Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

All the time nowadays we here the word "Jihad", and the supposed meaning is "Holy War". But in history I saw a video that said it meant "personal struggle," as in the personal struggles faught by every Muslim. I was wondering which meaning is true, or if both are.

^Its a mixed interpretation by sides.

My 2 cents :

Going back to the crusades , when westerners pilgrimmed through the Muslim lands, especially through the Ottoman empire.

This often led to conflict and 'The Holy War" had erupted. Its called Crusades by the westerners and Jihad by the muslims.

Today Westerners have invaded Muslim land again and Jihad re-occurs

We do have a Religion forum, ya know..?

Originally posted by GCG
^Its a mixed interpretation by sides.

My 2 cents :

Going back to the crusades , when westerners pilgrimmed through the Muslim lands, especially through the Ottoman empire.

This often led to conflict and 'The Holy War" had erupted. Its called Crusades by the westerners and Jihad by the muslims.

Today Westerners have invaded Muslim land again and Jihad re-occurs

No....the Muslims conquered the "Holy land" first....the crusades just wanted it back...It was only one of the steps to conquer the known world as it was known.......

No what ? i didnt mention "Holy Land"

Originally posted by GCG
No what ? i didnt mention "Holy Land"
I think she/he just got overly defensive.

This often led to conflict and 'The Holy War" had erupted. Its called Crusades by the westerners and Jihad by the muslims.




You mentioned the Crusades didn't you....What do you think that was all about.

perhaps you misuderstood me.

Jihad - The term is frequently interpreted to mean "holy war" in English.

Now going back to the first crusade, which started a minor call for aid, it quickly became a conquest for territory outside Europe.

i was always under the impression that middle easterners in the holy land simply converted (majority) and really didnt 'conquer' anything

well the crusaders invaded and had control and use barbaric tactics to do so. The Muslims attacked by declaring Jihad but Saladin was to much of a nice guy and the crusaders were able to come back and then the Muslims took back the land use barbaric tactics like the crusaders did the first time. Thats the short story of the crusades.
however Jihad was started by the prophet Mohammad when he went around Saudi Arabia trying to set the religion however it had very very strict rules.

The Holy War we see today among the extremists was born in Iran. As the Arabs swept thru Africa and Persia, they encountered language barriers with most peoples, esp. the ancient Iranians (Persians) and the Arabs expected them to be able to have one language\one faith w\o realizing the Iranians had corrupted the meaning. This was told to me by a Pakistani man as we discussed religion one time. And a lady I once worked with, who was from Lebanon, also said the same thing. That cultural\linguistic barrier is what is partially to blame for the misinterpretation of the word Jihad.

The early Jihad was actually a peaceful one which had strict rules which aren't if considered to day. When i am mean early i mean around 700 ad

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
All the time nowadays we here the word "Jihad", and the supposed meaning is "Holy War". But in history I saw a video that said it meant "personal struggle," as in the personal struggles faught by every Muslim. I was wondering which meaning is true, or if both are.

A jihad originally was a act trying to get back lost Muslim lands. But now, it's incredibly twisted from what it meant before.

Jihad means both - personal struggle and holy war.

Although technically it wasn't a war of expansion to begin with. It was aimed directly at retaking land that has been taken by over other powers (thus it was relevant after the first couple of successful Crusades.)

Although certain historians have drawn parallels to early Muslim expansion with the rise of Mohammad. In this way a popular way of seeing it is "warfare with a religious significance." Despite this however it should not be viewed that Ancient Jihad is similar to the twisted versions preached about today. In the greater scheme of things Ancient Muslims were actually quite tolerant and would happily incorporate other religions and cultures. This is compared to Christianity which, at the same time, was very intolerant.

So yes, there is the aspect of personal struggle and the was with religious significance (but vastly different from a Crusade, both philosophically and thematically) and so forth.

Jihad connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to just cause in a political or military sense.

I think Jihad is like a internal struggle, not a physical "war".

thanks for the good information ^

very good information.