Jihad

[JustLovely]

The are two interpretations of Jihad. There's the wrong interpretation, which suggests that a Human can MURDER another Human - this is the belief of "Kafir" such as Sunni and Shia Kafir. Then there's the Qadiani Muslim belief that Jihad can NEVER EVER HARM ANOTHER HUMAN.

So, we have two types of "belief"
** Qadiani Muslim Peaceful Jihad
and
** Shia/Sunni Kafir Violent Jihad


So, what I was wondering is IF a Human were to look at these two types of belief and were to pick of the two? Which system of belief is the closer to God which of the two would you choose and why???

 

[swarm]

Neither is closer to god.

I would choose neither of them.

Kafir is an insult. How does that fit into Qadiani?

 

[Enmos]

The are two interpretations of Jihad. There's the wrong interpretation, which suggests that a Human can MURDER another Human - this is the belief of "Kafir" such as Sunni and Shia Kafir. Then there's the Qadiani Muslim belief that Jihad can NEVER EVER HARM ANOTHER HUMAN.

And what if they don't see their opponents as human ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Whats your source of information on jihad, justlovely, Jew turned Ahmediya of unknown origin?

Also what is your opinion on takfir?

.

Kafir is an insult.

Kaffir is not an insult. Its a person who is not a Muslim. Muslimspeak for goy.

How does that fit into Qadiani?

It doesn't. While there is nothing wrong with the peaceful values propagated by the Ahmediyas, their belief in the reincarnation of Jesus [as declared by the noted Mirza] puts them at odds with mainstream Muslim clerics. They are a revivalist movement that believe in the establishment of the Caliphate and a unified Islam under one banner. All these good intentions sound very good in theory.

The Ahmediyas follow Mohammed, too, and the Qur'an.

Ahmadiyya beliefs do not conflict those of Islam in general, including belief in the prophethood of Muhammad, reverence for historical prophets, belief in a single creator God (strong monotheism). They accept the Qur'an as their holy text, face the Kaaba during prayer, accept the authority of Hadiths (reported sayings of and stories about Muhammad) and practice the Sunnah.

Central to the Ahmadiyya is the belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. Ahmadis emphasise the implementation of the Kalima (the fundamental creed of Islam) as quintessentially linked with the Islamic principles of the rights of God (Arabic: Haqooqul-Lah) and the rights of mankind (Arabic: Haqooqul-Ibād).[14] Every prophet is believed to have emphasised one of the two parts of this Islamic creed depending on the need of the time, the first being I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, the One, without partner (pertaining to the duties towards God i.e. worship of God, observing His commandments and upholding His Unity), as emphasised by, Abraham, Moses, Muhammad etc. in accordance with the requirements of their time. The other being and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger (pertaining to the duties towards mankind, i.e. compassion, care and concern for fellow beings, to maintain peace between fellow humans), emphasised by Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster etc. (as accepted by Ahmadi Muslims) in accordance with the requirements of their time.

Mankind is believed to have erred with regard to both of these essential aspects of religion in the present age. Ahmadis believe that Ghulam Ahmad was divinely commissioned to establish the unity of God, remind mankind of their duties towards God and His creation, to emphasise both aspects of religion which Ahmadis believe is the need of the present age. As such Ahmadis hold that Ghulam Ahmad was the representative and spiritual readvent of all previous prophets.[15] Giving precedence to faith over worldly pursuits is also a key principle in Ahmadiyya teachings with emphasised relevance to the present age of materialistic prevalence.[16]

You could consider them the Mormons of the Muslims.

He's a fake and a very obvious one.

 

[Enmos]

Kaffir is not an insult. Its a person who is not a Muslim. Muslimspeak for goy.

It's more like 'infidel'. It's considered an offensive term.

 

[S.A.M.]

