What is Jihad?

[Samudra]

Nobody is making an argument against the existence of God - I'm only against the way mankind continues to see God. There is no God that creates, punishes and rewards.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I see no problem with a God that "creates, punishes and rewards" - I only see a problem with a God that delegates those responsibilities to humans.

 

[MIG_ACE]

A couple of semesters worth of philosophy classes have allowed me to rebut every argument in favor of God's existence - I am not saying he doesn't exist, but that conclusive arguments in favor of his existence cannot be made - but I disagree with atheism, the vocal kind, because to me it is distastefully similar to pushy proselytizing.

Life cannot purely be about logic, reason and 2+2 =4 (which Descarte would disagree with anyway), it is the presence of faith that provides a certain trust and comfort for millions when confronted with despair. Illogical some would say, but who are we to take away that which provides succor to so many?

The alternative to faith in despair is what? To believe that ones misery and sorrow in life are the only truth, that there will be no redemption, no accounting for those responsible. I choose to respect those that do have faith, because to not do so would be akin to ripping a child from the arms of the mother it loves.

AM,
I would suggest reading the book "The God Delusion" written by Richard Dawkins. I believe it will answer the questions you posed above. I used to be an Agnostic like you before I read the book. No longer. I am an Atheist now. But don't let that stop you from reading it. Richard Dawkins in my opinion puts forth his arguments in an very objective and scientific manner.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,
I would suggest reading the book "The God Delusion" written by Richard Dawkins. I believe it will answer the questions you posed above. I used to be an Agnostic like you before I read the book. No longer. I am an Atheist now. But don't let that stop you from reading it. Richard Dawkins in my opinion puts forth his arguments in an very objective and scientific manner.

Thank you for the recommendation Mig, but I am simply not interested in "debunking religion". Dawkins does not really raise any new arguments, and I have been through them all, and I agree - that there is no "evidence" in favor of "God". I also do not disagree with his assertion that "Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." - but so can, and are, millions of people who do believe in religion.

We tend to malign faith in religion and God, as being "intolerant" and "backward", but are we not basing that opinion on the actions of a few? Wouldn't you agree that, in its unadulterated form, almost every religion commands respect, equality and tolerance for all people?

Even if you look at "intolerance" due to religion, Richard Dawkins himself exudes that trait by suggesting that "belief in a god qualifies as a delusion", and subscribing to views such as "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.".

As some of the arguments against his premises indicate, his assertion that only religion produces intolerance is belied by the fact that atheists in the USSR and China have murdered millions and committed horrendous abuses, in many cases precisely because the individuals being targeted were "religious" - is that not intolerance and hate towards someone because of their faith?

For me, there is very little difference between him and a Pat Robertson - both vulgarly proselytize and denigrate those who do not share their beliefs.

It is not important whether you believe in God or not, what is important is respect and tolerance towards your fellow human beings, this planet and all the diversity of life that inhabits it.

 

[Samudra]

I see no problem with a God that "creates, punishes and rewards" - I only see a problem with a God that delegates those responsibilities to humans.

I must go back to Richard Dawkins.

The version of God propogated by religions - the creator, punisher and rewarder kind - especially the Abrahamic ones : 'A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal megalomaniac capriciously malevolent bully a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak'.

I can never bring myself to bow before such a being. It is nothing but a cruel fiat - existing nowhere except in human minds.

'God' being non-dual and Absolute is unknowable to human mind.

Wouldn't you agree that, in its unadulterated form, almost every religion commands respect, equality and tolerance for all people?

All established religions in their true form are tricks played upon the gullible masses by a few smart and power-hungry men. The pious platitude displayed is for propaganda value - to propogate their 'doctrine' and seek domination of the masses.

Respect, equality and tolerance is for the people who 'convert' or 'follow' - to those against religion has always shown the ugly face of humanity. To pretend godly when weak and strike when strong is perhaps the SOP of all established religions.

the fact that atheists in the USSR and China have murdered millions and committed horrendous abuses, in many cases precisely because the individuals being targeted were "religious" - is that not intolerance and hate towards someone because of their faith?

Not defending the atheists. We're very much willing to condemn them and their so called new ideologies that brought about so much destruction. The same courtesy should be generously extended to founders of religions and 'Prophet's/'Messengers' of Gods.

A die-hard communist will always find an excuse for all the mass murders. So will a religious man find excuses for all that is bad in his religion.

Mere claims to divinity cannot make religion unanswerable.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I must go back to Richard Dawkins.

The version of God propogated by religions - the creator, punisher and rewarder kind - especially the Abrahamic ones : 'A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal megalomaniac capriciously malevolent bully a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak'.

I can never bring myself to bow before such a being. It is nothing but a cruel fiat existing nowhere except human minds.

'God' being non-dual and Absolute is unknowable to human mind.

