~@Cor,

It's not just Afghanis. I am not pretending that anyone is blameless, don't get me wrong on ths. And I don't want to get political about it so suffice it to say, however, that it is rather contradictory, then, to come here of all places... don't you think?

All continents are represented here in NY. Not all incomers from those continents act as the one Taw mentions. But there are "deputations" from each who do.

Problem is that they are more vocal and noticeable than those who do not grind their axes, if any, so publicly. Needless to say, their behavior acts detrimentally for their countrymen here who don't feel the same way.

"All continents are represented here in NY"

including Antarctica?

In fact, yes, if those who have been stationed in Antarctica count.

The United States has its own form of terror. It's called the C.I.A.

and you think the CIA are the problem in America?

What's wrong with these people? They're killing their supporters, honestly, intelligence obviously isn't a requirement to be a terrorist. It galls me to think that these crazy people are using religion as an excuse to murder civilians. They are making Islam look so bad, especially under the guise of this 'holy war' which the media has latched on to. Considering the fact that there's no such thing as a holy war in Islam since they don't consider war as a holy thing. Ever.

-------------------------------
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. - James D. Nicoll

I have a question to ask but I believe I have to ask it very carefully and with a lot of advance caution to everyone else to please let the question be presented as I state it here and to please refrain from taking it off specific topic....

In the Arabic language, are there words that are used that have both an everyday meaning and a very specific religious meaning or perhaps a political meaning?

Based upon what Balthazar just posted, I am curious to know whether the word often
published in the news here, the word jihad, has a an everyday meaning that translates into holy war but, religiously, means something else.

I ask this question because this is not the first time I have seen or heard someone say that there is no such thing as a holy war in Islam.

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/10/2004 6:10:39 PM

Here's the full article here. I used it to supplement my info.

Ok, the word Jihad can't be accurately translated, but the best translation would be this: A sincere and noticeable effort (for good); an all-true and unselfish striving for spiritual goodness . This particularly involves change in one's self and mentality. It may concern the sacrifice of material property, social class constraints and even emotional comfort, solely for the salvation and worship of God alone. As a result, they say one who practices jihad will gain inward peace in this world and reward in the Hereafter. Examples of jihad would be to exceed in the sincere act of good deeds, like frequenting mosques more often; to study the scripture in details, to help the poor and the orphans, to stand for people's right for freedom, be equitable, never bear witness false testimony, frequent and stay in good terms with friends and neighbors, etc. and the restraining of doing of sins.

Now here's where it goes into the fighting thing. Jihad may also reflect the position of Islam, regarding crisis management and enforcement of humanitarian international laws. The fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam, to deter an aggressor, for self-defense, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion, would also be considered jihad. In the light and essence of Islam and the Qur'an, there is no war, which is holy; this, under any circumstances whatsoever. In fact, the whole text of the Qur'an and the religion of Islam revolves around the concept of peace, not war. To many people's ignorance, Islam is also a word that share the same root of the Arabic word: salaam, meaning peace. According to Islam, war is unholy; jihad must mean anything but “holy” war. However, there are times, in certain circumstances, when Islam tolerates, permits and sometimes even accepts the practice of war. Islam strongly emphasizes the ideas of justice, freedom and opposition to oppression. There is also another condition, which is fighting for the sake of self-defense. War is tolerated in these conditions, but if there is a possibility to avoid war, then this opportunity, as long as it is for the just cause, must be seized. Even in times of war, the Muslim must respect his adversaries’ humanity. Mere, brutal and barbaric atrocities are prohibited in Islam. Islam condemns barbaric killing of any human being. During military actions, civilians must not be targeted, as long as they do not attack, provoke or share directly in the war. Enemies, even at time of war, must be treated justly. Prisoners of war have basic human rights, stated in shari`a.

If victory is achieved in any war for justice, then there is to be no oppression, revenge or injustice to the people of the enemy. Nor must there be control over the sources of the wealth of the nation or people, or even establishment of colonial regimes. Justice and freedom must be established. Tolerance towards cultures and peoples is basic too.

-------------------------------
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. - James D. Nicoll

How uncontested within the faith of Islam is the explanation or definition of jihad that you posted here?

