Talk:Jihad

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anonymous editor (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 30 June 2005 (archiving....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Older comments from the Jihad discussion page may be found at Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, and Archive5, Archive 6

FOUR jihads

According to Encarta:

"Jihad is the duty of all mainstream Muslims, who belong to the branch known as Sunni Islam. There are four ways they may fulfill a jihad: by the heart, by the tongue, by the hand, and by the sword. The first refers to the inner, spiritual battle of the heart against vice, passion, and ignorance. The second way means speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one's tongue. The third way involves choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action, or one's hand. The fourth way refers to defending Islam and waging war against its enemies with the sword."

Which is lesser & which is greater is a religious interpretation. Which is the original & which is the more common usage might be a job for sociolinguists - and there could be an answer

As I understand it, the word is extremeely similar to "crusade" -- a word which out of sensitivity is passing out of usage except to refer to the Crusades - can the same be said for jihad?--JimWae 23:04, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

"speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one's tongue." There's already a word for this. In English it is called prostylizing and in Islamic terminology it is called "Da'wah." I don't see the point of further confusing the matter with this. When Muslims talk about da'wah, they say "da'wah" - they don't say "Jihad." I think it would be better to describe this secondary meaning of Jihad as "spiritual Jihad" or "inner Jihad" and basically leave it at that. With such a general concept, we could list dozens of things that might conceivably fit into "spiritual Jihad." We already have this example, from Encarta, of da'wah being "Jihad." The current version of the article also claims that scholarly study of Islam is also part of the "spiritual Jihad." If we start listing everything like this, then there is no end to it, because this whole idea of a "spiritual Jihad" is clearly so general that it encompasses the whole religion of Islam and then some. So far this means that we have 5 Jihads (1. Jihad "by heart", 2. Jihad by "tounge" (da'wah / prostylizing), 3. Jihad "by hand" 4. Jihad "by sword" (one has to wonder what the difference between 3 and 4 is) and now 5. Jihad by scholarly study of Islam! If we delve into the hadiths, we can find at least 2 or 3 more types of "Jihad" (e.g. taking care of one's parents). So following this line of logic, there are at least 7 or 8 Jihads!. This is clearly absurd. I think the two definitions of Jihad as "Holy War" and as a "spiritual," metaphorical Jihad are suffucient. The primary focus of this article should be on the "Holy War" aspect of Jihad, because (as it has been demonstrated here) the concept of a "spiritual Jihad" is entirely vauge and general and encompasses a countless number of things which cannot possibly be enumerated here (and in fact it would be utterly pointless to enumerate them here).
You are absolutely correct that, in Islamic terminology, the word "Jihad" is used in a metaphorical way, just as how the word "Crusade" is used in a metaphorical way in English. Now I ask you, if you were writing an article about the Crusades, would you dedicate anything more than a paragraph to describe the fact that "Crusade" can metaphorically refer to all manner of things not dealing with the Crusades? Wouldn't the main focus of an article on "Crusade" be Holy War, and not a big list of all the possible metaphorical uses of the word "Crusade?"
--Zeno of Elea 03:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Which is lesser & which is greater is a religious interpretation." - Any source I've seen and any Muslim I've talked to about the topic says that lesser jihad is "holy war" and greater jihad is an internal struggle to keep and stay true to the faith. Do you have any citations to the contrary? --Tothebarricades 03:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Tothebarricades, please read my post in the discussion section titled "Are There Really 2 Jihads?". The begining of this section explains were the specific concepts of "greater Jihad" and "lesser Jihad" originate, with a detailed examination of the originating sources. My post goes on to give many citations which negate the notion that "holy war" is "lesser" in some sense, in mainstream/traditional Islamic doctrine. --Zeno of Elea 10:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's not in the Koran, it is interpretation, even if universally agreed -unless it has become a dogma of faith, which I do not think there is any process for in Islam, is there? Is it in the Koran or any other official scripture? If so, I stand corrected. My point is that a lot of energy seems to have been spent on which is inner & which is outer - and a better tack might be to discuss original use & preponderance of use --JimWae 03:41, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • "If it's not in the Koran, it is interpretation ..." I don't understand what you are trying to say. The Koran must also be interpreted, just like any other religious text.
  • "a better tack might be to discuss original use & preponderance of use" That is an excellent idea. It's also why I've spent a great deal of time locating and describing authentic hadiths which use the word "Jihad" and explain what the word "Jihad" means. The hadith are the best available source for determining how the word "Jihad" was used by the early Muslims, since the use of the word "Jihad" in the hadiths is the oldest recorded use of the world. The Qur'an would be a preferable source but the Qur'an does not use the word "Jihad," so it cannot be an example of original use of the word "Jihad." --Zeno of Elea 10:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • By the way, JimWae, perhaps there really are 4 Jihads. And, like I said, perhaps there are 7 or 8 or who knows how many Jihads. I stated above that I didn't like the idea of stuffing all these different Jihads into this one article (it would simply become unmangable, especially in midst of revert wars). But I did propose that we split the article into two articles, to deal with all these different Jihads. The most important and natural way of classifying all the different Jihads is to seperate them into violent/political Jihads (i.e. holy war) and "non-violent Jihads" (e.g. "spiritual" "Jihad", "Jihad" of the "heart", "Jihad" of the "tounge", "Jihad" of taking care of one's parents, "Jihad" of studying the Koran, etc., etc.) All of the 3, 6, 7, or however many non-violent Jihads there are, can go into a new article about the "non-violent Jihads." Meanwhile those of us who are interested in the violent/political Jihad can resume editing this article. Of course the main article would have to make adequate mention of the "spiritual Jihads" and link to the other article. But no one seems to like the idea of splitting into two articles, in which case I think we ought to stick with just 2 Jihads at most. --Zeno of Elea 11:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
re the splitting, there is no reason to object to creating specialized articles on specific "jihads", once this article becomes too lengthy. This Jihad article will still remain an overview article (Wikipedia:summary style) of the range of meanings of the term. The splitoffs will be specialized articles, and won't help us with the task of keeping the main article balanced. dab () 11:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article should be unlocked

In view of the seeming agreement and/or compromise noted above, there seems no good reason to keep this article locked. Where is the mod who locked the article? Why has this lock been permitted to persist for at least five days at this point? —Ryanaxp 17:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Because this has spawned an ArbCom case and lots of name calling. There is little point in unlocking an article if it will just go back to the state it was before. That said, after some consideration, I have unprotected the article. If I see another revert war I will protect it again. Inter\Echo 08:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Edit: I see Slimvirgin has re-protected the article today due to reverts. The article is now protected again. Inter\Echo 08:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Inter, I unlocked it in response to the above, but six hours later had requests from both sides to lock it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Muslims

I note that up above, users were challenged to provide evidence of ANY liberal Muslim movements with significant followings. No pro-Islamic editor bothered to do so.

