Ijtihad (1 Viewer)

[Henry]

I was wondering if the Muslims (or anyone else who is knowledgeable) on this forum could give me their opinions on a couple things.

1. IJTIHAD: Did the "Gates of Ijtihad" close around the 10th century? Is it still open? If it was closed, why?


2. JIHAD: How much of Jihad is an inner struggle to become a better person, and how much is it conversion, either through coersion or other means.


NOTE: Let's keep this thread calm-no personal attacks please!

Any thing I say that is factually incorrect, please do not take offence! just correct me

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[gray]

needless to say, we'll be watching this one closely

 

[Henry]

I figure I purposely kept the word Jihad out of the subject, so anyone that doesn't know what ijtihad is wouldn't be too interested. Jihad would be guarranteed to draw a crowd

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

this is a rather intereting matter. hopefully someone who knows what he/she is talking about will post in this thread

 

[Henry]

that's what I'm hoping so far there have been 13 views and 0 posts that are actually informative

 

[Rami]

1-No, "gates of ijtihad" are still open, and if fact i do not believe it will ever close. First of all, because Islam is a religion for all places and times, so closing that door will negate this rule. Second, we are truelly living in a fast paced evolutized world, I mean people a 200 years ago and 5000 years ago pretty much used to travel the same way, but now everything has changed with this "global village" we live in. For example, if Ijtihad was closed, how could a muslim pray while he is on an airplane? or the new "copyright ethics", what will forbid a muslim from infringing programs, books, or general intellectual property? In fact Islamic clerics have agreed that such actions are considered stealing which would not be possible if ijtihad was closed

2-Inner Jihad is in fact the first step and the hardest step. It is "jihad" of yourself of not sinning and obeying allah, so it is the hardest to acheive. it is a continous struggle that never ends.

I dont really understand the second part of the question "how much is it conversion, either through coersion or other means."
would you plz clarify?

 

[Henry]

Thanks for your answers! I happen to agree with you what I mean basically, is to ask what people believe about the validity of a Jihad whos primary purpose is to kill and maim innocents. also what people think of a forceful Jihad, ie convertion to Islam through force as was carried out in the 7th century


and btw, if I wrong or incorrect, I do not have any malicious intent to defame or stereotype Islam and Muslims

 

[Rami]

well first of all Jihad's primary purpose is not to kill or Maim!! It is not a purpose in the first place! Jihad has nothing to do with killing innocents, what is happening in this world today has nothing to do with jihad!

Jihad if my memory serves me correct is three parts:

1- Inner Jihad, or inner struggle I already talked about in my previous post.
2- Jihad against oppression of an unjust ruler or transgressions from a non-muslim country on a muslim country. Which is totally legal and acknowledged in most cultures and religions. So, IMO the palastenian-israeli conflict, and the US invasion of Iraq are all places where this kind of jihad should be enforced.
3- finally, jihad to spread the Islamic religion. this kind is the most mis-understood kind. It happened like approx. in the years between 650-750, where the islamic message spread throughout the whole world. of course it has really complicated guidlines that could not be summed in a post. But generally for this kind, first emisarries were sent to neighbouring contries with a message for their ruler to convert to islam, if they obliged then thats that. but if they didnt, an army would be sent to that country, demanding three things in order:
1-submit to islam
2-if not then, submit to the islamic country, and you will be free to practice ur religion as you wish, and will not be coerced to islam.
3- if not then, it is war

Of course a basic rule in islamic jihad is not to kill innocents. In fact abu bakr the first caliph after the prophet, commanded his generals not to kill children, women, elderly, or unarmed soldiers. Also, he asked them not to burn or cut down trees.

The third part of jehad is misunderstood, or falsely accused with the saying that Islam spread by sword. which completly wrong. Indonesia which is the largest islamic country in the world (120 Million), not one soldier ever set foot in that country, all of them converted via the dealings with muslims for trading. Also we would have an Islamic Spain right now if coersion was the way islam spread.

