i think this question hasnt been asked before so i dont want ppl telling me whats in archives, point of gupshup is to talk abt stuff whether its been discussed once or a thousand times.
now to the point…
is it true that ahmadis believe that your not allowed to do jihad…like if ur attacked you cant defend your ppl???
That’s right Malibu. Do you ever punch your father back if he hits you? Jihad is only allowed under certain circumstances. The Jihad you currently see going on is an exercise in prostitutionization of faith. Killing innocent people is not Jihad. Defending oneself from evil is.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
That’s right Malibu. Do you ever punch your father back if he hits you? Jihad is only allowed under certain circumstances. The Jihad you currently see going on is an exercise in prostitutionization of faith. Killing innocent people is not Jihad. Defending oneself from evil is.
[/QUOTE]
Ny well said. and thats not just an "ahmadi' belief but an overall muslim belief that somehow the fanatics miss. btw where is my mercedes?
If you read the Introduction of Hazrat Ahmad (as) book “Jesus in India”, he explains very clearly his understanding of Jihad, which at his time (just like these days) was made synonymous to justify killings including civilians & children in the name of Islam.
He write:
.
.
.
Spiritual maladies, i.e., want of good morals, evil thoughts, callousness, want of sympathy, are spreading among most Islamic sects, being the result of beliefs in unfounded stories and anecdotes of this kind. Human sympathy, pity and love of justice, humility and humble-mindedness - all good qualities - are disappearing day by day, as if they will soon bid a last farewell to this community. This callousness and this immorality make many a Muslim appear no better than the beasts of the jungle. A Jain or a Buddhist is afraid of and avoids killing even a mosquito or a flea, but, alas! there are many among us Muslims who, while they kill an innocent man or commit wanton murder, are not afraid of the powerful God, who rates human life higher than that of all the animals. What is this callousness and cruelty and want of sympathy due to? It is due to this - that from their very childhood, stories and anecdotes and wrong views of the doctrine of Jihad are dinned into their ears and inculcated into their hearts, the result being that gradually they become morally dead and cease to feel the heinousness of their hateful actions; nay, rather, the man who murders another man unawares and thus brings ruin to the murdered man’s family thinks that he has done a meritorious deed; or rather, that he has made the most of an opportunity to win favour with his community. As no lectures or sermons are delivered in our country to stop such evils - and if there are any such lectures they have an element of hypocrisy in them - the common people think approvingly of such misdeeds. Accordingly, taking pity upon my own people, I have compiled several books in Urdu, Persian and Arabic, in which I have stated that the popular view of Jihad prevalent among Muslims, that is, the expectation of a bloody Imam, full of spite and hostility for other people, is a texture of false beliefs inculcated by shortsighted Ulema; otherwise, **Islam does not allow the use of the sword for the Faith; except in the case of defensive wars, or in the case of wars waged to punish a tyrant or to uphold freedom. The need of a defensive war arises when the aggression of an adversary threatens one’s own life. These are the three kinds of Jihad permitted by the Shariat, and, apart from these three kinds, there is no other kind of war which is permitted by Islam for the propagation of the Faith. **
.
.
.
.
.
Let this therefore be pondered over: that if there is a man who does not accept the true Faith because he is yet ignorant and unaware of its truth, of its teachings and its beauties, would it be reasonable to kill such a man forthwith? Nay, this man deserves pity; he deserves to be instructed gently and politely in the truth, beauty and the spiritual benefit of that faith; not that his denial should be met by the sword or the gun. So, the doctrine of Jihad proposed by these sects of Islam, as well as the belief that the time is near when there will arise a bloody Mahdi whose name would be Imam Muhammad, that the Messiah will come down from the heavens for his help, and that both together will kill all non-Muslim people if they deny Islam, is utterly opposed to our moral sense. Is not this the belief which puts out of action all good human qualities and morals, and encourages the qualities of life in the jungle?
.
.