If you have such evidence, please bring it forth. Otherwise, please stop the highly POV edits.Enviroknot 23:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saying "Liberal" is a matter of personal opinion. If there is the claim that there are "no liberal movements" presently, then that is a matter between what some consider liberal and some don't. Thus, since this is a controversial section, it is imperative that we leave highly unverifiable and unsourced material out. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Not really, no. If you presented evidence of the groups, it would be a start from which an evaluation could be made. As it stands, proof of LACK of following of groups like Free Muslims Against Terrorism was given above and you have yet to refute it with any examples of your own.Enviroknot 23:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just because a group is said to lack support does not classify it as liberal nor does it speak for all other liberal groups. Please stop using anonymous IPs to edit the article or you will be reported again. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am not using any anonymous IP's. I edit from this account and from this account only.
I am still waiting for you to provide ANY sort of evidence. You seem to refuse to do so. This is no way to resolve a conflict, Anonymous editor. Facts have been given. If you have any of your own, please, PLEASE bring them forth.Enviroknot 00:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The edits you keep making are original research.Yuber(talk) 00:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please stop thinking that by continuously "demanding facts" you are making a point, Enviroknot. Clearly anyone knows what is considered Liberal is a matter or personal opinion and that basing everything on the success of one small organization is ludicrous. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
If you make an edit, you are supposed to back it up on the talk page. You are steadfastly refusing to do so.Enviroknot 00:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looking at your userpage, it seems you're a well-known sockpuppet. I'm not going to waste my time debating here with you then.Yuber(talk) 00:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So far, you have made upto 7 edits on the page. I have made 3 in which one was a neutrality tag. You, like always, don't make any discussion and think that personal attacks are the easy way to edit material. I am glad article has been re-protected in a fair state or you would have still put in more disputed, unverifiable material. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I have made three edits, all of which were fixing damage caused by Yuber. Please stop acting in bad faith and actually engage in conversation. You are doing no good while you refuse to provide any evidence supporting your removal of content from the article.Enviroknot 00:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You can not consider every thing your proven extreme anti-Islamic POV does not agree with "bad faith". Do you seriously want me to show everyone the actual bad faith edits you have made recently against different people, or how about your proven sockpuppetry and editing through anon IPs. Please do not create another atmosphere of conflict as you have done with so many other editors. It is not needed and clearly I was only mediating in this topic from a NPOV. Trust me you do not need another enemy, you have plenty. So lets move on. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

I can't edit this article because I've protected it, so this is just an opinion in an effort to sort out one aspect of the dispute. As I see it, the sentence: "However, there are no liberal Muslim movements that have significant power in any Muslim states, nor is it clear that such liberal Muslim movements have significant followings in any Muslim states" is original research, because it's making an assertion, not backed up with any source, in order to build a case. Even if it did have a source, it would still be trying to build a case. That makes it part of the editor's own opinion, argument, or analysis, and that makes it original research.

This is mostly to do with the position of the sentence. If it were elsewhere, in a context in which it flowed more naturally as a pertinent fact, it would be okay, but in this particular passage, it's clear that it's being forced in. Regarding a source, it's Enviroknot who should provide the source if he wants to keep the edit, so as I see it, the sentence violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. I hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I was saying before. Thanks for clarifying this.--Anonymous editor 02:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Also agree. Needs a source to back it up. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The statement is patently true. There are no significant liberal or modernist Muslim movements anywhere in the world. It's simple a fact of life. If you believe that there is a significant liberal or modernist Muslim movement somewhere in the world, then the burden of proof lies on you - you must prove that such a movement exists. It is not up to someone else to prove that no such movements exist, just like it's no one's responsibility to prove that pink invisible elephants dont exist. It's just common sense that there are no significant liberal or modernist Muslim movements anywhere in the world. Everyone knows it, and no one has a counter-example. If you were to say "there are no significant conservative or fundamentalist Muslim movements in the world", I could rattle off half a dozen counter-examples from memory. Anyone who claims that there is a significant liberal Muslim movement somewhere in the world must prove it; until then, it is legitimate to assume that there are no significant liberal islamic movements - just as it is legitimate to assume that there are no invisible pink elephants, though we cannot provide a source for this particular claim. --Zeno of Elea 10:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
look, the "pink Elephants" example is different by the crucial word "significant". We wouldn't need to say "no significant pink Elephants exist" thereby brushing some poor insignificant pink Elephants under the carpet. It is very obivious that liberal Muslim organisations exist. But are they significant? Is significance in the eye of the beholder? If you need to blow up buildings to qualify as "significant" then clearly, no significant liberal Muslim organizations exist. dab () 10:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"It is very obvious that liberal Muslim organisations exist." PLease provid a source. This is not at all obvious to me. Please tell us the names of one or more liberal Muslim organizations, movements, or sects. --Zeno of Elea 11:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
minus the "significant", no problem at all. We have one right here in Zurich, and they are at least of local significance. They are called Vereinigung der Islamischen Organisationen in Zürich (VIOZ) http://www.vioz.ch/ and they recently published a set of principles [1] on non-violence, democracy, and women's rights. Another Swiss group is called Forum für einen fortschrittlichen Islam (FFI), and apparently they are even more progressive [2], [3]. I am quoting Swiss groups because I know them first hand, mind you, I have no doubt there are similar organizations in any number of other countries. dab () 11:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are do wacky Muslim converts keep whitewashing this article?

Anonymous editor, who is an American who once was a fundamentalist Christian but then became a Muslim, and Brandon Toropov, a Russian Jew who emigrated to America and became a Catholic and then a Muslim, bring wacky POV's to all articles about Islam.

