Then they need to change that because those things don't belong in the 21st century.
Maajid Nawaz
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Do you actually even know what Khilafah, Shariah, and Jihad means or know the conditions when they're applicable?
Yes. Do you think they should be applicable in any conditions at all?
WHAT JIHAD IS
- The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving.
- The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".
- In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
- If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
- Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.
- In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.
- The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
- Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests
WHAT JIHAD IS NOT
- Jihad is not a violent concept.
- Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
- Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.
- Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications
Posting these things is great Sultan, but somewhat meaningless when the leaders and Scholars will have opinions ranging from absolute pacifism to instant violent reaction. Makes it hard to take seriously.
Yes I'm slowly catching on to the reasons why he is annoying some people - he's basically a secularist who has illustrated what radicals can become when they are deprogrammed.
We know plenty of "modern enlightened nations" going to war this century for various reasons.
How many Islamic countries can you recall asking for Jihad to be implemented against another nation in this century?
Nawaz is one bloke. He is not the only man to ever be jailed for extremism. His journey to extremism is not the path followed by every extremist. He doesn't know anything beyond himself
He's become a fecking idiot
http://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp
This should help you work out who the warmongers are @Silva
This should help you work out who the warmongers are @Silva
Giving up radicalism is tantamount to becoming an idiot ? Preach on Mozza.
No, just him
Much as a majority of your posts in the Israel-Palestine thread; beyond hurling insults, you haven't really done a good job of articulating why.
I suspect that you could put the lack of warmongering down to most Muslim nations being unlucky enough to be in poor parts of the world and being unable to warmonger successfully. I mean, who is Qatar really going to invade? But I also don't see much point in religion having anything to do with diplomacy or war. And any aspects of a religion that call for a religious army should be criticised until they cease to exist.
Which Islamic country has asked for a religious war? I'm waiting for an answer, buddy.
It's hardly a secret that Saudi Arabia has urged the US to obliterate Iran in very recent history.
And let's not pretend that the previous great caliphates came as a result of anything other violent conquests. Warmongering is a big business, and people who have the option will often take it. As it happens, Muslim nations haven't been in that position lately, so it's hardly down to the religion being peaceful.
Nawaaz needs to realise and accept the glaringly obvious that terrorism and fundamentalism are rooted less in religion and more in despair and political aspirations.
Where did you pluck that out Saudi wanting to obliterate Iran?
Facts show 21st century secular enlightened nations have killed 10's of millions over the last century. I'd rather Muslim nations be weak than kill innocents.
A heavy hitter such as al-Mawardi wrote that one of the duties of the caliph is to "make jihad against those who resist Islam after having been called to it until they submit or accept to live as a protected dhimmi-community - so that Allah's rights, may He be exalted, 'be made uppermost above all [other] religion' (Qur'an 9: 33)"
(link - The Ordinances of Government, p. 28 - http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Al-Ahkam%20as-Sultaniyyah.pdf)
Obviously it's not for me to say that al-Mawardi is right and you are wrong or vice-versa (and there is also of course the possibility that the above is a bad translation). However it seems dishonest to deny that the traditionally militaristic aspects of jihad exist at all.
Straight off the top of my head, the second Sudanese Civil War was framed by the ruling north, led by the National Islamic Front, as a jihad against the non-Muslim south. There are plenty of other examples in recent times where Muslim rulers have invoked jihad in times of warfare. Whether or not the appeals were genuine or cynical is up for debate of course.
Obliterate was an exaggeration, but still. They're hardly leaving violence as a last result: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
Saudi Arabia, of course, being the nation that was started a century ago by a family conquering the place. Great advert for peace and love there.
Facts show that strong nations prey on weaker ones. Regardless of religion or creeds. This century or not.
You ignore every question you can't answer.
The reasons Nawaz gives for radicalization fits in neatly with the right wing ideology you espouse, it's never your fault so it's right for you to bomb your way round the middle east
And reasons his critics give completely ignore well-off, well-educated people joining extremist organisations.
Last edited:
Do you think that motivated by religion or the House of Saud wanting to protect their despotic regime?
I don't espouse a right wing ideology, I'm just curious why Nawaz is being criticized by so called mainstream Muslims, who oddly enough have trouble condemning things most people in the secular society live in, have no trouble condemning. Its truly bizarre.
"There is no compulsion in religion" [al-Baqarah 2:256], This is a well-known Islamic principle.
I was just answering Sultans question. It's not for me say, but it's probably the latter, backed by their brainwashing of the Saudi people with Islam.
Over the years you've protected every US adventure in the middle east
He expects Muslims to live without religion influencing any aspect of their thinking or lives, that's why he's condemed
Islamic principles of Jihad have been around for 1500 years. Why has extremism escalated over the last 15 years?
Can you recall many suicide bombings in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, New York, London, Madrid, etc...?
You really don't have an answer to Mozza's question so go back to your default answer of blaming Islam.
For loads of reasons.
Even 1 suicide bombing is too many.
My status quo is hardly to blame Islam. I'm pretty sure I've defended it on here more than most non-Muslims. But when so many people have so many bad ideas I'm going to criticise them. The only reason Islam's getting it more than anyone else recently is because no other ideas are being defended as much.
I don't see it that way at all. He is challenging religious practices that are out of touch with the secular norms that govern western societies. Since most of the questions are aimed at British Muslims, he is simply stirring a conversation about the interplay of religious practices within liberal western society.
Well al-Mawardi seems to have come to the conclusion that "no compulsion in religion" means something different to what you take it to mean. He's not the only well-regarded Islamic thinker over the centuries to have come to the same conclusion. I've a copy of Ibn Khaldun beside me, he argues pretty much the same thing, presumably based on the infamous at-Tawbah 9:29.
I'm not trying to prove who is right or wrong, so there's no need to counter this with yet another supposedly 'peaceful' verse or whatever. My point is that alternative and more militaristic interpretations to yours exist, have existed throughout history, and have been held by Muslim theologians and thinkers still held in high regard to this day. You seem to deny that this tradition exists at all.
Well the sense of being constantly under siege for simply being Muslims is not a pleasant experience. We will defend our faith.
Where have I denied different interpretations don't exist? People will search and quote whatever suits their agendas and thoughts.
Last edited:
There's a good reason for that, though, the complete lack of reform.
Oh look it's another Current Events discussion on Islam going round and round.
They are nonsensical questions. Extremism isn't driven by equality for women or gay rights in Western countries, this is not the reasons why people are being radicalized. It's like the morons on Fox News saying 'they hate us for our freedoms'
His questioning isn't brave, it isn't profound, it's shallow and easy. Start discussing Western alliances with dictators old and new across the middle east and we'll get somewhere
I'm absolutely comfortable with my interpretation of Islam. I don't need a nobody like Nawaaz telling me I need to reform. I have co-existed perfectly fine in the UK.
Ahh yes, the good old victim hood narrative that has served the Palestinains and the Middle East so well over the years.
It's an impression one gets from your posts - not that different interpretations don't exist, but that yours is the only one on solid grounding, in terms of both Islamic doctrine and history.
For example, two posts that begin with "What jihad is" and "What jihad isn't" (hardly ambiguous statements) - neither one mentions the fact that offensive jihad, as described for example by al-Mawardi, has been accepted by many influential Muslim thinkers throughout history as being an integral part of the faith.