Muslims Practicing Polygamy in the US

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?

You should look up the definition of the word “Jihad” before using it again.

EDIT: In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though �?�?اح kif�?ḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither an Islamic struggle nor conducted violently; the same terminology is applied to the fight for women’s liberation.

So it doesn’t always mean violence, but it is still used in the context of violence. I’m using it specifically as Muslims understand it in an Islamic context, defined in the 'Umdat al-Salik (the classic manual of Sunni fiqh) as “warfare for the spread of religion.” Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and pretty much every other modern Islamic leader use the term in the same way.
[/quote]

Then why do you use the word jihad which just means struggle? If you want to talk about violent religious struggle then you should use the correct term or just use the English so that people can be clear what you are talking about.

262

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?

You should look up the definition of the word “Jihad” before using it again.

EDIT: In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though �?�?اح kif�?ḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither an Islamic struggle nor conducted violently; the same terminology is applied to the fight for women’s liberation.

So it doesn’t always mean violence, but it is still used in the context of violence. I’m using it specifically as Muslims understand it in an Islamic context, defined in the 'Umdat al-Salik (the classic manual of Sunni fiqh) as “warfare for the spread of religion.” Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and pretty much every other modern Islamic leader use the term in the same way.

If you want to talk about violent religious struggle then you should use the correct term or just use the English so that people can be clear what you are talking about.[/quote]

We do. The term is “jihad” which has more than one meaning, including “violent religious struggle,” as we’ve demonstrated over and over again. We could use the term “jihad as-sayf,” but it still doesn’t do away with the pesky term “jihad.”

You are aware that many English words have more than one meaning, aren’t you? Same thing here.

263

[quote]Makavali wrote:
OH MAN, WATCH OUT IT’S A SCARY MUSLIM!!!1!![/quote]

HAhahahaha!

264

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?

You should look up the definition of the word “Jihad” before using it again.

EDIT: In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though �?�?اح kif�?ḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither an Islamic struggle nor conducted violently; the same terminology is applied to the fight for women’s liberation.

So it doesn’t always mean violence, but it is still used in the context of violence. I’m using it specifically as Muslims understand it in an Islamic context, defined in the 'Umdat al-Salik (the classic manual of Sunni fiqh) as “warfare for the spread of religion.” Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and pretty much every other modern Islamic leader use the term in the same way.

If you want to talk about violent religious struggle then you should use the correct term or just use the English so that people can be clear what you are talking about.

We do. The term is “jihad” which has more than one meaning, including “violent religious struggle,” as we’ve demonstrated over and over again. We could use the term “jihad as-sayf,” but it still doesn’t do away with the pesky term “jihad.”

You are aware that many English words have more than one meaning, aren’t you? Same thing here.
[/quote]

In the same way that I would clarify an English statement pertaining to violent religious struggle by saying exactly that, you would do well to clarify statements about violent religious struggle supported by Islam as jihad as-sayf. Otherwise you are guilty of obfuscating the situation by implying that any reference to Jihad is equal and of the same meaning.

Also, within the Koran the jihad as-sayf is effectively limiting violence in the same way as the old testement eye for an eye. It is not promoting violence so much as saying only under these situations is it acceptable. This of course doesn’t stop people on both sides of the argument using these passages to their own ends.

By the way, when I posted the last comment I wasn’t aware how old or how long this thread was. Sorry for flogging the extremely dead horse.

265

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?

You should look up the definition of the word “Jihad” before using it again.

EDIT: In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though �?�?اح kif�?ḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither an Islamic struggle nor conducted violently; the same terminology is applied to the fight for women’s liberation.

So it doesn’t always mean violence, but it is still used in the context of violence. I’m using it specifically as Muslims understand it in an Islamic context, defined in the 'Umdat al-Salik (the classic manual of Sunni fiqh) as “warfare for the spread of religion.” Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and pretty much every other modern Islamic leader use the term in the same way.

If you want to talk about violent religious struggle then you should use the correct term or just use the English so that people can be clear what you are talking about.

We do. The term is “jihad” which has more than one meaning, including “violent religious struggle,” as we’ve demonstrated over and over again. We could use the term “jihad as-sayf,” but it still doesn’t do away with the pesky term “jihad.”

You are aware that many English words have more than one meaning, aren’t you? Same thing here.

In the same way that I would clarify an English statement pertaining to violent religious struggle by saying exactly that, you would do well to clarify statements about violent religious struggle supported by Islam as jihad as-sayf. Otherwise you are guilty of obfuscating the situation by implying that any reference to Jihad is equal and of the same meaning.

Also, within the Koran the jihad as-sayf is effectively limiting violence in the same way as the old testement eye for an eye. It is not promoting violence so much as saying only under these situations is it acceptable. This of course doesn’t stop people on both sides of the argument using these passages to their own ends.

By the way, when I posted the last comment I wasn’t aware how old or how long this thread was. Sorry for flogging the extremely dead horse.[/quote]

A man goes to see a psychiatrist and tells him you have to help me doc! I’m suffering from necrophilia, bestiality and sadism! Am I crazy doc? Or am I just flogging a dead horse?