Talk:Jihad

	This Islam related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): It contains unsourced statements Could use expansion as well

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

offensive vs defensive jihad

I'm going to reserve any discussion of bin Laden's theological justification for "defensive jihad" (see Scheuer's book) for this mainspace and leave it out of the al-Qaeda and bin Laden pages. Allah only knows when I'll be able to get to it. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 16:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact About Jihad

Musnad Ahmad 18449 says:

عَنْ طَارِقِ بْنِ شِهَابٍ أَنَّ رَجُلًا سَأَلَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَيُّ الْجِهَادِ أَفْضَلُ قَالَ كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ

This roughly translates to:

The Prophet was asked "what is the best Jihad?" and replied "A word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler".^{— Unsigned, by: 76.117.166.82 / talk / contribs}

And the context is...?-- Forerunner (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I asked a Muslim...

...whether one needed to be a Muslim to conduct a Jihad, suggesting that a righteous war against an evil cause could be Jihad.

He said that the war against the Nazis was Jihad, even if the leaders were devout Christians like Sir Winston Churchill or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It helps in that context that Nazism violates many Islamic virtues.Pbrower2a (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

And the context is...?-- Forerunner (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Many Muslims, tens of thousands, served the Third Reich. They were really into killing Jews and the civilian population. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 02:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I asked a Christian if the Bible speaks against homosexuality, and he said "of course not!" So there you have it, I merely need to ask a Christian or a Muslim what their faith is all about, and if they give me the answer I want to hear, that's the correct answer... I'm of course being sarcastic. The ONLY way to know what Islam teaches is to study the Quran and the Sunna of Muhammad (Hadith and Sira). We only know what Islam teaches by what the books teach. What an adherent says their religion teaches is totally irrelevant. 207.81.189.133 (talk)

Murder, pillage, racism, and enslavement are not modern Islamic values. South Asia is one largest areas of Islam in population, and it can be assumed that the British got plenty of Muslim recruits from the Raj.Pbrower2a (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Jihad of the hand is what?

This article describes "jihad of the hand" as "doing the right"… doing the right what, exactly? The sentence just trails off there. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Take that, Islamophobes (wait, I don't want to insult Muslims here…)

So, I just came up with an idea to inject some humor into the article at the start, but I'm not sure if it would be funny or just tasteless. It goes something along these lines:

“”Contrary to what some people insist on believing, "jihad" does not mean "filthy sand n****** Middle Eastern barbarians flying planes into buildings trying to brutally slaughter as many Americans/Hindus/Isrealis as possible". Well, it can mean that, but the term is a lot more nuanced than that, and 49 times out of 50, it's a lot less violent.

The intention is to take the piss out of Islamophobic organizations by explaining what they usually mean when they use the term "jihad" and then explaining how the term "jihad" can be applied to a wide variety of situations, the vast majority of which do not involve terrorists blowing people they don't like to kingdom come or hacking them to bits. However, I'm a little worried that I might tick off moderate Muslims by even making an anti-Islamophobic joke about Islamophobes assuming that all Muslims are extremist lunatics who get off on killing people, even if the intent behind the joke is to show that said bigoted thinking is wrong. Should I go through with inserting this gag, or is it beyond the pale? --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm not worried about offending fundie Muslims — I probably piss them off to no end just by not being a fundie Muslim. No, I'm worried about my joke being insulting to moderate and progressive Muslims who just want to practice their religion without hurting anybody, yet still get targeted by Islamophobes just for being Muslims and/or Arabs, and might not take kindly to someone cracking an Islamophobic-sounding joke, even if the point of the joke is to mock Islamophobes. I'm not against mocking people who deserve it, but I really don't want innocents to get caught in the crossfire. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You might wanna erase "Middle Eastern barbarians." That could be construed as being racist. And the politics of the Arab/Muslim world are a lot more complex than "Palestinians wanna kill all Israelis because DA JOOZ". Likewise, Hindu nationalists are currently pursuing a policy of genocide in India. I can't fault Indian Muslims for picking up arms against that anymore than I can fault Jewish people picking up arms to resist the Holocaust (there actually was a Jewish resistance movement FTR, and the state of Israel was founded through a sustained campaign of terror from militant Zionists). Carthage (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's understandable, though I think the "Middle Eastern barbarians" statement might be necessary to establish what the Islamophobic point of view looks like in order to properly demolish it. I already censored "sand nigger" because I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of using a racial/religious slur, even in the context of deconstructing the worldview of the kind of person who would unironically use that kind of language, and I went with "Middle Eastern barbarians" instead of "brown-skinned barbarians" because the latter sounded completely tasteless.

Again, the point of the joke is to show what the Islamophobic idea of "jihad" looks like before stating that the Islamophobic point of view is only true in a very tiny minority of cases involving completely unhinged people who in all likelihood would be a menace to humanity with or without Islam — the rest of the time, it's completely wrong, and it's an insult to the Arabic language, never mind Islam and the Arabic people, to unequivocally equate the term "jihad" with "terrorist fuckwits making a mess of everything". --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You should be careful of how you word things. Using a framing that you admit is offensive then saying it's true in a "very tiny minority of cases" sends some not-so-great messages. Plutocow (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can't deny that extremists have in fact called for jihads in the sense of attacks on Americans, Israelis, Hindus, etc., or that terrorists have framed their attacks as jihad. But the term is not completely synonymous with terrorist activity. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)