What Muhammad said?

Robert

You could do a search on Bukhari by going to this site, checking Bukhari, and entering any combination of the above words that you think will uniquely yield this.

http://www.muhaddith.org/cgi-bin/e_optns.exe?

I did the search using a combination of Jihad, Conquest and Oneself, and came up with nothing.

I just wanted to comment about the Ft Dix Tipster article which is now closed for some strange reason.

Simply, here AGAIN, evidence of muslims NEVER willing to turn in another muslim planning an attack on America.

How much more proof do the leftists and liberals need of islamic treachery?

Islam is evil.

My point is no muslim anywhere can be trusted to help any non-muslims.

They need to leave and go home to their ancestral, islamic homelands.

To quote Walid Shoebat, "Yes, jihad means 'struggle,' but so does Mein Kampf.

To quote Walid Shoebat, "Yes, jihad means 'struggle,' but so does Mein Kampf."

Out of the 78 militry jihads Mohammed led during his life not one was an "inward striving". Not once in the Qur'an is the word "jihad" used in anything except a military context.

Get out the Calculator!

following from "Center for the Study of Political Islam"

All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the references to jihad are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: “all of the above.” Both sides of the duality are right.

I searched on "struggle" in Bukhari at the USC/MSA site-- about four results.

I also searched on "jihad." Many more results, but none contradict the notion of jihad as literal fighting in the cause of Allah. (Many of the entries often have "holy fighting" added parenthetically after the term.)

Here's the sort of thing the askMuslims person might be referring to:

The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause." - Bukhari 001.002.035

So, it says to wage jihad for the sake of pleasing Allah, not for earthly fame or spoils of war (related: 001.002.025). But the notion of jihad is unaltered.

A few other findings, with brief comments:

002.024.547 - reference to armor
002.026.595 - "Jihad for women" = hajj. But what's jihad for men?
003.031.121 - does not change definition of jihad. In fact, it distinguishes it from other acts.
004.052.041 - contradicts earlier "best deed" verses (and 4.52.044). See also 8.73.1
004.052.042 - clear reference to fighting
004.052.104 - what do horses and booty have to do with an inner spiritual struggle?
004.052.317 - defeating "the infidel clans"
004.053.412 - jihad cited in connection with the conquest of Mecca

It appears as if the word "jihad" is tantamount to the "F" word. It can mean pretty much anything the user intends. i.e. F you!, what the F?, Who the F is it?, Where the F are we?, etc. Perhaps "Jihad" is the second most useful word in the universe. The word "Smurf" from the cartoon comes to mind as a word with such diverse meanings. i.e. things are going smurfingly, smurf you, etc.

Ynkedoodl2

It would be good to get Bill Warner to comment since he says 3% of Bukhari's Jihad entries refer to "inner struggle". Where did he even get that 3%?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html is where Bukhari can be searched. Search the word "Jihad" and you get 56 hits---->>>

The query [jihad] generated the following matches:

Complete Sahih Bukhari

001.002.025 001.002.035 001.010.505 002.015.086 002.024.547 002.026.594 002.026.595 003.029.084 003.031.121 003.046.724 004.051.033 004.052.041 004.052.042 004.052.043 004.052.044 004.052.056 004.052.079 004.052.081 004.052.085 004.052.087 004.052.088 004.052.104 004.052.112 004.052.113 004.052.127 004.052.128 004.052.129 004.052.130 004.052.144 004.052.146 004.052.208 004.052.217 004.052.248 004.052.311 004.052.317 004.053.352 004.053.412 004.056.839 005.057.018 005.058.140 005.058.240 005.058.254 005.059.425 005.059.598 005.059.599 005.059.600 005.059.602 006.060.040 006.060.041 008.073.001 008.073.003 009.089.308 009.093.519 009.093.549 009.093.555 009.093.625

The following searches found no results:
jihad + oneself
jihad + self
jihad + inner
jihad + internal
jihad + peaceful

The following query found 1 result:
jihad + peace

Bukhari 6:40 - "If two groups of believers fight each other, then make peace between them, but if one of then transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then you all fight against the one that transgresses. And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)." Ibn `Umar said, "We did it, during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle when Islam had only a few followers. A man would be put to trial because of his religion; he would either be killed or tortured."

The point that this hadith is trying to make doesn't exactly match my definition of "peace", and it has nothing to do with an "inner struggle". Reading the entire hadith, it's about using violence to force everyone to worship Allah.

I only searched in "Al Jaami Al Saheeh" by Bukhari. Can someone who reads Arabic confirm that none of the other Hadith options are by Bukhari?

Robert, did you ever collect that million dollar prize from Badawi?

Nonie Darwish, a "Palestinian" writer, says that she had never heard of this conveniently peaceful hadith ("The most excellent jihad is that for the conquest of oneself") before 9/11. Where did it come from, and when?

