• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jihad is not what you think it is

Firemorphic

Activist Membrane
Why? If I learn more about etymology, would then muslims around the world start using that word in that context?
Obviously not. Like I already said: I'm well aware of what is being talked about in this thread.

Ok, well if you agree with me then there's no actual fuss.

2. when a terrorist uses it.

So my question is: what is the point here?
Does it change anything about radical islam?
Does it change anything about what jihadi's do and believe?

Yes, that's why I mentioned reappropriating it to it's proper meaning. Of course, like anything else, things take time.
One of those things would (as in your quoted post) be to stop using their terminology, such as "Jihadists" and call them for what they actually are, geopolitical terrorists.

I also feel like it's the responsability of the moderate muslim to set up this "marketing" campaign of re-appropriating this word if they feel it is important.

WTF is a "moderate Muslim"? I've seen that term thrown around occasionally and it makes me cringe for the person using it.

But I agree with your point, as I already addressed all of your comments in my previous post already. I think we agree, it's just those ****'s that are misappropriating it and bastardizing it.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
One of those things would (as in your quoted post) be to stop using their terminology, such as "Jihadists" and call them for what they actually are, geopolitical terrorists

Why would I do that?
When I say "jihadists", then everybody -including you- instantly knows which people I am talking about. Those people being terrorists motivated by their fundamentalist Islam.

A "geo political terrorist" isn't a term that points exclusively to those people. It might just as well be an atheist communist or alike....

Kind of like "a thumb is a finger, but not all fingers are thumbs".

WTF is a "moderate Muslim"?

:rolleyes:

A muslim that is not a radical / fundamentalist .

I've seen that term thrown around occasionally and it makes me cringe for the person using it.

So you are really going to stand there and claim to not know the difference between a moderate theist and a radical theist? For realz?

But I agree with your point, as I already addressed all of your comments in my previous post already. I think we agree, it's just those ****'s that are misappropriating it and bastardizing it.

I disagree with that.
I don't think they are misappropriating / bastardizing it at all.

I agree it means more then just armed combat.
But it ALSO means what jihadi's mean by it.

Wheter or not you, as a moderate muslim ( ;-) ), find them to being justified or not in their Jihad, is another point. Jihad most definatly also means armed combat when Islam / muslims are under attack.

What you actually disagree with with these radicals, is if Islam and muslims are actually under attack and if that kind of Jihad is actually justified or not.

They think it is. You think it is not.

But the main point, is that such armed combat most definatly is a form of jihad.
Yes, the word means more then just that. But it ALSO means that.
 

Firemorphic

Activist Membrane
Why would I do that?
When I say "jihadists", then everybody -including you- instantly knows which people I am talking about. Those people being terrorists motivated by their fundamentalist Islam.

You're contradicting yourself, well if you mean what you said in your previous post.

A "geo political terrorist" isn't a term that points exclusively to those people. It might just as well be an atheist communist or alike....

Yes, that's my reason, aside from again, your previous post and previous point about misappropriated words. Gosh, why do you have to add more salt to the pot when we'd pretty much both reached a conclusion.

A muslim that is not a radical / fundamentalist .

Yeah, that'd be a regular Muslim, no need to make up new cringey terms like "moderate Muslim" to pander to useless sensitivities, lol.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You're contradicting yourself, well if you mean what you said in your previous post.

How so?

Yes, that's my reason

Then your reason makes no sense, because people use the word "jihadi" to point specifically to islamic terrorists.
It's kind of like expecting people to no longer use the word "thumb" and only refer to thumbs as "fingers".

, aside from again, your previous post and previous point about misappropriated words. Gosh, why do you have to add more salt to the pot when we'd pretty much both reached a conclusion

I think I've made it quite clear that I don't agree that this is a "misappropriated word".
That strictly speaking it means more then just what these Jihadi's engage in, is certainly true.
What is also true is that the word is never used in those other contexts.

I know quite a lot of muslims (half my family is muslim). Not a single one has ever used that word in any of those other contexts, except in discussions like this one, when they go into apologetic defensive mode to try and distinguish their version of islam from that of jihadi's. But that's, as said, because they are asked about it or accused in some form or another.

