Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim.
The phenomenon of the idea that Jihad is only
defensive is rapidly being spread amongst Muslim
circles. It is without doubt a relatively new idea
that seems to have appeared since the demise of
the 'uthamani Khilafah and tends to come from
the rhetoric of apologists and modernists who
seem to have a problem with many key aspects
of traditional Islamic 'Aqeedah and Islamic Law.
The ironic thing is, those who are calling for a
reform to how we should approach the Shariah
are also declarers of following 'Traditional Islam'.
However, what seems to be more apparent is
that they find no qualms in adhering to
interpretations of traditional Islamic law in non
controversial and non - 'ideological' matters, but
when matters of contemporary issues arise, such
as Jihad, apostasy, the Islamic penal code,
interfaith relations etc, new interpretations are
called for.
This is a serious problem we are facing and a
short article will never be able to address this
issue accordingly. Before a Muslim steps into the battlefield, he has
already fought a great battle within himself
against Satan- against his own desires and
ambitions, his personal interests and inclinations,
the interests of his own family and of his nation;
against anything which is not from Islam; against
every obstacle which comes into the way of
worshipping Allah and the implementation of the
Divine authority on earth, returning this authority
to Allah and taking it away from the rebellious
usurpers.
Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for
the defense of the 'home land of Islam' diminish
the greatness of the Islamic way of life and
consider it less important than their 'homeland'.
This is not the Islamic point of view, and their
view is a creation of modern age and is
completely alien to Islamic consciousness. What
is acceptable to Islamic consciousness is its
belief, the way of life which this belief prescribes,
and the society which lives according to this way
of life. The soil of the homeland has, in itself, no
value or weight. From the Islamic point of view,
the only value which the soil can achieve is
because on that soil Allah's authority is
established and Allah's guidance is followed; and
thus it becomes a fortress for the belief, a place
for its way of life to be entitled the 'homeland of
Islam', a centre for the movement for the total
freedom of man.
Of course, in that case the defense of the
'homeland of Islam' is the defense of the Islamic
beliefs, the Islamic way of life, and the Islamic
community. However, it's defense is not the
ultimate objective of the Islamic movement of
Jihad but it is a mean of establishing the Divine
authority within it so that it becomes the
headquarters for the movement of Islam, which is
then to be carried throughout the earth to the
whole of mankind, as the object of this religion is
all humanity and its sphere of action is the whole
earth.
As we have described earlier, there are many
practical obstacles in the establishing Allah's rule
on earth, such as the power of state, the social
system and traditions and, in general, the whole
human environment. Islam uses force only to
remove these obstacles so that there may not
remain any wall between Islam and individual
human beings, and so that it may address their
hearts and minds after releasing them from these
material obstacles, and then leave them free to
choose to accept or reject it.
We ought not to be deceived or embarrassed by
the attacks of the Orientalists on the origin of
Jihad, nor lose self-confidence under the pressure
of present conditions and the weight of the great
powers of the world to such an extent that we try
to find reasons for Islamic Jihad outside the
nature of this religion, and try to show that it was
a defensive measure under temporary conditions.
The need for Jihad remains, and will continue to
remain, whether these conditions exist or not!

Alright, you just stated that Jihad transcend defence according to orthodox Islamic teachings. This has been my my criticism of orthodox Islam, but the apologists deny.

Insha Allah, I will give my contribution on this tonight.

usermane:
Alright, you just stated that Jihad transcend defence according to orthodox Islamic teachings. This has been my my criticism of orthodox Islam, but the apologists deny.

Insha Allah, I will give my contribution on this tonight.

are you sunni muslim,this is what is generally agreed upon on what jihad is according to the Shariah.

tartar9:
are you sunni muslim,this is what is generally agreed upon on what jihad is according to the Shariah.

Forget him, he is a Quranist...

To the topic, Jihad can both be offensive and defensive depending on the conditions. I would say, a defensive Jihad is more practical and useful in today's world.Why?

i. There are global treaties between countries which means there are little impediments to the spread of the message.

ii. Weapons of mass destruction, which means the Islamic values of warfare can not be strictly adhered to.

In terms of relevance at this point in time, defence is more relevant.

Peace.

Jihad can be offensive?, well i guess that 's what ISIS is keeping to.

Interesting discourse, my 2 kobo, when talking about Jihad we should always remind people that it is not only limited to battles but about a general struggle to do what will be positive for humanity, like not partaking in corruption, charity, removing harmful things from the road, and greatest jihad is a word of justice said to an unjust leader, like say baghdadi, etc
The mistake we keep making is allowing the kafirs, munafiqs, non muslims to box us in a corner, by limiting the discourse to always battles when in fact it battle is just one aspect of it, we need to keep educating them on what jihad broadly means not just limiting it to their already misconstrued understanding of the term!

@tartar9

Your assertion that all land must fall under Sharia have been employed by Islamist insurgents for long. I am not shocked to hear this since i know it is covered in your religious text, although most orthodox Muslims continue deny it.

Accordingly, orthodox Muslim sages divided the world into two parts; "Abode of Peace and Abode of War", the former being the Muslim land under sharia and the latter being the non-Muslim land to be fought to establish Sharia law.

It is God 's will that the Muslim world now under the grip of fanatics lack the military and technological competence to mount an invasion or offensive Jihad. Otherwise, the very war crimes that US and Isreal are guilty of will be nothing compared to the slaughter & massacres by the Mujahidins and their Caliphs, in compliance with the following ahadith:::

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387 :
Narrated by Anas bin Malik

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."

Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

There isn't proof for this unjust doctrine from the Qur'an which no where sanction aggression but defense and resistance. The reason being that Offensive Jihad is a foreign doctrine introduced to serve the interest of power and wealth hungry Ummayad Caliphs. Because the Arabs will buy anything marketed as Islam, the Ummayad effected the fabrication of these ahadith to buy their full support, even though it was a secular state requiring no religious justification for decisions.

author=usermane post=27904853]

The hadith you quoted up there, Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387, is like quoting sura 9:5.

Even though it appears to be 'standalone' should only be understood in the light of war context.

That's just common sense for average Muslims. But people don't think anymore. If some crazy people exploit it, that's their cup of coffee.

Why would you say it's a form of offensive and aggression?. What you doing is exactly what many non-Muslims are doing. When non-Muslims quote sura 9:5, you keep quiet. Why don't you defend it since you are Quran only believer?.

This reminds me of 2010 or 2011 during Obama's state of the union address when he said "...we will not give them save haven. We will eradicate them wherever we find them". What would you think of Obama?. I thought you smarter than this. You of all people as you fondly say.

Honestly you really need to get a life. [size=5pt]No offence intended[/size]

ALLAH IS THE MOST GREATEST