Infidel = goy = kaffir

Its all the same word. Connotations are ascribed by people like Wilders and Dutchmen in South Africa

Its a commonly used inoffensive term in Urdu and Arabic. It can be used offensively as in "He's an atheist <sneer>"

 

[Enmos]

Infidel = goy = kaffir

Its all the same word. Connotations are ascribed by people like Wilders and Dutchmen in South Africa

Its a commonly used inoffensive term in Urdu and Arabic. It can be used offensively as in "He's an atheist <sneer>"

The sneer probably comes with the word

Kafir (literally the one who "covers", in the sense of hiding) - refers to those who do not believe in the one god - which includes atheists and polytheists but not Christians, Jews and Zorastrians who are known instead as the "People of the Book (Ahl-e-kitab}".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel#Islamic
- The hiding from God part doesn't strike me as particularly positive.
Especially when Christians and Jews come off as 'people of the book'.

"Kafir" has also come to be regarded as offensive, thus Muslim scholars discourage its usage due to the Quran's command to use kind words. It is even a punishable offense to use this term against a Jew or a Christian, under Islamic law. Some Muslim extremists today however use the term in reference to all non-Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel#Islamic
- Need I say more. It's not as much about the original meaning as it is about what it has become to mean.
Take the word 'asshole' for example, or 'cunt'.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah wikipedia is a good source of information

b. often kaffir Used especially in southern Africa as a disparaging term for a Black person
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Kaffir

You should look up the history of how that came about

Its like Islamofascist and jihad is bandied about these days, ignorant westerners who turn other cultures into a dirty word.

I refuse to let ignorant foreigners define my languages for me. Suck it up.

 

[Enmos]

Yeah wikipedia is a good source of information

b. often kaffir Used especially in southern Africa as a disparaging term for a Black person
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Kaffir

You should look up the history of how that came about

Its like Islamofascist and jihad is bandied about these days, ignorant westerners who turn other cultures into a dirty word.

I refuse to let ignorant foreigners define my languages for me. Suck it up.

So this etymology is wrong ?

kaffir
1790, from Arabic qafir "unbeliever, infidel, impious wretch," with a lit. sense of "one who does not admit the blessings of God," from kafara "to cover up, conceal, deny." Technically, "non-Muslim," but in Ottoman times it came to be used almost exclusively for "Christian." Early Eng. missionaries used it as an equivalent of "heathen" to refer to Bantus in South Africa (1792), from which use it came generally to mean "South African black" regardless of ethnicity, and to be a term of abuse since at least 1934.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kaffir

 

[S.A.M.]

Not at all. As you can see it was the crusaders, missionaries and the Dutch who made it "offensive"

It's commonly used in Arabic and Urdu just as goy is.

 

[Enmos]

Not at all. As you can see it was the crusaders, missionaries and the Dutch who made it "offensive"

It's commonly used in Arabic and Urdu just as goy is.

I mean this part: "1790, from Arabic qafir "unbeliever, infidel, impious wretch," with a lit. sense of "one who does not admit the blessings of God," from kafara "to cover up, conceal, deny." "

 

[Tyler]

I'm with Sam on this one.

(1) If it's used the same as 'goy' then it's really not necessarily offensive. Goy is sometimes used offensively, sometimes not. Most of the time it's more playful than anything else.

(2) Who the hell cares if it's offensive? When did people's mommies stop telling them the whole 'sticks and stones...' rhyme?

 

[Enmos]

(2) Who the hell cares if it's offensive? When did people's mommies stop telling them the whole 'sticks and stones...' rhyme?

Uh.. the argument ?

I'm not saying that it's originally meant as offensive. Just that it is perceived, and often used, as offensive nowadays.

Plus, I just want to know if the etymology (see post above yours) is correct.

 

[S.A.M.]

I mean this part: "1790, from Arabic qafir "unbeliever, infidel, impious wretch," with a lit. sense of "one who does not admit the blessings of God," from kafara "to cover up, conceal, deny." "

Yeah what's wrong with giving the English equivalents?

As you can see from the OP, it's even used by ignorant Muslims against Muslims

 

[Enmos]

Yeah what's wrong with giving the English equivalents?