Nowhere in the Jihad article does it say that Islam is evil or most Muslims are evil. Far from it. The article is quite balanced, giving a clear history of Jihad.

It is telling that both Anonymous editor and Toropov have gone through multiple religions and/or multiple fundamentalist/extremist approaches to religion. If they had chosen to be secularists or communists or animal rights activists or environmentalists I assume they would whitewash any bad elements of their new belief systems, just like extremists of all stripes tend to do.

Regardless of what this Jihad page says, the non-Muslim world is increasingly aware of violent Jihad against unarmed, innocent civilians. Anonymous editor and Toropov, neither of whom has ever lived in a Muslim country, are hilarious to read.

As for "Liberal Movements Within Islam", it is as laughable as ever. There are certainly some pockets of "Liberal Movements Within Islam" in the Western world, small groups of a few dozen people who put up homemade web free web sites on Yahoo. Of course, there is not a single "Liberal Movement Within Islam" that has established a significant political position or following in any Muslim country.

There are plenty of people in Muslim countries who are nominally Muslim, yet are liberal. These people protest against injustice and in favor of democracy. One need only look at Lebanon and Iran. However, in both Lebanon and Iran, the Muslims who are liberal do not exercise their liberalism in the name of Islam. They are the Muslim equivalent of what Westerners call "lapsed Catholics". The people opposing the Mullahs in Iran are Muslims themselves. However, their political movements are not based in Islam. There are plenty of socialists in Europe who are nominally Catholic, but it would be absurd to call them part of "Liberal Movements Within Catholicism", just like it is absurd to call a secular, non-observant Muslim who protests against his government or in favor of democracy a member of a "Liberal Movement Within Islam".

--PeterChehabi 28 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)

  • For the record, I'm not Jewish. I hesitate even to point this much out, because much of what you've written is ad hominem.
  • Nor was I born in Russia, but rather in the United States.
  • I lived in Saudi Arabia for approximately three months.
  • Not that any of this is relevant to the discussion, except insofar as it spotlights a propensity, on your part, for making stuff up.BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 14:35 (UTC)


