This is branching off from a discussion in chat. I raised the probably quite dirty opinion that Muslims might be indifferent or opposed to violent jihad but excited at the prospect that it goes hand in hand with dawah, migration and birth rates in promoting the expansion of Islam. Given that at present where there is a strong Muslim presence there is heavy lobbying to work with groups that support jihad, khlilafah and a hardline shariah, the above scenario would be of concern. Wahhabi says unite behind me, sure enough comes the day... For example, after 9/11 Al Muhajiroun was very keen to emphasise that OBL had polarised the world and apparently swollen Islam's numbers. So my question is about how Muslims relate to this scenario. Does a jihad-driven expansion of Islam in the West excite a)you b)many Muslims?
It's been awhile since I've tackled anything this thorny but please take the question in good faith. I wouldn't put it this way on 7cgen. (In fact it's a no-brainer there.)
What would their response be?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Admin, I wouldn't care what they respond I've read enough HT literature! At least with HT khilafah itself generally begins in Muslim countries. I can't imagine those places would benefit under HT but it's not a discussion I could have on 7cgen. But the answer is they're enthusiastic (no doubt with individual exceptions).
no, I was curious.
and my answers from tribune, if you can make sense of them:
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Thanks again Admin.
Okay, now that I understand what you're saying:
First of all Jihad is one of those words which has taken too much abuse from westerners and easterners alike. Its supposed to mean 'keeping it real/chivalry/fighting the good fight', instead its come to mean 'war' and not war in the normal sense but a war waged by small non-sovereign groups. There's probably a proper word for that, but I don't know it so I'll just have to use 'vigilante'.
Okay, so does the vigilante behavior of militant groups that result in more conversions to Islam excite me?
No. In Islam the ends never justify the means. They can qualify the means, but never outright justify them. A Chinese proverb states "The right means used in the wrong way brings about the wrong ends in the right way."
If Islam spreads, that's great. If Islam doesn't spread, that's great. We (human beings) need Islam. Islam doesn't need us. Really, we only talk about 'need' and 'must' from a compassionate context, out of concern for people.
Does it excite many Muslims?
I honestly don't think so. For sure, it excites the ones with access to megaphones and James-Brown-type-vocal-cords, but if you do a tally of all those people and then divide through by about 1.25 million Muslims, its not a very big number.
Having said that; whilst some Muslims won't be excited about it (because murder sucks right?) they will have a certain guarded cheer about it. This is beause they haven't thought their position through thouroughly enough.
I previously told someone that vigilante, militant behaviour arises due to two factors: a charismatic preacher of extremist behaviour and a deep seated emotional pain. Now, the preacher could be James Dean and the hurt could be teen angst; or the preacher could be Osama bin Laden and the hurt could be the murder of civillians by US troops, but the principle is the same.
Now what this has to do with those people who might secretly be a bit happy about your proposed scenario is that they have the hurt without being fully convinced by the preacher. They have the hurt that thousands of their co-religeonist or fellow country-men have been slaughtered by 'western' troops BUT they still have a moral compass. A conflict then arises because as our Prophet SAW told us "Man by his nature gravitates towards extremes."
So whilst those people aren't happy with western civillians being murdered, there is a dormant feeling of "what goes around comes around," or "street justice." You see there has been an raid made on their emotional selves, and not just on them but on anyone with compassion. These people then feel the need for redress, to restore the balance. This restoration is then recieved through two observations. First, that western civillians get hurt too. Second, that the common link between the victimised easterners, their religeon, takes a hold of the oppressors and knocks their socks off. People with a moral compass won't accept redress through the first observation but they'll take it from the second, because its guilt free. The only death taking place is the death of a person's ideological viewpoint that occurs when they convert, and whilst that can be painful. There's no blood so everybody wins.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
I really disagree with alot of things Hizb-ut-Tahrir says, they seem to think that the solution to every problem is the Khilafa, that you can impose laws without public support, and their way of getting rid of a leader is to impeach them on the basis that they are not following Sharia, which is so vague and not enough. I think it would be a disaster if they got their way, why not focusing on having an EU like Ummah, where the jursidiction get's some discretion but everyone has freedom of movement?
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
Salam
(b) Yes, it does excite a large number of muslims. This is why its scary.
Terrorists find furtile ground when they see so many ordinary muslims go along
with their philosophy as well as their methods.
Omrow
Like I said before... anyone who think the Kilafah is the answer to any of the problems in the Muslim world only needs to visit the two ottoman Palaces in Istanbul, and they will quickly change their tune. If they don't then they have no idea about what the principals of Islam are (in my humble opinion).
But that is not really what's being discussed, is it?
In terms of violent expansion of Islam... I think we should all focus on conquering our OWN kingdoms (i.e. our body and soul) before we can start looking outwards. If we MANAGE THAT, then we should look to spreading Goodness to our family and close friends... only AFTER THAT (if it ever comes), should we even consider anything else.
And I don't agree that violence is ever that 'anything else'.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
I thought Jihad meant strive to do good for example giving zakat or praying 5 times a day is Jihad.
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
Isn't that included in what I said? All three of my definitons preclude the understanding of righteous effort.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
No, Jihad-driven expansion of Islam does not excite me (if you are talking about bombings and the like).
Who would it excite? Answers on a post card please.
The media, government, tried to blow us, but they can't out the flame, or doubt the name.
I'm still away but popping in to say you guys are awesome.
Care to expand?
Lol
The media, government, tried to blow us, but they can't out the flame, or doubt the name.
1.