That type of argument is precisely where I believe some Atheists are intellectually dishonest. Rather than resorting to the entire litany of defects that Dawkins ascribes to "belief in God", let me simplify and just say that his argument is that religion encourages "evil" (so believers in religion must be "evil doers" - Bush anyone?), but then how does he explain the presence of evil in the absence of religion:

"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937-38. During World War II, however, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated, until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time.

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted.

Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed......

.....The government archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while about 1.7 million died in the GULAG and some 389,000 perished during kulak forced resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

Or the several million under Mao. They are, for any rational person, acts of unspeakable "evil" are they not? So it would be appropriate to state that the "evil" Dawkins ascribes to God, is not exclusive to those who believe in him. Then why single out God for it?

The truth is that the issue is not so much "belief in God", but the "type of God" or the "misinterpretation" of religion to justify acts of "evil" - just as there is nothing inherent in Atheism that commands Gulags, or the murder of millions - it is the perversion of a "belief" (for atheism is a belief as well) to where such atrocities are justifiable in a pharisaical haze. What perverts any belief system are our failings as humans and as a society, not God - whether called "Evolution" or "Allah".

 

[Flintlock]

AM,
I would suggest reading the book "The God Delusion" written by Richard Dawkins. I believe it will answer the questions you posed above. I used to be an Agnostic like you before I read the book. No longer. I am an Atheist now. But don't let that stop you from reading it. Richard Dawkins in my opinion puts forth his arguments in an very objective and scientific manner.

Ah...that book is making waves isn't it? The author is quite a famous biologist and has done some great work in the field!!!

Another interesting God-bashing book: "God is not Great", by Christopher Hitchens, who has put forward some compelling arguments. Very good read if you have some free time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ah...that book is making waves isn't it? The author is quite a famous biologist and has done some great work in the field!!!

Doesn't mean he is beyond being a bigot or demagog when it comes to his personal beliefs. I am sure he is a wonderful biologist though.

 

[Flintlock]

That type of argument is precisely where I believe some Atheists are intellectually dishonest. Rather than resorting to the entire litany of defects that Dawkins ascribes to "belief in God", let me simplify and just say that his argument is that religion encourages "evil" (so believers in religion must be "evil doers" - Bush anyone?), but then how does he explain the presence of evil in the absence of religion:

Well, he does do all that, if you care to read his book. He also explains why some atheistic belief systems like Maoism or Stalinism have great potential for evil.
Simply put, that is because Stalin's subjects saw him as something of a demi-god. All powerful leader who held the fate of millions in his hands with no accountability. Those under him were answerable only to him, not to their people.

Which is why, I guess, god has been described as the "invisible dictator in the sky."

Also, it is the height of arrogance, IMO, to consider the affairs of humans as something god might be interested in. The earth is an infinitesimal thing in comparison to the universe, and if there was a god, he would hardly be interested in what you are thinking about your neighbour's wife.

I wonder what god was doing before humans evolved. Punishing fish and dinosaurs?

The truth is that the issue is not so much "belief in God", but the "type of God" or the "misinterpretation" of religion to justify acts of "evil" - just as there is nothing inherent in Atheism that commands Gulags, or the murder of millions - it is the perversion of a "belief" (for atheism is a belief as well) to where such atrocities are justifiable in a pharisaical haze. What perverts any belief system are our failings as humans and as a society, not God - whether called "Evolution" or "Allah".

Atheism is not a belief. Infact it is impossible for atheists to be clubbed together. An atheist may be a humanist, a scientist, a secularist, a free thinker, depending on his leanings.

The central point, I think, is that the belief in god itself is not evil, but the fact that by justifying heinious crimes as a service to god, people can bypass the whole circuit of logic to justify violence.

As far as dictators are concerned, their people see them as accountable only to themselves. In North-Korea, the dictator is a reincarnation of god. He is worshipped by his people because he has the divine right to rule.
It is this worshipping mentality of people which stems from belief in god.

 

[Flintlock]

Doesn't mean he is beyond being a bigot or demagog when it comes to his personal beliefs. I am sure he is a wonderful biologist though.

Demagogue? Dude...he wrote a book....its upto anyone who is interested to read it. He isn't on a mission to wipe religion off the face of the earth.

Also, he doesn't rant about anything, but explains everything logically like the scientist that he is. In that sense, being a scientist gives him credibility.

Now if his conclusions are startling or insulting, too bad.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, he does do all that, if you care to read his book. He also explains why some atheistic belief systems like Maoism or Stalinism have great potential for evil.
Simply put, that is because Stalin's subjects saw him as something of a demi-god. All powerful leader who held the fate of millions in his hands with no accountability. Those under him were answerable only to him, not to their people.

Which is why, I guess, god has been described as the "invisible dictator in the sky."

Also, it is the height of arrogance, IMO, to consider the affairs of humans as something god might be interested in. The earth is an infinitesimal thing in comparison to the universe, and if there was a god, he would hardly be interested in what you are thinking about your neighbour's wife.

I wonder what god was doing before humans evolved. Punishing fish and dinosaurs?

Atheism is not a belief. Infact it is impossible for atheists to be clubbed together. An atheist may be a humanist, a scientist, a secularist, a free thinker, depending on his leanings.

The central point, I think, is that the belief in god itself is not evil, but the fact that by justifying heinious crimes as a service to god, people can bypass the whole circuit of logic to justify violence.

As far as dictators are concerned, their people see them as accountable only to themselves. In North-Korea, the dictator is a reincarnation of god. He is worshipped by his people because he has the divine right to rule.
It is this worshipping mentality of people which stems from belief in god.

You are responding to my argument in pieces, thereby missing the point I was making, which is exactly that the actions of Stalin etc. are not representative of "Atheism", but a perversion of a "belief" (Yes it is a belief - because atheists "believe" that there is no God), just as it can be shown (taking Islam as an example) that Islam does not sanction any of that which is committed in its name.

Just as you can argue that "Stalins subjects" gave him the power to commit atrocities against religion, so can it be argued that humans pollute religion and utilize it to commit atrocities as well. Dawkins tries an ingenious way to get around the failures of "individual Atheists", but I see no reason why similar reasoning cannot be applied to the "individual failures" of Popes or Imams, who end up with a cult following and utilize it to massacre the purity of religion and project their own hatred, prejudices and biases into it.

You say that " by justifying heinious crimes as a service to god, people can bypass the whole circuit of logic to justify violence", but that is exactly what those who followed Stalin and Mao did. Again, applying the argument in exclusion to religion is flawed, it is human nature, human prejudices that result in atrocities. God, Stalin, Mao, Atheism are but convenient vehicles.

Also, people who believe in God also cannot be simply clubbed together - there are all sorts there as well. Almost every argument in favor and against religion, can also be applied to Atheism.

Gotta run though.

 

[aryan2007]

What is Jihad?​

January 4, 2006
By Ibn Iblis

The talking heads, journalists, politicians, apologists, and deniers can all twist themselves into a pretzel trying to define true Islam, but in reality there is only one facet of Islam that concerns the kafr, one institution that distinguishes Islam from the other religions, one idea that should raise our ears: jihad.

And those same apologists and deniers can trip over themselves trying to define for us what jihad is, but, fortunately for us, we have access to much of the same scripture all Muslims do, as well as, especially with the publication of Andrew Bostom's essential guidebook to jihad, the writings of classical Muslim jurists throughout history regarding jihad. Only a brief survey of these sources is needed to understand the true nature of jihad as it applies to us in the Dar al-Harb (Arena of Battle), where Islam temporarily does not yet hold sway.

It is true that jihad, which comes from Arabic verb jahada, meaning "he strove", has several meanings to Muslims. The best way to define it universally is a "struggle" or "striving" in the path of Allah. This seems like religious virtue on the surface--shouldn't all people of faith strive in the path of God?--but in Islam one of the ways to strive in the path of God, and the one way in which he looks most favorably upon, is the struggle to enforce Allah and Muhammad's strict and specific law that only Allah has the right to be worshipped.

Jihad is defined by several verses of the Qur'an, the laws of Allah, and the sunnah, the prophetic tradition. First, before the doctrinal definition of jihad is explained, whatever it means Allah says that none are exempt from the obligation:

[Q002.216] Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) 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. Allâh knows but you do not know.
[Q004.076] Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allâh, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Tâghût (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitân (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitân (Satan).
[Q009.039] If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.
[Q009.044-45] Those who believe in Allâh and the Last Day would not ask your leave to be exempted from fighting with their properties and their lives, and Allâh is the All-Knower of Al-Muttaqûn (the pious). It is only those who believe not in Allâh and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from Jihâd). So in their doubts they waver.
[Q002.085] Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. And Allâh is not unaware of what you do.

Not even women, the elderly, or the frail are exempt from jihad, as jihad is not just defined by fighting alone. This will be explained later. More than any other effort a Muslim can make to please Allah, fighting with their wealth and property so that only he is worshipped is what pleases Allah most. To call waging war in the cause of Allah the "lower" jihad is somewhat of an incongruence; Muhammad's example is the first and best evidence of this. He was a warlord, a mujahedin. Further, the concept of the higher jihad (striving against desires of the self) versus the lower jihad (waging war in the way of Allah) has never been taken seriously by learned Islamic scholars (Mujtahidun). Imam Bayhaqi, the jurisprudent imam, hadith master, authority in the foundations of doctrine (usuli), scrupulous and devoted ascetic, defender of the School both in its foundations and its branches, one of the mountains of Islamic knowledge, ruled that, though this concept is based on a hadith, it's chain of narration (isnad) is weak. The Mujtahid Imam Al Suyuti comes to the same conclusion, and the collector of the hadith in question, Yahya ibn al 'Ala', was accused of forgery. [MORE HERE] The Mujtahidun also point out that the concept of "lower" jihad is contradictory to God's Word:

[Q004.095-96] Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with their wealth and their lives. Allâh has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allâh has promised good, but Allâh has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward: Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. And Allâh is Ever Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful.