Perhaps it's time to turn Badawi's prize around, and offer a year's free subscription to JW/DW to any Muslim apologist who can solve The Mysterious Case of the Purloined Peaceful Hadith.

Robert

I found this in Sahih Muslim, after I entered the words 'Jihad' and 'Self' in the search boxes in the al Muhaddith search engine I reference above, and selected all the hadiths, not just Bukhari.

Sahih Muslim. Version 1.03 - Translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui
Book 19: The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar) >> INTRODUCTION


The word Jihad is derived from the verb jahada which means:" he exerted himself". Thus literally, Jihad means exertion, striving; but in juridico-religious sense, it signifies the exertion of one's power to the utmost of one's capacity in the cause of Allah. This is why the word Jihad has been used as the antonym to the word Qu, ud (sitting) in the Holy Qur'an (iv. 95). Thus Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears. Qital fi sabilillah (fighting in the way of Allah) is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this qital in Islam is not an act of mad brutality. It has its material and moral functions, i. e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world. The verdict of all religious and ethical philosophies-ancient and modern-justify war on moral grounds. When one nation is assailted by the ambitions and cupidity of another, the doctrine of non-resistance is anti-social, as it involves non-assertion, not only of one's own rights, but of those of others who need protection against the forces of tyranny and oppression. A Muslim is saddled with the responsibilities to protect himself and all those who seek his protection. He cannot afford to abandon the defenceless people, old man, women and children to privation, suffering and moral peril. Fighting in Islam, therefore, represents in Islamic Law what is known among Western jurists as" just war".
The very first revelation in which the permission to wage war against the forces of evil sums up the aims and objects of qital in Islam:
" Permitted'are those who are fought against, because they have been oppressed. and verily God is more Powerful for their aid. Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: 'Our Lord is Allah, ' for had it not been for 'Allah's repelling someone by means of others, cloisters and churches and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft-mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helps one who helps Him. Lo! Allah is Strong. Almighty" (xxii. 39. 41).
These verses eloquently speak of 'the fact that it is neither for the acquisition of territory nor for the love of power and distinction that the Muslims have been permitted to raise arms against the enemy. They were allowed to do so because their very existence had been made difficult by the high-handedness of the Meccans. The Holy Qur'an has elucidated this point in the following verse:
" And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah and for the oppressed among men and women and children who say: Our Lord! take us forth from the town whereof the people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper" (iv. 75).
The war in Islam is waged with a view to securing liberty and freedom for those who are groaning under the oppression of heartless tyrants. It is the bounden duty of the Muslims to alleviate their sufferings and create for them an atmosphere of peace and security.
Then in the succeeding verse a distinction is also drawn between two types of war: one which is fought for the sake of Allah and the other which is waged for evil ends:
" Those who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of devil. So fight against the friends of Satan; verily weak indeed is the strategy of the devil" (iv. 76).
It has been made clear that those people who fight for self-glorification or for the exploitation of the weak are in fact friends of the devil; wheres those who raise arms to curb tyranny and aggression, to eradicate evil from the human society, fight in the way of Allah. Mere fighting is not, therefore, Jihad in Islam; it is the noble objective alone which makes it a sacred pursuit like devotion and prayer. It is narrated on the authority of Abu Musa Ash'ari that once a man went to the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and said: One man fights for the sake of spoils of war, the second one fights for fame and glory and the third to display his courage and skill; which among them is the fighter for the cause of Allah? Upon this the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) replied: He who fights with the sole objective that the word of Allah should become supreme is a Mujahid in the cause of the Lord.
A Mujahid is thus a noble person who offers his life for the achievement of lofty ends. He is actuated by human considerations lifts arms not under the impulse of fury and revenge, but with will, fore-thought, tenacity and fellow-feeling, and his conduct bears the imprint of human intellect, human sympathy and sense of justice.
The Holy Qur'an has explained this point in Sura Anfal in these words:
" O you who believe, when you meet an enemy, be firm, and remember Allah much, that you may be successful. And obey Allah and His Apostle. And fall with no disputes, lest ye falter and your strength fail; but be steadfast! For Allah is with those who patiently persevere. Be not as those who came forth from their dwellings boastfully. And to be seen of men and debar (men) from the way of Allah. And Allah encompasses what they do" (viii. 45-46).
Here the Muslims have been exhorted to observe five principles of war:
Be steadfast in the face of the enemy.
Have full reliance on the help of Allah and remember Him much.
Have the unity of purpose and solidarity of corporate life always before your eyes.
Be fully aware of the lofty purpose before you in fighting.
Don't be proud and boastful in your attitude and behaviour.
Islam has purified even war of all its cruelty and horrors and has made it a" reformative process" to deal with evil. The Holy Qur'an bserves:
" And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you and transgress not the limits. Verily Allah loves not the transgressors" (ii. 190).
The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) has given clear instructions about the behaviour of the Muslim army. He observed:
" Set out for Jibad in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah. Do not lay hands on the old verging on death, on women, children and babes. Do not steal anything from the booty and collect together all that falls to your lot in the battlefield and do good, for Allah loves the virtuous and the pious."
So great is the respect for humanly feelings in Islam that even the wanton destruction of enemy's crops or property is strictly forbidden. The righteous Caliphs followed closely the teachings of Allah and those of His Apostle in letter and spirit the celebrated address which the first Caliph Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) gave to his army while sending her on the expedition to the Syrian borders is permeated with the noble spirit with which the war in Islam is permitted. He said:
" Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman. nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not ary of the enemy's flock. save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monast ic services; leave them alone"
It is said that once at the time of conquest, a singing girl was brought to al-Muhajir b. Abu Umayya who had been publicly singing satirical poems about Hadrat Abu Bakr. Muhajir got her hand amputated. When the Caliph heard this news, he was shocked and wrote a letter to Muhajir in the following words:
" I have learnt that you laid hands on a woman who had hurled abuses on me, and, therefore, got her hand amputated. God has not sought vengeance even in the case of polytheism, which is a great crime. He has not permitted mutilation even with regard to manifest infidelity. Try to be considerate and sympathetic in your attitude towards others in future. Never mutilate, because it is a grave offence. God purified Islam and the Muslims from rashness and excessive wrath. You are well aware of the fact that those enemies fell into the hands of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who had been recklessly abusing him; who had turned him out of his home; and who fought against him, but he never permitted their mutilation."
Another letter written by hadrat 'Umar the Second Caliph, which is addressed to sa'd b. Abu Waqqas, speaks eloquently of the noble spirit with which the Muslims have bear exhorted to take up arms:
" Always search your minds and hearts and stress upon your men the need of perfect integrity and sincerity in the cause of Allah. There should be no material end before them in laying down their lives. but they abould deem it a means whereby they can please their Lord and entitle them. selves to His favour: such a spirit of selflessness should be inculcated in the minds of those who unfortunately lack it. Be firm in the thick of the battle as Allah helps man according to the perseverance that he shows in the cause of His faith and he would be rewarded in accordance with the spirit of sacrifice which he displays for the sake of the Lord. Be careful that those who have been entrusted to your care receive no harm at your hands and are never deprived of any of their legitimate rights.
Such in fact is the humane and noble attitude which Islam exhorts its followers to adopt on the battlefield where passions are generally let loose. It is an attitude the like of which is not to be found in the history of any other nation. Has the world any code of military ethics more noble and compassionate than this?" The moral tone adopted by the Caliph Abu Bakr in his instructions to the Syrian army was," says a Christian historian," so unlike the principles of the Roman government that it must have commanded profound attention from the subject people-such a proclamation announced to Jews and Christians sentiments of justice and principles of toleration which neither Roman emperors nor orthodox bishops had ever adopted as the rule of conduct."
Western scholars have indulged in a good deal of mud-slinging on the question of the use of the sword in Islam. But if one were to reflect calmly on this point one would be convinced that the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity. Utmost regard was always shown to human life, honour and property even on the battlefield. That is why in all the eighty-two encounters between the Muslims and the non-Muslims during the life of the Holy Prophet (may peace he upon him), only 1018 persons lost their lives on both sides. Out of this 259 were Muslims, whereas the remaining 759 belonged to the opposite camp. One wonders at the audacity of these writers only when one compares the religious wars of Charles the Great, in which 4300 pagan Saxons were killed in cold blood, when one recalls the" famous answer by which the Papal Legate, in the Albigensian war, quieted the scruples of a too conscientious general, 'Kill all, God will know His own'.... When we recall the Spanish Inquisition, the conquest of Mexico and Peru, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the sack of Magdeburg by Tilly."
It is indeed strange that the criticism on the use of sword by Muslims emanates from those whose hands are soiled in the blood of countless innocent human beings, by those who exult in the techniques of homicide, who have depersonalised warfare to such an extent that millions of innocent men and women are put to death and numberless are thrown into concentration camps and flogged with steel rods and ox-hide whips, and all this is done without any qualm of conscience. As human beings. we hang our heads down in shame when we think of the horrifying atrocities which have been perpetrated by the modern civilised men. It is estimated that. in the First World War, ten million soldiers were killed and an equal number of civilians lost their lives, and twenty million died on account of widespread epidemics and famines throughout the world as an aftermath of this war. Economic costs are estimated at $ 338,000,000,000 of which $ 186,000,000,000 were direct costs.
The losses in the Second World War were staggeringly greater as compared to those in the first one. Twenty-two million persons were killed and thirty-four million were wounded. The estimated cost of the war was $ 1, 348. 000,000,000 of which $ 1, 167,000,000,000 consisted of direct military costs.
It is significant that in the Korean War, the first instance in which an international organisation for establishing peace utilised military force to suppress aggression, more than one million persons were killed which added to the civilian deaths in Korea and totalled about five millions.

