemed to remind all of us of the finite and fragile nature of all human constructions, and of our own mortality.

Waves of disbelief, grief, anger, fear, and bewilderment swept through the viewers of the death scenes with varying degrees of intensity. In the face of the most serious attack ever on American soil, it was understandable that many people in the United States wanted to lash out at those who had been responsible for the heinous crimes. The immediate perpetrators were dead and could not be punished. But there were others - like Osama bin Laden - who were believed to have masterminded and financed the crimes. Apprehending Osama bin Laden and his network of operatives, including the "sleepers" who were said to be in the country, seemed to be necessary in order to make a bleeding nation whole again, and to restore confidence in the "manifest destiny" of the United States to lead and control the world.

In the aftermath of September 11, more attention has been focused on Islam and Muslims than perhaps at any other point in modern history. . Much of this attention – particularly in the case of mainstream U.S. television channels – has been negative, not only with regards to those who committed the criminal acts, but also with regards to Islam and Muslims /Arabs at large.

The September 11 assaults on the U.S have been condemned strongly by the global community including a large number of Muslims from all walks of life ranging from leaders of Muslim countries to ordinary people. However, the crisis was perceived - and described - from the outset in terms which polarized the world into two absolutely opposed camps. The worldview which became dominant in the discourse of both American administration and media was symbolized by expressions such as “us versus them”, “either you are with us or you are against us”, “good versus evil.” Dualistic thinking which permeated this discourse seemed, at times, to be cosmic in magnitude. It appeared as if the so called “clash of civilizations” between the “West” and “the world of Islam” posited by Samuel Huntington had indeed come to pass.

However one interprets the fateful events of September 11, 2001, one thing is clear. The world changed forever on the day. There is now no going back to the situation which existed prior to this day. We cannot go back - we can only go forward. This poses a serious challenge both for (non-Muslim) Westerners and for Muslims. How and on what basis are we going to create a new world-order in the aftermath of what happened on September 11, 2001? Is it possible to “depolarize” the world and to build a bridge between “the West” and “the world of Islam”?

George Santayana had stated with acute insight that those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it. As we reflect on the critical questions posed above, we need to be aware of the long history of negative stereotyping and imaging of Islam and Muslims in the West. Though there are a number of Americans who had not paid any serious attention to Islam or Muslims until the Arab oil embargo of 1973 or the Iranian Revolution of 1979, propaganda against Islam and Muslims is nothing new in the West.

It is as old as the first chapter of Islamic history, when the new faith began to move into territories largely occupied by Christians and Muslims were seen not only as ‘”the Other” but as “the Adversary”. . Dante, the great poet of medieval Christianity, painted a gruesome picture of the Prophet of Islam in his well-known poem The Divine Comedy. Portraying him as physically “divided” with his guts hanging out, Dante assigned the Prophet Muhammad to all but the lowest levels of hell for the grievous “sin” of dividing the world of Christendom.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the most outstanding Scholastic philosopher who owed such profound debt to the thinkers of Muslim Spain - who were the precursors of the Renaissance in Europe - described Islam as nothing but a construct to accommodate the lust of Muhammad. Christian voices such as those of Dante and Aquinas form the backdrop of Thomas Carlyle’s historic lecture on “The Hero as Prophet: Mahomet: Islam” in a series entitled On Heroes, Hero-Worship and The Heroic in History. Writing in mid-nineteenth century, Carlyle urged his fellow Christians to dismiss “our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Imposter, a Falsehood Incarnate, that his religion is a mere quackery and fatuity.”



How persistent has been the misrepresentation of Islam, Muslims and Arabs in the work of “Orientalists” who have played a major part in shaping Western perceptions of all three has been very ably documented by Edward Said, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York. One major result of Said’s landmark work Orientalism (published in 1978) was that non-Muslims who have written about Islam subsequent to the publication of his book no longer call themselves “Orientalists” since this term is now been discredited. However, the mindset exhibited by so-called scholarly experts on Islam from Bernard Lewis (writing about “the Rage of Muslims” ) to Samuel Huntington (writing about “the Clash of Civilizations”) as well as so-called media experts appearing daily on American television channels, is very similar to that of the non-Muslim detractors of Islam of earlier times.

Given the reservoir of negative images associated with Islam and Muslims in “the Collective Unconscious” of the West, it is hardly sur­prising that, since the demise of the Soviet Empire, “the world of Islam” is - once again - being seen as the new “Enemy” which is perhaps even more incom­prehensible and intractable than the last one. The routine portrayal of Is­lam as a religion spread by the sword and characterized by “Holy War,” and of Muslims as barbarous and backward, frenzied and fanatic, volatile and violent, has led, in recent decades, to an alarming increase in “Muslim-­bashing” - verbal, physical, and psychological - in a number of Western countries. After September 11, 2001, the “crusade” against Islam and Muslims so evident on television screens in the United States, has become even more relentless and intense.

One major difficulty that many Muslims encounter in the negatively-charged, media-dominated environment in the post-September 11 U. S., is the use of “loaded” language to refer to central tenets in Islam. Two words which have been used extensively to depict Islam as a religion which is narrow, rigid, and militant. are “fundamentalism” and “jihad”. However, from an Islamic perspective, the way in which these two terms are used in popular discourse leads to deep misunderstanding about Islam and Muslims..

The word “fundamentalism” comes not from the history of Islam but from the history of American evangelical Protestant Christianity of the 1920s. As pointed out by The Encyclopedia of Religion (( Mircea Eliade, Editor in Chief, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1987, Volume 5, pp. 190-191)

‘Fundamentalism’ is a subspecies of evangelicalism. The term originated in America in 1920 and refers to evangelicals who consider it a chief Christian duty to combat uncompromisingly ‘modernist’ theology and certain secularizing cultural trends. Organized militancy is the feature that most clearly distinguishes fundamentalists from other evangelicals. Fundamentalism is primarily an American phenomenon..

However, Muslims who know English but are mostly unaware of the history of the word “fundamentalism” in American Christianity, use the term “fundamentalist” to refer to a person who believes in the fundamentals of something. The vast majority of Muslims believe in the fundamentals of Islam such as belief in God and the prophets sent by God, in prophetic books, the Day of Judgment, and duties directed toward God (“Haquq Allah”) as well as those directed toward God’s creatures (“Haquq al ‘ibad”). Therefore, if they are asked whether they are “fundamentalist”, they are likely to answer in the affirmative, unaware of how this statement is going to be interpreted by someone who associates being a “fundamentalist” with being an “extremist” if not a “terrorist.”

There is no counterpart of the word “fundamentalism” as it exists in the history of American Christianity in any Islamic language. It is most unfortunate that this word has acquired wide currency not only amongst non-Muslims but also amongst Muslims. However, colonized people often internalize the vocabulary of the colonizer hence the adoption of this word by many Muslims is not surprising even though it is highly regrettable.

Another word which is constantly been misused, especially by U.S. media, is “jihad”. “Jihad” is a core Qur’anic concept which derives from the root-word “jahada” meaning “striving” or “making an effort”. The highest form of “jihad” in Islam (“jihad al akbar”) is against one’s own shortcomings and weaknesses. It is an ongoing struggle to make one’s self better in every way. A lesser form of “jihad” (“jihad al-asghar”) is struggle against socials ills and injustice. Defensive war can be a part of the lesser “jihad” but the Qur’an repeatedly points out that “God loves not aggressors”. “Jihad” as ongoing effort is a part of everything that a Muslim is required to do – from praying five times a day (“salat”) to fasting in the month of Ramadan (“siyam”) to wealth-sharing (“zakat”) to performing pilgrimage (“hajj”) to standing up for justice and testifying to the truth. It is so pivotal to Islam that it cannot be abandoned despite its persistent vandalization by the American media. It must, therefore, be purged of the negative images attached to it, and understood as a moral struggle for the attainment of a higher state, both by individuals and by societies.

All too often “jihad” has been translated as “holy war” which is understood as a war undertaken for God or an absolute cause. Those who engage in this war must continue the fight until victory or death. The Qur’an which regards the rational faculty as the greatest gift of God to humanity and constantly urges humankind to make use of reason, does not support any war that is non-defensive or conducted outside of the bounds of rational thinking. “Holy war” is the translation not of “jihad” but of “crusade” - a term used to refer to wars undertaken by Christians in Europe in the 11th, 12th , and 13th centuries, to liberate the Holy Land from the “infidels” (Muslims)

:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-28-2005, 09:18 PM
:sl:

:D Also read this; from: http://www.bangsamoro.com/columns/war_07_29_03.php

"JIHAD AL-AKBAR"
By Warina Sushil A. Jukuy


A Catalyst for Proactive Change in Muslim Communities of Sulu

Posted July 29, 2003

Twenty-nine years ago, I understand the Sulu folks most. To be specific that was 1974. I was barely seven years old then. Nine years later, I perceived the island of my soul through the idealistic eyes of a sixteen-year-old. Twenty years later, to be specific, now in 2003, it has turned into a total stranger. The latter is my perception of Sulu as a 36 year old. At seven, I regarded myself as a Tausug Filipino. At sixteen, I regarded myself as a Bangsamoro first, and a Filipino next. It has only been two years that I regard myself as a Muslim foremost and nothing else. To the Supreme Creator belongs the world. The universal world that mankind has warped and perverted when it conceptualized territory, government, and sovereignty. The very same concepts that have deepened the diversity of human life far more than the complexity of Nature itself minus mankind, has ever done. Indeed, a concept of the people, for the people, and by the people. Ironically, each phrase is exclusive to people. Paradoxically, somehow somewhere in those concept must be the Almighty God.
The Province of Sulu of the Southern Philippines is dominantly Muslim. The natives therein are called Tausugs (meaning People of the Current) regardless of religion they profess. Sulu, a component of the ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) is comprised of 18 municipalities. The highest official of the land is the Provincial Governor, and under him are the 18 municipal mayors. In 1450, there existed a Sulu Sultanate; and 71 years later the Spanish colonizers came and occupied Las Islas Filipinas but not Sultania de Jolo. By virtue of the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the Sulu Sultanate was ceded by Spain to the Philippine territory through American colonial rule of the archipelago. This is a historical blunder that America needs to rectify in the interest of justice.

Forty-eight golden years of sovereign power under a sovereign Sultan ruler must not be unjustly effaced to oblivion by a treaty to which the Sultanate of Sulu was never a party. Foreign transgressors grossly violated a sovereign right and such violation must be redress and shall be righted.

The dissolution of the Sultanate consequently dissolved the sovereign rights and powers of its constituents. They have been marginalized and been reduced to a minority in their own ancestral homeland. This is tantamount to genocide of their indigenous soul.

Now, I, Warina Sushil A. Jukuy, as a struggling and straggling Muslim and a Tausug individual who belongs to one of the 13 ethno-linguistic groups of the Bangsamoro people of Mindanao, Philippines, do hereby dedicate this column, Jihad-al-Akbar, as a humble initiative by way of the pen and paper. I have no weapon, no wealth and no power to wield. All I’ve got for weapon is my pen; for wealth is my humble ilm; and my power as a human being emanates from Him, Ya Rabb.

I am highly motivated to explore the possibilities of empowering the concept of Jihad-al-akbar as a dynamic medium for an impetus towards whole-rounded developmental change in every Muslim’s life; and using the mimbal/pulpit as a venue for proactive change.

Consequently, by using the mimbal as a medium to generate consciousness, the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the fundamental guidelines within our din or way of life (Islam) shall be essentially re- interpreted and thus re-applied to meet the contemporary challenges of our times. Probably, the interpretation and application of it might in the future transcend beyond the Islamic doctrine but shall imbue into every aspect of our practical lives. Insha’allah.

In this millennium, the term jihad is provocative that even its mere utterance will generally put the speakers in "surveillance spotlight," and the listeners to such spoken term in a "state of paranoia," so to speak. Consequently, the famous quote of "Either you are with us or you are with them," will hound either speakers or listeners.

Lately, jihad has been attributed myopically and indiscriminately to suicide bombers, terrorism, Al-Qaeda Network, Jamaah Islamiyaah, to name a few of those notorious extension terms, and most unfortunately, to Islam and its followers, the Muslims.

The misconception, however inadvertent it may be, is quite appalling; especially as Islam’s root word and conceptual meaning is essentially PEACE. Muslims or not, the term jihad has been established to connote and denote holy war. Historically, the term "holy war" came to being in Europe during the Crusades, the latter to mean as "war against Muslims. Holy war in such Crusades’ context has no counterpart in Islamic glossary.

"Jihad means striving. In its primary sense it is an inner thing, within self, to rid it from debased actions or inclinations, and exercise constancy and perseverance in achieving a higher moral standard."(www.salafipublications.com <http://www.salafipublications.com>)

Jihad is the struggle of a Muslim by way of his niyat or intention, by way of his hand, or by way of his speech. However, what is disheartening is the fact that Islam and Muslims have been perceived by the world generally to be associated with jihad or holy war, bloodshed and violence. This is an unjust misconception of what Islam and being a Muslim stands for.

On the other hand, it is disturbing that most Muslims in the Philippines understand most the concept of Jihad as a mode of defense through fighting (Jihad al asghar, the lesser jihad or bunu qital) in the name of Islam. Understandably, Muslims are under obligation to defend Islam as this can never be dissociated from the totality of his life because Islam is more than a religion as it is a comprehensive way of life. What is perplexing is why the concept of the greater struggle which is Jihad al akbar (the Greater Struggle against the Self and all other forms of nafs or appetites) is not as deeply ingrained in the system of the Muslim Filipinos.

Almost 600 years of intermittent war and peace have remained chronicled in the hearts, minds and souls of the Bangsamoro people in their struggle for right to self-determination. Bangsamoro elders, leaders and intellectuals have tried to transcend beyond the trappings of the invincible sovereignty idealism all in the name of Agama (Islam), Hulah(Territory) and bangsa (Nation), to no avail. History has proven consistently that sovereignty issue is far superior from issues of human rights, liberty and dignity of man.

Peace processes thru 1976 Tripoli Agreement, (Organization of Islamic Conference) OIC-GRP (Government of the Republic of the Philippines), 1996 SPCPD (Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development) that led to the contemporary ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) have been tried and tested to give life to peace and development in the Southern Philippines. Presently, Balikatan 03-1 that involves US-RP Joint Military Exercise looms in Sulu in the name of peace and development. However, peace and development have frozen in the chambers of polemics, and have been reduced to mere euphemistic verbal artifact. No conscious and decisive effort is made to solicit the real meaning of peace and development from the stakeholders of Sulu.

The Muslim folks known collectively as the Bangsamoro people are vigilant in defending Islam and the Muslim communities from any form of unjust aggression but it seems that we are NOT as vigilant in upholding the true meaning of Islam and the real essence of being a Muslim. In layman’s term a Muslim’s duty in this lifetime is to enjoin good and forbid evil. Graft and corruption not only in the government but even in private and public life is ingrained in every aspect of a Filipino life, be he Muslim or not.

Enjoining good and forbidding evil is to put Allah in the center of one’s life. Such goals need not be actualized through autonomy or through secession. A Muslim can enjoin good and forbid evil wherever he is. This goal must start with the self and this is where the Struggle Against the Self and all other forms of nafs or appetites known as Jihad al Akbar comes in. Jihad al Akbar can be a catalyst for holistic change in Muslim Communities. Jihad al Akbar can be inculcated in the Muslim communities of Sulu in order for peace and development to be achieved. Jihad al Akbar teaches that the real enemy is not from without but from within.

The advocacy of Jihad al Akbar in Sulu is timely and relevant. As a proponent of said concept I have implemented this advocacy as an NGO worker in my capacity as publisher-editor of Jihad al Akbar, a Tausug-English Weekly magazine, bearing the slogan: “The catalyst for Proactive Change”. Said magazine 12 pages 11 X 17 came off the press on its maiden issue last Eid ul Fitri of 2002. It consists of 3 sections: Agama, Hulah, and Bangsa.

This magazine can “somehow” clear local and possibly global misconceptions about Jihad, Islam and Muslims among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If Islam can properly and meaningfully be inculcated through Jihad al Akbar then Muslim communities in the Philippines and the rest of the world can actually benefit from its universal practical teachings within Islamic perspective by upholding al-Qur’an and Sunnah.

“Conquering the self” might prove to be financially advantageous to world economy; a huge bulk of military budget allocations could be apportioned to basic social services.

The mimbal and madaris will be the media of instruction to promote peace and development of one’s self among the jamaah (congregation) via Jihad al Akbar as a catalyst for proactive change.

The Muslims and non-Muslims in Sulu shall understand the practical meaning and application of Islam as a way of life via Jihad al Akbar. All levels of the Sulu strata shall benefit from Jihad al Akbar (Struggle via Self-Purification), government officials, ARMM officials, military, academe, NGOs/People’s Organizations and or civil societies, barangays, families, youths, and jamaahs in Sulu, spiritual leaders and the madaris.

It shall serve as impetus for subsequent in-depth studies on the merits of Jihad al Akbar on one’s personal life regardless of race, creed or religion.

Jihad-al-Akbar
The Greatest Struggle Against the Self and all other forms of Nafs or Appetites
Tausug-English Weekly Mag
The Catalyst for Proactive Change
Jolo, Sulu
Philippines
telefax:992-63-65/992-66-85 Zamboanga City


:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-31-2005, 07:44 PM
:sl:

:D More Jihad shortly on its way Insha-Allah . . . :p

:shade: Please also refer to: http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowled...ral_islam.html

Bismillah [hidayahnet] SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL JIHAD

cahaya malam
Sat, 07 May 2005 15:35:07 -0700


From: Megawati Mustafa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL JIHAD


SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL JIHAD
A BEST-CASE SCENARIO
FOR THE HOLY LAND

by Dr. Robert ****son Crane


The grand strategy of Islam has always been to address issues of conscience
in both domestic and foreign policy by focusing on causes rather than merely on
effects. It focuses on the inner rather than the outer, on the spiritual
dynamics of change rather than merely on their result in current events. And it
focuses on the power of ideas in shaping human affairs rather than on the power
that comes from bombs and ballots.

The challenge of bringing peace through justice in the Holy Land requires the
transformation of Jewish self-perceived identity. Jews can perfect themselves
as a people and thereby fulfill their destiny in the Holy Land only if they
recognize the threats that secular Zionism poses to their future and instead
embrace the guidance and opportunities of spiritual Zionism so beautifully
taught by the Chief Rabbi of Palestine from 1919 to 1935, Rebbe Abraham Isaac
Kook.

Identity transformation is required also for both Christians and Muslims. The
Holy Land can resume its normal role as the worlds leading center of
civilization interchange and enrichment only if the Christian civilization of
the West transforms its drive for stability, and the Muslim civilization of the
East transforms its drive for survival, into a drive for peace through justice.

