Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 4:59pm:


Many Muslims as well.   

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 5:06pm:


Some, perhaps.  Most I believe know the meaning of the word much better than most Westerners do...   

There is an interesting discussion here:  Did You Know That Jihad Is In The Bible?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

It is holy war for Allah and Islam. That's why jihadis kill for Allah and Mohammed.  That's the meaning of jihad for Muslims. The 'spiritual struggle' is eyewash.

There would bee so many dead people moments after a Muslim shouts 'Allahu Akhbar' if it wasn't holy war for them.

If in the future hardline Muslims and the rest of Australian had a civil war who would the moderate Muslims  side with in your opinion?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

Here's a question for you Brian. If in the future hardline Muslims and the rest of Australian had a civil war who would the moderate Muslims  side with in your opinion?

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 8:45pm:



ohh didums is upset

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:


You are not being vague because you lack numbers you are being vague because you are dishonest.  “Perhaps” 

It’s an instinct with you, to sanitise and to defend Islam, to diminish if you cannot at least outright deny (though the idiocy of “perhaps” gets close), that jihad also means choppy choppy and holding up decapitated heads and all the other gory glory indulged in by Muslims as declared jihad.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:


Just one schism Brian? 

Misreading eh?   Nuffin to do wiv Islam then eh? 

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 9:00pm:



What did I declare to be a common trait and  did I declare it? Point it out ya dishonest submissive.

It may upset you Brian but jihad also means choppy choppy to many Muslims.  No “perhaps” about it.

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 9:08pm:


http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Run along, Secret, run along.   Your unreserved use of the plural implies that you believe it is a common trait.  Tsk, tsk.   

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 5:06pm:


Some, perhaps.  Most I believe know the meaning of the word much better than most Westerners do...   

Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 13^th, 2019 at 11:36am:



Inner struggle to murder as many people as possible for Allan = Islam. They are doing Allan's work and it's religious freedom, innit? Brilliant.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 13^th, 2019 at 7:42pm:


Oh, he has a radio program with a restaurant owner who rings up every day to discuss current affairs and spruik the special of the day.

Breakfast With Alan, 2GB.

The old boy listens to ABC Classical, but he's quite the fan.

Brian, do you think Jesus was a martyr?

freediver wrote on Jul 14^th, 2019 at 8:07am:


You answer my questions and I might answer yours, FD.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 13^th, 2019 at 7:42pm:

Allan is Akhbar.  Never heard of him?

Brian you also ran away from the thread you started on whether the Bible is more violent than the Quran. Why do you start these threads if you are just going to get embarrassed about the silly questions you ask?

freediver wrote on Jul 15^th, 2019 at 8:07am:

You answer my questions and I might answer yours, FD. 

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15^th, 2019 at 4:54pm:

What a ponce you are, Bwian!!!

Rolling your unfocused eyes in NOT a question.

Jihad (English: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ jihād [dʒɪˈhaːd]) is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, religious proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah,[1][2][5] though it is most frequently associated with war.[6] In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3] while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.[7][8] In Sufi and pious circles, spiritual and moral jihad has been traditionally emphasized under the name of greater jihad.[9][3] The term has gained additional attention in recent decades through its use by terrorist groups.

The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran with and without military connotations,[10] often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the path of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[11][12] Islamic jurists and other ulema of the classical era understood the obligation of jihad predominantly in a military sense.[13] They developed an elaborate set of rules pertaining to jihad, including prohibitions on harming those who are not engaged in combat.[14][15] In the modern era, the notion of jihad has lost its jurisprudential relevance and instead given rise to an ideological and political discourse.[7] While modernist Islamic scholars have emphasized defensive and non-military aspects of jihad, some Islamists have advanced aggressive interpretations that go beyond the classical theory.[7]

Jihad is classified into inner ("greater") jihad, which involves a struggle against one's own base impulses, and external ("lesser") jihad, which is further subdivided into jihad of the pen/tongue (debate or persuasion) and jihad of the sword.[16][9] Most Western writers consider external jihad to have primacy over inner jihad in the Islamic tradition, while much of contemporary Muslim opinion favors the opposite view.[16] Gallup analysis of a large survey reveals considerable nuance in the conceptions of jihad held by Muslims around the world.[17]

Jihad is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, though this designation is not commonly recognized.[18] In Twelver Shi'a Islam jihad is one of the ten Practices of the Religion.[19] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid (plural mujahideen). The term jihad is often rendered in English as "Holy War",[20][21][22] although this translation is controversial.[23][24] Today, the word jihad is often used without religious connotations, like the English crusade.[1][2]

Jihad kills.

Why the smokescreen?

Jihad that kills is the issue, those that slay and are slain are a grade higher than other muslims.

If jihad is spiritual, why do they have to kill and be killed in order to be guaranteed a place in the big brothel in the sky, full of aliens with big tits and little boys scattered like pearls around the brothel?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 17^th, 2019 at 11:27pm:

It's not for me to adjust Islam and its jihad, it's for Muslims. Muslims have trashed their reputation for 1400 years and they are thrashing it further every day in every corner of the globe. Because of jihad.
Their jihad kills - or rather, Mohammedans  kill as an act of jihad. That's why the most terrifying words  in a crowded place nowadays are  'Allahu Akhbar!'.

Nobody runs for cover when a Christian says 'praise be to god', or 'thank you, Jesus', or  when a Buddhist says 'Uhhhmmm' in a crowded railway station or an Aborigine spins a yarn about the frog whose laughter saved the world from thirst.

Classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence often contained a section called Book of Jihad, with rules governing the conduct of war covered at great length. Such rules include treatment of nonbelligerents, women, children (also cultivated or residential areas),[61][62] and division of spoils.[63] Such rules offered protection for civilians.[64] Spoils include Ghanimah (spoils obtained by actual fighting), and fai (obtained without fighting i.e. when the enemy surrenders or flees).[65]

The first documentation of the law of jihad was written by 'Abd al-Rahman al-Awza'i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. (It grew out of debates that surfaced following Muhammad's death.[26]) Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[66][not specific enough to verify]

As important as jihad was, it was/is not considered one of the "pillars of Islam". According to one scholar (Majid Khadduri, this is most likely because unlike the pillars of prayer, fasting, etc., jihad was a "collective obligation" of the whole Muslim community (meaning that "if the duty is fulfilled by a part of the community it ceases to be obligatory on others"), and was to be carried out by the Islamic state.[67] This was the belief of "all jurists, with almost no exception", but did not apply to defense of the Muslim community from a sudden attack, in which case jihad was and "individual obligation" of all believers, including women and children.[67]

Early Muslim conquests

In the early era that inspired classical Islam (Rashidun Caliphate) and lasted less than a century, jihad spread the realm of Islam to include millions of subjects, and an area extending "from the borders of India and China to the Pyrenees and the Atlantic".[68] The two empires impeding the advance of Islam were the Persian Sassanian empire and the Byzantine Empire. By 657 the Persian empire was conquered and by 661 the Byzantine empire was reduced to a fraction of its former size.[citation needed]

The role of religion in these early conquests is debated. Medieval Arabic authors believed the conquests were commanded by God, and presented them as orderly and disciplined, under the command of the caliph.[69] Many modern historians question whether hunger and desertification, rather than jihad, was a motivating force in the conquests. The famous historian William Montgomery Watt argued that “Most of the participants in the [early Islamic] expeditions probably thought of nothing more than booty ... There was no thought of spreading the religion of Islam.”[70] Similarly, Edward J. Jurji argues that the motivations of the Arab conquests were certainly not “for the propagation of Islam ... Military advantage, economic desires, [and] the attempt to strengthen the hand of the state and enhance its sovereignty ... are some of the determining factors.”[70] Some recent explanations cite both material and religious causes in the conquests.[71]

Post-Classical usage

According to some authors,[who?] the more spiritual definitions of jihad developed sometime after the 150 years of jihad wars and Muslim territorial expansion, and particularly after the Mongol invaders sacked Baghdad and overthrew the Abbasid Caliphate.[citation needed][72] The historian Hamilton Gibb states that "in the historic [Muslim] Community the concept of jihad had gradually weakened and at length it had been largely reinterpreted in terms of Sufi ethics."[73]

Islamic scholar Rudolph Peters also wrote that with the stagnation of Islamic expansionism, the concept of jihad became internalized as a moral or spiritual struggle.[74] Earlier classical works on fiqh emphasized jihad as war for God's religion, Peters found. Later Muslims (in this case modernists such as Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida) emphasized the defensive aspect of jihad—which was similar to the Western concept of a "just war".[75] Today, some Muslim authors only recognize wars fought for the purpose of territorial defense as well as wars fought for the defense of religious freedom as legitimate.[76]

Bernard Lewis states that while most Islamic theologians in the classical period (750–1258 CE) understood jihad to be a military endeavor,[77] after Islamic conquest stagnated and the caliphate broke up into smaller states the "irresistible and permanent jihad came to an end". As jihad became unfeasible it was "postponed from historic to messianic time."[78] Even when the Ottoman Empire carried on a new holy war of expansion in the seventeenth century, "the war was not universally pursued". They made no attempt to recover Spain or Sicily.[79][better source needed]

When the Ottoman Caliph called for a "Great Jihad" by all Muslims against Allied powers during World War I, there were hopes and fears that non-Turkish Muslims would side with Ottoman Turkey, but the appeal did not "[unite] the Muslim world",[78][80] and Muslims did not turn on their non-Muslim commanders in the Allied forces.[81] (The war led to the end of the caliphate as the Ottoman Empire entered on the side of the war's losers and surrendered by agreeing to "viciously punitive" conditions. These were overturned by the popular war hero Mustafa Kemal, who was also a secularist and later abolished the caliphate.[82])

Frank wrote on Jul 20^th, 2019 at 2:31pm:


It appears you only know some Muslims by some fruits, Soren.  You ignore the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are peaceful, law-abiding, people in favour of the tiny minority who commit crimes or Terrorism.   Is that fair?  No, of course not it is typical of an Islamophobe who chooses to brand all Muslims by what the minority do.   That is typical of you with your endless persecution of the overwhelming majority of Muslims.   

When are you going to realise that you are known first and foremost as an Islamophobe, Soren?  Mmmm?   You claim superior intelligence, superior intellect, superior culture but you don't display as such.  All we read continually is you throwing mud, the mud that you appear only too willing to roll in at every opportunity.  You act like a child rather than a mature adult, which is why I suggest you belong in the little kiddies' playground.   Time to grow up, act responsibility and actually listen to what people are saying about your Islamophobia.  We might then have an adult conversation instead of endlessly trading insults in every post. 

Frank wrote on Jul 20^th, 2019 at 7:08pm:


And the old boy comes not to improve but bore us all with jokes from Punch and his relentless imperialist propaganda circa WWI: always absolutely never ever.

No boats for the old boy. He flew here. He recently confided that he wasn't really Australian, but a ridiculous stool-eater who carefully sniffs each turd like an old dog before he gobbles it down, then gives you a shameful look as if to say, well, it was just lying there. When in Rome...

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2019 at 11:30pm:


He's struggling and flailing and squealing and squeaking, this little stuck pig!

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 25^th, 2019 at 5:17pm:

Tolewant Bwian.

Frank wrote on Jul 25^th, 2019 at 9:48pm:


Seems to upset you, Soren so it must be good then, right?