Same question I asked, other answers were pretty comprehensive and I did give an example. It is an honest, unguarded question that does leave me open to mockery or distraction but I'm glad I asked and it turns out the question was pretty well understood. I now have a new fact being that members of The Revival expressed that while it may be a gameplan for some, they have a strong aversion to the notion and propose the same is true for most, so thanks to everyone who answered somewhat less defensively.
2.
I'm not sure what was unclear but maybe you'll find answers in what I wrote just there. Incidentally, one thing you brush me off, another you think a smiley and a lol are of use. lol
Brush u off?
I just wanted to know why we are awesome lol.
The media, government, tried to blow us, but they can't out the flame, or doubt the name.
Me thinks "Answers on a post card please" wasn't directed at you, it was merely rhetorical. Not rhetorical in a sarcastic sense to put you down, but an exasperation in sympathy with the feelings under-pining your post.
I think he was saying. "This is abhorent to me. Further more, no-one should get kicks out of this sort of thing. *sigh* But some folk probably do...Come on people, sort yourselves out!"
"Answers on a postcard" was a comment made in exasperation to trivialise, from a distance, the opinion of those who might get pleasure out of murder.
Allahuakbar, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
@Joey
Looking at what Wednesday wrote, I've comeback to your post.
If the question is: "Acts of terrorism correlate with increase of Muslim conversions. Is this something to be welcomed?"
I've answered this question already but something I didn't say is, that we welcome conversion to Islam, but abhor terrorism.
If the question then becomes, "acts of terrorism cause conversions to Islam, do you welcome this." I would have to disagree with you and ask you to question the logic of that statement. Do acts of terrorism really cause people to take up a faith that the terrorists were associated with?
Perhaps there are some in society who just want to rebel and do something big and violent and so they sign up for this reason. But would most people wouldn't. Yes there is a correlation with conversions but I don't believe terrorism is the cause. A stimulus for investigating Islam, yes. But it would be giving to undeserved praise to terrorism to say that it causes people to embrace Islam.
I didn't mention it before, because I assumed we were all reading from the same hymn sheet. But in the light of Wednesday's post could you please define what you mean by Jihad?
Just to let you know how most Muslims interpreted 9/11. They were scared that the attrocious actions of a few nut-cases was going to bring on a wave of Muslim-persecution. But God showed them that they should have more faith and brought people to Islam. God reminded people that nut-cases are nut-cases, but when non-Muslims suddenly start to investigate Islam they'll still find something sweet.
@ Wednesday:
How does it emphasise 'dawah, migration and birth rates'?
I too, understand 'lesser Jihad' to mean martial combat, but there are rules. Could you please define 'lesser Jihad' by giving examples of what counts as 'lesser Jihad' and what doesn't?
@Joey and Wednesday:
Jihad as combat is supposed to be a beautiful concept. Fromt the four Sunni madhhabs, three of the schools agree that it is only defensive and never aggressive. The other school says that its defensive but also, if there is a people being oppressed by a tyrant then you should go help those people out. All four schools recognise that war is something decided by the sovereign. It is not for individuals to raise private armies and make their own wars. This is in total violation of the leadership. A man should defend his home and his family if it is being attacked. If there's no war on, then his family and home should be safe.
War is abhorent because it mocks the sacredness of human life, but our Prophert SAW told us that it wasn't going to disappear and so He SAW taught us rules by which, if we must go to war, we can achieve the best objectives at the smallest costs.
E.g. don't harm civillians, don't mutilate the dead, don't destroy the agriculture of the opponent. I.e. If you have to fight, then fight fighters. And fight them face to face.
When there's a fighter in your face, neither love slaughter nor turn and run. I.e. Don't be a gangster but do stand your ground.
These are life principles and will serve you well in any life endeavour. This is how Jihad is relevant in all aspects of our lives. This is from the wisdom of our Prophet SAW.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
Well put, mate.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
Fair enough, my apologies.
Sounds generally right, I wasn't implying a causal link.
And to clarify, by jihad I should have been specific and said violent jihad. Mostly terrorism and armed subversion.
I hope so anyway. Thanks Dawud.
If something is (objectively) 'terrorism' then it can't be (objectively) 'jihad'.
Is there such thing as 'objective' meanings for both these words? Answers on a postcard please...
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Another angle:
Western countries have a lower birth rate than non-western countries. The numbers will not rise as fast as in other countries.
So being overwhelmed is a natural conclusion.
A way to avoid this to collapse the economy to such a state that noone will want to move here looking for prosperity.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
A physicist whose surname was Alpher co-wrote a papaer with another whose surname was Gamow and they got another whose surname was Bethe to contribute so that the authors of the papaer read "Alpher, Bethe, Gamow" Like 'Alpha, Beta, gamma.' In the spirit of those scientists I'm shortnening "Wednesday" to 'We'...
Of course, it all makes sense now.
Yes, defense is the ceentral aspect. Jihad is struggle in doing the right thing. Often when it comes to physical strength being abused, the abuse is in the form of an attack not in the form of a defense (If defense was abuse it might look like this: a man walks into the doctors and says "I broke my arm." The doctor asks "How?" The man answers "Its my wife's fault, she ducked and my fist hit the wall.") So if the abuse being done is an attack, then the effort employed to restore equilibrium is either defense or counter-attack.
As for this "What if, you face your 'enemy' and just stand staring at each other... no one's making a move, the first move... what then?" That's just being literalist which is tantamount to being deliberately obtuse. If no-one wants to fight then that's cool.
"Also, I can't seem to understand how can attack be a form of defense; Isn't attack, an attack?"
If defense is defined as "that which protects your life which is otherwise threatened" then attacking the person threatening your life is defense. However, if defense is merely "resisting attack" then you have to ask yourself if attacking your attacker is a way of resisting him. If 'yes' then attack can be a form of defense, if 'no', it can't.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes