Jihad and its perspective

[khuwajaramiz@hotmail.com]

What is Jihad?
Types of Jihad?
Should Jihad be the practiced, if yes, in what situation and if no, why?
In Today's Scenario, what is the position of Jihad? and finally
Terrorists perspective and implementation of Jihad?

[oriental]

Jihad means strive,effort.

It has two types Jihad Akbar,the greatest strive is to fight against one's self and Jihad against Satan.The former is obligatory upon everyone the later is not obligatory(There are situations where is is obligatory).

Jihad is not restricted to fighting aggressive forces. Rather, striving against the evil desires of the soul is a kind of jihad that every Muslim should carry out.

In todays world it is obligatory upon all Muslim to strive.Strive to learn knowledge of science and technology;strive to learn the true essence of Islam;strive to help humanity;strive to establish peace in this world and strive against evil desires and actions.

Terrorist can not be called Muslims so there is no point in calling their effort as any type of Jihad.Islam abhors all form of violence against Muslims or non-Muslim therefore,any one who kills a human for his own nefarious interests is a criminal not a jihadi.


Hope I have answered all your questions

Note: These are my personal views about Jihad, people have the right to disagree.

Regards

Oriental

[Maroof Hussain Chishty]

WHAT DOES JIHAD MEAN?

Muslims today can mean many things by jihad-the jurists' warfare bounded by specific conditions, Ibn Taymiya's revolt against an impious ruler, the Sufi's moral self-improvement, or the modernist's notion of political and social reform. The disagreement among Muslims over the interpretation of jihad is genuine and deeply rooted in the diversity of Islamic thought. The unmistakable predominance of jihad as warfare in Shari'a writing does not mean that Muslims today must view jihad as the jurists did a millenium ago. Classical texts speak only to, not for, contemporary Muslims. A non-Muslim cannot assert that jihad always means violence or that all Muslims believe in jihad as warfare.

Conversely, the discord over the meaning of jihad permits deliberate deception, such as the CAIR statement cited above. A Muslim can honestly dismiss jihad as warfare, but he cannot deny the existence of this concept. As the editor of the "Diary of a Mujahid" writes, "some deny it, while others explain it away, yet others frown on it to hide their own weakness."

The term jihad should cause little confusion, for context almost always indicates what a speaker intends. The variant interpretations are so deeply embedded in Islamic intellectual traditions that the usage of jihad is unlikely to be ambiguous. An advocate of jihad as warfare indicates so through his goals. A Sufi uses the term mujahada or specifies the greater jihad. Bourguiba clearly did not advocate violence to improve education and development in Tunisia. When ambiguity does exist, it may well be deliberate. In the case of Arafat's statement about a "jihad for Jerusalem," he intended his Muslim audience to hear a call to arms while falling back on the peaceful definition to allay concerns in Israel and the West. Only his later actions reveal whether he was co-opting Islamists by adopting their rhetoric or duping Israelis by hiding his violent intentions.

[hafiz ishtiaq ahmad]

volume 1

http://www.iqbalcyberlibrary.net/Urd...9-416-214-018/

volume2

http://www.urducl.com/Urdu-Books/969-416-214-019/