 

[Gandalf]

I agree with Zambrotta19 on his answers..

I may add to clear the false idea that non-muslims have against Islamic Jihad.. that if you translate Jihad accurately you'll find that it means: striving, fighting back and struggling...!!! how could these words mean coersion..!!?? Islam never been a coersive religion.. in fact, there is a verse in the Holy Quran that states that "La ekraha fe'ddeen, qad tabayyana e'rroshdo mena'l Ghay"..that means, this religion has no coersiveness.. the true is revealed from the untrue..
also,it has another meaning.. some might translate the word Jihad to "declaring a holy war".. throughout history (I'm talking about the era when islamic countries were one and united nation, means from the 7th century to the 16th century) Islamic countries didn't at any circumstances have killed children, women and old people.. they fought the armed soldiers and they played by the old codes.. if a fight had to be done, they do it with the least casualties possible.. and for a good reason..

 

[juvelover]

about the " Ijtehad " part ,, it is true that "ijtehad" door is closed after the 4 ( shafe'ee , hanbali , maleki , hanafi ) BUT instead of "ijtehad" there is somthing called " Qeyas" which is similar in a way to "ijtehad" that is for " Sonna and jama'a " .

Shie'aa " ijtehad" doors still open and only for the "Emam"

 

[Daddi]

I don't wanna comment anything in here (it would be too messy) so I'll just never visit this thread again

 

[Rami]

speak ur mind dude!!

 

[Henry]

I agree with most of what you said, Zambrota19. @ Gandalf- I know what Jihad means however, when you look at the world today, you see that there are people that understand Jihad to mean aggressive and forceful proselytization. unfortunately, it seems that there are as many Muslims that misunderstand Jihad as non-believers. so enough with the caps lock both of you-I'm not suggesting that Jihad is coercion. I was merely mentioning possible beliefs.

@ Zambrota19
could you explain how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has given Palestinians a legitimate reason for Jihad?
second: I'm quoting you "first emisarries were sent to neighbouring contries with a message for their ruler to convert to islam, if they obliged then thats that. but if they didnt, an army would be sent to that country, demanding three things in order:
1-submit to islam
2-if not then, submit to the islamic country, and you will be free to practice ur religion as you wish, and will not be coerced to islam.
3- if not then, it is war"

how is that not coercion?? say the non-Islamic country in question wanted to remain independent. they would then face a war that they had neither precipitated or encouraged, yet was being forced upon them. what if the situation was reversed? the Islamic country is forced in to a war-wouldn't the fight to defend the Islamic country be called a just Jihad against infidel invaders? in otherwords, isn't the aggressor nation in the wrong? if so, then obviously if roles were reversed, the Islamic nation would be the aggressor. therefore, if that is how you define Jihad, then your arguments do not match. afterall, it is illogical to think that two countries in the situation I described could BOTH have legitimate reason for Jihad against each other.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
I agree with most of what you said, Zambrota19. @ Gandalf- I know what Jihad means however, when you look at the world today, you see that there are people that understand Jihad to mean aggressive and forceful proselytization. unfortunately, it seems that there are as many Muslims that misunderstand Jihad as non-believers. so enough with the caps lock both of you-I'm not suggesting that Jihad is coercion. I was merely mentioning possible beliefs.

@ Zambrota19
could you explain how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has given Palestinians a legitimate reason for Jihad?
second: I'm quoting you "first emisarries were sent to neighbouring contries with a message for their ruler to convert to islam, if they obliged then thats that. but if they didnt, an army would be sent to that country, demanding three things in order:
1-submit to islam
2-if not then, submit to the islamic country, and you will be free to practice ur religion as you wish, and will not be coerced to islam.
3- if not then, it is war"

how is that not coercion?? say the non-Islamic country in question wanted to remain independent. they would then face a war that they had neither precipitated or encouraged, yet was being forced upon them. what if the situation was reversed? the Islamic country is forced in to a war-wouldn't the fight to defend the Islamic country be called a just Jihad against infidel invaders? in otherwords, isn't the aggressor nation in the wrong? if so, then obviously if roles were reversed, the Islamic nation would be the aggressor. therefore, if that is how you define Jihad, then your arguments do not match. afterall, it is illogical to think that two countries in the situation I described could BOTH have legitimate reason for Jihad against each other.

may i say something ?

what you are saying is indeed true. religions were a thing of the past and they made sense in the past. they have to evolve or they will just be cause of trouble. no offence to ANYBODY and i am talking religion in general.