I have another question - doesn't Hadrat mean Prophet? And if that's the case, then are the 'Rightly Guided Caliphs' - Abu Baqr, Umar, Uthman and Ali - recognized as Prophets in Islam? I thought that Mohammed was the last Prophet.

Or wasn't he?

Greetings:

A scan of Al-Alim, a very useful computer program containing multiple translations of the Qur'an, Sahih Al-Bukhari's hadith collection, Sahih Al-Muslim, etc., reveals no relevant hits on "excellent jihad" nor on "conquest."

James>>>

A search for "lesser" in the USC archives, the four main collections, which include complete Bukhari and Muslim:

Database Search Results

The query [lesser ] generated the following matches:
Complete Sahih Bukhari
003.036.468 007.062.125
Complete Sahih Muslim
019.4294 020.4605 039.6723
Partial Sunan Abu Dawud
023.3454
Complete Malik's Muwatta
None.

If "lesser" does not appear neither does "lesser jihad". Case closed.

Even as it stands it says the "most excellent" form is mastery of self. Therefore, the normal or even slightly excellent version of Jihad is the one we see evry day in every place where Muslims are secure ogf their numbers and/or leverage.

They can blow as much semantic smoke (in the general direction of northward near our sphincters) as they want, but anyone with eyes can see what the activity of Jihad means in the world.

If there is any inner ("Greater") Jihad-ing going on, it sure isn't stopping a drop of the ("Lesser") bloodthirsty Jihad ...which is painfully evident in the Middle East, Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan, North Africa, Spain, Russia, The U.K., The U.S., the Phillipines, etc., etc., etc.

If debunking a quote defused one suicide vest, it would be worth it.

But I suspect that the Jihadist brain is impervious to rationality, having sacrificed its root intelligence to the first line of the Koran. ("Do not doubt this book..")

Jihad was buried for centuries until it was reborn into the Nazi ideology, which cost millions of lives. Jihadists don't want this revealed.

Note to moslems: Your ideology will be dragged, kicking and screaming and seething and whining into the Light whether you want it or not. You underestimated the intelligence and resolve of thinking human beings throughout the known universe at your own peril.

Slowly but surely, this 'religion' that you follow is being exposed as the cult that it is, and sooner rather than later, you will be forced to make a choice. You and your co-'religionists' are being openly confronted and are desperately trying (in vain) to continue to hide and to continue your deception of the great masses.

The gig is up. Thank you for revealing the truth to the masses through your own actions.

Your failure to act post 9/11; your violent and threatening street demonstrations, your bombings of innocent men, women and children throughout several continents; your taunting and terrorizing of innocent peoples and passengers on streets and on public transportation; your honor killings, your ambivalence to the rapes, murders and harrassment of the indigenous peoples in the Western countries you so openly declare your hatred of, and your continued ambivalence to atrocities committed overseas, in YOUR names, has lead to the World's collective judgment against you.

Hear this. We are tired of tolerance of your intolerance.

As other posters have said, the "Lesser Jihad/Greater Jihad" hadith does not appear in Bukhari. It does appear in other more obscure collections (Bihaqi vol. 9 p. 173 and al-Baghadadi vol. 13 p. 493). Its authenticity is categorized as "weak", but it is included.

Here's a jihadi website repeating the same challenges to this hadith as Azzam and al-Banna:

http://mujahidfisabeelillah.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/greater-lesser-jihad/

Note that the challenge has to do with the reliability of the transmitters, not that it was never included in an accepted compendium of hadiths.

Robert,

From what I could find online, that purported hadith apparently comes from a book published in 1905 called The Sayings of Muhammad by Abdullah al-Mamun al-Suhrawardy, aka Sir Abdullah Suhrawardy. The AskMuslims site has altered the wording to "oneself" instead of "self": "The most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of self".

You can read his book online at the following sites:

http://muslim-canada.org/hadiths.html
http://www.twf.org/Sayings.html

However, Suhrawardy did not provide any citations for his hadith translations, which is specifically noted by the muslim-canada site. In other words, this "excellent jihad" "hadith" does exist in a book written in 1905, but the author never provided the readers with a citation for it, or any clue at all where it came from, so it may have just come from his own head.