But what is jihad warfare, when and where must it be fought, and what is the objective? Islamic jurisprudence divides the world into two spheres: the Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam. Dar al-Islam must eliminate Dar al-Harb, for only Allah has the right to be worshipped in the whole of the world, altogether and everywhere. Two verses in the Qur'an and several traditions of the prophet establish this:

[Q002.193] And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (alone).
[008.039] And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Apologists and deniers cannot cast doubt upon the context of these verses, for two reasons. First, the word fitnah is provided by the essential Qur'anic translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan in place of other translations; these translations replace the word fitnah with definitions that are more pleasing to Western eyes. Thomas Patrick Hughes' Dictionary of Islam defines fitnah as sedition (incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority), strife (bitter sometimes violent conflict or dissension), commotion (a condition of civil unrest or insurrection), a term specially used for those wars and commotions which shall precede the Resurrection.

This suggests that fitnah represents a challenge to lawful authority--Allah's authority--and has nothing to do with persecution or oppression--definitions of fitnah given in other translations--unless you view it from Allah's point of view, which suggests that not recognizing His authority and hindering others from the Truth is persecution inandof itself:


[Q002.191] ...but a greater (transgression) with Allâh is to prevent mankind from following the Way of Allâh, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Mecca), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.
The second reason the meaning of these verses are not in doubt is because the true context is given by the prophetic example, the sunnah, which all Muslims are required to consult along with the Qur'an:

Allah's apostle said, "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that Lâ ilaha illallâh wa Anna Muhammad-ur-Rasûl Allâh (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allâh."

This is one of the most well-attested traditions of the prophet. Bukhari quotes Muhammad as saying this 5 times; Muslim 3 times, and Abu Dawud once, all through different chains of narration. This means that either Muhammad said it often or to many people or both [one example is given here by Bukhari]. Several traditions tell us of a man who came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." [example] Thus Hilali and Khan provide the following footnote to verse 2.190, the first verse in the Qur'an which discusses jihad:

Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islam is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihâd (may Allâh protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
Classical Muslim Treatises on Jihad

This analysis of Islamic text with regards to jihad is mostly drawn from my own studies and conclusions. Apologists would certainly (and perhaps correctly) question my credentials to render such judgements on Islamic jurisprudence, even though I have access to more than enough scripture to educate myself on my own. But throughout history the most reknowned and venerable minds of all schools of Islamic thought have also agreed on the meaning of jihad.

The best and most damning example is that of Al-Ghazali (1058-1111 C.E.), for two reasons. First, he was a Sufi, a sect of Islam that, because of their poetry and so-called mysticism, is often given as an example of enlightened Islam. Second, he is widely recognized as the second-most important Muslim ever to live, next to Muhammad himself. Of jihad Al-Ghazali says:

...[O]ne must go on jihad (ie., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...If a person of the ahl-kitab [People of the book--Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked...One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...

[On the dhimmis subjected by jihad]
...[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle...Jews, Christians, and Majains must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]...on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [ie., the mandible]...They are not permitted to ostentaniously display their wine or church bells...their houses may not be higher than a Muslim's, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths...[dhimmis] must hold their tongue

One of the most notorious Muslim jurists of all time, Ibn Taymiyya, widely dismissed by apologists as an "extremist", was a Sufi jurist, and held similar views on jihad:

The penalties that the shari'a has introduced for those who disobey God and his messenger are of two kinds: the punishment of those who are under the sway [of the imam], both individuals and collectivities, as has been mentioned before [in the chapter on criminal law], and, secondly, the punishment of recalcitrant groups, such as those that can only be brought under the sway of the imam by a decisive fight. That then is the jihad against the disbelievers (kafr), the enemies of God and His Messenger, Peace be upon him, and has not responded to it, must be fought, "until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely

The Hidayah of Shaikh Burhanuddin (1135-1196 CE), represents the Hanafi school of thought. Burhanuddin's view of jihad:

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war ... If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.

Al-Mawardi (978-1058 C.E.), a Shafi'i and one of the most famous Islamic minds of the middle ages, discusses jihad in his al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (Laws of Islamic Governance):

The amirate of jihad is particularly concerned with fighting the mushrikûn. This section deals with the direction of war. The mushrikûn of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types:
First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them in one of two ways, that is in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikûn; the first, to harry them from their houses and to inflict damage on them day and night, by fighting and burning, or else to declare war and combat them in ranks; Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger - unless there are people to the east and extreme east, or to the west, of whom we have no knowledge, beyond the Turks and Romans we are fighting; it is forbidden us to initiate an attack on the mushrikûn while they are unawares or at night, that is, it is forbidden to kill them, use fire against them or begin to attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.