The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim peoples can fulfill their destiny as the
principal catalyst of a new global civilization only by drawing on the best
from their past in a joint effort of civilization renewal. This process of
civilization renewal requires Muslims to found dedicated institutes of higher
learning. A pioneering and cutting-edge venture in civilization renewal has
been undertaken by a diverse group of progressive Muslim intellectuals,
scholars, and professionals. They have founded Crescent University as a modern,
mainstream, and egalitarian seat of higher learning modeled on other successful
faith-based institutions. Their mission is to develop an American Muslim
university equal to Oxford and Harvard by the middle of the present century.


Part One


Transformation of Self Identity from Secular to Spiritual Zionism


The current events of April, 2002, are a denouement of the so-called Second
Intifada, which began in September, 2000, as a reaction to Prime Minister Ariel
Sharons symbolical assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the Haram al Sharif
or Temple Mount in the heart of Old Jerusalem. His occupation of the Temple
Mount by an armed force of a thousand Israelis put an end to the decade-long
Oslo peace process, which, in the Palestinians perception, had succeeded only
in gradually and incrementally restricting their rights and hopes in the Holy
Land.

Increasingly, even supporters of secular Zionism are concluding that present
trends seem to be leading to an eventual holocaust. Even separation of peoples
into two sovereign ghettos might accomplish no more than buy time before the
inevitable. There are alternatives, among which perhaps the most promising is
the Abraham Federation, explained on the website of the Center for Economic and
Social Justice, www.cesj.org. Any successful solution, however, must address
the most fundamental of the root causes of conflict, which is secular Zionism
itself.

Conflict over the past century in the Holy Land, including the failure of Oslo,
is an effect of the secularization of Judaism during the 19th century in
Europe, caused in part by anti-Semitism, and by the devastating blow to the
faith in the twentieth century by the Holocaust, which produced the phenomenon
of secular Zionism. Alienated from their own culture, and vulnerable to modern
nationalist demagoguery, a growing portion of the Jewish nation came to elevate
control over physical land to an ultimate value and goal. A minor, splinter
faction before the Holocaust, the secular Zionists by mid-century had become
the dominant force in a revolution that replaced spiritual Zionism as the
return to God by a secularized Zionism as the return to a modern secular state.
The self-identity of Jews world-wide thus was transformed into loyalty to a
national-security-state based on political and military power in conflict with
the rest of the world.

The future of Jews in the Holy Land will depend on the extent to which they can
overcome this secular transformation and re-transform their identity to recover
and connect with their spiritual roots.

More than four years before the Second Intifada, the Associate Editor of the
Middle East Affairs Journal, Laura Drake, identified the underlying problem of
identity transformation in her 54-page article, Reconstructing Identities: The
Arab-Israeli Conflict in Theoretical Perspective. This profound think-piece,
published in the Winter/Spring issue of 1997-98, summarized her just-completed
doctoral dissertation at American University.

Dr. Drake focuses on the identity destabilization and identity deconstruction
among Israelis who no longer consider themselves Zionists and among Arabs who
consider Arab identity to be merely a function of geography. She suggests that
such a post-modern loss of consciousness on one side both causes and results
from hegemony on the other side.

The beginning of the 21st century revealed how easily this negative process of
identity loss can be reversed by threats to physical security deliberately
instigated and aggravated by extremists on both sides. In early 2002, the
mutual incriminations of a terrorist/anti-terrorist dance of death refurbished
secular identities. At the same time it made ever more clear the need for the
spiritual leaders of all the parties in the Holy Land during the rest of the
21st century to recover their pre-Holocaust and pre-Intifada identities as
peoples called by God to bring peace through justice to the world.

The flourishing of Jewish civilization in the Holy Land will never come merely
from the post-modern loss of modernist identities, because such a vacuum is
unstable. Long-run security will come only from positive and pro-active
commitment to recover classical identities.

The apostle of such classical identity for Jews was Abraham Isaac Kook, who was
Chief Rabbi of Palestine from 1919 to 1935. He taught that every religion
contains the seed of its own perversion, because humans are free to divert
their worship from God to themselves. The greatest evil is always the
perversion of the good, and the surest salvation from evil is always the return
to prophetic origins.

Although the fundamentalist Gush Emunim, who have established fanatical
settlements deep into the West Bank, invoke Rebbe Kook as their mentor, they
make the sacrilegious error of turning his spiritual teaching into a call for
secular nationalism of the most extreme kind. Abraham Isaac Kooks entire life
bespoke his message that only in the Holy Land of Israel can the genius of
Hebraic prophecy be revived and the Jewish people bring the creative power of
Gods love in the form of justice and unity to every person and to all mankind.
For the basic disposition of the Israelite nation, he asserted, is the
aspiration that the highest measure of justice, the justice of God, shall
prevail in the world.

Universally recognized as the leading spokesperson of spiritual Zionism, Rabbi
Kook went to Jaffa from Poland in 1904 to perfect the people and land of Israel
by bringing out the holy sparks in every person, group, and ideology in order
to make way for the advent of the Messiah.

As a Lurianic Cabbalist, committed to the social renewal that both confirms and
transcends halakha, Rebbe Kook emphasized, first of all, that religious
experience is certain knowledge of God, from which all other knowledge can be
at best merely a reflection, and that this common experience of total being
or unity of all religious people is the only adequate medium for Gods
message through the Jewish people, who are the microcosm of humanity.

If individuals cannot summon the whole world to God, proclaimed Rebbe Kook,
then a people must issue the call. He appealed therefore to the Jewish people,
whose commitment to the oneness of God is a commitment to the vision of
universality in all its far-reaching implications & and whose vocation is to
help make the world more receptive to the divine light & by bearing witness to
the Torah in the world. This, he taught, is the whole purpose of Israel, which
stands for shir el, the song of God. It is schlomo, which means peace or
wholeness, Solomans Song of Songs.

But he warned, again prophetically, that, when an idea needs to acquire a
physical base, it tends to descend from its height. In such an instance it is
thrust toward the earthly, and brazen ones come and desecrate its holiness.
Together with this, however, its followers increase, and the physical vitality
becomes strikingly visible. Each person then suffers: The stubbornness of
seeking spiritual satisfaction in the outer aspect of things enfeebles ones
powers, fragments the human spirit, and leads the stormy quest in a direction
where it will find emptiness and disappointment. In disillusionment, the quest
will continue in another direction. & When degeneration leads one to embrace an
outlook on life that negates ones higher vision, then one becomes prey to the
dark side within. & The spiritual dimension becomes enslaved and darkened in
the darkness of life.

Rebbe Kook warns that the irruption of spiritual light from its divine source
on uncultivated ground yields the perverse aspect of idolatry. & It is for this
reason that we note to our astonishment the decline of religious Judaism in a
period of national renaissance. The love of the nation, he taught, or more
broadly, for humanity, is adorned at its source with the purest ideals, which
reflect humanity and nationhood in their noblest light, & but if a person
should wish to embrace the nation in its decadent condition, its coarser
aspects, without inner illumination from its ancient, higher light, he will
soon take into himself filth and lowliness and elements of evil that will turn
to bitterness in a short span of history of but a few generations. & This is
the narrow state to which the community of Israel will descend prior to an
awakening to the true revival.

By transgressing the limits, Rebbe Kook prophesied, the leaders of Israel may
bring on a holocaust. But this will merely precede a revival. As smoke fades
away, so will fade away all the destructive winds that have filled the land,
the language, the history, and the literature.

Always following his warning was the reminder of Gods covenant. In all of
this is hiding the presence of the living God. & It is a fundamental error for
us to retreat from our distinctive excellence, to cease recognizing ourselves
as chosen for a divine vocation. & We are a great people and we have blundered
greatly, and, therefore, we suffered great tribulation; but great also is our
consolation. & Our people will be rebuilt and established & through the divine
dimension of its life. All the builders of the people will come to recognize
this profound truth. Then they will call out with a mighty voice to themselves
and to their people: Let us go and return to the Lord! And this return will be
a true return.

And at this time, prophesied Rebbe Kook, who always sharply defended the
validity of both Christianity and Islam as religions in the plan of God, the
brotherly love of Esau and Jacob [Christians and Jews], and of Isaac and
Ishmael [Jews and Muslims], will assert itself above all the confusion & [and
turn] the darkness to light.


Part Two


Civilizational Renewal


If the causes of conflict are fundamentally the loss of spiritual awareness
and commitment, the cures are their recovery. This is particularly important
for Muslims in America, because they are called to the spiritual path both by
their own religion and by their presence in America, whose founders and entire
purpose are deeply spiritual. The spiritual power both of America and of
American Muslims can be recovered only by recognizing their common origins in
reliance on and commitment to their loving Creator.

Muslims are vice-regents of Allah, subhanahu wa taala, born with khilafa.
Every individual Muslim has a duty, fard ain, and the entire umma here in
America has a responsibility, fard kifaya, to be Gods servants in weaving
Allahs grand design. Their role and very existence here in America is part of
the divine purpose to bring real meaning and substance to the Founders
conviction that America can and should be a moral leader of the world.

America is perhaps the only country where a truly Islamic culture can flourish
and therefore may be the only leading Western country that can become
functionally Islamic. By this I do not mean that the majority will make the
shahada and formally become Muslims, but rather that the common principles of
classical America and classical Islam will provide the paradigm of thought that
guides public life.

The basic paradigm of what we call American traditionalist thought, which
originated in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England and culminated in the
American Revolution almost a century later, is that order, justice, and freedom
are interdependent. When freedom is construed to be independent of justice,
there can be no justice and the result will be anarchy. When order is thought
to be possible without justice, there can be no order, because injustice is the
principal cause of disorder. When justice is thought to be possible without
order and freedom, then the pursuit of order, justice, and freedom are snares
of the ignorant.