Well, that is the mainstream view. There are of course, the minorities who think that killing civilians and using suicide bombers is acceptable and possibly even something to be encouraged.

-------------------------------
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. - James D. Nicoll

jihad actually means struggle, but it does also have the understanding that struggle has numerous manifestations. A Muslim has a jihad all the time, for he must always struggle against his baser nature and the temptations of the world to submit to the Will of Allah (svf) (for this is what Islam is - to "submit to the Way"

As islam is an all -emcompassing way of life that extends into the realm of politics and foreign relations, then jihad can also mean "holy war" in the sense that it is undertaken to defend islam from outside kufr influences. The circumstances in which jihad can be undertaken are in essence q limited. An Umma-wide jihad, as in the meaning that all Muslims are called on to rise up and take arms, can only be issued by a Kalifa, and this does not exist. Instead authority for jihad as warfare has settled upon Amirs and senior clerics. It is their seniority that gives them authority, there is no formal structure as in Roman catholicism, for example. So since the dismantling of the the Kalifa in 1924 by the Western powers, jhad has been local and regionalised. Secular figures such as Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat called for jihad but they had no authority to do so. Jihad was the focus and sustaining motivator of the Afghan resistance to the soviets, as it transcends tribalism, ethicity, nationalism and political affiliation. This was the initial appeal of the Taliban in the wake of the post-Soviet collapse of Afgahnistan.

Osama bin Laden has no authority to call for jihad. But there are figures close to him who have, including his mentor in fundamentalist Wahabbism. His camoaign against the west is widespread, although not as much as it was, by virtue of its long existence and diversity of origin. Al-Quaeda was originally just a "network" of anti-Soviet Mujahedin from countries other than Afgahnistan, who volunteered to take part in the struggle. it's not a religious organisation. As circumstances changed, the anti-western fundamentalism came to the fore, at the time of the first gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. But Osama himself has no standing to call for jihad, as he isn't a cleric or a secular figure such as a tribal leader who is both ruler and head cleric. Such a fugure would be an Amir. This is the title Mullah Omar was given/gave himself when he took out the Prophet's Robe in A'tan - Amir ul-Momineen (Emir to the Faithful) but again his authority for this is highly disputable, for he has no previos standing socially or any office other than that of a local village Mullah; but with thousands of armed Taleban behind him, who was going to argue?

The current situation is complex and confusing to say the least and opinion is very fractured in the Islamic world over this business of jihad, and it's usually the one that most deeply troubles Western converts to Islam, as jihad in whatever form it takes, is to Muslims a higher duty than national loyalty. Why? because a Muslim must aim for a truly islamic society and the countries which are Muslim populated are not Islamic countries but secular states with a Moslem population, as Kalifah orientated observers would have it. Jihad is being undertaken in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, & Palestine, and mujihad don't see it as terror. They see it as willing and glorious self-sacrifice in a noble cause to free their people from oppression and occupation and to defend Islam and their right to live their lives by it. We see hijackings, kidnappings, gueriilla attacks, murders, bus bombings which kill and maim and disrupt our normal settled lives and to us this is the essence of terrorism. The two positions are totally incompatible. But understand, jihad as sitting thinking about the words of the Prophet (pbuh) in a library is as much part of Islam as we think of it as being suicide-bombers .. and vice-versa.

In western terms it is the act that outrages us, not the thought processes and conditions that led to it. This is a mistake. regardless of where your sympathies may or may not lie, it is a simple fact that in desparate times people cling to religion and it serves to not only be a prop but a catalyst for astonishing acts of both bravery and wickedness.

True oosama has no athurity to call a jihad but he can do it and i might have a effect also Jihad had many meanings strugle, way of life, holy war.

Western cultures generally tend to draw a distinction between ethics and morality in that ethics are, more or less, a-religious or secular in nature whereas morality is derived from religion.

Would there be the same distinction in Islam? From what has been said, I gather that there would not be such a distinction.

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/10/2004 8:24:45 PM

there is no distinction. islamic states may project a semblace of secular ethics politically, but in islam itself no such issue exists. all codes of conduct are as laid down in the Koran, for islam itself is the code of conduct. there is no "render unto Caesar.."