What's also interesting is if you do a search for "the most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of self" several sites come up with that plus another "hadith" that reads, "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr." Guess who's book that one also came out of? And of course, with no citation either.

Hope this helps.

Hmmm, considering what his ally got caught saying to their islamistPR mouthpiece...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28491

...I'd say "lucy got some 'splainin' to do!".
Watch this clown start frantically spinning more than a washing machine.

Daniel Pipes wrote a topically related essay in response to a Harvard University undergraduate commencement speech which asserted that jihad refers to inner struggle (2002):

"Jihad and the Professors."

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/498

----------------------------------

From an ahmadi website:

http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/others/truemeaningjihad.shtml

"A group of Muslim soldiers came to the Holy Prophet [from a battle]. He said: Welcome, you have come from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad. It was said: What is the greater jihad? He said: The striving of a servant against his low desires� (Al-Tasharraf, Part I, p. 70)."

--------------------------------------

The 1905 Suhrawardy book mentioned by commenter Tasty Beverage was also revised and reprinted in 1941 by his brother Hassan Suhrawardy:

Worldcat

The sayings of Muhammad,
by Abdullah Mamun Suhrawardy, Sir; Hassan Suhrawardy
Language: English Type: Book
Publisher: London, J. Murray [1941] | Other Editions ...
OCLC: 3686717 | Cite this Item
Subjects: Hadith. | Muḥammad, -- Prophet,

The purpose of the Suhrawardy book was clearly da'wa and islamic proselytization of Britons and Europeans. The original book was written for a non-muslim, rather than a muslim audience. From a short biographical note on Abdullah Suhrawardy, by HAssan Suhrawardy:

http://www.twf.org/bio/Suhrawardy.html

"In February 1905 when The Sayings of Muhammad was first published, Abdullah was a young man burning with zeal for Pan-Islamism and dedicating his extraordinary energy and talent to a vision he had of uniting into one cultural and economic, if not political, whole lands which were under Muslim rule, or had a large Muslim population. The Pan-Islamic Society of London, of which he was the founder and first secretary, was at that time an extremely active and vigorous body preaching Islam, converting British and continental Christians, and carrying on intense propaganda for Pan-Islamic unity. The Sayings of Muhammad was one of the Society's publications."

...

"For the purpose of the present edition, . . . Mr. Mahmood R. Zada, First Secretary of the Royal Legation of Saudi Arabia in London, has compared the 'Sayings' with the original Arabic, and helped me translate them into simple English. Out of the 451 'Sayings' in the original publication, we have re-translated 150 and deleted 35 of which we failed to find the original Arabic.

Hassan Suhrawardy
January 1941 "

The name al-Suhrawardy, or al-Suhrawardi, has Sufi connections.

The student who challenged Robert claimed the hadith in question ("greater jihad") was in "Bukhari". However, only the "sahih" Bukhari hadiths are relevant--otherwise there's not much point in citing Bukhari as opposed to anything else. It's not in the Sahih Bukhari collections that are searchable for free on the internet. It's also not cited specifically as being in Bukhari (sahih or otherwise) by any of the apologists who have dutifully cited many hadiths from other collections supporting inner jihad--and there are several such hadiths. I would infer, tentatively, that if all of these apologists are not citing (or citing properly) a sahih Bukhari "greater jihad" hadith, it is likely not in there. One remote possibility is that, if it is in the Sahih Bukhari, it could be an unnumbered hadith and thus does not show up in most of the internet collections and therefore would not be detected in a search. Even so, I would still expect the more diligent apologists to be citing the paper version with page number, if that hadith actually did appear in the Sahih Bukhari.

Re the second student, with the "conquest of (one)self" citation, this is also not in Sahih Bukhari, nor in Sahih Muslim, Sunan of Abu Dawud, or Malik's Muwatta.

That said, the claim that inner jihad is truly an Islamic concept from the hadith--there is plenty of support for it*--does not in any way negate the importance of the other forms of jihad, including physical fighting. Those who claim one and not the other are committing the false dilemma fallacy. And to deny that the two have any connection is to deny, at least in this case, that (inner) beliefs and mental states cannot influence (outer) behavior and vice versa. The inner and the outer jihads are consistent in that both are devoted primarily to fighting against and destroying disbelief.

*
http://www.uga.edu/islam/sufismstruggle.html
http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/f/Jiihad_al-Nafs_Spir.Strivg.html

Robert, a sidenote. I've mentioned to you the individual who said it was haram to destroy idols because Muslims are obligated to protect all religions. He cited the greater/lesser jihad line to me after I had learned a little more on the subject (thank you), and I asked how he could use that authoritatively since it had such a weak isnad. That took him back, but he said that it was in fact consistent with Islamic teachings concerning jihad, especially the warning to mujahidin that they not conduct jihad for their own gain, but for the sake of Allah alone. In that context, jihad waged for the sake of entering paradise, winning booty and slaves, etc., are all haram.