This triune nature of peace through justice is thoroughly Islamic, but Muslim
scholars have spelled it out in unsurpassed detail. The vision of Islam was
fully articulated during the Islamic classical period and culminated in the
writings of Al Shatibi six centuries ago in direct reliance on thematic
analysis of the Quran and on the diplomacy of the Prophet Muhammad ( ). The
great scholars of Islam, every one of whom was imprisoned at least once for
refusing to corrupt Islamic tradition, developed guidelines for developing and
applying Islamic law (shariah) in the form of a set of Islamic universal
principles (kulliyat), essentials (dururiyat), or purposes (maqasid). Although
there are some important fiqi guidelines to observe in this field, al Shatibi
explained that the number and inner tectonics of these maqasid are flexible
according to time and place.

The secret to the functional Islamization of America is to articulate vision.
Vision shapes the public policy agenda, and whoever shapes the agenda controls
policy.

For purposes of agenda formation, the universal principles of Islamic thought
are seven responsibilities. When observed, they produce corresponding human
rights. The first, haqq al din, is the duty to respect and maintain the purity
of divine revelation, without which human reason is unreliable. The next three,
which promote human survival, are haqq al haya, the duty to respect human life
and the human person; haqq al nasl, the duty to respect the human family and
group rights at every level of human association; and haqq al mal, the duty to
respect private property and the universal human right to individual ownership
of the means of production.

The second set of three maqasid promotes quality of life. These are haqq al
hurriya, the duty to respect group self-determination through political
freedom, including the second-order principles of governmental responsiveness
(shura), representative government (ijma), and an independent judiciary; haqq
al karama, the duty to respect human dignity, including freedom of religion and
gender equity; and haqq al ilm, which is the duty to respect knowledge,
including freedom of thought, speech, and association, subject to the other six
universal principles. These universal principles of Islamic law constitute a
definition of justice, which, in turn, is the Islamic definition of human
rights.

In order to clarify the picture of the real Islam in Western societies, the
principal requirement is for Muslims to reflect the wisdom and beauty of Islam
in their daily lives, because this is the best form of dawa. Their
responsibilities, however, go beyond this, particularly now that Islam has
become well established in America during a century when its future and the
future of civilization hang in the balance. They must introduce Islam into the
public discourse on all issues of conscience. For this they need concerted
effort by Muslim think-tanks or policy centers, and behind the think-tanks as
essential intellectual support must be the institutionalization of higher
education in the Muslim equivalent of Harvard or Oxford.

Some of the opinion leaders in the Muslim umma talk glibly about founding
think-tanks, but without any idea of why, what, or how, other than to vent
their frustration with American foreign policies. They are narcissistic to the
extent of conceiving that a Muslim think-tank should address only issues that
directly concern Muslims. They treat Islam as a special-interest group rather
than as a universal religion divinely revealed to bring balance in our
stewardship of the earth, mercy to the poor, wisdom to the powerful, and
justice to all.

The function of a Muslim think-tank is to provide vision for a network of
like-minded think-tanks in the non-Muslim policy community. It also should
explore and evaluate different options for action.

In Islam, commitment to action is known as jihad. There are three kinds of
jihad. The first two are found in the hadith or history of the sayings and
actions of the Prophet Muhammad ( ). These are the jihad al akbar or greatest
jihad, which is the struggle to overcome ones unruly self. The second is the
lesser jihad, the jihad al saghrir or asghrar, which is the armed battle to
defend the human rights of ones own people and of people everywhere. The third
jihad, mentioned only by the word of God in the Quran, Surah al Furqan 25:52,
is the jihad al kabir or great jihad. This jihad is called for in the
exhortation wa jihidhum bihi jihadan kabiran, which means struggle with it
[divine revelation] in a great struggle. This is the intellectual jihad, which
normally follows the first two.

In the modern era, when the instinct to defend oneself with armed force can be
self-defeating, the call to a great jihad requires Muslim intellectuals to
counter the impending clash of civilizations by providing the intellectual
basis for cooperation among civilizations in the articulation of common
principles and the pursuit of common goals.

The scholars and political activists of Islam have a four-fold task, which is
to: 1) develop a framework of thought consistent with the universal principles
of classical Americas founders and of the classical scholars of Islam; 2)
address the major issues of conscience in the world within the framework of
these principles, known to Muslims as the maqasid al shariah; 3) enlist the
leaders of interfaith dialogue, without which there can be no real
civilizational cooperation and renewal; and 4) from this position of strength,
engage the deep but destructive thinkers, who otherwise will develop a
counter-culture on their own, cut off from the perennial wisdom that produces
civilization. The challenge to the Muslim umma or community worldwide is
nothing less than to mount a movement of global civilizational renewal at a
time when the barbarians are not only at the gates of civilization but
entrenching themselves inside.


Part Three


New Frontiers in Erudition and Enlightenment


After the calamity of Americas Black September, 2002, it became obvious to
both Muslims and non-Muslims that enlightened Muslims need a reputable
institutional voice in the mainstream of intellectual and political life. Only
by cooperating with the intellectuals and opinion leaders of all faiths can
Muslims help strengthen Americas original vision and values and shape a
corresponding agenda for addressing the issues of conscience and concern both
in America and around the world. The alternative is continuing confrontation by
Muslim radicals steeped in ignorance, extremism, paranoia, hatred, and global
terrorism.

The younger generation of the ten-million-strong Muslim population in America,
which now produces 100,000 high school graduates a year, can play a critical
role in reviving the classical, revolutionary thought of Americas
revolutionary founders as well as of the enlightened scholars of Islam. This
task of renewing the wisdom of the past in an ecumenical, classical education
is necessary to build a world civilization that recognizes the legitimacy of
all the world religions within the common paradigm that we might call
functional Islam.

In response to the need, concerned Muslims formed Crescent University to serve
both the national and global needs of Muslims by providing a ground-breaking
seat of higher learning to produce new generations of thinking Muslims from all
walks of life committed to help shape Americas global role and to promote
Islamic ecumenism and the resulting global Islamic unity. Muslims must become
creators rather than consumers of knowledge and technology so that they can
become opinion leaders in the broader society.

The Muslim community in America has now come of age with a critical mass of top
scholars and scientists, as well as prosperous professionals and entrepreneurs,
to fill the distinctive marketing niche revealed in a Crescent Steering Group
poll, which found a strong communal desire for a prestigious Muslim university
to rank with the best universities in America. In order to keep it highly
selective, skilled headhunters will recruit the finest faculty, both Muslim and
non-Muslim, and professional marketers will attract the best students. The
objective is not to replicate any inward-looking madrassah-style or seminary
training but to incubate leaders of forward-looking Muslim generations residing
and working in the West.

Crescent is a true university in the sense of its universal scope and its
commitment to exploring new frontiers of knowledge together with its peers,
such as Harvard and Yale, in the Ivy League. Crescent becomes a bridgehead to
the future by stimulating critical Muslim thinking in an atmosphere of
scholarly ingenuity, innovative investigation, philosophical diversity, and
exploratory erudition.

Visionary in outlook and futuristic in orientation, Crescent exists to
revitalize Islamic thought and theology and catalyze an authentic spiritual
renaissance. Its purpose is to renew in the modern world the enlightenment of
early Islam, when scholars and students from across frontiers and faiths
pioneered the peerless intellectual freedom and dynamism renowned at Cordoba
University in Andalusia and Sankore University in Timbuktu, as well as in Al
Azhar in North Africa, Baghdad, and similar centers in Southwest Asia. These
educational Meccas pioneered the scientific method in their search primarily
for truth. They were copied by Europeans in their search primarily for power.
Both East and West now recognize the need for a reinforcing balance.

Crescent, as the first fully-fledged American Muslim university, will
encapsulate Islams twin focus on reason and revelation, scholarship and the
sublime, science and religion. In its cutting-edge under-graduate and
professional schools, Crescent will be the principal platform from which a new
generation of informed, forward-looking Islamic leadership will emerge to help
America meet the challenges of the modern world. By emphasizing the unique
epistemological synthesis of scientific exploration and human wisdom, of
secular knowledge and sacred understanding, of professional development and
moral rearmament, Crescent can revive the Islamic genius in intellectual
originality, scientific inquisitiveness, and technological leadership that
spawns vibrant civilization.

The entire curriculum of Crescent is infused with the total spectrum of secular
knowledge and spiritual learning, the timely and the timeless. Its graduate
schools in the humanities will excel in everything needed to produce a global
ethic by focusing on both personal and community responsibilities and on human
rights (collectively known as the maqasid al shariah) inherent in the
overarching Islamic paradigm of individual morality and economic and social
justice. This will lead to new frontiers in normative economics, political
governance, civic responsibility, and communal altruism, as well as personal
ethics. These, in turn, will produce an Islamic ethics and an Islamic ethos as
a model for the ongoing search in all the world religions.

Crescents bed-rock and all-embracing pluralism provides a haven for all
open-minded seekers of truth, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to engage in an
on-going process of interfaith dialogue, religio-cultural interaction, and
spiritual affirmation, in order to strengthen the pillars of all civilizations
in the structure of a global unity incorporating diversity, which is possible
today for the first time in human history

All the religions and denominations in America recognize that their faith and
future depend on faith-based education and they all have founded and are
maintaining universities that bring to bear their contributions to the mosaic
that is America and to the solution of its problems of conscience. Muslims can
do no less, particularly because Islam by its very nature is universal and
ecumenical and therefore is well-suited for leadership in bringing
non-sectarian faith-based wisdom into the public square. Islam, as developed
and applied in America, can and should be a principal force in completing the
American Revolution, or, as President Ronald Reagan put it, in launching the
Second American Revolution as a non-hegemonic model for the entire world. The
Muslim contribution to this task of civilizational renewal can best begin with
the founding of Crescent as a world-class American Muslim university dedicated
to this goal.