Averroes, or Ibn Rushd, was an Andalusian-Arab philosopher and physician, a Maliki master of philosophy and Islamic law and author of the Bidayat al-Mujtahid. In it, he offers the following rulings on jihad:

Par. 1. The legal qualification (hukm) of this activity and the persons obliged to take part in it
Scholars agree that the jihad is a collective not a personal obligation. According to the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the jihad is founded on [K 2:216]: "Fighting is prescribed for you, though it is distasteful to you." That this obligation is a collective and not a personal one, i.e., that the obligation, when it can be properly carried out by a limited number of individuals, is cancelled for the remaining Muslims, is founded on [K9:112]: "It is not for the believers to march out all together..." The obligation to participate in the jihad applies to adult free men who have the means at their disposal to go to war and who are healthy, that is, not suffering from chronic diseases. There is absolutely no controversy about the latter restriction, because of [K 48:17]: "There is no blame upon the blind, or upon the lame, or upon the sick," and because of [K 9:91]: "No blame rests upon the frail or upon the sick or upon those who find nothing to contribute."

Par. 2. The Enemy

Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought. This is founded on [K 8:39]: "Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is entirely Allah's."

Par. 3. The damage allowed to be inflicted upon the different categories of enemies

Damage inflicted upon the enemy may consist in damage to his property, injury to his person or violation of his personal liberty, i.e., that he is made a slave and is appropriated. This may be done, according to the Consensus (ijma), to all polytheists: men, women, young and old, important and unimportant ... Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealing with captives, various policies are open to the Imam [head of the Islamic state, caliph]. He may pardon them, kill them, or release them either on ransom or as dhimmi [non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state], in which latter case the released captive is obliged to pay the poll tax [jizyah].

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1395 C.E), also a Maliki, described by Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis as surely the greatest of all Arab historians, is the author of The Muqaddimah, which laid down the foundations of several fields of Islamic knowledge, including philosophy, history, sociology, and economics. In it he speaks of the importance of jihad:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united (in Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them (religion and politics) at the same time. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. It has thus come about that the person in charge of religious affairs (in other religious groups) is not concerned with power politics at all. (Among them), royal authority comes to those who have it, by accident and in some way that has nothing to do with religion. It comes to them as the necessary result of group feeling, which by its very nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as we have mentioned before, and not because they are under obligation to gain power over other nations, as is the case with Islam. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own (people).
As mentioned, the fact that there are several different sects of Islam is often given as a deflection against the universal definition of jihad. However, all schools of Islamic thought are unanimous on the definition of jihad - even the mystical sect of Sufism, as highlighted above by the writings of Al-Ghazali. There are of course other differences between the sects of Islam, but these are of little consequence to the mushrikûn of Dar al-Harb.

Demographic Jihad

There are two ways that Muslims work to make Allah's word superior--by the sword or by cultural infestation, and both fall under the banner of jihad. Jihad by the sword should no longer concern us: no Islamic power on earth possesses the power to mass armies and invade our shores. Even with the inevitable acquisition of nuclear weapons, jihadists such as Iran, if they struck with such weapons, could not survive a nuclear exchange. But whether we be conquered by the sword or by cultural infestation, our fate as non-Muslims, defined by the dhimma, or covenant of "protection", would be the same. The concept of the dhimma is an integral facet of jihad.

Elaborating on an earlier point, warfare is not always waged with guns and bombs:

[Q009.041] March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allâh. This is better for you, if you but knew.
"Striving hard" with wealth currently represents the most dangerous form of jihad, as oil-rich Arab nations--particularly Saudi Arabia, spend billions of dollars implanting fundamentalist Islam into America's mosques, universities, and jails. Eighty percent of US mosques "have been radicalized by Saudi Money and influence". This is done by offering to build mosques more splendid than Islamic communities could afford to build, with the condition that the congregation be led by a Saudi-approved imam. Not coincidentally, in Detroit, home of America's largest Muslim population, 81% of Muslims polled "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed (59% strongly agreed) that shari'a law, which mandates the mistreatment of women, persecution of non-Muslims, and the death penalty for apostates, should be the law of the land. No objective observer, in light of that, can claim that Islam has been highjacked by the mythical "tiny majority of extremists".

The Fiqh Council of North America, the Muslim organization that produced the ridiculous fatwah condemning "terrorism", is linked to Saudi Arabia, Pakistani extremists and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded and is funded by terrorists organizations. Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, CAIR's founders, are former officials of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), and IAP’s president, Rafeeq Jabar, is one of CAIR's founding directors. Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver “Buck” Revell has described the IAP as a “a front organization for Hamas," and this accusation was affirmed when a federal judge in Chicago found the IAP guilty of aiding and abetting Hamas in the murder of David Boim, a 17-year-old American citizen. Further, it was discovered that CAIR exploited the 9/11 attacks to raise funds for two Hamas-linked fundraising organizations, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

Considering the terrorist ties these so-called mainstream organizations have, how can we believe President Bush when he tells us America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality? The truth of the matter is, 'Moderate' Muslims are either ignorant or lying about the basic tenets of their faith, most important to us is the pillar of jihad. In either case they are dangerous, because the former promotes the idea of benign Islam, which a simple overview of their basic texts proves impossible; the latter is simply a clandestine agent of jihad, spreading propaganda about Islam to throw us off their scent.

You may ask, "what's wrong with the idea of benign Islam, even if, fundamentally, it's a lie?" First of all, it makes the clandestine jihadists' (CAIR, et al) job easier, because nobody will pay attention to what they're doing--such as exploiting terrorist attacks they claim their religion is not responsible for to raise money for organizations who fund and aid similar attacks. Second, it allows the PC-elite to declare that the terrorists are not true Muslims, and that this "extremist" movement is something new and can somehow be defeated by promoting freedom and democracy, concepts which are not only alien to Islam, but fully contradict it.

Never mind that "secular" Turkey was built on the foundation of one of the worst genocides in human history, in which its perpetrators were exclusively Muslim and its victims were exclusively non-Muslim; watch and see as it reverts back towards a more theocratic society.

And what is the fate of America under shari'a law if organizations like CAIR and the Saudi-controlled fifth-column have their way? The conditions of non-Muslims in Islamic societies have never been acceptable. EVER. Not in North Africa under Muhammad's successors. Not in Spain. Not in India. Not in Asia Minor. These conditions are based on the Qur'anic mandate that Jews and Christians must be fought against until they pay the jizyah (disciminatory poll tax) in humiliation recognizing the superiority of Islam, as well as the first recorded dhimma, the Covenant of Umar, which, among other humiliations, forced the dhimmi to wear discriminatory clothing and barred them from openly practicing their religion, building new churches or maintaining their existing ones. These restrictions were set upon non-Muslims until the Caliphate was dissolved in the aftermath of WWI.

Even today, Christian populations are persecuted in Egypt and the Palestinian territories; Buddhists and Christians are under attack in Thailand. The murder of Theo Van Gogh (carried out in the tradition of the prophet), the cultural festering in Sweden, the home-grown jihad in Britain, the riots in France: these are all but a taste of what's to come in America if we continue to turn a blind eye to jihad.

The problem we face is, jihad is true Islam and is Islam's historical mainstream, and thus we will never be rid of it because people who believe in God tend to fearfully obey their creator, lest they suffer in the hellfire for eternity. In the post-enlightenment West, we have a problem taking our creator seriously.

Islam has not softened.

Islamic jihad has killed more people than any of the world's most notorious ideologies combined. The Rightly Guided conquered Egypt to Persia; Palestine to the Caucasus. Their successors conquered all of North Africa and Spain. They pushed into France but were defeated. They conquered Asia Minor and eventually Constantinople. These were all Christian lands. They DEVESTATED India, at the time one of the three greatest civilizations in history. Tens of thousands of temples were destroyed and their remains were used to build mosques on top of their foundations, and the number of Hindus and Buddhists killed, tortured, expelled, or sold into slavery number in the hundreds of millions. The riches stolen from India and dispersed throughout the Muslim world are impossible to put a price on. The Crusades were a limited and belated response to more than 450 years of jihad against Christians. The cruelty of the Ottoman Empire is one of the great untold--or should I say covered up--stories in history.

That jihad has never ended--it continues to this very day. The killing of Jews by Muslims in the Middle East is a Muslim tradition that dates all the way back to Muhammad himself.

Islam is a religion that was created by 7th century bedouins for 7th century bedouins. It was not meant to be practiced in our 21st century world. The conquests undertaken by the early Muslims would have taken place without Islam, but that way of life--murder, pillage, rape--was forever preserved and encouraged by the religion given to it.

The notion of a tolerant, multi-cultural, pluralistic Islam crumbles to dust upon careful examination of Islamic texts as well as an honest, unrefined, politically-incorrect look at its history. Wherever Islam has clashed with other cultures, whatever record there is of peaceful co-existance is far outweighed by the record of human tragedy. Our challenge is not to avoid prejudice towards Islam, but to avoid floundering in the face of its cruelty.

Jihad

From a message board

Literally, jihad means doing one’s utmost to realize a goal. It is not the equivalent of war, for which Arabic and the Qur’an use qital. Jihad has a wider connotation and embraces every kind of striving in God’s cause. A mujahid is devoted to his or her cause; uses all physical, intellectual, and spiritual capacities to serve it.

Jihad’s related principle, that of amr bi al-ma‘ruf wa nahy ‘an al-munkar (enjoining good and forbidding evil), seeks to convey the benefits of Islam to everyone and to convince them to abandon all of their evil practices. The Qur’an calls Muslims the model community, one required to communicate the Prophet’s message to humanity and to live Islam, just as the Prophet did: Thus, We have made you a community justly balanced, that you might be witnesses for all humanity, and the Messenger may be a witness for you (2:143).

The greater and lesser jihad

Jihad has two aspects: fighting against superstition, wrong belief, carnal desire, and evil inclinations in the quest of intellectual and spiritual enlightenment (the greater jihad); and encouraging others to strive for the same goal (the lesser jihad).

The lesser jihad does not refer only to striving on battlefields. Being comprehensive in nature, it includes every action from speaking out to presenting oneself on the battlefield when necessary—but only if it is done for His sake. Speaking or keeping silent, smiling or frowning, joining or leaving a meeting, and all other actions taken to help individuals or communities can be considered part of this type of jihad.

The lesser jihad seeks to mobilize all material facilities and is performed in the outer world, whereas the greater jihad is a personal struggle against one’s carnal self. These two forms of jihad cannot be separated. Only those who defeat their carnal selves can perform the lesser jihad, which, in turn, helps those engaged in the greater jihad.

Those who abandon the lesser jihad are liable to spiritual deterioration and subsequent recovery. Everything praises and glorifies God with each breath and thus is a sign of God’s Existence and Unity, a sign that may guide them to the Straight Path. For this reason, there are as many paths leading to the Straight Path of God as the breaths of all His creatures. Those who return from the lesser jihad can be captivated by such worldly weaknesses as pride, love of comfort and ease, and may think it is time to relax and indulge in such things. This is why the Prophet warned his Companions once when they were returning to Madina after a victory:

We are returning from the lesser jihad to the greater. However, to secure God’s help and protection and to be successful in the greater jihad, in fighting against animal desires and impulses, depend upon supporting His religion. If people want to be safe from going astray, their aim in life must be to strive for God’s sake, and all of their actions, even the simplest (i.e., eating, sleeping, choosing, and training for a job, etc.) must be directed toward this objective. God declares in the Qur’an: O believers! If you help [the religion of] God, God will help you and make your feet firm [in practicing your religion and against Satan, your carnal selves, and enemies]. (47:7)

Has Islam established any rules for Jihad?

Believers are those from whom God has bought their life and wealth in exchange for Paradise (9:111). They are dedicated to His cause and have the sole aim of gaining His pleasure. So, those who fight for fame or material gain, racial or similar ideologies, or anything else are not considered as fighters with whom God is pleased.

Believers are forbidden to resort to unscrupulous methods, indiscriminate killing and pillage

Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love transgressors (2:190). Believers are to fight only those who do block the way to the true faith, and are forbidden to resort to unscrupulous methods, indiscriminate killing and pillage that characterizes all wars waged by non-Muslims regardless of time or place. The excesses alluded to in the verse above are such things as taking up arms against women and children, the old and the injured, mutilating enemy corpses, and destroying fields and livestock.


Do not betray the agreements you have made.
Do not make any plundering.
Wrong no one and exercise no torture.
Do not touch the children, women and the old.
Do not destroy fruit-trees and fertile lands.
Do not kill sheep and cattle.
Respect all religious persons who live in hermitages or convents and spare their edifices. (Ibn al-Athir, al-Kami fi al-Tarikh, Vol.3, p.227.)

 

[Flintlock]

You are responding to my argument in pieces, thereby missing the point I was making, which is exactly that the actions of Stalin etc. are not representative of "Atheism", but a perversion of a "belief" (Yes it is a belief - because atheists "believe" that there is no God), just as it can be shown (taking Islam as an example) that Islam does not sanction any of that which is committed in its name.

If you consider a logical proof a belief, then yes, agreed that atheists "believe" that there is not god.

Just as you can argue that "Stalins subjects" gave him the power to commit atrocities against religion, so can it be argued that humans pollute religion and utilize it to commit atrocities as well. Dawkins tries an ingenious way to get around the failures of "individual Atheists", but I see no reason why similar reasoning cannot be applied to the "individual failures" of Popes or Imams, who end up with a cult following and utilize it to massacre the purity of religion and project their own hatred, prejudices and biases into it.

Yes, your arguments make perfect sense if you think that religion doesn't warrant violence. However, Dawkins has also argued that religious texts esp. Abrahmic ones, condone totalitarianism and violence.

However, I would like to leave this line of argument since it can potentially lead to flame-wars.

You say that " by justifying heinious crimes as a service to god, people can bypass the whole circuit of logic to justify violence", but that is exactly what those who followed Stalin and Mao did. Again, applying the argument in exclusion to religion is flawed, it is human nature, human prejudices that result in atrocities. God, Stalin, Mao, Atheism are but convenient vehicles.

Stalin and Mao applied the philosophy of "One ruler, One authority", which is very similar to religious belief.

