Jihad al-nafs is a very real Islamic concept. Only Salafsits reject it. Salafists are modern day protestents with serious spice in their breath, who have little care for classical Islamic thought.
Yes…and? The hadith about “Greater Jihad” was being used as an excuse to do exactly what this Ayah says…sit at home, so I understand why it was rejected. It’s not in the spirit of Jihad-al-nafs. The concept of Jihad al-nafs doesn’t negate fighting Jihad when it is clear that it can become an obligitory duty on every individual…i.e. when Muslims are under attack. Jihad al-nafs=Greater Jihad seems to be your understanding of it…it’s based in ignorance.
What is clear is that if one doesn’t perfect Jihad al-nafs, then any other Jihad is meaningless and for naught. The clarification provided in the authentic Haidth in my post above leave little room for debate on this.
There IS a fighting Jihad…but Jihad does not translate to strictly fighting in Islamic theology; shariah only mentions the fighting Jihad because it is REGULATED and subject to law. Get a clue.
People who refuse to accept this fact are not following the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).
This nonsense about “linguistic” Jihad and “real” Jihad is a modern categorization that is meaningless in the classical context.
Fighting against your nafs and shaytan is a compulsory duty, one of the requirements in Islam. No muslim would argue against it. You fight against your nafs and you fight against shaytan during fasting, during salaah, while giving zakaat/sadaqah. This act has its own reward but to confuse it with Jihaad (qitaal) i wrong. Physical fighting is different than fighting against your nafs/shaytan.
No where in that article you posted, did they mention that greater jihaad hadith, the one you rely so heavily on, and no where in that article did they say that fighting against the Nafs is the greater jihaad.
The sunnah of the prophet is to fight. He went out to ohud and lost 70 of his companions there, the sunnah of his comapanions was to throw themselves infront of the Prophet, and would take all the arrows on their backs and their faces, so that the Prophet wouldn’t get hurt. The sunnah of the Prophet was to wage wars on the Kuffar, so as to weaken them economically and to kill their head honchos so that Islam would enter their communities adn societies easily.
People who deny this aspect of Islam are the ones that are disregarding one of the most critical aspects of Islam and turning away from the Sunnahs of the Prophets and his Companions.
Nor did they say it was “lesser”…so I digress, theirs is afterall the more scholarly opinion. Both simply “exists”…happy?
Needless to say, I’ve clarified my position and have provided hadith to back it up…not my fault if you don’t comprehend or insist on twisting things to suggest that Jihad NEVER implies fighting. That is for you to work out…
Also, understand that Mr. Salafi is of the opinion that Jihad al-nafs is just a linguistic coincidence, and not a “real” Jihad. You are a bit behind in this discussion.
Now please read the link I provided, it enumerates all the various kinds of Jihad and quit this bickering. Agreed that Jihad-al-nafs is neither a substitute for any other Jiahd, NOR is it some kind of “fools” Jihad. It is very real, and as you said compulsory.
It is not just a linguistic coincidence that the term used is the same one for fighting against the Kuffar…it had been recognized as a form of Jihad (a sister Jihad if you like) by classical scholars (not these revisionists Salafists).
It is one of many. Yes, no one is denying that fighting is a part of Jihad. Salafists insist it is the ONLY Jihad, everything else being a matter of “lingusitics”. If you have a problem with that view, then I suggest you take it up with Mr. Salafi.
^^ Picoico, as long as you can diffrentiate between the different types of Jihaad, everythings well and good.
But you see there are some people out there, who say that Islam never calls for physical fighting. Hamza Yousuf is one of them. They say the only type of fighting there is, is the one with ur Nafs and with Shaytan, and we are happy doing that sitting with our homes. Or there may be a lot which says, since we are happy doing Jihaad against our Nafs/shaytaan, we are freed from the obligation to go out into the battle field.
It is for this very reason that scholars try to differentiate between the different Jihaads. I would say again, Jihaad against ur Nafs/Shaytaan is a compulsory and one of the more important requirements in our deen. It is so important it is a prerequisite for Qitaal. But it is a totally different act of Ibadah, it has its own rewards and Physical Jihaad has its own rewards and the two cannot be confused.
actually my understanding tells me that it was offensive because Muslims were going against the caravan of Abu Sufiyaan and when they reached near badar, they got the news that an army of Quresh is waiting on the other side… it was a choice given to them to go either for the war against army or go after Abu Sufiyaan. One of the two victories were promised. It was an offensive act by the sahaba to go against Army knowing that they could easily avoid that as a defensive technique.
I think there is a difference between starting a battle and starting a war(or hostilities).The kuffar had already shown their hostile intentions against the muslims and also committed numerous atrocities against the muslims even before this battle(like the persecution of converts in Mecca).