The teaching method or pedagogy of Crescent University customizes the
world-famous Oxford and Cambridge (Oxbridge) collegiate and tutorial system in
a residential community of scholars and students, with class sizes limited to
20 students. Crescent follows the Continental system of comprehensive
examinations at the end of the first two years and upon graduation, as well as
the system of external examiners to avoid the debilitating grade inflation that
is contaminating American academia.

The core curriculum is based on the great books of Western and Eastern
civilizations, building upon and enhancing the successful experiments at the
two St. Johns campuses and at Sarah Lawrence College. The great books at
Crescent include those of the Islamic civilization as part of the broader
Islamic, Christian, Jewish civilization, which can become the basis of a
pluralist and open world civilization of the future. For this purpose, student
body and faculty will include both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Study abroad, particularly in the professional schools, and mastery of at least
two Muslim languages, is encouraged. The Crescent law school, once activated by
the year 2010, will offer degrees in both American law and Islamic
jurisprudence and a unique advanced degree in comparative legal systems
designed to include both. This latter degree would require intensive study in
major Islamic universities of the Muslim world.

Crescent University is egalitarian, enlightened, and co-educational. Women will
play crucial roles not only in the student body but in the faculty and in the
administration of the university. Crescent restores the Islamic ordinances of
gender equity, while respecting, for example, the wisdom of single sex
dormitories.

Down-stream projects include a university academic press, convention center,
teaching hospital, think-tanks, and an adjacent research complex and business
park.

The first of Crescents family of associated research associations is the
Center for Understanding Islam, which was founded in the Fall of 2001 as a
clearing house for both popular and scholarly answers to key current questions
about the teachings of Islam. Its website is www.cuii.org. The Centers purpose
is to help Muslims offer a common framework for explaining the wisdom of Islam
in the contemporary world. The larger purpose, as given in its publication,
Islam: Short Answers to Key Current Questions, March 2002, 23 pages, is to
cooperate with concerned persons of all faiths in developing a global ethic as
guidance for addressing all issues of conscience in both domestic and foreign
policy. This Center for Understanding Islam is not a think-tank in the common
sense of the term, because it carefully does not address specific policies of
any government or even recommend a specific agenda for public policy.

Crescent University and its associated organizations are committed to its twin
focus on reason and revelation, science and religion, scholarship and the
sublime. Its five operating principles are: 1) erudition and excellence; 2)
ecumenism; 3) egalitarianism; 4) environment; and 5) enlightenment. Together
these are the keys to success for a modern world-class university.


Conclusion


The best-case scenario for the future of the Holy Land envisages the revival
of both spiritual and intellectual jihad, designed to address issues of
conscience in both domestic and foreign policy by focusing on causes rather
than merely on effects. It focuses on the inner rather than the outer, on the
spiritual dynamics of change rather than merely on their result in current
events. The grand strategy of Islam therefore relies on spiritual and
intellectual jihad, the jihad al akbar and the jihad al kabir, rather than on
the jihad al saghrir or lesser jihad of employing physical force. It focuses on
the power of paradigms and ideas in shaping human affairs in the hope and
prayer that peace through justice and global unity is a paradigm whose time has
come.







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/hjtSRD/3Mn...hLAA/TXWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

All views expressed herein belong to the individuals concerned and do not in
any way reflect the official views of Hidayahnet unless sanctioned or approved
otherwise.

If your mailbox clogged with mails from Hidayahnet, you may wish to get a daily
digest of emails by logging-on to http://www.yahoogroups.com to change your
mail delivery settings or email the moderators at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
title "change to daily digest".
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hidayahnet/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




&lt;img&gt;

  • Bismillah [hidayahnet] SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL JIHAD cahaya malam


:w:
Reply

Uthman
05-31-2005, 08:06 PM
:sl:

Good info! And looooooooods of it! :)

:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-31-2005, 09:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
:sl:

Good info! And looooooooods of it! :)

:w:
:sl:

:D More is on its way soon enough Insha-Allah . . . :p

:w:
Reply

أحمد
05-31-2005, 11:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddi
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:D A hadith may be fabricated in one book or chapter of a book, and yet in another; it may be authentic. The question of authenticity; we go to Ali (as); the cousin of the Prophet (saw). He said that there are 3 steps to ahadith authenticiation, from which even one being flawed fabricates the hadith.



  1. :thumbs_upSanad: Channel (chain) of narration; through whom is the narration narrated, and can they be trusted.
  2. :thumbs_upLuqa: Quranic compatibility with the hadith; the Prophet (saw) NEVER spoke against the Quran.
  3. :thumbs_upTa`weel ul-Athr / Ta`weel fil-Iman: meaning of the transmitted statement, and its effects on Iman.

:) I will Insha-Allah elaborate on this in the near future, if necessary. :p So please do ask if you want it explained Insha-Allah . . .

:w:
I am under the impression that you explained this in another forum in details anyway so I'll look for a link to put here inshallah
:w:
:sl:

:shade: The question of authenticity is more to do with how than what; as you need to know how you can trust the narrator to be telling the truth. How can you trust the narrator to remember a statement with such accuracy. How well does it conform to the laws of Islamic Aqeedah (Quran). How does it affect your Iman and Taqwah.

:) I look forward to the links by :brother: Eddi . . . Insha-Allah . . .

:w:
Reply

Eddi
06-02-2005, 10:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:shade: The question of authenticity is more to do with how than what; as you need to know how you can trust the narrator to be telling the truth. How can you trust the narrator to remember a statement with such accuracy. How well does it conform to the laws of Islamic Aqeedah (Quran). How does it affect your Iman and Taqwah.

:) I look forward to the links by :brother: Eddi . . . Insha-Allah . . .

:w:
:sl:

:zip: Allah knows best. I haven't found any links to post.

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-02-2005, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddi
:sl:

:zip: Allah knows best. I haven't found any links to post.

:w:
:sl:

:D There's no time limit . . . but its good to get them here quick . . .

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-04-2005, 07:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddi
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:D A hadith may be fabricated in one book or chapter of a book, and yet in another; it may be authentic. The question of authenticity; we go to Ali (as); the cousin of the Prophet (saw). He said that there are 3 steps to ahadith authenticiation, from which even one being flawed fabricates the hadith.

  1. :thumbs_upSanad: Channel (chain) of narration; through whom is the narration narrated, and can they be trusted.
  2. :thumbs_upLuqa: Quranic compatibility with the hadith; the Prophet (saw) NEVER spoke against the Quran.
  3. :thumbs_upTa`weel ul-Athr / Ta`weel fil-Iman: meaning of the transmitted statement, and its effects on Iman.
:) I will Insha-Allah elaborate on this in the near future, if necessary. :p So please do ask if you want it explained Insha-Allah . . .

:w:
I am under the impression that you explained this in another forum in details anyway so I'll look for a link to put here inshallah
:w:
:sl:

:shade: The question of authenticity is more to do with how than what; as you need to know how you can trust the narrator to be telling the truth. How can you trust the narrator to remember a statement with such accuracy. How well does it conform to the laws of Islamic Aqeedah (Quran). How does it affect your Iman and Taqwah.

:) I look forward to the links by :brother: Eddi . . . Insha-Allah . . .

:w:
:sl:

:D The 3 steps I mentioned are not very difficult to carry out; once one has knowledge of Islamic History; and they can work out who existed when and who can be trusted to remember and narrate a narration. :shade: Also one must be certain that the narration doesn't contradict the Quran, nor does it cause doubts and confusion in Iman . . .

:w:
Reply

Uthman
06-04-2005, 07:23 PM
:sl:

It isn't confusing but ...... I'll just go pop down to the shops and buy some knowledge of islamic history. :brother:

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-04-2005, 07:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
:sl:

It isn't confusing but ...... I'll just go pop down to the shops and buy some knowledge of islamic history. :brother:

:w:
:sl:

:D Alternatively; you can learn Arabic, and I'll email you enough Islamic Literature to last a lifetime Insha-Allah . . . And it won't cost a penny . . .

:w:
Reply

Uthman
06-05-2005, 11:08 AM
:sl:

Yes, please! :)

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-06-2005, 09:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
:sl:

Yes, please! :)

:w:
:sl:

:) Send me email Insha-Allah, when you've learnt Arabic, In the meantime you can download free ebooks (executable application books) from www.divineislam.com and www.islamasoft.co.uk . . .

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-07-2005, 02:45 PM
:sl:

:D Also On Islam and Jihad please read . . . :p

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-08-2005, 09:36 AM
:sl:

:D Read about Jihad . . . :p

:w:
Reply

khal_75
06-08-2005, 04:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:D Read about Jihad . . . :p

:w:
:sl: v.impotant topic. not many undrstnd jihad theez dayz :w:
Reply

أحمد
06-09-2005, 10:47 AM
:sl:

:D More on Jihad . . .

Looking through the news today, one finds many references to an alleged "Jihad against the West." A Libyan was convicted for the Lockerbie bombing; bin Laden's alleged co-conspirators are on trial in Manhattan. Do these cases represent the true meaning of Jihad in Islam? The evidence from the Qur'an and the practices of the Prophet Muhammad provide the answer: a resounding "no."

Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to "enjoin good and forbid evil" (9:112). The word Jihad stems from the Arabic root word J-H-D, which means "strive." Other words derived from this root include "effort," "labor," and "fatigue." Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in fighting the evil in your own heart, or in standing up to a dictator. Military effort is included as an option, but as a last resort and not "to spread Islam by the sword" as the stereotype would have you believe.

