Why don't most Muslims engage in Jihad?

[Ranmoth]

To the best of my knowledge, it says in the Koran(or however you want to spell it) that infidels should be put to the sword. However, my knowledge of it ends just about there, so I'm just asking an honest question: Why don't most Muslims go around killing non-Muslims? Or, at the very least, those that refuse to convert once they're tought about it? After all, Muhammed himself waged holy wars.

[Nyril]

Why don't most Muslims go around killing non-Muslims?

How many witches have you killed today? The bible very clearly instructs you not to suffer a witch to live, and yet, I don't see very many of you killing witches.

Does that answer it?

[ST88]

Why don't most Muslims go around killing non-Muslims?

How many witches have you killed today? The bible very clearly instructs you not to suffer a witch to live, and yet, I don't see very many of you killing witches.

Does that answer it?

You know, Nyril, I don't think it does. Part of the allure and subversiveness of witches is that they can appear to be just like Good Protestants. That's what makes them so dangerous. They can blend in with society in their own little terrorist cell and do damage without anyone noticing who's doing it.

Non-muslim infidels, however, usually proclaim themselves as such by not practicing Islam and/or desecrating Islamic practices & symbols. You know, like stationing themselves in the country that governs Mecca.

This is an interesting discussion of the topic.
http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutisla ... ionID=4429
It essentially says that Islamic moderates should help get their own countries in order before trying to deal with other countries.

Here is another take:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000343.php
This article takes the opposite question: why don't more Muslims speak up about supporting the U.S. on combating terror? The conclusion is that the moderates (who are not in official jihad mode) are perfectly OK with allowing the extremists to carry out the jihad -- allowing it by not condemning it because the U.S. Administration is so hated. The subtext is that not everyone is a fighter, even though they may all work for the same cause.

[AlAyeti]

ST88: "The conclusion is that the moderates (who are not in official jihad mode) are perfectly OK with allowing the extremists to carry out the jihad -- allowing it by not condemning it because the U.S. Administration is so hated."

The Koran is clear about how to treat non-Muslims. Not good.

And... in regards to witches.

The New Testament - through the mouth of Jesus - is clear about how to treat Witches and all other non and anti-Christians.

Either love your enemies, or, allow the tares and wheat to co-exist.

Though I wish I could be a complete fundamantalist for the most part, the logic of the Logos is to good. Frustrating sometimes but too good.

[Arthra]

To the best of my knowledge, it says in the Koran(or however you want to spell it) that infidels should be put to the sword. However, my knowledge of it ends just about there, so I'm just asking an honest question: Why don't most Muslims go around killing non-Muslims? Or, at the very least, those that refuse to convert once they're tought about it? After all, Muhammed himself waged holy wars.

Not being a Moslem myself I have studied Islam for some time as well as the concept of Jihad...

If you study the early history of Islam you'll note that Jihad was only resorted to as a defensive measure after the Moslems were attacked by oppressive forces... So the Qur'an permitted self defense and the right to practise religion. Treaties governed what occurred in those days and battles occurred only after a treaty was broken or the Umma was attacked.

Imam Ali who was also the fourth Caliph stressed that there were very few believers who could actually take part in Jihad. This was because those taking part had to have a pure intention and be spiritually committed. It became apparent that many of those who were participating in Jihad were doing so for their own personal reasons and gain...and this was in Ali's view therefore meant they were unworthy to be Jihadis...

Jihad certainly seems to have been abused by later Caliphs in my opinion...that is it became an excuse for invading. Had Islam in my view followed the teachings and interpretations of Ali and His successors, the later history of Islam would be quite different.

Sufis also have a definition of Jihad that means striving or struggling to purify yourself and end the oppression of lower attitudes of greed, acquisitiveness and selfishess.... So Jihad has meant different things down through the ages.

In my Faith, Baha'u'llah abrogated Jihad so we do not resort to arms even as a defensive measure to protect religion.

[AlAyeti]

I worked with a co-worker who was a Bahai practioner. One of the nicest people I've ever met.

Jihad means what we westerners think it does.

Mecca.

That is going "back to history."

Remember that to Islam, anyone that is not a Muslim is subjugated, has to "submit" or has broken the bargain. Just not being a Muslim is not a good place to be in Muslim countries as we write. That's current history.

Islam is not tolerant of anything but those that submit to it.

Both a Bahai and a Christian know this.

[bernee51]

I worked with a co-worker who was a Bahai practioner. One of the nicest people I've ever met.

I have several co-workers who are Moslem Some of the nicest people I've ever met.

Jihad means what we westerners think it does.

so does 'god'

.
Remember that to Islam, anyone that is not a Muslim is subjugated, has to "submit" or has broken the bargain. Just not being a Muslim is not a good place to be in Muslim countries as we write. That's current history.

I must tell all my friends in Turkey to leave immediatly

Islam is not tolerant of anything but those that submit to it.

I do not submit to it...it has been quite tolerant of me.

I think your opinion is wrong.

Soem Christians OTOH want all to submit to not allowing the same rights to those who have a same sex relationship, or want an abortion. That seems 'intolerant.

Both a Bahai and a Christian know this.

ah - I am neither - perhaps THAT is why I don't know this, not the fact that I have been 'tolerated' in every Muslim country I have been to.

[AlAyeti]

Bernee,

Ask any Christian you know to ask people in those Muslim countries to become Christians and see how much toleration they get.

[bernee51]

Bernee,

Ask any Christian you know to ask people in those Muslim countries to become Christians and see how much toleration they get.

That has nothing to do with the topic of jihad.

Which BTW, as has been pointed out, means to the vast majority of Muslims, 'struggle' and specifically 'spiritual struggle'

[AlAyeti]

Christian missoinaries un-armed and peaceful have EVERYTHING to do with this topic.

Jihad: Struggle against non-Muslims. Spiritual struggle against non-Muslims. Violently.

Oh how I wish it was introspective. I'm sure also do the familys of the employees of the Twin Towers.

Or the innocent "pagans" in Mecca so many years ago who were minding their own business and practicing the same religions they had for so many eons before Mohammad should up on the horizon with his hordes of sword wielding adherants to the religion of peace.

What has changed to define Jihad differently since Mohammad left his cave?

AK's instead of simitars?