Bashir Rahim, a Shia Islamic scholar, explained the difference between greater jihad and lesser jihad. “There are two kinds of jihad, the major jihad and the minor jihad. [The major jihad] is the struggle against one’s inner self. … [The minor jihad] means to struggle for Islam. Not for extension of boundaries, … not for the glory of any…nation, but for the defence of Islam and the protection of its values. Such a struggle can take many forms: through the use of pen, …tongue, or…the sword. … In Shi’ah theology, while self defence is permitted at any time, a general qitaal [warfare] can be declared only by an Imam [divinely appointed leader].”

Mufti Ebrahim Desai, a Sunni scholar, also declared the jihad against the self to be greater: “The Jihaad against the Nafs is the foremost form of Jihaad.” A listing of some of the proofs used by Islamic scholars that the jihad of the self is the greater jihad is can be found here.

Mufti Desai has additionally indicated that it is practically impossible to have jihad in the modern era. “Is it not appropriate for any one person to issue a ruling like Jihaad…a Shura of responsible people should decide.” “The decree of Jihaad against the infidels of the world attributed to most Imaams [average Islamic leaders] and clerics is not true.”

Other Islamic scholars concur. When responding to a question posted at Sunni Path regarding the permissibility of taking up jihad against certain people in the West, Shaykh Gibril Haddad replied, “Not at all, only the rightful leader of the Muslims may declare jihad, otherwise killing such people is only a murderous crime, even if they are criminals. The jihad of the entire Muslim Community right now is to educate ourselves that the crime of others is no justification for indiscriminate violence, although we are supposed to know this basic moral already.” In another post on Sunni Path, he write, “those that claim there is no jihad al-nafs in Islam have imperiled their Islam and might make their shahada, salat, zakat, sawm, hajj, AND jihad worthless.”

From all of this, it is more than clear that Islam teaches the higher path of peace, resorting to show of force only when necessary. Those who claim otherwise are going against volumes upon volumes of sayings from Prophet Muhammad, his successors, and the vast majority of the scholars and only show their ignorance about Islam. This is not some “reformed” version of Islam, but the one Islam that began with Prophet Muhammad. Those that need reforming are those who stand in need of a proper education in Islam. Those who support such fanatics and their distorted version of Islam support stubborn ignorance.

The reason that we Muslims are not all dashing into the streets and killing non-Muslims where we see them is because the immediacy of the commands in verses such as 2:216 or 2:29 applied to certain battles that the Muslims were fighting at the time of their revelation. Those battles have long since finished.

Islamic scholars explain that where we have verses on a subject, some of which are general and some of which are conditioned, the conditions set out in the latter explain and limit the generality of the former. Other verses in the Qur’an put limitations and conditions on jihad. For example, 2:190, 9:36, and 22:38 (poss 39) state that we are only to fight those who are fighting against us, and that we cannot exceed limits. Other verses, such as 2:208, 4:90, 4:128, and 8: 61 indicate that peace is the better way. Ayatullah Shirazi, a Shia scholar, once wrote, “Just as violence is a weapon, non-violence is a weapon too. However, the weapon of non-violence is sharper than the weapon of violence.” Some of the verses discussing peace re-state that we cannot fight those who did not attack us.

In “Jihad: The Holy War of Islam and Its Legitimacy in the Quran,” Ayatullah Mutahhari, a Shia Islamic scholar, stated, “the Quran limits jihad strictly to a type of defense and only permits it in the face of aggression.” He specified that the conditions for the legality of jihad are that the other side intends to attack us or that some group of people is oppressed under a tyrannical ruler; and he excluded forced conversions as a reason for jihad: “There is no place for the use of compulsion in religion, no one must be obliged to accept the religion of Islam. This verse [2:255] is explicit in its meaning.” He arrived at these conclusion by using the method of limiting general verses by conditioned ones: “the conditional verses are explanations of the unconditional ones.”

We Muslims also have several narrations from Prophet Muhammad and those who succeeded him in leadership that impose conditions on how we are to deal with enemies in battle. We are not to tie them up; mutilate them; kill elderly, young, women, or those who flee the battle; cut, burn, or flood trees and crops, kill animals, violate or steal from the property of the enemy, enter their houses, or even irritate the women.

Dennis from Madrid, United States of America

PS: It is sad that Ed Husain didn’t show
to argue his side of view….

How is Shiekh Ba Bikr and TJ Winters?

Benny Morris (Jewish Israeli historian and respected academic)
AU - B. Morris
TI - The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited
SO - Cambridge Middle East studies 2004;(18):xxii, 640 p.
MH - Refugees, Arab.
Palestinian Arabs.
Israel-Arab War, 1948-1949 Refugees.
Jewish-Arab relations History 1917-1948.

“Morris’ earlier work exposed the realities of how 700,000 Palestinians became refugees during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. While the focus of this edition remains the war and exodus, new archival material considers what happened in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Haifa, and how these events led to the collapse of urban Palestine. Revealing battles and atrocities that contributed to the disintegration of rural communities, the story is harrowing. The refugees now number four million and their cause remains a major obstacle to regional peace. First Edition Hb (1988): 0-521-33028-9 First Edition Pb (1989): 0-521-33889-1

As everyone know that,there was no insurgency or terrorism,in the world before 9/11 incident it really created thereafter.

United States,hurriedly investigated the matter declared Afhganistan responsible for the incident and invaded.

Resulting in tens of thousand people were killed including women and childern.
Majority of the people lost their lives during the invasion were innocent so reaction created against the united states and allied forces taken part in the strike on Afghanistan.

United States is a single super power on the earth and its allies armed with latest sophisticated weapons and on the other hand Afghanistan is a armless poor state being run by the persons who defeated Russia and got him out from Afghanistan with the assistance and on the indication of the United States.

They were not in position to face a superpower but burning in the hell of revenge.
They discovered a new stratigy called ‘’suicide attack”and made the superpower defensive in the war.

A man ,who is going to lost his own live,burning in the hell of revenge of his beloveds killed the invasion, according to my considered opinion,no power on the can prvent him to do what he wante to do.

TO BE CONTINUED.

12% of France’s population is Muslim
60% of France’s prisoners are Muslim

That’s very disproportionate, much more so than the state in the US with blacks in jail which is used to make the claim that America is racist.

This is the basis of the Islamic perspective on the value of human life. We Muslims are forbidden to kill wantonly and without just reason. We believe that God has commanded using the Qur’an to deal justly with others and to treat them with respect. We believe that we are only permitted to use force against others in order to defend ourselves or others against injustice or tyrrany. We base these beliefs on Qur’anic injunctions and principles. See the Qur’an 5:8, 17:33, 22:39-40, 31:15, 49:9, and 57:25. See also the following quote from one of our books.

“As far as ‘force’ is concerned, Islam is not completely opposed to its use but rather seeks to control it in the light of the divine Law (al-shari’a). … The Islamic concept of justice itself is related to equilibrium… All force used under the guidance of the divine Law with the aim of re-establishing an equilibrium that is destroyed is accepted and in fact necessary, for it…establish[es] justice. Moreover, not to use force in such a way…increase[s] disequilibrium and disorder and result in greater injustice. … As for … ‘rough or injurious physical force or action’, Islamic Law opposes all uses of force in this sense except in the case of war or for punishment of criminals in accordance with the shari’a. Even in war, however…[o]nly fighters in the field of battle must be confronted with force…” [Seyyed Hossein Nasr, "Islam and the Question of Violence"]