The Qur'an describes Jihad as a system of checks and balances, as a way that Allah set up to "check one people by means of another." When one person or group transgresses their limits and violates the rights of others, Muslims have the right and the duty to "check" them and bring them back into line. There are several verses of the Qur'an that describe jihad in this manner. Among them:

"And did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief; but Allah is full of Bounty to all the worlds" (2:251).

Islam never tolerates unprovoked aggression from its own side; Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an not to begin hostilities, embark on any act of aggression, violate the rights of others, or harm the innocent. Even hurting or destroying animals or trees is forbidden. War is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193). Therefore, if non-Muslims are peaceful or indifferent to Islam, there is no justified reason to declare war on them.

The Qur'an describes those people who are permitted to fight:

"They are those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, for no cause except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah.' Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure..." (22:40).

Note that the verse specifically commands the protection of all houses of worship. Finally, the Qur'an also says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam is an idea that is foreign to Islam in spirit and in historical practice. There is absolutely no question of waging a "holy war" to "spread the faith" and compel people to embrace Islam; that would be an unholy war and the people's forced conversions would not be sincere.

However, we all must "strive" for the freedom to choose and practice our own faith, free from persecution and oppression.


:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-09-2005, 04:14 PM
:sl:

:D Jihad article: http://www.---------------/muhammed/jihad.html Please read . . . :shade:

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-11-2005, 10:34 AM
:sl:

:D Another article on Jihad:

:p Greater Jihad: Imam Ruhullah al Musawi al Khumayni
al-Tawhid. The Greater Jihad. Imam Ruhullah al Musawi al Khumayni - qudisa sirruh. Translated from the Persian by. Dr. Muhammad Legenhausen &amp; 'Azim Sarvdalir. In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate ... al- akbar (Knowledge is the greatest veil). Therefore, the vice of a corrupt 'alim is greater and more dangerous for Islam ...

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-13-2005, 12:40 PM
:sl:

:D More coming very soon . . . :p Insha-Allah . . . ;)

:shade: As for now; Do you wish to have a look through all these results I found on look.com for Jihad al-Akbar in Islam?

:w:
Reply

khal_75
06-13-2005, 01:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:D More coming very soon . . . :p Insha-Allah . . . ;)

:shade: As for now; Do you wish to have a look through all these results I found on look.com for Jihad al-Akbar in Islam?

:w:
:sl: i found dis articl What Does Jihad Mean on http://www.look.com/clicktrack/track...akbar+in+islam :w:
Reply

أحمد
06-13-2005, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by khal_75
:sl: i found dis articl What Does Jihad Mean on http://www.look.com/clicktrack/track...akbar+in+islam :w:
:sl:

:D Maa-Shaa-Allah . . . :shade: Another very good article . . . :thumbs_up Keep up the good work Insha-Allah . . . :p

:w:
Reply

أحمد
06-29-2005, 09:35 PM
:sl:

:D I've put quite alot of stuff together into one more user friendly page in my website please refer to Jihad al-Akbar . . . :p

:w:
Reply

☆ღUmm Uthmanღ☆
09-23-2005, 06:52 PM
Assalaamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Reply

ghetto_mujahida
09-25-2005, 02:47 AM
mashallah that was a niice explanation...it was always hard for me to put it in words but...u did it
Reply

Noor
09-25-2005, 03:39 AM
:sl:

Funny how when I read the title of this thread I thought it was a shia technique of coming closer to Allah. But Alhamdulilah, we are discussing the struggle in which all souls go through.

Maybe you should rename the title to " Give yourselves a Good Spiritually Beating"

So far, really nice post coming through...MashAllah

May Allah makes us victorious in enjoining what is right and forbiding what is wrong....Ameen

:w:
Reply

أحمد
10-04-2005, 02:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noor
:sl:

Funny how when I read the title of this thread I thought it was a shia technique of coming closer to Allah. But Alhamdulilah, we are discussing the struggle in which all souls go through.

Maybe you should rename the title to " Give yourselves a Good Spiritually Beating"

So far, really nice post coming through...MashAllah

May Allah makes us victorious in enjoining what is right and forbiding what is wrong....Ameen

:w:
:sl:

:) For more information on the topic, please FEEL FREE to visit my website; Jihad Page (http://www.freewebs.com/esiraat/jihadalakbar.htm) Insha-Allah . . .

:w:
Reply

Uthman
10-04-2005, 05:47 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
FEEL FREE
Pun intended? :brother: Nice to see you back brother!

:w:

Reply

Fatimab
10-12-2005, 10:42 AM
jazaka allah
Reply

Fatimab
10-12-2005, 10:42 AM
:):):) smile is charity
Reply

أحمد
11-07-2005, 04:42 PM
:sl:

:blind: A very common misconception, you come across nowadays is about "Islamic Violence and Extremism" as well as many others. :skeleton: Jihad is pictured as sword and blood; even by many Muslims. One must be very careful when speaking about Jihad, as what is seen by the "standard definition" is not actually Jihad. Ud'uoo ilallahi Jamee'an li-ummatil-Muslimeen . . . :thankyou:

:w:
Reply

- Qatada -
11-15-2005, 11:02 PM
Greater And Lesser Jihad

Greater and 'Lesser' Jihad?
By Abu Khubayb and Abu Zubayr


THE SLANDERED JIHAD

Among the erroneous notions aimed at stifling the spirit of Jihad in this Ummah is the idea of 'greater' and 'lesser' Jihads. According to this belief, striving against desires of the self is considered the Greater Jihad, which makes the Jihad of the battlefield the Lesser Jihad. This idea is based upon a story mentioned by al Khatib al Baghdadi in his book, "The History of Baghdad", by way of Yahya ibn al 'Ala', who said;


"We were told by Layth, on the authority of 'Ata', on the authority of Abu Rabah, on the authority of Jabir, who said, 'The Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, 'You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad - the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires.''"


This concept, despite the fact that it is based on a hadeeth, can be refuted from several aspects, of which we shall mention the following.


Firstly:


This hadeeth cannot be used to establish proof, for Al Bayhaqi has said regarding it, "Its chain of narration is weak. (Da'eef)", Al Suyuti also pronounced a verdict of weakness on it in his book, "Al Jam'i al Saghir".


Somebody might claim that da'eef (weak) Ahadeeth can be accepted in matters of supererogatory virtuous deeds. This is unacceptable, for we do not believe that Jihad can be a supererogatory deed. Indeed, how can it be so when the Messenger of Allah (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) has said that the asceticism of his Ummah lies in Jihad?


Furthermore, anybody who follows up on Yahya ibn al 'Ala', the narrator of the hadeeth, will find in his biography things which will make him forsake the man's Ahadeeth. Ibn Hajar al 'Asqalani said about him in "Al-Taqrib",

"He was accused of forging Ahadeeth."

Al Dhahabi said in "Al-Mizan",

"Abu Hatim said that he is not a strong narrator, Ibn Mu'in classified him as weak, al Daraqutni said that he is to be neglected, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that he is a liar and a forger of Ahadeeth."


Secondly:

This hadeeth explicitly contradicts clear verses of the Qur'an. Allah the Mighty, the Majestic, says, (Translation of the Meaning),


"Those believers who sit back are not equal to those who perform Jihad in the Path of Allah with their wealth and their selves. Allah has favored those who perform Jihad with their wealth and their selves by degrees over those who sit back. To both (groups) has Allah promised good, but Allah has favored the mujahideen with a great reward, by ranks from Him, and with Forgiveness, over those who sit back. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Merciful." Qur'an [4:95-96]


Thirdly:

This hadeeth contradicts mutawatir (mass-narrated) Ahadeeth which have been reported from the Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam), and which make plain the excellence of Jihad. We will mention a few of these.

"A morning or an evening spent in the Path of Allah is better than the world and all it contains."
[Bukhari and Muslim]


"Standing for an hour in the ranks of battle in the Path of Allah is better than standing for sixty years (in prayer)." [Sahih al- Jami']


Abu Hurayrah (radiallaahu 'anhu) said,

"Is any of you able to stand in prayer without stopping, and to fast continuously for as long as he lives?" The people said, "Oh Abu Hurayrah! Who could endure that?" He said, "By Allah! A day of a mujahid in the Path of Allah is better than that."


The claim of those who say that the 'struggle against the self' is the Greater Jihad because the individual is put to test by day and by night, may be refuted by the following hadeeth:


On the authority of Rashid, on the authority of Sa'd (radiallaahu 'anhu), on the authority of one of the Companions, that a man said, "Oh Messenger of Allah! Why is it that the believers are all put to trial in their graves, except for the martyrs?" He (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) said, "The clashing of swords above his head was sufficient trial for him." [Sahih al-Jam'i]



Fourthly:


This erroneous and slanderous notion involves injustice and wrong to the status of the Mujahideen. Allah (Ta'aala) has ordered us to practice justice in our verdicts, saying, (Translation of the Meaning),


"Be just, it is closer to piety; and fear Allah. Allah is aware of what you do." Qur'an [5:8]


Is it any part of justice and fair treatment for us to say that our brethren in the land of attention and battle are in a lesser Jihad when the mines are exploding beneath their feet, with the result that their bodies fly into the air, and their limbs and blood are scattered all over, to the extent that their pure corpses cannot be contained in a grave?


And that is for the sake of Allah, and if He wills, He may bless the limbs of a body torn to pieces.


Were these youths in a lesser Jihad, while our fasting, and breaking our fasts on the most delicious of food are then a greater Jihad?


By Allah! This is an unequal measure, and if you were to put the matter before the most knowledgeable people on earth, they would never arrive at such a disparate verdict.



