Muslim apologists are desperate to prove that jihad is about some bogus inner struggle and Q25:52

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 25, 2017 at 07:09

Dr Pipes

Muslim apologists claim that Q25:52 is about the so called "inner struggle" aka al-jihad al-akbar

Well here is Q25:52

فلا تطع الكافرين وجاهدهم به جهادا كبيرا

And here is the verse from Sahih International with a shameful translation

https://quran.com/25/52

And here is the shameful translation

"So do not obey the disbelievers and strive against them with the Qur'an a great striving"

Here is the correct translation

1. فلا تطع means So do not obey

2. الكافرين means the unbelievers

3. وجاهدهم means and declare Jihad

4. به means with it (Notice that the author of the Qur'an does not tell us what is really the "it" but this did not stop the translators at Sahih International from adding the word Qur'an which is not in the text)

5. جهادا كبيرا means (the declared jihad is) a big jihad

If we turn to Ibn Manzur's Lisan al-Arab the word jihad here should be read as holy war

Or: So do not obey the unbelievers and declare jihad (against them) with it (and it is) a big jihad

Notice that:

1. The word Qur'an is not in the Quranic text

2. The so called al-jihad al-akbar is not in the text

3. The author of the Qur'an does not define the "it" in the text

4. The word jihad here can only mean holy war

The most important word must be به or with it

If we turn to al-Qurtubi's tafsir we find the following:

al-Qurtubi does not know and he defines the above "it" as

1. القران The Qur'an

2. Or الاسلام or Islam

3. Or السيف or THE SWORD because what the word jihad means is holy war

Then he wrote that "this sura is Meccan and it was written before the order to fight"

It is very clear that the word jihad in the verse can only mean to fight the unbelievers and more evidence that jihad can only mean holy war

It is shocking that our MSM the likes of the WaPo and NYT are believing this nonsense and more so when we hear this nonsense from members of academia

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".