As you can see from the OP, it's even used by ignorant Muslims against Muslims

So they are correct English equivalents of the word 'kaffir' ?

 

[Tyler]

Remember that translation doesn't always work that easily.

"Dictatorship" is the appropriate translation of 专政, but the connotation in English is not very flattering, whereas in Chinese it's perfectly fine. I've had students stand up and say "our dictatorship is the best!" and had to suggest that they may want to choose a different word. Similarly, when I'm pissed about something China-related I can't turn around and say "操你的专政！" or anything like that. It wouldn't make a lick of sense.

Insults are not easily translated.

 

[Enmos]

Remember that translation doesn't always work that easily.

"Dictatorship" is the appropriate translation of 专政, but the connotation in English is not very flattering, whereas in Chinese it's perfectly fine. I've had students stand up and say "our dictatorship is the best!" and had to suggest that they may want to choose a different word. Similarly, when I'm pissed about something China-related I can't turn around and say "操你的专政！" or anything like that. It wouldn't make a lick of sense.

Insults are not easily translated.

"Impious wretch" seems pretty clear to me. And I asked someone who can confirm it as a proper translation, namely SAM.

 

[S.A.M.]

Impious wretch would refer to a Muslim who is not pious like justlovely has done. And Tyler is correct, translations are not absolutely accurate. I'm sure it's not that different translating Dutch to English.

Anyway if you're a kafir, you're a kafir. If you consider it an insult to be called what you are i.e. Not a Muslim, feel free to change your status

 

[Enmos]

Impious wretch would refer to a Muslim who is not pious like justlovely has done. And Tyler is correct, translations are not absolutely accurate. I'm sure it's not that different translating Dutch to English.

Anyway if you're a kafir, you're a kafir. If you consider it an insult to be called what you are i.e. Not a Muslim, feel free to change your status

The insult doesn't have to be the meaning of the word itself.
Often the insult is really the intent behind saying it, you Muslim.
But at least you convinced me that it's original use has nothing to do with insult.

 

[JustLovely]

I would choose neither of them.

swarm,

That's an odd name what does it mean swarm? Like a swarm of mosquitoes?

A central tenant in all evolved religions is that people don't murder other people. I think that this is a sign that a religion is "mature".

This is the reason why "Buddhism" per say, which came from India (well actually present day Napal) is peaceful - because Indian people have the oldest religion so it's is very mature.

Now, we can see the in New Revelations of Christianity the theme is Peace.
Now that makes sense.

Mohammad was kind of like George Washington without the Violence. So that was all Peace too. Trying to free Arab people and give them a democracy - only using Peace.

With all of these religions (which is why I put "quotes" around Buddhism) once they become popular then they are used to scare people and then people fall under the spell of their leaders and thus the time for a new messegae. This is a circle that happens in all things.


So, if we were to compare "mainstream" Sunni and Shia Kafir then we see a lot of Violence and think that this tell us that they have been at that spot in the cycle for a new message.

Which was delivered by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in of course India!

Which should make sense given our long history, the longest, of religion.



So, it seems like someone who was comparing a VIOLENT type of "Islam" with a NON-VIOLENT type of "Islam" would pick the NON-VIOLENT. But, maybe not, I suppose if a person was violent minded like that Diamondhearts then maybe not.


Well, the reason I thought about this was because my friends and I were at the university handing out fliers and a Sunni Kafir started screaming in Arabic (so we didn't know what he was saying) and he actually pushed my firend and I really hard. My friend, she was shaking a little but we both stood their strong for Allah and eventually that boy left but he was filled with hate and I was worried maybe he might do something, but, I don't think so because Allah protects the rightous.

So this weekend we are going to make new fliers and hand them out in front of a Buddhist festival! (Birthday celebration I guess) WITH our other girl friend who is from India and is Buddhist. She said that we will see a big difference with the way Buddhists people will treat us.

Now, that makes sense because Buddhism is from India kind of near where our Messiah comes from. Maybe I will twitter about it?