He then later in the introduction further explains his opposition to violence & explains how the so called Jihad of this era is very different from the true Jihad of AnHazoor (saw):
They are opposed to correct notions, and they think it an act of great merit to kill when they have the opportunity to kill all the people professing other faiths, whereas the beliefs in killing others in the name of Islam, or believing in prophecies like the prophecy of a Bloody Messiah and wishing to advance the cause of Islam by bloodshed or by threats, are absolutely against the Holy Quran and the reliable Hadith. Our Holy Prophet (peace and the blessings of God be upon him) suffered great persecution at the hands of the Kafirs at Mecca and thereafter. The thirteen years which he spent at Mecca were years of great affliction and suffering of many kinds - a thought of them brings tears to one’s eyes. But he did not raise the sword against his enemies, nor did he reply to their abuse, until many of his Companions and dear friends were mercilessly murdered; and until he himself was subjected to sufferings of various kinds, such as being poisoned many a time; and until many an unsuccessful plan to murder him had been laid. When, however, God’s vengeance came, it so happened that the elders of Mecca and the chiefs of the tribes unanimously decided that this man should in any case be put to death. At that time, God, who is the Supporter of His loved ones and of the truthful and righteous, informed him that there was now nothing left in that town except evil, that the townspeople were bent upon murdering him and that he should therefore quit it at once. Then it was that, in accordance with the divine command, he migrated to Medina, but even then his enemies did not leave him alone; they pursued him there, and tried to destroy Islam in all possible ways. When their excesses went to an extreme, and when they had rendered themselves deserving of punishment by the murder of many an innocent person, permission to fight with them in self-defence, to fight with a view to warding off their attack, was given. And those people and their helpers had rendered themselves deserving of such treatment because of their having killed many an innocent person whom they had murdered not in any fight or battle but simply out of wanton mischief and whom they had robbed of their property. But, in spite of all this, when Mecca was taken our Holy Prophet (peace and the blessings of God be upon him) pardoned them all. It is, therefore, utterly wrong and unjust to suppose that the Holy Prophet (peace and the blessings of God be upon him) or his Companions ever fought for spreading the Faith, or that they ever coerced anyone to join the fold of Islam.
It is worth noting also that, as at that time all the people were prejudiced against Islam, and as the opposing people were scheming to destroy Islam, which they thought was a new religion and the followers of which were only a small community, and as everyone was anxious to see the Muslims destroyed early or disrupted so as not to leave any chance of their further growth and development, the Muslims at that time were obstructed in the smallest matters, and anyone from any tribe who accepted Islam and became a Muslim was either killed at once by his tribe or lived in perpetual danger. At a time like this, God Almighty, taking pity on Muslim converts, had imposed on the bigoted rulers a penalty, namely, that they should become subservient to Islam, and thus open the door of freedom for Islam. This was meant to remove the obstructions in the way of those who wished to accept the Faith; it was God’s compassion for the world, and it harmed no one. It is evident, however, that non-Muslim rulers of to-day do not interfere with Islam; they do not ban the essential Islamic practices. They do not kill new Muslims, they do not put them into prison or torture them; why then should Islam raise its sword against them? It is obvious that Islam has never advocated compulsion: if the Holy Quran, the books of Hadith and historical records are carefully examined and, as far as possible, studied or listened to thoughtfully, it will be realised with certainty that the charge that Islam wielded the sword to propagate the Faith with force is an utterly unfounded and shameful charge against Islam. Such a charge against Islam is made by people who have not read the Quran, the Hadith and the reliable histories of Islam in a spirit of detachment, but have made free use of falsehood and have brought wrong charges against it
Your quoting from the book of Mirza Ahmed-who WAS NOT an authority on anything Islamic, let alone a deep nd complex issue like Jihad.
Plz use sources which are credible, he is not.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mo_best: *
Your quoting from the book of Mirza Ahmed-who WAS NOT an authority on anything Islamic, let alone a deep nd complex issue like Jihad.
Plz use sources which are credible, he is not.
[/QUOTE]
.
Im sure ur not looking for trouble in this forum
Akif
The topic of Ahmadiyat has been discussed to death on this forum. I bet even the Encyclopeadia Britannica refers to this forum for details. So do a search. Enough has been said on the issue already.