Fifthly:



The Egyptian, Dr. Muhammad Amin says, in his book, "The Path of Islamic Propagation",


"Jihad of the self and Jihad by wealth, if they do not lead one to establish the Call of Truth, and to stand beside it, enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong, and contributing one's life and wealth in the Path of Allah, are deficient Jihads containing inadequacy. It is astonishing that the hour of testing and of severity, in which the feet are shaken and the heart reaches the throat, can be called the Hour of the Lesser Jihad, while the hours of safety and comfort in secure homes, in the midst of one's family and friends, can be called hours of the Greater Jihad! In the like of such appellations do the holders-back rejoice in their sitting behind from obeying the Messenger of Allah (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) and his Companions (radiallaahu 'anhum)? Such people find contentment and comfort in this way, while in reality they only deceive their weak souls, for the true values of the deeds are entirely the opposite."


Finally, we conclude with some verses which were sent by the mujahid scholar 'Abdullaah ibn al Mubarak, from the land of Jihad to his friend Al Fudayl ibn 'Iyad, who used to preach to the rulers and make them cry, yet did not seek any payment, being a sincere worshipper.


Oh worshipper in the Two Sanctuaries, if you could only behold us, You would see that you, in your devotions, are only playing. If you are one whose cheek is tinged with his tears, Then our chests are dyed with our blood.


The Pretended Jihad

Some people may be astonished when they hear a person describing Jihad in person as a lesser Jihad, or who deems fighting in the Path of Allah (Ta'aala) little in comparison to other acts of devotion. However, if we pursue the lives of these people, look at their histories and investigate the reason for their confusion regarding the matter, we will find that the explanation for their stance is simple. These are the people who people undervalue Jihad and give priority to studying in universities, writing in magazines, and giving speeches in conferences over fighting and being martyred. By examining their lives, one will find a common denominator, which brings them together in deficiency and unites them in their viewpoint.


The common denominator among the feeble and those who hold back from Jihad (the people of theories and concepts) is that they have not participated in Jihad. The opportunity has not presented itself to these people (by the Will of Allah Ta'aala), nor have they had the good fortune to join a camp of mujahideen. In such a camp there is a lack of luxuries and a scarcity of necessities which would make them feel the difference between a day in the camp and a similar day in the university with its food, entertainment, and air-conditioned class rooms.


How can these people recognize the true value of Jihad when they have not participated in the regiments of war nor entered into the arenas of tumult?


If a man plunges into a single battle, it will be sufficient to correct all his misconceptions. The mujahid, in only a few hours, may see things whose horror would make children gray haired: bombs and splinters sweeping away the souls of the most beloved of his Brethren who shared with him his traveling, training, ribaat (guarding the front line), and Jihad. What will be the situation of these people when the rockets and shells are exploding over their heads and beneath their feet? How will it be when they see with their very own eyes the scattering of arms, legs and intestines so that a healthy body with well-proportioned limbs will become handicapped, dismembered, or paralyzed?


This then is the underlying reason for the confusion on the part of those who underrate Jihad.

In a few hours or days, the mujahid sees, with his own eyes, such hardships, trials, and tribulations, as others do not see in decades. It will be impossible for anyone who engages in this experience of Jihad to equate physical Jihad with other pacifistic means of Da'wah. Therefore, anyone who disputes with the mujahid in the issue of Jihad or who calls people to abandon fighting should join a camp, even if only as a servant. Or he should participate in a battle even if only as a cook. Then after that, we will see if, in his opinion, the pen is equal to the Kalashnikov.


Greater and 'Lesser' Jihad?
Refutation of a Common Misconception



It has been said that the opinion of many Muslims regarding Jihad is that it is of two sorts, namely, Jihad Akbar (greater) and Jihad Asghar (lesser). Jihad Akbar meaning Jihad against the desires and Shaitaan whilst Jihad Asghar is against the disbelievers on the battlefield.

The reasons given for the above, in regards to Jihad against the desires and Shaitaan as being Jihad Akbar, are as follows:


Its field of struggle is unlimited;
It is timeless and boundless;
This struggle is hard because its essence is man against himself;
The enemy is unseen and cannot be detected by the five senses.
Whilst the case given for Jihad against the disbelievers is not as long, not as extensive and not as difficult as struggling against the desires. As a result of that, Jihad against the disbelievers on the battlefield is regarded as Jihad Asghar (the smaller or lesser Jihad). That therefore is the opinion of many Muslims.


The classification of Jihad, such as that given above, is based upon a Hadith which states that at the time the Messenger of Allaah sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam, may Allaah subhanahu wa ta'aalas peace and blessings be upon him returned home from the field of warfare he said: "We have all returned from Jihad Asghar to Jihad Akbar." Some companions asked: "What is Jihad Akbar Rasulullaah?" He replied: "Jihad against the desires." That therefore is the proof for the case proposed by many people.


(Al-Haafith) Al 'Iraqy in Takhriju AHadithil Ihya' states: "The mentioned Hadith is related by Imam Baihaqi with a da'if Sanad (weak chain of narrators) from Jabir" [Risalah Jihad, Hasan al-Banna].


Apart from the Hadith related by Imam Baihaqi there is also a Hadith related by Al-Khatib Al-Baghadadi from Jabir, which states: "the Prophet , at the time he returned from a battle said: 'We have all just returned to the best of places, and you have returned from Jihad Asghar (the lesser Jihad) to strive in Jihad Akbar (the greater Jihad)'. The companions asked: 'What is Jihad Akbar O Messenger of Allaah?' He answered: 'The Jihad of someone against his desires'." [Tarikh al Baghadadi 13/493]


It turns out that this Hadith is weak because within its Sanad there is a narrator by the name of Khalaf bin Muhammad bin Ismail al Khiyam who according to Al-Hakim: "His Hadiths are unreliable." And Abu Ya'la al Khalili says: "He often adulterates, is very weak and narrates unknown Hadith." [Mashariul 'Ashwaq ila Masuril 'Ushshaq 1/31] Al-Hakim and Ibnu Abi Zur'ah state: "We often write statements from Khalaf bin Muhammad bin Ismail only as an example, and we remove ourselves of responsibility from him." [Mizanul I'tidal 1/662]


False


And even more doubtful than that, there is within the Sanad of this Hadith a narrator by the name of Yahya bin Al Ula Al Bajili who according to Imam Ahmad is a known Kadhdhaab -liar-, and forger of Hadith. Also, Amru bin Ali, An Nasai and Daruqutni state: "His Hadith are renounced." Ibnu Adi states: "His Hadith are false." [Refer: Tahdhibut Tahdhib 11/261-262]


Ibn Taimiyyah states: "There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet said after the battle of Tabuk: 'We have returned from Jihad Asghar to Jihad Akbar'. This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind." [Refer: Al Furqan baina Auliyair Rahman wa Auliyaisy Shaitaan, matter 44-45].


Furthermore, besides the two stated weak Hadiths, there is the statement of a Tabi'i (student of the Companions of the Prophet) by the name of Ibrahim bin Abi Ablah to people who had returned from battle, which states: "You have returned from Jihad Asghar so is the Jihad Akbar you intend to do Jihad ul qalbi (Jihad of the heart)?" Refer: Siyaru A'laamin Nubala 6/325] Daruqutni states that Ibrahim bin Abi Ablah himself is believable but the chain of transmission is broken. [Siyaru A'laamin Nubala 6/324].


As a result of that, the statement above cannot be attributed to Ibrahim bin Abi Ablah unless the chain of transmission is authentic. And were we to establish that his statement is really valid, we must understand that he was a normal human being who may have occasionally said something imperfect. He was not infallible.


The Highest Level


On the basis of the above statements we can conclude by saying, that the evidence used as proof or the basis for establishing that Jihad against disbelievers on the battlefield is Jihad Asghar and Jihad against the desires and Shaitaan is Jihad Akbar, are weak if not false Hadith. Besides that the stated Daliil (evidence) are in opposition to Sahih Hadith, such as the ones below:


Hadith narrated by Imam Muslim [Hadith No. 4636] from Abu Hurairah (r.a.a), who said: The Prophet was asked: "O Rasulullaah! sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam. What deed could be an equivalent of Jihad in the path of Allaah?" He answered: "You do not have the strength to do that deed." The narrator said: They repeated the question twice or thrice. Every time he answered: "You do not have the strength to do it." When the question was asked for the third time, he said: "One who goes out for Jihad is like a person who keeps fasts, stands in prayer (constantly), (obeying) Allah's (behests contained in) the Aayah (of the Qur'an), and does not exhibit any lassitude in fasting and praying until the Mujahid returns from Jihad in the path of Allaah."


There is also a Hadith narrated by Bukhari [Volume 4, Hadith 44] from Abu hurairah (r.a.a) , who said: A man came to Allah's Messenger (s.a.w) and said, "Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Mujahid has gone for Jihad, enter your mosque to perform Salat without cease and observe Saum without breaking it?" The man said, "But who can do that?".


Hadith narrated by Al-Hakim with a Sahih Sanad from Muaz bin Anas (r.a.a) who said: A woman once came to the Prophet and asked: "O Rasulullaah sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam! My husband has departed for war and usually if he prays I follow him in his Salat and I follow him in all his acts of worship. Because of that inform me of an act which can equal his until he returns." He said to her: "Are you able to stand without sitting, perform Saum without breaking it and Dhikr until your husband returns?" She replied: "I am not strong enough, o Rasulullaah." So he said to her: "By Allaah in whose hand I am, even if you were strong enough it would surely not attain one tenth of your husbands deeds." [Narrated by Hakim in Al Mustadrak 2/73. Sahih Sanad agreed upon by Az Zahabi].