I've come to realize that this man practices a Sufist form of Islam, once that emphasizes that he is not responsible for what happens in Iraq or Kashmir, however unjust it may be for Muslims in those places. He is responsible first for himself, then for his family, then for his community, his co-workers, those he attends Masjid with. He actually runs a counseling center for Muslimahs, especially Pakistanis, who have abusive husbands, to teach both husband and wife that violence is haram (and illegal in the USA, too). He excoriates Muslims who agitate about grievances with the USA or Israel or whomever, when their own backyard is full of violence and injustice.

And yet, he sat in my house after 9/11 and led prayer, quoted the verse above and those other misleading verses (Whoever kills a man, it is as if he has killed the whole world, etc.), and never once asked for Allah's mercy for the infidels killed in the WTC, the Pentagon or Flight 93--only for the Muslims killed. He never once prayed for the protection of the US, UK or AUS soldiers already pursuing UBL. He never once prayed that UBL be brought to justice for his crimes (after all, weren't his actions haram, by this man's own version of Islam). As much as his Sufi Islam seems compatible with Western notions of tolerance, it was very apparent to me from that moment on, six years ago, that his first allegiance was always to the Ummah.

So even if someone finds the elusive source of the greater/lesser jihad, in the end it means nothing unless the speaker rejects jihad altogether, and he can't do that without rejecting Islam altogether, not as it currently stands.

Here's what Al-Banna said about the "greater jihad" hadith:

Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one's ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: "We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad." They said: "What is the greater jihad?" He said: "The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one's ego." This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah's way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition: The prominent muhaddith Al Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in the Tasdid al-Qaws: ‘It is well known and often repeated, and was a saying of Ibrahim ibn 'Abla.’ Al Hafiz Al Iraqi said in the Takhrij Ahadith al-Ahya’: ‘Al Bayhaqi transmitted it with a weak chain of narrators on the authority of Jabir, and Al Khatib transmitted it in his history on the authority of Jabir.’ Nevertheless, even if it were a sound tradition, it would never warrant abandoning jihad or preparing for it in order to rescue the territories of the Muslims and repel the attacks of the disbelievers. Let it be known that this narration simply emphasises the importance of struggling against one's ego so that Allah will be the sole purpose of everyone of our actions. Other associated matters concerning jihad include commanding the good and forbidding the evil. It is said in the Hadeeth: "One of the greatest forms of jihad is to utter a word of truth in the presence of a tyrannical ruler." But nothing compares to the honour of shahadah kubra (the supreme martyrdom) or the reward that is waiting for the Mujahideen."

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/

longtime lurker

Despite being a measly 2% of the population, even Sufis aren't peaceful. The campaigns in Chechnya, Kashmir, Bosnia and Albania are all Sufi campaigns. The 14th century Turkic conqueror Timur/Tamerlane was Sufi - he killed millions. So it is misleading to suggest that Sufis are a peaceful cult.

What they are are a cult that try and entice people out of non-Islamic religions into Sufism. They are as lethal as the mainstream Sunnis and Shia, and shouldn't be excluded in any critical assessment of Islam.

This thread demonstrates the need for a Handbook for Infidel Debaters that contains factual rebuttals to the common Islam apologist myths. At the very least, such a Handbook, posted online, would save a very large number of people the hassle and enormous expenditure of time involved in researching these issues from scratch. In addition, if we had a Handbook, there would be no need to re-argue and rewrite the same arguments every time. With a Handbook, we would need to do little more than invest a half minute in posting a link to the appropriate rebuttal--a rebuttal that would be reliable, comprehensive yet concise, and well-organized.

"Jihad is primarily an inner struggle" is one of the most popular of the dangerously misleading Islamic apologetic claims. That we now find ourselves, almost 6 years after 9/11, scurrying around looking for the hadiths relevant to refuting the pro-Islamic propaganda, is truly disconcerting.

Here is an initial attempt at such a Handbook, by a small number of JW posters.
Handbook Index

Clearly, however, we need a much larger-scale effort, carried out by well-funded experts who are able to focus on the project full-time, for at least several weeks, to complete the rebuttals to the most popular and dangerous apologetic claims.

I think we're overthinking all this...
...how much research is needed to figure out the intent of some lunatic screaming "allah'u akbar!" coming at you with an AK-47 or a wired hand-held mechanism attached to a bomb vest?

Even Albert Einstein left nazi germany right away, not waiting to see their intent, since they openly stated their aims...all without researching anything, just using common sense is all that's needed.

jcom,

Unfortunately, it is precisely such "common sense" that is lacking today. We also have an army of Islamic apologists to contend with--not to mention the MSM, academics in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, and most politicians--who are for the most part holding firm to the policy of not criticizing Islam. This is a battle for public opinion. Islam critics are not yet winning.