Firstly, it is irrelevant to attack Anonymous and Brandon because of their religious beliefs and histories. It is only through their revealing it that you know of their history and accuse them on such a shaky basis. I would hope that any editor planning on being taken seriously would not attack the person but their content. If an editor is passing a strong point of view it doesn't matter why they're doing it or what led them to do it. It would be rather presumptuous to think that other editors will be swayed by your attempts to strengthen your view by attempting to give your opponents motives to push a POV. Let's assume you're not a Muslim. Is that any less of a point of view?
Secondly, it would be incredibly difficult to get an accurate count of how many people follow liberal Muslim views. Regardless, the comparison to Catholic socialists is very off. Socialism is a method of running a government, it is not in itself trying to be a religious movement. Unless of course you are talking about Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers movements and liberation theology which actually would count as liberal Catholic movements that make their decisions based on their interpretations of religious texts. This is what liberal Muslim movements do. They are not secularists claiming an Islamic heritage. They are Muslims who are interpretting the Qur'an (and hadith) in a new light just as has happened in Christianity in the modern era.
Finally, on the issue of Jihad you must be very careful. We are seeing this through interpretation and we must make sure that the quotes use "fight", as we see it, in the correct form. As I know it there are qital, jihad, and harb that can mean more or less fight. As we know fight can mean different things in different contexts so it is our place to see how Muslims scholars first interpret it these followed by what linguists say. Of least importance is the non-scholarly definitions of Jihadwatch whom are not in the position to define Muslim doctrine, nor in the know-how to question the linguistic implications. One cannot just associate something that one calls jihad as a jihad in the sense that the Muslim scholars (and then the linguists and sociologists) have defined. If bin-Laden, completely unnotable in the Islamic theology, declares it is jihad then we must not make this seem to be on the same terms as scholars define jihad if it is not. Jihad has had many interpretations and is used many ways, we cannot equate them all as one and hope to portray a coherent and neutral view of this issue. gren 28 June 2005 05:28 (UTC)
There is no point in using phrases like "liberal movements in Islam." This is terribly ambigious. Let's be honest here. What we really mean is REFORM movements in Islam. IT is undoubtable that there is not a single reformist Islamic sect that isn't a tiny, marginalized group of Westerners. Islam is a relatively new religion as far as human history goes. Islam has not yet reached a stage where there are reformist movements with non-negligable followings. This is a fact of life in the world today, and no amount of obfuscating or complaining about lack of statistics can hide this fact. Religions such as Judaism and Christianity have reform movements with vast followings that have existed for a very long time - this dwarfs anything Islam currently has on offer. This fact will not change by pointing out some Westernized intellectual's personal website that tries to portray a politically correct Islam as if the religion was founded by Oprah. --Zeno of Elea 28 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)
But, Zeno, this is your own personal opinion. There are various moderates in Islam which are regarded as liberal. There are liberals in every religion and who and who is not regarded as Liberal is personal opinion. Just because many do not exist in a massive organization doesn't say anything. And NO, reform movements are not what that article is referring to by saying "liberal", it is usually a reference to moderates or left-wings in any religion. It is very incorrect to say definitely that "only a tiny marginilized group of westerners" are the ones who can be related to this liberal concept, that is absolute speculation. I also agree with Gren's statements and would like to point out that non-Muslims (especially the extreme) are in absolutely no place to "completely" define what is liberal and non-liberal in Islam . Btw, Peter is contradictory in his statement as he says that the "article is quite balanced" and then also saying that I "whitewashed" it; it's an oxymoron. Also I don't know why he is once again resorting to personal attacks about my (and Brandon's) choice of religion when really the only thing I have edited in this article is persistent POV editing by an anonymous IP user (aka the abusive sockpuppet, enviroknot). To Peter: I am very happy being a Muslim (thank you very much for your criticism) but who you consider liberal ("people protesting for democracy") or not is your own personal opinion, and please get your facts straight before blindly resorting to repetitive attacks against people. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 07:28 (UTC)
Zeno, when you say you reform you mean conforming to modern western secular notions right? If this is what you men then say it, because it is very misleading I believe to define reform in such narrow terms as you seem to. The Mu'tazilites controlled the Abassid courts for a while and there was much reform in removing what many saw as their overly Greek influenced doctrines. As I see it the whole creation of what we now know is Sunnis was Islamic reform post fitnah, because as far as I can tell people during that time would not have accepted both Ali and Uthman, in any case, it at least doesn't seem like it would have been typical. Another thing is that it seems like many Muslims take the hadith about not breaking down into sects to heart. This means that most groups do go under loose labels about their beliefs and make sure to show that they are "within Islam" instead of calling themselves the "Reformed Muslim Church" or some name like that. I don't see any problem with my statement that statistics on this are difficult to garner. We don't even know the number of Muslims in totality (even in the United States) and gathering how many view themselves as liberal or follow more or less liberal ideas could only be much harder. If it's true that no government with Islamic based law have what is typically considered liberal thought then that is something that can be quantified and talked about in definite terms. Wait, and aren't people like Iqbal and Qasim Amin from about a century ago reformist or liberal in many ways? I do think you over generalize a lot Zeno. gren 28 June 2005 11:21 (UTC)
yes, that's just essay-writing now. " Islam has not yet reached a stage where there are reformist movements with non-negligable followings." what is that supposed to mean? that statement is meaningless for more reasons I care to enumerate. dab () 28 June 2005 13:23 (UTC)
I'd like to see a count of how many hadith (and quranic verses) use the term Jihad in a military or nonmilitary setting, added to this article. There's only one hadith I know of (and ZERO nonmilitary quranic Jihad references), and it's rightly presented in this article as being of a weak basis. On the other hand, there are at least 164 verses that mention Jihad in a military setting in the quran. I don't have an accurate count on the hadith since various collections of hadith are a dime a dozen and all have different sayings or rewrites of sayings.Enviroknot 29 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)
"Zeno, when you say you reform you mean conforming to modern western secular notions right?" This article is about Jihad, so let's focus on that context. We must first ask, what are the theological reasons that Muslims wage holy war? There are
  • 1. War against a foreign invaders
    • This type of war is sanctioned by international law. Islamic law demands that all able bodied Muslim men fight to the last man; defensive Jihad is obligatory until either victory or death is achieved. By making defensive Jihad obligatory, Islam also negates the possibility of non-violent resistance. This kind of rigid militant attitude causes more harm than good. Let is take current day Iraq as an example. The vast majority of Iraqis are not fighting the US invasion, even though they are Muslims. Why is this? Because such Muslims are what one would called "moderate," "liberal," or what have you. But the fact remains that Islam demands that all able bodies Muslims (even non-Iraqis) fight against the invasion until it is defeated, and a small minority of Iraqis are indeed engaging in Jihad against the invasion. The important question is, who is right, as far as Islamic doctrine is concerned? The mujahideen, the "extremists," the "non-moderates," the "non-liberals" (whatever you want to call them) have the moral high ground in this case - they are doing doing what Islam demands, while the rest are disobeying Allah. What is needed here is theological reform. The "liberals" and "moderates" are "liberal" and "moderate" even in cases where Islamic theological doctrine is not. So while there may be "moderates" and "liberal" Muslims who insist that non-violence is okay in Islam, they don't have any sort of actual religious doctrine to base their opinions on. The only way that such "liberals" could have a doctrinal justification for their "liberalism" is if they accompanied their "liberalism" with actual religious reform, by justifying exactly how and why they are rejecting the traditional Islamic doctrine. But as gren pointed out, most "liberal" Muslims "...make sure to show that they are 'within Islam' instead of calling themselves the 'Reformed Muslim Church'" This means that "moderate" Muslims do not even make it explicit that they are rejecting Islamic traditions, so they are a very far way from actually finding a theological justification for religious reformation.