From the three Hadith above we can clearly state that Jihad Fi Sabilillaah (in ther path of Allaah) is the highest act, and there is no other act to equal it. Is it likely that an act described as the highest act would be labeled Jihad Asghar, the small Jihad or the lesser Jihad?


Not War


Possibly there are people who maintain that the meaning of Jihad in the Hadith narrated by Bukhari and Muslim does not mean war or not exactly war. Perhaps there are those who are of that opinion.


As strong proof that the word Jihad in the above mentioned Hadith cannot mean anything else except war, there is the Hadith narrated by Al-Hakim earlier. Within that Hadith are the words: "My husband has departed for war..." It is impossible for the word Ghaaziyan in the above Hadith to mean anything except war, no matter which way it is analysed. Also it is impossible that it would be Ghazwatul Fikri (war of the mind).


A man asked Rasulullaah sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam : "..and what is Jihad?" He replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood." [Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad 4/114 - Hadith sahih. Al Haithami states: "Narrators upheld it." Majmauz Zawaid 1/59].


Thus, from the Hadith of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim earlier we can clearly see that the one who is called Mujahid Fi Sabilillaah is that person who maintains prayers and fasting without a break, as well as reads the Qur'an for the time that the Mujahid are on Jihad.


Is there a person capable of doing this? Of course not, as explained by Rasulullaah. And supposing there was a person who is capable of maintaining 'Mujahadatun Nafsi '(Jihad against the desires) in the hardest and most difficult way. Indeed the activities of the body during Salat (prayer) and the reading of the Quraan embrace external acts, not acts of the heart, not intrinsic acts. But what if, at the time of these external acts, the heart isn't against the desires? It is impossible for someone to be able to truthfully perform this without being against their desires, never mind taking into account the performance of Salat, Saum and the reading of the Qur'an continuously.


Because of that, we see that in Imam Nawawi's Book of Jihad, there are Hadith concerning external as well as internal acts of Sunnah such as, Salat at night which embraces brushing off laziness, standing, bowing and prostrating for a long time; and other acts including fighting until wounded and dying as a martyr. [Riyadh us Salihiin, Book of Jihad].


So if perhaps there is a person capable of performing Mujahadatun Nafsi , that is at the highest level - Salat, Saum and reading the Qur'an non-stop for as long as some other person goes to war and until he returns- then he is equal to the Mujahid. Is anyone capable of that? Are there not people called Mujahid who go on Jihad Fi Sabilillaah for months, even years?


Is it proper or right therefore to maintain that Mujahadatun Nafsi away from the battlefield is 'Al Jihadul Akbar' whilst Jihad against the disbelievers is called 'Al Jihadul Asghar'?


Inner And Outer Enemies


Within Mujahadatun Nafsi away from the battlefield, those who follow this are only faced with one enemy, namely, the unseen enemy: desire and Shaitaan. Whereas in Jihad Fi Sabilillaah, Jihad is waged against enemies on the battlefield, those who follow this are faced with more than one enemy, namely, the unseen enemy and the seen enemy: the disbelievers and the Munafiquun (hypocrites).


It is not only the disbelievers that the Mujahid must contend against on the battlefield but he must fight against his desires which always call him towards evil. His desires can call on him in various ways to desert the field of battle such as by fear, doubt, hardship and sadness.


The Mujahid continuously fights with his desires which always yearn to be fulfilled. Yet he only faces being far away from his wife and children, eating strange food, sleeping on the ground instead of in his bed, and many other trials which are not in accordance with his desires.


Allaah Says: "Jihad is ordained for you though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know." (2:216) Thus there is the question of Shaitaan, who always fights against those who perform Jihad. And at times such as these, Shaitaan firmly establishes himself together with his friends, namely, the disbelievers: "Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taaghoot. So fight you against the friends of Shaitaan; ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitaan."


And the way in which Shaitaan fights against the Mujahid is amongst others by inflaming the passions of the disbelievers and the Mushrikuun to fight against the Muslims, and by weakening the resolve of the Muslims or Mujahid so that they feel reluctant and scared to fight against the disbelievers: "And (remember) when Shaitaan made their (evil) deeds seem fair to them and said, "No one of mankind can overcome you this Day and verily, I am your neighbour..."


Ibnu Abbas (r.a.a) stated: "In the battle of Badr, Iblis came and carried their banner together with the army and group of Shaitaan. He came in the form of a man from the Bani Mudlaj by the name of Suraqah bin Malik bin Ju'shum, and said to the Mushrikuun: "None of mankind is able to defeat you this day, and I am your protector."


So at the time those men assembled, Rasulullaah sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam gathered a handful of dust and threw it into the faces of the Mushrikuun which forced them to retreat. When Jibra'il came, Iblis saw him and released his grip on the Mushrikuun and ran away together with his followers. Those who had been in his grip called out: "O Suraqah! You agreed to protect us." Iblis answered: "Indeed I see what you do not see and I am scared of Allah, and Allah is hard in His punishment." [Hadith mauqaf narrated by Ibnu Jarir at Tabari].


Furthermore, the way in which Shaitaan weakens the resolve of those who perform Jihad can be found in a Hadith narrated by Imam Ahmad: Sabrah bin Al Faqih states: I heard Rasulullaah (sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam) say: "Indeed Shaitaan waits to deter mankind.....so Shaitaan waits in the way of Jihad. He says to the person who intends Jihad: "Do you want to perform Jihad, when Jihad destroys the soul and finishes off your wealth? Do you want to fight, when you can be killed, your wife can remarry and your wealth divided?"... [Musnad Ahmad 3/483. Isnad hasan].


Based on the above explanations, we can surmise that the strength of desire and that of Shaitaan to be fought against in the field of Jihad by the Mujahid is far superior and more aggressive than that faced by those outside the field of Jihad.


In other words: Mujahadatun Nafsi in the field of Jihad is much harder than Mujahadatun Nafsi in some other place. So is it more appropriate that Jihad against the disbelievers, which in its essence cannot be separated from Mujahadatun Nafsi, be regarded as Jihad Asghar whilst Mujahadatun Nafsi outside the field of Jihad, were the enemy is only the unseen, be regarded as Jihad Akbar?


Abu Hurairah narrated: "A companion passed by a valley wherein was a well with refreshing water which surprised him. After he said: 'Supposing I removed myself from the company of people and I lived in this place (for the purpose of 'ibaadah) but I couldn't do that until I received permission from Rasulullaah (sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam). Would that be the most eminent thing to do towards Rasulullaah (sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam)?' The Prophet (sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam) said: 'Don't do that, because the existence of one from amongst you Fi Sabilillaah is more eminent than Salat made at home for 70 years. Don't you want to receive forgiveness from Allah and for Him to allow you into Jannah? Ughzuu Fii Sabiilillaah (war in the way of Allah), whoever fights in the way of Allah for as long as it takes a camel to recover from one milking to the next, surely Jannah is obligatory for him." [Narrated by Tirmidhi and he said: Hadith hasan, Baihaqi and Al-Hakim said: Sahih according to Muslim's methods].


In the last Hadith there is a very clear authoritative quotation which abrogates the supposition of those people concerning Jihad Akbar. Because indeed the Sahabah who related this Hadith asked permission from Rasulullaah (sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam) in order to perform Jihad against the desires by distancing himself from other people but the Prophet (sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam) did not give him permission to do so and moreover forbade him and pointed out to him something far more eminent than that.


Then in that Hadith also there exists an important point which should be received and noticed, namely: "In truth, the Mujahid Fi Sabilillaah is included amongst those who receive glad tidings about Jannah whether they are killed or not killed, because of what our beloved Prophet Muhammad sal Allaahu alayhi wasalam said: "Whoever fights Fi Sabilillaah even for a brief time (the time between the two milkings of a camel) Jannah is assured for them."


With all of these explanations it proves that to interpret Jihad Akbar as being the Jihad against desire and Shaitaan, whilst Jihad Asghar is the Jihad against the disbelievers is invalid, since by saying otherwise it invalidates the meaning of the Sanad of those Hadith which invalidate it.


Wa Allaahu a'alam (And Allaah subhanahu wa ta'aala knows best).


A Final point i just want to point out is that jihad fi sabilillah (in the way of Allaah subhanahu wa ta'aala) is to end oppression and injustice in the world. The killing of any innocent human is totally against islam and if one did it on purpose;


For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. (5:33)


therefore islam does not approve of killing of innocent people in any way, except those who wage war against islam in the first place.


..and Allaah the Most Beneficial is the Source of all Strength.



wasalam o 'alykum warahmatulahi wabarakatuh.
Reply

khal_75
12-16-2005, 11:34 AM
:sl: keep up da gud wrk inshalla :w:
Reply

أحمد
03-01-2006, 04:17 PM
:sl:

:) It is a simple truth that Islam is a complete way of life, Hablillah is made of two parts; Kitaballahi wa Sunnata Nabiyyihi, so as long as one is to abide by hablillah, then Insha-Allah, there will be no grief nor worry.

:w:
Reply

أحمد
07-06-2006, 12:42 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:) It is a simple truth that Islam is a complete way of life, Hablillah is made of two parts; Kitaballahi wa Sunnata Nabiyyihi, so as long as one is to abide by hablillah, then Insha-Allah, there will be no grief nor worry.
:) Please refer to Mu`atta Imam Malik, Kitabul-Qadr (46), Hadeeth Number 3.

:w:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 09:33 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-20-2011, 06:58 PM
  3. Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-23-2009, 11:56 AM
  4. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-03-2006, 11:40 AM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-23-2005, 07:04 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!