And since "jihad" also means the armed combat against those who attack islam / muslims, it seems perfectly legit to me to use the word in exactly that context. Especially since muslims themselves never seem to use that word in any other context.

So here, we have a thread informing people that the word has other meanings. Well, cool. Wooptiedoo. Now what?

Yeah, that'd be a regular Muslim, no need to make up new cringey terms like "moderate Muslim" to pander to useless sensitivities, lol.

The alternative to "radical" is "moderate".
"regular" is not a correct term in my ears for describing this specific thing.

"moderate" is a word that informs us about intensity of belief, of levels of dogmatism, of levels of adherence to religious rules, etc.

While "regular" doesn't do that at all, imo. "regular" is unclear. It sounds like "common" or "majority" or points to actual content of beliefs.

Is a shia a "regular" muslim?
Is a protestant a "regular" christian?
Is a catholic a "regular" christian?

That doesn't seem clear.

As opposed to a "radical christian" or a "moderate christian" - now their denomination becomes irrelevant. As now it is about levels of dogmatism, intensity, etc... along with the associated social issues that inevitable comes with that.
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
How so?



Then your reason makes no sense, because people use the word "jihadi" to point specifically to islamic terrorists.
It's kind of like expecting people to no longer use the word "thumb" and only refer to thumbs as "fingers".



I think I've made it quite clear that I don't agree that this is a "misappropriated word".
That strictly speaking it means more then just what these Jihadi's engage in, is certainly true.
What is also true is that the word is never used in those other contexts.

I know quite a lot of muslims (half my family is muslim). Not a single one has ever used that word in any of those other contexts, except in discussions like this one, when they go into apologetic defensive mode to try and distinguish their version of islam from that of jihadi's. But that's, as said, because they are asked about it or accused in some form or another.

And since "jihad" also means the armed combat against those who attack islam / muslims, it seems perfectly legit to me to use the word in exactly that context. Especially since muslims themselves never seem to use that word in any other context.

So here, we have a thread informing people that the word has other meanings. Well, cool. Wooptiedoo. Now what?



The alternative to "radical" is "moderate".
"regular" is not a correct term in my ears for describing this specific thing.

"moderate" is a word that informs us about intensity of belief, of levels of dogmatism, of levels of adherence to religious rules, etc.

While "regular" doesn't do that at all, imo. "regular" is unclear. It sounds like "common" or "majority" or points to actual content of beliefs.

Is a shia a "regular" muslim?
Is a protestant a "regular" christian?
Is a catholic a "regular" christian?

That doesn't seem clear.

As opposed to a "radical christian" or a "moderate christian" - now their denomination becomes irrelevant. As now it is about levels of dogmatism, intensity, etc... along with the associated social issues that inevitable comes with that.

@TagliatelliMonster I am far from being an apologetic for any faith as you may have noticed - but I felt compelled to point out that there are indeed two sides to the "Is ISIS an Islamic phenomenon?"

A casual google search will reveal articles on both sides of the issue. The issue then is to ferret out the ones on either side with an agenda versus the somewhat centrist reporting

I cannot seem to locate it now but I remembered reading an article written by an intelligence analyst for the US Congress in which they had data from several captured fighters. These people at least were largely illiterate and did not read the Qu'ran leave alone have a copy. They were brainwashed into believing what their leader told them the Qu'ran said

So it is more a misuse of scripture for the political gains of those that choose to take that path.

Look at most Muslim majority countries - clergy has an inordinately large amount of power in the day to day goings on - and you know the saying about power corrupting. This is naked political ambition hiding behind religion.

I have posted in other posts, graphic stories from just a couple hundred years ago where forced conversion attempts resulted in unspeakable physical tortures including women and small children - so yes it happens and continues today - just think of the Yazidis

I have often fruitlessly asked the Abrahamics - that if their god is just and all powerful why do these people that misuse his name not suffer personal tragedies like a stroke that would render them incapable of continuing to do that - that to me - is proof of a deity that is impotent, does not care, is not just or simply does not exist. But that is another discussion for another day.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
I've never heard an atheist with anything positive to say about religion, a bunch of haters.

I've never heard anything positive from abrahmic religions about unbelievers,personally I don't hate religion and wouldn't want to send anyone to eternal suffering like it says in your books.
 
Top