Neither of my parents ever discussed religion with me or my sisters. I was born without any spiritual convictions and despite immersing myself in a variety of spiritual environments, none of it ever drew me in to the extent that I could "feel" it, so I have remained a trouble-free person of no spiritual conviction.
On the other hand, I am endlessly fascinated with religions - their origins, belief systems and histories, but not so much in the religious perspectives of people I actually meet, more in how what people believe and have believed have and do shape societies and historical events.
It's very comforting for me to have no emotional or psychological investment in the moral rectitude of any one belief system in comparison to another.
Some close relatives have "faith", and as they live by the principles of their faith, they are kind and pleasant people, so I have no scorn for sincere believers, only for bigots and hypocrites who use their alleged faith to harm or disadvantage others.
I do have an emotional and psychological investment in correcting misinformation about belief systems when I think I see it.
Jihad and its derivatives meaning struggle in the path of God appear 36 times in the Qur'an. Each of those 36 times, jihad is used in the context of struggling to submit to God (the greater jihad) (Johnson 61). There is another word, built from the same root as jihad that appears in the Qur'an when reference is made to physical confrontation or fighting. This term, qital, more directly means "fighting" or "killing" (Kelsay 47). Some of the most prominently cited examples of qital are verses 2:190, 9:13, and 4:91-93 of the Qur'an.
Qur'an: 2:190--"Fight [qatilu] in the way of God against those who fight you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage…Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers."
fight none except the evil-doers."
Qur'an 9:13--"Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and proposed to drive out the Messenger and did attack you first?"
Qur'an 4:91-93--"If they withdraw not from you, and offer you not peace, and refrain not their hand, take them, and slay them wherever you come to them; against them We have given you a clear authority."
It is important to note that in each of these examples, qital is referenced in a defensive manner. There are citations used to justify offensive fighting such as:
Qur'an 8:39-40--Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. If they desist, God is cognizant of all their actions; but if they give no heed, know then that God will protect you.
Qur'an 9:29--Fight those who do not believe in God or the last day, and do not hold forbidden that which was forbidden by God and His Apostle, or acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the people of the book, until they pay jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Johnson makes another important note regarding these passages: "the point here is reducing the unbelievers to submission to Islamic order--the conception which in Western thought is rendered as the right to correct wrongdoing" (Johnson 62).
These instructions were given in the context of defending a religious community against attempts to wipe them out through self-defence and defence against imminent attacks (fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here).
That those words were later used as holy authority for regime change in no way means that that was the meaning of the words as Muhammed intended them to be interpreted.
You may find that some people either ignorantly or intentionally mis-translate similar Arabic words to distort the meaning of the Koran, and you may have inadvertently got some of your misinformation from such sources.
As mentioned above, Papal Bulls are Roman Catholic scripture, but it would be wrong to claim that Papal Bulls are the *only* Catholic Scripture, and to then try to define the entirety of Roman Catholic doctrine by them alone. You couldn't possibly come up with an accurate depiction.
If fanatical Muslims misinterpret holy words to incite unprovoked violence, it is the inciters who are evil, not the scripture.
If fanatical non-Muslims misinterpret those same holy words to incite religious bigotry, it is the inciters who are evil, not the scripture.
If you read the SCU description of Jihad preceding the section I quoted, you will see that the struggle/Jihad is to its sub-categories as a biological genus is to its species.
I urge you to read the whole article, as you will end up knowing considerably more about the meaning of Jihad than you appear to at present.
You cannot pick one sub-category and claim that there are no others. That is a hasty generalisation fallacy:
So firstly, there is no injunction to make war on anyone who does not attack you first or is not clearly intending to do so - in fact there is a specific injunction against that, and secondly the the injunction of the lesser Jihad is just one species of widely different ways of striving to live in the way of Allah.
Bill, you have it backwards - defending Muslim territory against non-Muslim attackers is one activity covered by the more general term Jihad.
Yusuf was pointing out that the armed self-defence actually mandated in the Qur'an is only one of many activities (areas in which to strive for moral living) covered by the term Jihad and also madated in the Qu'ran.
It's a false dichotomy to imply that if someone follows one activity mandated in the Qu'ran, they can't follow any of the other activities covered by the general descriptor 'Jihad' - a sincere Muslim strives to better themself in each action specified under the category of 'Jihad', not just one.
When Christians are encouraged to do "good works" it doesn't mean that they have to choose one activity covered by that term and ignore all the others.
My Quaker uncle took the commandment not to kill literally, but it didn't prevent him from being in a battlefield ambulance crew in WWII (unarmed of course).
He did ignore many of the more socially unacceptable injunctions in the Old Testament though, which is also one of the holiest books in Islam, and the basis of much of the violent aspects of fanatical applications of Sharia Law.
I'm not an expert, so apologies if I've been unduly unscholarly, and learned feedback on improving my understanding of the matters will be gratefully accepted.