Basically, the argument isn't against religion exclusively, but against all such beliefs that give a single authority, responsible to noone, real or imaginary, too much power.

Unfortunately, religion makes up a huge chunk of those belief systems.

Also, people who believe in God also cannot be simply clubbed together - there are all sorts there as well. Almost every argument in favor and against religion, can also be applied to Atheism.

The correct word is not "atheism", but "totalitarianism" and "dictatorship".

Religion is synonumous with both the above words because god is accountable to noone.

However, atheism is different because atheism doesn't necessariy imply that the people are ruled by a dictator or belief in an earthly absolute power.

So one cannot ascribe the sins of dictators to atheism.

 

[Samudra]

but then how does he explain the presence of evil in the absence of religion:

In case you did not notice I'm not the one blaming 'religion' for all the evil inhabiting earth. I'm only saying it must take answer for its share.

False claims of divinity cannot and should not stand in the way of reform and progress beyond medieval ideologies.

What perverts any belief system are our failings as humans and as a society, not God - whether called "Evolution" or "Allah".

There are inherent faults, misconceptions and seeds of intolerance in 'belief systems' and they're to be changed, reformed or abandoned when found faulty.

The concept of infallibility and divinity prevent humans from identifying the faults and lead them into rationalizing evil. Some belief systems have tried to perfect the process of building a logical justification for the evil they perpetuate and it takes a mighty amount of time for 'followers' to realize that they've been tricked by a wicked few!

'Cause of the people' was one such justification for Communists.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In case you did not notice I'm not the one blaming 'religion' for all the evil inhabiting earth. I'm only saying it must take answer for its share.

False claims of divinity cannot and should not stand in the way of reform and progress beyond medieval ideologies.

There are inherent faults, misconceptions and seeds of intolerance in 'belief systems' and they're to be changed, reformed or abandoned when found faulty.

The concept of infallibility and divinity prevent humans from identifying the faults and lead them into rationalizing evil. Some belief systems have tried to perfect the process of building a logical justification for the evil they perpetuate and it takes a mighty amount of time for 'followers' to realize that they've been tricked by a wicked few!

'Cause of the people' was one such justification for Communists.

Note: I am not referring to misinterpretations and perversions of Islam/religion like the Wahabi, Taliban etc. practice, but of pure, unadulterated religion.

And I never suggested that you specifically were blaming religion for all evils, I am merely responding to the arguments raised, Dawkins on this thread primarily, where religion is termed the root of all evil.

I can only speak to Islam, not all belief systems, since it is the only one with which I have a rudimentary familiarity, and I do not see any of that which you claim "There are inherent faults, misconceptions and seeds of intolerance in 'belief systems'" - The Quran commands tolerance, respect, equality - for humans, beasts and nature - so that one example alone demolishes the premise of your argument.

So if religion does not command that which you suggested is inherent in it, then whether its adherents blindly follow a "divine, infallible deity" does not matter, for to do so would be to follow the principles I have enumerated :"Tolerance and respect for this planet and all that exists on it". What is wrong with even "blindly" following that?

The problem with your argument is that you do assume that all religion has intolerance and violence inherent to it, and the majority of the arguments against it are built on that premise - but for the sake of argument, keeping my claims on Islam aside, think of a hypothetical religion that has an all powerful deity that commands that which I enumerated above - how can you then suggest that following such a belief system is in any way going to lead to a "rationalization of evil", if it contains none of that which you claim is "evil"?

Let me attempt to probe even further, if Atheism does not follow a "belief", other than "no belief in God", what acts as the guiding light for morality, ethics and justice? From your and SA's posts I would infer that a logical and rational ability to reason towards "universal truth" perhaps?

But what conclusions have you arrived at?

Again, from your posts, I would infer - tolerance, progress, respect for all etc. - but that is identical to the beliefs my hypothetical religion and deity command me to follow! So what is the difference? If I am "blindly obedient" to my deity, then are you going to suggest that you are not "blindly obedient" to your capabilities of logic and reason?

You have to be - it is your highest resort! There is no greater "power" you can appeal to beyond your faculties, so you have to "blindly follow and obey" that which your "God" (logic and reason) tells you, as do I mine - and they say the same thing!

Another aspect of the Atheists ability to "logically and rationally reason" towards universal truth - can you conclusively and unequivocally state that every single atheist will arrive at the same conclusions of universal truth that you do? Stalin and Mao stand out as glaring examples of the fallacy of such a claim. Whether one believes in God or not is not necessarily going to automatically cleanse their minds of prejudices and biases - the existence of those is a complex interplay of culture, societal norms, beliefs (or lack of) etc.

So I would suggest that since becoming an atheist is not a guarantee of arriving at universal truth, since believing in religion is not a guarantee of being an intolerant hateful bigot, since in a way they both command "blind following of abstract entities", that the two are not that different at all, when it comes to improving or degrading human behavior - that process can only come from a gradual evolution of culture, society and people.