  • 2. War for conquest
    • Again, you will find a few "liberal" Muslims proclaiming that holy wars of conquests are no longer neccessary. This is rather convenient - Allah commands Muslims to go on holy wars of conquests for 1,400 years, and when their empire collapses and the wars of conquest end, Allah sends the liberal Muslims to re-interperet Islam and announce that wars of conquest are no longer needed. Well the fact of the matter is that wars of conquest are no longer possible for Muslims or Muslims states, and they probably never will again either. For this reason, I will not bother dwelling too much on this particular type of Jihad. But the fact of the matter is that the only way that this imperialistic aspect of Islam can truly be purged from the religion is through religious reform, and that would require religiously delegitmizing 1,400 years of Islamic conquest and appearing to no longer be "within Islam." Very few Muslims are willing to admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with imperialistic warfare, irrespective of time or place.
  • 3. War for re-establishing the Islamic state
    • So long as the concept of the Islamic state is legitimate in Islam, so is holy war in this cause. Thus there are militant Islamist seperatist movements all over the world, from Eastern Europe to the Philippines, and Friday sermons in sympathy for these movements are regularly heard in almost all mosques around the world. Only religious reform towards secularism could stop Muslims from warring against the local infidel government, wherever they form a sizable population. Long ago, Christianity underwent a sweeping reformation where the Church deemed government as inherently evil and agreed upon the seperation of Church and state. Islam has yet to witness such a reformation. In the absense of such a reformation, one cannot claim that there is any significant Muslim opposition to this type of Jihad.
  • 4. Assasination of apostates and blasphemers
    • Examples of this kind of international Jihad include the assasinations of Rashad Khalifa and Theo van Gogh, as well the famous death fatwa against Salman Rushdie that was issued by the Iranian government. These form of warfare, in Islam, against percieved enemies has a long history and, according the traditional sources, it goes all the way back to the military activities of the prohet himself. Blasphemy is a capital offense in Islam, and there are virtually no Muslims who would endorse the idea that blasphemy against Islam should be unconditionally tolerated (i.e. that the freedom of speech should be upheld). In the absense of any sort of serious legal reformations in Islam, extremists have complete relgious justification in their murderous violence against percieved blasphemers, and they have the moral high ground as far Islamic doctrine is concerned.
It is abundantly clear that the more "liberal" a "liberal Muslim," in regards to Jihad, the less Muslim that "liberal Muslim" actually is. This is why only 50 people showed up to the Muslim "March Against Terrorism" in Washington DC, even though a Newsweek article about a Koran being flushed down a toilet by an American soldier can cause huge numbers of Muslims to march and riot around the world, in protest. The fact is that Islam has traditionally been a medieval, militant, imperialist, warrior religion. Its earliest adherents were warriors, and for 1,400 years it was a form of totalatarian imperialism. At one point, Islam was the most powerful political organization in the world, due it its inherent imperial, militant nature. And the vast majority of Muslims in the world are still following the same traditional Islam that was developed in the medieval ages, and very little (if any) doctrinal changes have occured since then, on any major scale. This doesn't mean that the vast majority of Muslims are militants, but that is only DESPITE the fact that they are following a medieval warrior religion that has undergone very little change in over a millenium. Yes, there are Muslims on the Internet claiming that Islam doesn't have to involve Jihad and can accomodate non-violence - but with Jihad being the "sixth pillar of Islam," such people are not likely to be taken seriously by most practicing Muslims. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 01:50 (UTC)
Islam is not your interpretation of the Qur'an. It is primarily Muslim scholar's interpretation of the Qur'an followed by secular sociology and critical literary study and the like. If you think that makes them less Muslim then so be it, you can believe that, but your opinion does not make it so. The Muslim March Against terror was disliked by ohter progressive Muslims for many reasons. The primary one being that they argued it was stupid to be the beast of burden for something they didn't do. I'm of German origin, my countrymen slaughtered Jews. I'm not going to apologize for it, I didn't do it. Or if you prefer in the religious sense, I am Catholic, many Catholics slaughtered Muslims, I'm not going to apologize for it. If they started doing it again today I wouldn't apologize for it either because I'm not doing it. You interpret Islam from its primary sources and then claim that is what Islam is. This is now how encyclopedias work, that is called original research. Just because someone says this is Jihad does not mean it's what scholars agree on... you are trying to demonize it because of your own dislike and ignoring what is said about the subject in the literature. Unless of course your literature is Ali Sina and the like, but authors like that are not considered scholarly in the least. gren 29 June 2005 02:36 (UTC)
"Islam is not your interpretation of the Qur'an. It is primarily Muslim scholar's interpretation of the Qur'an followed by secular sociology and critical literary study No, Islam is primarily interpretations of the Qur'an AND Hadith AND Sira, made by CLASSICAL Muslim scholars during the early centuries of Islam. And it has nothing at all to do with "secular sociology" or literary criticism.
"I'm of German origin, my countrymen slaughtered Jews. I'm not going to apologize for it ..." You are misunderstanding the difference between protesting and appologizing. The Muslims who marched and rioted in protest of the Quran being flushed down the toilet were not appologizing for the Quran flushing.
"You interpret Islam from its primary sources and then claim that is what Islam is. This is now how encyclopedias work, that is called original research. Just because someone says this is Jihad does not mean it's what scholars agree on..." Well this is something that we can both agree on. It is the apologists who wish to censor the original sources from the article, and instead focus on sources that consist of the personal homepages of Westernized appologists on the Internet. We all know that Islam's primary sources are not going to portray Jihad as something is that is likely to be agreeable with applogistic Western converts to Islam. For example, it is beyond any doubt that the primary sources command Muslims to wage imperial Jihad in order to expand the Islamic state. If that is what the primary sources say, and if we all agree that Islam is its primary sources, then why does the article mention, at great length, that "some Muslims" don't like this whole imperial Jihad thing?
--Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 03:23 (UTC)
Clearly Zeno, it seems your definition of a "liberal Muslim" is one the conforms to western interests and western-style themes. Generally, all that you have indicated is that goes against American interest is not a "liberal Muslim" and have taken upon a very "American" and anti-Islamic definition of what Jihad is.
  • by making defensive Jihad obligatory, Islam also negates the possibility of non-violent resistance. - Explain how. Defensive Jihad is used to fight armed invaders. There is so much non-violent resistance in the history of the Muslim world. Look at the Iranian Revolution and the recent protests by the Muslim Brotherhood for democracy. Both of these movements were in no way considered "liberal" or reformist by the west and they are still not today. But did they not offer non-violent resistance? These are two movements that the west considers to be far from "liberal", infact they call them "Islamist", but I did't see any Muslim brotherhood members during the recent protest holding guns. What I saw was tens of thousands of people protesting for democracy against the western-supported government of Pres. Mubarak. They stood peacefully under banners with verses from the Quran, under the words of Allah. This was an excellent example of how political "Jihad" took place non-violently, until these people were attacked by government soldiers.