 

[Henry]

Gandalf: Unfortunately, there are plenty of sentences in the Qur'an that can be used to support an aggressive action by Muslims against non-believers.

Zambrotta19:
"Also we would have an Islamic Spain right now if coersion was the way islam spread"
that is not true. England invaded France in 1346. How much of France is under English control now? It is a fact that the English forcefuly took control of parts of France, but who has the land now? It is also true that the Moors invaded Spain in 711. The name Gibraltar is from Jabal al-Tariq, one of the Moorish generals, if I remember correctly. it is just as indisputable fact as is the Crusades. also, the fact that Indonesia (I knew it was the largest Muslim country by population-just because I'm American doesn't mean I am stupid ) was not converted through force does not in any way disprove that Islam has spread by the sword. whether or not it's encroaches were permanent is not my point.

@Juvelover: would you mind clarifying your post? not enough english for me Thanks!

 

[Henry]

++ [ originally posted by Don Bes ] ++



may i say something ?

what you are saying is indeed true. religions were a thing of the past and they made sense in the past. they have to evolve or they will just be cause of trouble. no offence to ANYBODY and i am talking religion in general.

I completely agree with you. Christianity evolved after the crusades, and is now evolving, although not as fast as it is disintegrating altogether. no offence to Muslims, but Islam must reform as well-solve it's internal struggle over Jihad, Ijtihad, etc. I doubt that anyone here condones the september 11th attacks, but if there are people in the position to commit such acts in the name of a religion as easily as Bin Laden has done, then certain things in that religion should change. Hopefully Islam will restore itself to the type of prosperity that it enjoyed during Europe's so-called "Dark Ages"

 

[Bjerknes]

Are all "Jihads" warrented?

 

[swag]

Religion is an innate human need that has evolved independently across the globe, across cultures. You just can't turn your back on it and say, "Oh, that ____ is so passe!" Human civilization has religious foundations going back to city centers built around temples in ancient Sumeria ... to even further back to animalist cults of prehistoric times.

Not to sound defeatist here, but for whatever religions fall out of favor with the times, there's going to be something else to fill the void. And as long as there is that innate human need to fill the void over questions of existence, of being, of creation, of justice and inequality... there will always be people subject to religion. Whether that's devotion to traditional religions or a blind faith invested in modern cults and brainwashing.

Once you acknowledge that, dealing with the dark side of religion becomes less a matter of any religion in specific and more a matter of the person -- or the human condition in general -- and their need to fill a spiritual void.

++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
I completely agree with you. Christianity evolved after the crusades, and is now evolving, although not as fast as it is disintegrating altogether. no offence to Muslims, but Islam must reform as well-solve it's internal struggle over Jihad, Ijtihad, etc. I doubt that anyone here condones the september 11th attacks, but if there are people in the position to commit such acts in the name of a religion as easily as Bin Laden has done, then certain things in that religion should change. Hopefully Islam will restore itself to the type of prosperity that it enjoyed during Europe's so-called "Dark Ages"

 

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
2. JIHAD: How much of Jihad is an inner struggle to become a better person

Brilliant. Now please explain that to the 1500 "muslims" in this country the AIVD (the Dutch CIA) has identified as radical.

Then I'll take care of the 6000 extreme Christians. I figured I could organise a meeting, sneak away, and bomb a local dam so the place floods

 

[Lilianna]

i don't understand a thing