It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WAR: Pakistan Clerics Explain 'Jihad'

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:36 PM
In an article on the BBC News Website, leading Pakistani clerics and leaders of several top madrassas attempt to explain the true meaning behind Jihad, or Holy War. It is rather enlightening to hear how it is meant to be not how it is being interpretted by extremists.
Pakistan's top Muslim clerics have said it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to preach the real concept of jihad, or holy war, to young Muslims. "The situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine is radicalising young people," says Mufti Rafi Usmani, one of Pakistan's highest-ranking clerics. "And an angry young man is in no-one's control," he said.

According to three top scholars interviewed by the BBC News website, jihad can only be called in the following circumstances:

If a Muslim community comes under attack, then jihad becomes an obligation for all Muslims, male and female, in that community

If that particular community feels it cannot fight off attackers on its own, then jihad becomes incumbent on Muslims living in nearby communities

If a Muslim ruler of a country calls for jihad, then it is incumbent upon the Muslims living under that ruler to join the jihad.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It goes on into some detail about the conduct of jihadis and how they should behave in battle. It strictly forbids the killing or targetting of innocents, much like modern day rules of engagement.

It also illustrates how Muslims should behave when in another country, saying that they are "obliged" to live by the laws of the land and even if they are so outraged by the behaviour of their host country, in no way do they have the "holy" right to strike innocents there.

For example, they say, if an Iraqi living in London is so dismayed at the War, then he should immediately leave the host country and if he so wishes, he may only fight the enemy in his own land.

This is refreshing to hear, as I always knew the concept of Jihad was being contorted to fit extremist views and now it seems that is true. It makes sense, when laid out as they have done and is something that, I think, we could all relate too, regardless of nationality or religion.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:35 PM
I'm surprised that this hasn't recieved more attention. Doesn't anyone want to discuss something positive about Muslims? Do we only focus on the negetive?


posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:41 PM

Do we only focus on the negetive?

It would seem that way.
I'm actually surprised no one has come up and said this is just propaganda.

I'm glad to see ATSNN submissions like this are getting yes votes and getting upgraded

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:02 PM
Well the kulturkampf crowd tends to ignore stuff like this, so they can say "where are the moderate Muslims taking a stand against terrorism", implying that there are none. Each time a statement comes out from Islamic scholars condemning terrorism or suicide bombing, they act like it's never happened before, or simply ignore it.

We see only what we want to see.

If you believe this outbreak of terrorism represents a religious war between Islam and the Christian West, you don't want to see Muslim's condemning it, because it goes against your preconceived notions.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:20 PM
When is all of this religious warfare non-sense going to stop? Is it really going to take a(n) alien(s) civilization(s) to come down here and teach us a lesson? Must they confiscate all of our toys permanately? Is modern civilization just inherently flawed? Must we all kill ourselves just to prove that our version of a made up "god" entity is the righteous choice? I truly think that pacifists are correct because if it weren't for what I believe to be a combination of dumb luck and probable intervention we would've destroyed this entire planet several times over by now. Now if you will excuse me I'll go back to what I was doing. Enjoying life for what it is.
*Edit* Results: about 581,000 for alien intervention. /*Edit*

[edit on 24-7-2005 by DjOsiris]

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:00 PM
One should be careful not to take "jihad" in context too literally without giving a full consideration about a particular conflict against a Muslim community. The war in Iraq is not against all Muslims but it was to remove a hostile uncooperative regime with a proven history of suppressing Muslims and non-Muslims alike for decades. Unfortunately, certain misguided (and very idiotic) radical Islamic clerics and militants thought the US troops were after them, too but the US troops simply wanted to secure the areas to prevent Saddam's loyalists from making the situations goes from bad to worse. However, a lot of misunderstanding, chaos and confusion got thrown into the lot between US troops and the Muslim communities in Iraq in the aftermath of Saddam's fall.

Bear in mind, the Sunni Iraqis, being loyal to Saddam, have bore a greater responsibility in creating an unfortunate friction between the US troops and the Shi'ite Iraqis because it was too hard to tell which Iraqi Muslim a Sunni or a Shi'ite, provoking a lot of tensions between the Sunni and the Shia communities in Iraq after the downfall of Saddam.