  • Let is take current day Iraq as an example. The vast majority of Iraqis are not fighting the US invasion, even though they are Muslims. Why is this? Because such Muslims are what one would called "moderate," "liberal," or what have you." - So what are you trying to say? Any Muslim that offers any resistance to the interests of the United States is not "liberal"??? You are very misinformed on this topic especially. Secondly you say, "they are doing doing what Islam demands, while the rest are disobeying Allah." No, that has absolutely nothing to do with this. Those who are fighting, including those who cite religious reasons, are fighting because they don't want to live under an American-style colony. There are both, political and armed factions opposing the American invasion. An example of a political one is the "Association of Muslim Scholars" (AMS), who although very strongly Muslim, have taken a political role in Iraq and are constantly the target of American soldiers. How do you explain this? The reality is that some groups have chosen to fight with arms, while others have chosen to fight politically. Tell me, if a country invaded the United States, would no one offer armed resistance? Are we to say that anyone who takes up arms is not "liberal" or that not taking up arms goes against the constition? Because this is what your definition would state and is further indication that what a "liberal" is is personal opinion.
  • "Allah commands Muslims to go on holy wars of conquests for 1,400 years, and when their empire collapses and the wars of conquest end, Allah sends the liberal Muslims to re-interperet Islam and announce that wars of conquest are no longer needed." - What are your sources on that? Are you simply making stuff up, tell me where does it say that Muslims are to go on "conquest"? When did Allah send liberal Muslims to say anything? Please get your facts straight.
  • the fact of the matter is that the only way that this imperialistic aspect of Islam can truly be purged from the religion is through religious reform, and that would require religiously delegitmizing 1,400 years of Islamic conquest and appearing to no longer be "within Islam"."Christianity underwent a sweeping reformation where the Church deemed government as inherently evil and agreed upon the seperation of Church and state." - Really? I see no difference in Christian history, infact I see it worse. Even after Church reformation, imperial kingdoms existed and don't even deny it. Millions of native Americans were killed for these imperial empires. The Spanish and French were overly zealous, they killed natives, built churches to convert them, destroyed the native empires entirely all in the name of "Christ" or some other saint. Why not look through history and see with what treachery, deciet and violence South America was colonialized by the Christians? What about the English empire, what about India where so many people were killed by the British. Tell me where in Islam is forced colonialization of this sort allowed because currently the Christians fit your definition way better than the Muslims. Where was this "christian love" and "liberalism" that we hear so much about? Why is it that so many years after this protestant reformation and separation of church and state, that christians still committed the same crimes and violence against peaceful peoples of the new world?
  • Thus there are militant Islamist seperatist movements all over the world, from Eastern Europe to the Philippines" - This is clearly because Muslims are being oppressed. In Kashmir, over 100 000 Muslims have died because of Indian ethnic cleansing. In Chechnya, over 120 000 Muslims have been killed by Russian security forces in two different wars for surpression. How exactly do you explain Bosnia because obviously that is what you are reffering to with "Eastern Europe"? Are you saying the Serbs should have been allowed to "ethnically cleanse" their lands from the Muslims and in doing so they were justified in killing over 20 000 unarmed Muslims. What are Muslims supposed to do, just sit there unarmed while bigotists kill them? How about more recent: in Uzbekistan, so many Muslims protested the current government of Islam Karimov in the streets and in doing so the US-supported government of Islam Karimov killed these so-called "Islamists" in the streets. No denying it, truly any Muslim that protests whether armed or unarmed, even political and defensive, are being killed by those who opress them and the opressors are supported by non-Muslims. What about christian separatist/revolutionary movements in the Indian province of Assam, or how about the Tamil Tigers, Nepali maoist rebels and the IRA?
  • The fact is that Islam has traditionally been a medieval, militant, imperialist, warrior religion." - Really? This is the same "warrior" and "medieval" religion that got Europe out of the dark age and into the renaissance. This is the same religion from which much of the greatest research in the fields of astronomy, philosophy and mathematics grew. Based on your "militant, imperialist" definition, as I said before, clearly Christianity is a better fit. ::"they are following a medieval warrior religion that has undergone very little change in over a millenium." - Oh, I forgot christianity changes every other day, right? Funny, because even after the big reformation, Christian countries were still committing the same crimes in everywhere around the world.
  • At one point, Islam was the most powerful political organization in the world, due it its inherent imperial, militant nature." - Isn't this exactly why Christian nations were dominating the world in the unfolding of the 20th century: military conquest. On the contrary, Islam spread relatively peacefully through Africa and Islam still spreads fast today without any "militantcy" or "imperialism". In fact even though many Muslims are being bullied by the international powers and missionary work is prohibited in Islam, Islam is growing rapidly without guns, only knowledge of the religion.
Zeno, please learn more about what Jihad actually is without jumping to conclusions from reading material on anti-Islamic sites. You have a definition that was very much like mine before I became Muslim and found out what Jihad really is. Armed Jihad is only a small part of Jihad, but I admit is the one most recognized today by the media and that is what is shaping your definition. Truly by most of the various "evils" of Jihad that you gave above, it seems like Christianity better fits your definition. Regardless of this, I think such point of view should be avoided from this article and hope that you will choose to contribute neutrally to this article. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 03:36 (UTC)
"Armed Jihad is only a small part of Jihad" The Chinese Communist politican, Zhou En Lai, said that "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means." In this sense, Islamist political movements can be seen as being part of Islamic holy war. Similarly, being a spy can be seen as holy war, or being an explosives scientist for the mujahideen can be seen as holy war, etc. Jihad, as in holy war, can be defined as the establishment, defense and expansion of the Islamic state "by any means necessary" (as Malcolm X once said). Holy war, in this sense, is the primary meaning of the word Jihad. For you to insist that your "spiritual Jihad" should be given more attention in this article than the holy war Jihad is nonsensical. If you want to insist that the diplomatic work of Islamist political parties be considered as "Jihad" and given attention in the article, then I should say that such a discussion is more appropriate for the Islamism article. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)
Yes, Jihad also encompasses other meanings, something you have consistently failed to realize. Based on your previous discussion about the "evils of Islam", you were clearly looking only at fundamentalist (Islamist) aspects (e.g. the assasination of Rashad Khalifa). It is very hypocritical to tell me to add my infomation to the Islamism article when you brought up those points. Also don't bring up quotes that have nothing to do with this whatsoever, they don't do the argument any good.
If you want to insist that the diplomatic work of Islamist political parties be considered as "Jihad" and given attention in the article, then I should say that such a discussion is more appropriate for the Islamism - And yet, all you have done is taken fundamentalist aspects and applied them to a Jihad context in order to generalize it among all Muslims and Islam. If everyone was to start generalizing then this would not be an encyclopedia anymore, please realize this. Lastly, I hope that we can move on so that this article may eventually be unlocked for editing, although I am sure that for such an issue vandalism is inevitable. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 15:24 (UTC)
"Also don't bring up quotes that have nothing to do with this whatsoever, they don't do you any good." Anonymous editor, you are evidently have difficulty understanding my arguments. Frannkly, I find the intellectual level of your discourse to be subpar, and in many cases extremely appologetic, and vulgarly anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Christian. I see no point in continuing this "discussion." --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 00:35 (UTC)
I don't see how me understanding that your quotes have nothing to with anything makes me any of the things you mentioned. Your messages against Islam speak on your behalf. I was not being anti-Christian or anti-American (I am American!), I was pointing out how your specific point of view is based on common right-wing American perspective and lacks knowledge of what Islam truly is. I was showing how your definition connects better with christian history. I speak this way because I was once one of those people. I don't tend to continue this discussion anymore either and I will allow your anti-Islamic comments above to speak for your "intellectual" ability. Your previous comment suggests clearly that you have no way to counterANY of the points I have made. Once again I hope from now on you will base your comments on fact and contribute productively and neutrally to the article. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 00:46 (UTC)