Common sense is not necessarily enough. It is perfectly sensible, without knowledge to the contrary, to believe that such terrorist attacks are being carried out by a tiny minority of extremists. It is true, after all, that only a miniscule percentage of Muslims are carrying out terrorist attacks. Many of the mainstream comforting assumptions about Islam today do seem sensible, until one actually goes through the data: The Islamic texts, laws, history, and present-day statistics and distribution of jihad and Islamization.

Evidently, most people in our society do not believe that the fanatics with the AK-47s and bomb vests are acting in accordance with Islam. Instead, the more common beliefs are that these terrorists--usually called "militants"--are motivated by politics, land disputes, poverty, racism, etc. The only way to demonstrate that these attacks have anything to do with Islam, and are not merely a distortion or hijacking of the religion, is to present the evidence that shows a connection between (a) what these jihadists are claiming and (b) the Islamic doctrines and traditions.

Also, terrorism is only one of the problems associated with Islam.

Infidel Pride,

I do not mean to imply that Sufism is entirely peaceful, although it seems on the surface that the Muslims most well-adapted to living in the West have a strong Sufi background. My point was that this man truly believes that he is correct and consistent in his understanding of sharia when he misquotes the texts noted. Yet even with this "non-violent" understanding of these texts, and all his superficial Western behaviors, he is not one of us. He is not practicing taqiyya, he is merely practicing self-deception. So while I understand the purpose of Robert's search in this thread, I caution readers that even if this hadith is found to have a solid isnad and is consistent with sharia, such as it is, it doesn't resolve our problems even if all Muslims sincerely believe it to be a sound guide.

YO Robert

This hadith only comes from one place that i know of. I think it makes its orginal appearance in Al Ghazzali's "Ihya Ulimi Din" or the "Revival of Religous Sciences." The work is infamous for its daef (false) hadiths. It has been condemed by the Saudi Ulma and most true Muslim schalors. I know it doesnt appear in any of the main collections. Goggle Ghazzali and "The Revival Of Religous Sciences," to learn more.

YO Robert

This hadith only comes from one place that i know of. I think it makes its orginal appearance in Al Ghazzali's "Ihya Ulimi Din" or the "Revival of Religous Sciences." The work is infamous for its daef (false) hadiths. It has been condemed by the Saudi Ulma and most true Muslim schalors. I know it doesnt appear in any of the main collections. Goggle Ghazzali and "The Revival Of Religous Sciences," to learn more. He was a sufi so you can understand his influences.

YO Robert

This hadith only comes from one place that i know of. I think it makes its orginal appearance in Al Ghazzali's "Ihya Ulimi Din" or the "Revival of Religous Sciences." The work is infamous for its daef (false) hadiths. It has been condemed by the Saudi Ulma and most true Muslim schalors. I know it doesnt appear in any of the main collections. Goggle Ghazzali and "The Revival Of Religous Sciences," to learn more. He was a sufi so you can understand his influences.

WHY ISLAM MUST BE REFORMED

Quote of the Day: International Herald Tribune
May 30, 2007

Our goals are beyond Lebanon. We want the Levant to be governed by Islam again and then in the whole world. We want to bring people back to Islam, and we want to liberate our land occupied by Zionists." Abu Salim, a spokesman for Fatah al Islam, the group holed up in the Palestinian camp near the Lebanese city of Tripoli.

The reality is that 1.2 billion Moslems are not going to abandon Islam en mass. Islam cannot move forward with force and threats. Islam needs to be reformed and new ideas need to be incorporated for fresh thinking and survival. Reformation will be resisted by Islamic fundamentalists with violence and terrorism. For the future of our freedom, peace and life it must be undertaken. A reformed Islam will have more influence and acceptance around the world.

The Reform of Islam is a life and death issue for civilization.

The greatest danger mankind faces is the smuggling of a nuclear weapon by an Islamic Fundamentalist into a major western city killing millions in the name of and to the greater glory of ALLAH. If the hateful teachings are not removed from Islam this is the disaster that will destroy civilization as we know it. It will dramatically change human history forever. The stakes are that high.

What we want to achieve is a very limited goal of removing from Islam all teachings of violence and the subrogation of women. We are not challenging Islamic teachings such as praying 5 times a day, washing feet before praying, the non belief of Muslims in the doctrine of Trinity etc.

This is an issue of conscience. Islam as it is presently constituted is an issue of conscience and its Reform is definitely the concern of all peace loving, democratic believing peoples everywhere. Violence in Islam is a direct threat to all mankind. It is an issue of National Security not only for the West but also for Muslim countries.