Neither of my parents ever discussed religion with me or my sisters. I was born without any spiritual convictions and despite immersing myself in a variety of spiritual environments, none of it ever drew me in to the extent that I could "feel" it, so I have remained a trouble-free person of no spiritual conviction.
On the other hand, I am endlessly fascinated with religions - their origins, belief systems and histories, but not so much in the religious perspectives of people I actually meet, more in how what people believe and have believed have and do shape societies and historical events.
It's very comforting for me to have no emotional or psychological investment in the moral rectitude of any one belief system in comparison to another.
Some close relatives have "faith", and as they live by the principles of their faith, they are kind and pleasant people, so I have no scorn for sincere believers, only for bigots and hypocrites who use their alleged faith to harm or disadvantage others.
I do have an emotional and psychological investment in correcting misinformation about belief systems when I think I see it.
Bill,
Please cite your sources, as I have not come across the concepts you put forward.
From my reading, Jihad is best translated as "struggle".
From (Jesuit) Santa Clara University:
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/heit/whatisjihad.html
Jihad in the Qur'an
Jihad and its derivatives meaning struggle in the path of God appear 36 times in the Qur'an. Each of those 36 times, jihad is used in the context of struggling to submit to God (the greater jihad) (Johnson 61). There is another word, built from the same root as jihad that appears in the Qur'an when reference is made to physical confrontation or fighting. This term, qital, more directly means "fighting" or "killing" (Kelsay 47). Some of the most prominently cited examples of qital are verses 2:190, 9:13, and 4:91-93 of the Qur'an.
Qur'an: 2:190--"Fight [qatilu] in the way of God against those who fight you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage…Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers."
fight none except the evil-doers."
Qur'an 9:13--"Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and proposed to drive out the Messenger and did attack you first?"
Qur'an 4:91-93--"If they withdraw not from you, and offer you not peace, and refrain not their hand, take them, and slay them wherever you come to them; against them We have given you a clear authority."
It is important to note that in each of these examples, qital is referenced in a defensive manner. There are citations used to justify offensive fighting such as:
Qur'an 8:39-40--Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. If they desist, God is cognizant of all their actions; but if they give no heed, know then that God will protect you.
Qur'an 9:29--Fight those who do not believe in God or the last day, and do not hold forbidden that which was forbidden by God and His Apostle, or acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the people of the book, until they pay jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Johnson makes another important note regarding these passages: "the point here is reducing the unbelievers to submission to Islamic order--the conception which in Western thought is rendered as the right to correct wrongdoing" (Johnson 62).
These instructions were given in the context of defending a religious community against attempts to wipe them out through self-defence and defence against imminent attacks (fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here).
That those words were later used as holy authority for regime change in no way means that that was the meaning of the words as Muhammed intended them to be interpreted.
You may find that some people either ignorantly or intentionally mis-translate similar Arabic words to distort the meaning of the Koran, and you may have inadvertently got some of your misinformation from such sources.
As mentioned above, Papal Bulls are Roman Catholic scripture, but it would be wrong to claim that Papal Bulls are the *only* Catholic Scripture, and to then try to define the entirety of Roman Catholic doctrine by them alone. You couldn't possibly come up with an accurate depiction.
If fanatical Muslims misinterpret holy words to incite unprovoked violence, it is the inciters who are evil, not the scripture.
If fanatical non-Muslims misinterpret those same holy words to incite religious bigotry, it is the inciters who are evil, not the scripture.
If you read the SCU description of Jihad preceding the section I quoted, you will see that the struggle/Jihad is to its sub-categories as a biological genus is to its species.
I urge you to read the whole article, as you will end up knowing considerably more about the meaning of Jihad than you appear to at present.
You cannot pick one sub-category and claim that there are no others. That is a hasty generalisation fallacy:
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#520
So firstly, there is no injunction to make war on anyone who does not attack you first or is not clearly intending to do so - in fact there is a specific injunction against that, and secondly the the injunction of the lesser Jihad is just one species of widely different ways of striving to live in the way of Allah.
Bill, you have it backwards - defending Muslim territory against non-Muslim attackers is one activity covered by the more general term Jihad.
Yusuf was pointing out that the armed self-defence actually mandated in the Qur'an is only one of many activities (areas in which to strive for moral living) covered by the term Jihad and also madated in the Qu'ran.
It's a false dichotomy to imply that if someone follows one activity mandated in the Qu'ran, they can't follow any of the other activities covered by the general descriptor 'Jihad' - a sincere Muslim strives to better themself in each action specified under the category of 'Jihad', not just one.
When Christians are encouraged to do "good works" it doesn't mean that they have to choose one activity covered by that term and ignore all the others.
My Quaker uncle took the commandment not to kill literally, but it didn't prevent him from being in a battlefield ambulance crew in WWII (unarmed of course).
He did ignore many of the more socially unacceptable injunctions in the Old Testament though, which is also one of the holiest books in Islam, and the basis of much of the violent aspects of fanatical applications of Sharia Law.
I'm not an expert, so apologies if I've been unduly unscholarly, and learned feedback on improving my understanding of the matters will be gratefully accepted.