This is the latest ...

  • ... in a series of partisan diatribes by Islamophobes whose sources are apparently Fox News, the hate-filled rants of right-wing blogs, and the opportunistic geopolitical stylings of various right-wing "think tanks."
  • These sources know a lot more about political opportunism than they know about Islam.
  • Gifted Muslim minds (not yammerers like me, but the real thinkers, e.g., Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Reza Aslan and Tariq Ramadan, not to mention the classical commentators of the various madhabs) studied the Qur'an and Sunnah for years in order to address these questions intelligently. Are these people worth consulting?
    • Probably. Why don't you offer up some source material by them then?
  • Not according to our friends on the right. Amazingly, they've got all the answers right off the bat, after just a few visits to faithfreedom.org. And the answers our friends on the right offer feature no shades of gray, just the familiar black and white of Boris Badanoff, that reliable, strangely comforting cartoon enemy from the dear departed days of the Cold War.
    • Except that faithfreedom.org and other locations buttress their arguments with Koranic quotations and the writings of Islamic scholars. Therefore it would behoove you to do the same.
  • This is not 1962, and we are not Soviets.
  • As far as the content of this article goes, I would urge editors with a conscience to beware the instant (and occasionally insolent) certainty of fundamentalists, both Islamic and (just as dangerous) non-Islamic. BrandonYusufToropov 29 June 2005 13:01 (UTC)
Are your personal attacks just about finished so we can have a productive dialogue? Please?Kurita77 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
how were these personal attacks? Where is there even factual disagreement here? Everybody agrees that Jihad has referred to military (this has been in the article for ages, no 'whitewashing' involved), as well as spiritual effort, the so-called greater Jihad, which is not in the quran, but part of muslim tradition. That's all, the rest is really about attempts to take potshots at Islam because they have (surprise) a tradition of warfare (unlike meek Christianity, or the pious USA, I'm sure) dab () 29 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)
Ranting on about "Islamophobes", "partisan diatribes", etc is nothing more than an attack against those who don't agree with him. This definitely is a personal attack.
Casting aspersions on their knowledge is as well, especially when it includes an attack on their motives.
Going on about Boris Badanoff? Strawman attack.
Accusing his opponents of being Soviets? Definitely a personal attack.
Calling people "insolent" is definitely a personal attack.
We don't need that here. It's not helping anything. Nor is your casting aspersions on the freest nation in the world helping. I could make comments about the European inferiority complex, but that would be a personal attack so I won't.
Also, given the weak basis for the only hadith that mentions so-called greater Jihad, I'd say there is serious question as to whether "everybody agrees" that Jihad is both. Thus the disagreements.Kurita77 29 June 2005 14:52 (UTC)
the meaning is current today. Educated discussion could go into the history of the term. But what you are doing does not really qualify as educated discussion. Or the educated parts are buried under all fight-picking and Islam-bashing. Shouldn't you really be blocked for 12h, btw? dab () 29 June 2005 14:58 (UTC)
"This is not 1962, and we are not Soviets." Actually, political Islam (of which Jihad is wholely a part of) has striking similarities to communism. I would recommend that you read the works of the former Communist and famous academic scholar of Islam, Maxim Rodinson. In the epilouge of his monograph titled "Muhammad," Rodinson discusses, at length, the similarities between these two totalitarian political ideologies (Communism and Islamism). --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Request for quantification, moved from above where it was buried