Uninformed Muslims do not truly grasp the meaning of jihad in a broader context. A lot of misunderstanding, confusion and wrong impression goes with the territory in the war on terror. The Muslim community need to speak up the difference between a spiritual/physical jihad and a security necessity to stop radical militants from attempting mass homicide against civilians.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:08 PM
As the concept is used in the Quran, it means struggle and is usually (or was usually) interpeted as a personal spiritual struggle and as a military one almost as a side. In fact as Karen Armstrong explains it in her excellent primer on the subject "Holy War" prior to modern times, the primary use of jihid as a military terem was against the crusaders.........Unfortuantely is is in both sides interest to muddy the waters, just as equally from the Bush team as Bin Ladens. In Ms. Armstrong's book she traces the idea from it's roots in the Old Testement to how it is used today and all told it is a fasinating read, along with her book "The battle for God", a history of funnymentalism. I highly recommend both for anyone trying to make sice of these crazy and dangerous times.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:27 PM

as posted by stumason
It goes on into some detail about the conduct of jihadis and how they should behave in battle. It strictly forbids the killing or targetting of innocents, much like modern day rules of engagement.

Good read, stumason. What you have mentioned has been mentioned a number of times with ATS over the last few months, despite the efforts of some to condone such doings.
Targeting of Civilians by Insurgents Must Stop.
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It’s the Occupation, not the Fundamentalism
Why It Makes “Sense” For the Resistance to Target Innocent Iraqis

Good post, stumason.


posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:33 PM
To me they are trying to cover there selves, they must be embarrassed by the no brain Muslims killing people . I don't think a God would want anybody to kill innocent people. I think Muslims have to stop this in their own backyard. Lets see how strong the religion of the Muslims is.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:54 PM
Bulldog 52 I don't think religion stops people--other people do, at least most of the time. When the, for want of a better word, true Muslims have had enough of the actions of their countrymen, then and only then will this idiotic behavior stop. It may take years to stamp this pestilence out, but it will not be done by any outside force and it will only be done when such behavior is condemned by their society at large.

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:41 PM
Think the opposite is true, when discussing Americans? Or Germans? Every German alive still faces the stigma of Nazi'ism, even those who fought it or just survived it. Why don't we focus on the positives of the Confederate States? Not all, or even most, supported any slavery-many fought to oppose it, What about positives of Christianity?

Whatever one's viewpoint is, the opposite is the "enemy". It used to be just disagreement, but now it seems no one can disagree on anything without taking things personal, adding hatred, and even violence. Politics, religion, etc-you can't even discuss them without someone going off.

Originally posted by intrepid
I'm surprised that this hasn't recieved more attention. Doesn't anyone want to discuss something positive about Muslims? Do we only focus on the negetive?


posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:55 PM
As the "political correctness" and race-baiting lawyers keep reminding us, it's not what the dicitonary says a word means but what someone "believes" it means. It also varies on who uses the term. And once a term is associated with "offending" someone, it's automatically banned. Which reminds me of yet again how more words, thought and expression have been banned and punished by so-called liberals than anything the Fed has pushed in decades.

If 50000 angry muslim deadbeats believe Jihad means "kill westerners and drink their blood" and a dozen believe it means "peace and flowers for your neighbors", and the vast majority doesn't really care and knows it's the excuse of murderers, then the nasty definition wins out.

If I get a few people together and decide "kill" means the same thing as "praise" and run around saying I'm going to "kill" media moguls, pundits, and government officials, you think that makes a damn bit of difference? If a drug dealer changes the name of his product to a new street slang and claims it's for therapeutic reasons, should we let him off from arrest?

Jihad, the Holy War, has been the battle cry for terrorists for generations. A few Islamic councils engaging in some sort of Orwellin double-speak campaign or some sort of language-purity check does not change the nature of how the enemy, and the world, utilizes the term.

Hell, no one buys it when the US renames terms (collateral damage, friendly fire, etc) but we'll buy it whenever a (non-elected, male only, hereditary determined rank) cleric speaks up?

new topics

top topics


log in