Least we all forget - it is mostly Muslims who are suffering and being killed and blown up in horrific numbers. Since 911 - over 150,000 Muslims have been murdered by their fellow Muslims in the worst ways imaginable.
Murder, suicide bombings, violence, etc are evil. When these evil acts are committed in the name of and to the greater glory of ALLAH – this is the greatest evil that anyone can commit. To kill and murder so you can ascend to a Paradise of Big Breasted Nymphs to rape and molest for all eternity – this is truly evil incarnate.

WHY WE WANT THESE TEACHINGS OF VIOLENCE AND SUBROGATION OF WOMEN REMOVED FROM THE KORAN?

By leaving these violent and abhorrent teachings in the Koran, we are in effect saying that these teachings are NORMAL. We are basically acquiescing to evil. By demanding that Peace Loving Moslems prove that they are truly peace loving – by removing these teachings – will be a TRUE MOMENT OF CATHARSIS FOR ISLAM.

The Koran is accepted by all Muslims as the word of God – not subject to change- not even by one word. By forcing Muslims to confront these evil passages they will be forced to answer the following question:

Is Muhammad A False Prophet Or Is ALLAH A False Prophet?

Answer:

ALLAH AS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE - THE CREATOR OF ALL LIVING THINGS IS PERFECT.

AS A PERFECT GOD - ALL TEACHINGS OF ALLAH - MUST BE PERFECT

This means that all teachings recorded in the Koran and all other Islamic texts, revelations, writings, sayings, fatwas of murder, killing, death and destruction, violence, hate, suicide bombers, violent jihad, terrorism, torture, maiming, wife beating, inferiority of woman, subrogation of women, women as instruments of sexual pleasure in paradise, honor killings, stoning, cutting off limbs, child sex, bigotry, intolerance, slavery, inequality of infidels, inequality of any human being, that infidels can be murdered as a holy duty, that Muslims who renounce Islam can be killed, that Muslims (or anyone) who challenge the teachings of Islam can be murdered, etc are irrational AND NOT THE PERFECT TEACHINGS OF ALLAH. They are THE TEACHINGS OF MAN.

If Muhammad taught his followers that the above teachings were the WORDS of ALLAH then he is a false prophet since as a PERFECT GOD - ALLAH never would have given such revelations to Muhammad. If however, ALLAH issued any of these teachings to Muhammad then he is no longer PERFECT and therefore no longer GOD. Indeed the false PROPHET would be ALLAH. An evil false PROPHET.

Once these teachings are removed - Islam will be a TRUE Religion of Peace. Issues such as environmentalism, modern family life, poverty in the third world – modern issues that did not exist 1400 years ago – should be added to this New Modern Koran. By reforming Islam - a truly great New Koran can be created that all Muslims can take pride in. The printing of a new Koran will be a truly historic day for mankind. And it will be a worldwide best seller.

By,

Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com

American_soldier may well be correct that this supposed hadith which asserts: "the greatest jihad is conquest of oneself", is from Ghazali's Revival of Religious Sciences (note: Ghazali lived 1058-1111 A.D. - long after mo of mecca and medina) That sort of striving against one's baser instincts is a sufi type of idea, and Ghazali's works were a major basis for sufism. (Note to conclusion-jumpers: Based upon today's world reality, I strongly disagree that sufis or muslims in general make any headway toward such a goal. Also, that idea is in no way exclusively, nor originally, sufi, nor muslim.)

www.ghazali.org/ihya/english/ihya-vol3.htm

"God says: God raises the rank of those of you who have faith and those having been given learning. To go against passion is the greatest jihad. H who believes that the way to reach God is to act against low desires is included within the group of believers and he who searches the causes of these helps is included within the educated. God says: For one who opposes his low desires, there is the abode of paradise-79"

According to the website, the above is an English translation of an Urdu translation of the original Arabic. Therefore exact word for word matching is unlikely. That is the closest I could find.

I don't know if Ghazali had a particular source for the above quotation. My (unscholarly) impression is that it is Ghazali's own formulation.

continuation...

I wrote, "I don't know if Ghazali had a particular source for the above quotation. My (unscholarly) impression is that it is Ghazali's own formulation" because I have some doubts about my previously posted ahmadi quotation from my comment of 12:32 am May 30, 2007, above.

I don't claim to be an expert, of course.

Nevertheless, the hadith quotation citation
"Al-Tasharraf, Part I, p. 70" seems fishy to me. I can find no other mention of "Tasharraf" or "tasharaf" on the internet, other than as this exact citation, for this exact quote.

If anyone is still interested in tracking down the source(s) of this probable urban legend "greatest jihad is striving against self" bukhari hadith, it seems to me that various editions of Suhrawardy's books need to be checked, as well as a search for this al-Tasharraf source.