I'd like to see a count of how many hadith (and quranic verses) use the term Jihad in a military or nonmilitary setting, added to this article. There's only one hadith I know of (and ZERO nonmilitary quranic Jihad references), and it's rightly presented in this article as being of a weak basis. On the other hand, there are at least 164 verses that mention Jihad in a military setting in the quran. I don't have an accurate count on the hadith since various collections of hadith are a dime a dozen and all have different sayings or rewrites of sayings.Enviroknot 29 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)

It seems to me that this ought to be a simple request to answer. It would also be a good addition to the article. The only reason I could see anyone opposing it is that it might reflect badly on their assertion that Jihad is not primarily about warfare. The fact remains that so-called greater Jihad isn't mentioned in the Koran, but Jihad as warfare is.Kurita77 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
164 ayat that use jihad in a military setting? #Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare says, correctly, that there are precisely four uses, which are:
  • 9:24: "Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious."
  • 22:78: "And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help!"
  • 25:52: "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)."
  • 60:1: "O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path."
All quotations are from Yusuf Ali's translation, found by searching for the Arabic word with this engine. Perhaps the various interpretations of these passages ought to be mentioned somewhere. —Charles P. (Mirv) 29 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)



164 times the word Jihad is used in Quran ??? U must be joking man
These are the only verses where the word " j-h-d " has been used in various forms ( like Jaahadu or jahada ) & meanings .By the way you can search for the word Strive( & not fight )to get the verses where the word j-h-d has been used ,
2:218, 3:142, 4:95, 5:35, 8:72, 8:74, 8:75, 9:16, 9:19, 9:20, 9:24, 9:41, 9:73, 9:81, 9:86, 9:88, 16:110, 22:78, 25:52, 29:6, 29:69, 31:15, 47:31, 60:1, 61:11, 66:9
If U like to go deeper into arabic , other than Surah Tauba , most of the verses use the word in "struggle" meaning rather than fight meaning . The whole word Jihad (in its noun form) has only been used in the verses quoted by mirv . While the word q-t-l has beenused in other verses in "fight only" meaning .
Also see 25:52
So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them (by preaching) with the utmost endeavour, with it (the Qur'ân).
[4]
Here preaching with Quran hasbeen called Jihadan kabira ( utmost endevour )
About the levels of Jihad .
People were having difficulty in understanding levels/kind of Jihad again & again & again, I thought I should explain what I have read & been taught
1 . JIhad bin Nafs/Qalb
Struggle with heart . Here a person fights against wrong beliefs & prsctices. It hasbeen called greater Jihad because fighting one's ownself is more difficult then fighting others . Any other Jihad without this is not worth while because then it isnt for Allah .
2 . Jiahd bil Lisan
Struggle with tongue ( Verbal Struggle ) . Includes struggle against the evils or wrong doings of society/rulers by speech . Calling others towards the right practices or telling them about evils ( Dawah ) , & speaking against tyrant ( as in the hadeeth quoted ) are included init .
3 . Jihad bil Qalam/Ilm
Struggle with pen/knowledge . This includes all scholarly work . Media , press are also included in it . The diference b/w 2 & 3 is that #2 can be done by anybody while # 3 can only be done by people who are educated on the matter . Making bombs or diplomacy is also included in it .
4 . Jihad bil Yad
Struggle with hand . Implying use of force , or movement . Taking care of parents , doing haj , Spending money ( Jihad bil mal ) & being spy is included in it . Also includes stopping evil by force .
5 . Jihad bis saif
Armed struggle . Difference b/w #4 & #5 is that in #4 U have got no intention of kiling the person in front of you , while in #5 you are armed with an intention to kill .
So first one removes evil from himself , then tell others about it , then uses his experience/education to tell people on a larger scale , then try to stop it with force , then try to stop it with weapons .
I still dont understand what is the big problem understanding such simple facts about Jihad . May be people's minds have been so brainwashed that htey arnt even able to see outside their pre-formed concepts , they like to re-affirm to themselves that nothing exists outside their presumed boundaries of realitiy . Did U guys ever ask any scholar of Islam what is the Philosophy of Jihad . If U did rather that visiting sites made by illeterates , it wouldnt have been so hard for you . I had given a link above for Sunni view of Jihad & inportance of JIhad bin Nafs , if U searched the site , it clearly says that refutation of the Greater Jihad hadeeth comes only from Ibn Tayamia , who is the founder of Salfism , nothing mainstream about him . I wonder why people dont even want to google for "greater Jihad" or "Jihad bin nafs" , & come here saying Jihad bin nafs is some mystical concept . Comeon guys , improve your reading habits .
As for liberals/reformers , I dont know about the west , but in Indian sub-continent , try getting some information about Syed Ahmed Khan , Dr. Muhammad Iqbal , Dr. Hamidullah e.t.c . And what do you say about Mahatir Muhammad , Kamal Ataturk , Pervez Musharraf ?? Ever read any books about Muhammad Ali Jinnah ?? Also any information about Sufism ?? They have got a huge following in Indian subcontinent , central asia , persian speaking areas , east asia , & north africa . If U think Sufis are some monks meditating in caves , you are wrong . Thay have run businesses , universities , a lot of them were jurists & aalims , & sometimes even fought invaders .
AS for a point raised by Peterchahabi, if somebody protestes against injustice , he is doing Jihad , there is no need to get liberal/secular for that( as some funny minds presume ). If Mullahs are opressing anyone , and he is struggling against it , he is struggling in the way of Allah . Nothing absurd about it , just difficult to grasp for some .
I think we should explain each level of Jihad in separate sections , rather than in general rule or general struggle sections . If we explain each level separately , it will be clear that each of them is just a step , with increasing intensity/force in each level , rather then implying ( as in the current form ) two completely different meanings/things.
Farhansher 29 June 2005 19:32 (UTC)


Wow. That is awesome work, Farhansher. Thanks for doing it. (And transliterating it, for the benefit of those of us who still have kindergarten-level Arabic skills.) BrandonYusufToropov 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Farhansher, I like your idea of explaining Jihad in the different sections that you have enumeratoed above. Well done. But I don't agree with your statement that Kemal Ataturk, Pervez Musharraf or Muhammad Ali Jinnah were Islamic reformists. These three individuals were not really Muslims. Kemal Ataturk was a militant secularist who abolished the 1,400 year legacy of the Caliphate and is considered by Muslims to be one of the greatest traitors in Islamic history. Ataturk founded the secular nation state of Turkey, a country where it is illegal for Muslim women to wear veils or head scarfs in government buildings or institutions of public education. Musharaf is also a militant secularist and he is not reforming Islam, he is merely a shrewd politician who wishes to maintain a modus operandi with the powerful Islamist political factions within Pakistan, while still remaining a major military ally of the US. As for Jinnah, he founded Pakistan the Republic of Pakistan as a secular state. Soon after his death, Pakistan went through political turmoil that led Islamists to gain much more influence (the Republic Pakistan was eventually renamed as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan). Jinnah did not pray, he drank alcohol, his eventually allowed his daughter to marry an infidel. Whatever one thinks of his politics, Jinnah was certainly not an Islamic reformist. Jinnah was a secularist whose people were Muslims, and he made it his business to defend the secular interests of his fellow Indian Muslims. --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 02:39 (UTC)

Why all this talk about "Islamic reformists" - what exactly does it have to do with anything? Only zeno considers reformists to be the only type of "liberal Muslim". Liberal can define anyone it all depends on personal point of view. Tell me, Zeno, why exactly does being politically secular make someone not a Muslim? "Jinnah did not pray, he drank alcohol, his eventually allowed his daughter to marry an infidel." - Please state your sources, it seems absolutely absurd and generalized to say that Jinnah did not pray and drank alcohol. Also committing these sins still does not make him a non-Muslim. There are christians who do many things that christianity prohibits, there are many "christians" who don't even do to church, but then why don't we say that they are not christian? Also by saying that he allowed his daughter to marry an "infidel", you show once again how misinformed about Islam you are. Many Muslims marry non-Muslims and no where is this prohibited specifically because his daughter did not change religions either. Also Jinnah was the founder of the Muslim League, a movement in which the rights of Muslims was advocated and Jinnah was seen making pro-Islam statements. Secondly, Pres. Musharraf is a perfect example of a liberal Muslim. Him having non-"Islamist" or partially-secular beliefs does NOT make him a non-Muslim. Just because he is not an "Islamist" doesn't mean that he is not Muslim! In fact he even has been seen praying at mosques in TV documentaries/news. Farhanser named many other liberals, how come you didn't support your point of there being no liberals then, zeno? E.g. Mahatir Muhammad. Once again, being reformist/secularist does not make some-one a non-Muslim and neither are liberal Muslims limited to reformists/secularists. In fact by saying that a reformist is the "only" type of liberal Muslim and yet saying that all secularists/reformist are non-Muslim, this makes your points contradictory Zeno. Hope that helps your understanding.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 03:06 (UTC)

Mirv, I liked your specifying edit on actual use of "Jihad" in Quran

Hope we can incorporate it when the article is unlocked. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 29 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)