Self defence in non Muslim lands

[Muhammed Ali]

3 minutes ago, Patient Warrior said:

I raised some pretty good points in the other thread. Could you please address them?

Give me a couple of days please. I am sorry, I am very bad at responding to posts. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Muhammed Ali

[Ali bin Hussein]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/headscarves-banned-work-eu-court-b1884640.html%3famp

[notme]

2 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/headscarves-banned-work-eu-court-b1884640.html%3famp

I hope the implication is not that this warrants a violent response. Please clarify your intention in sharing this article. 

[notme]

There is no benefit to violence without a plan for resolution and maintenance of whatever follows, which means usually violence makes things much, much worse. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

9 minutes ago, notme said:

I hope the implication is not that this warrants a violent response. Please clarify your intention in sharing this article. 

No but I think it's a signal of changing times. The law hopefully won't go through from public pressure. But that will cause a resentment. And more extreme reaction from an active minority.

We need to be prepared to defend ourselves or even migrate if things get too much.

If the law does pass we need to be organised civil disobedience etc. But we still need a mindset to formulate some kind of way to defend those who are weaker and are participating in civil disobedience.

[notme]

3 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

We need to be prepared to defend ourselves or even migrate if things get too much.

If the law does pass we need to be organised civil disobedience etc. But we still need a mindset to formulate some kind of way to defend those who are weaker and are participating in civil disobedience.

Migration, peaceful protests, peaceful civil disobedience, sure.

But before even considering retaliatory violence a population needs to work out what they can hope or expect to achieve and what their planned next steps will be. 

If a mob shows up to attack your innocent neighbor and you repel them with threat of violence, that will only buy a little time, during which the mob will become more organized, more intentional, and more dangerous. You have to have a plan of action before you even attempt to use violence or threat of violence. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

15 minutes ago, notme said:

Migration, peaceful protests, peaceful civil disobedience, sure.

But before even considering retaliatory violence a population needs to work out what they can hope or expect to achieve and what their planned next steps will be. 

If a mob shows up to attack your innocent neighbor and you repel them with threat of violence, that will only buy a little time, during which the mob will become more organized, more intentional, and more dangerous. You have to have a plan of action before you even attempt to use violence or threat of violence. 

If my neighbor gets attacked I have to defend them. Be mindful of the present as well as the future.

You can't just sit and watch your neighbour get attacked and think well...it might get worse if I act.

It will 100% get worse if you don't act.

[MexicanVato]

19 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

If the point of having guns is to defend against a government then surely as a government becomes more powerful, the citizens need to own more powerful weapons to counter them. As another poster said, the citizens need to be as powerful as a government soldier. However if that were to happen you would have major problems in society.

Then choose to lay down if the government does ever become tyrannical to the level the Nazis and communists have done. I’ll take my chances. I rather die on my feet than on my knees. 

[notme]

6 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

If my neighbor gets attacked I have to defend them. Be mindful of the present as well as the future.

You can't just sit and watch your neighbour get attacked and think well...it might get worse if I act.

It will 100% get worse if you don't act.

I am not saying do not protect the oppressed today. I'm saying long term planning is at least as important as immediate reaction to crisis. Do not assume the future will work itself out if only we deal with this emergency. 

In any "western" country if Muslims are attacked, our only reasonable action would be migration. But to where? Nowhere in this world is good, just different kinds of bad. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

22 hours ago, notme said:

I am not saying do not protect the oppressed today. I'm saying long term planning is at least as important as immediate reaction to crisis. Do not assume the future will work itself out if only we deal with this emergency. 

In any "western" country if Muslims are attacked, our only reasonable action would be migration. But to where? Nowhere in this world is good, just different kinds of bad.

Ok having read you views I think your problem isn't self defense..

I think your problem is the dislike of violence.

A large part of Islam was built on violence.

Violence inst wrong. What's wrong is its use against the innocent.

Remember we praise Imam Ali cutting Marhab in half (in a single strike(which is awesome)

He could have just ko'ed him with that level of skill.

[Patient Warrior]

1 hour ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

A large part of Islam was built on violence.

It's sort of sad that Muslims become ashamed of this. Never once has Islam proclaimed to be a religion of peace. That in itself was a rise of Western Marja who aimed to battle the propaganda against Islam post 9-11. It's a religion of justice. That means treating tyrants, oppressors, criminals, thugs and war mongers the way they deserve to be treated. Human nature IS brutal and violent. We've been raping, sex trafficking, lynching, killing and pillaging since the dawn of our inception. People tend to forget that this wasn't long ago simply because we live cushioned in Western countries. Hell, it's happening in destabilized countries right now as we speak.

Being a pacifist is hated by Islam.

5 hours ago, MexicanVato said:

Then choose to lay down if the government does ever become tyrannical to the level the Nazis and communists have done. I’ll take my chances. I rather die on my feet than on my knees. 

No Muslim should accept anything less than freedom. It is our God given right and we've seen how the powers of the world and the parties of Shaitan love to decimate the Shia.

3 hours ago, notme said:

In any "western" country if Muslims are attacked, our only reasonable action would be migration. But to where? Nowhere in this world is good, just different kinds of bad. 

I mean absolutely no disrespect, but this could just stem from the mindset that you're a woman. The majority of refugees and victims of offset war fighting tend to be women and children. History also shows us that women will take roles such as war brides in order to assimilate and avoid death for them and their families. In context of evolutionary psychology women are much more adept than men are at surviving these kinds of dilemmas. However what I think @MexicanVato is saying is the value of martyrdom supersedes all reason. Since it is the ultimate sacrifice to God and philosophically the best state a human can reach with absence of fear in death and attachment to this world, we should always advocate for it, no Shia should hesitate in this manner. As a mother I would infer that your role is to instill that kind of mindset in your own children someday.

[Sumerian]

On 7/15/2021 at 2:36 PM, Muhammed Ali said:

To be clear, I am not a liberal. 

If the point of having guns is to defend against a government then surely as a government becomes more powerful, the citizens need to own more powerful weapons to counter them. As another poster said, the citizens need to be as powerful as a government soldier. However if that were to happen you would have major problems in society.

My point about civil war is also serious. You are speaking about a hypothetical tail event, e.g. attack from a government; however civil war is also a tail event. If guns supposedly will aid you with the former, they will destroy your society in the latter. The US is creeping towards it.

This argument never really made sense, because it assumes the United States Government will simply destroy any real armed uprising simply because of how powerful the US military is.

This clearly ignores the fact that the US military hasn't been very successful in defeating armed insurgencies, even as the insurgents used basic weapons that regular Americans can buy or make.

Another question is, if a true armed uprising did occur in the United States, would the US military really attack with all its might against the insurgents, especially if they take control of parts of the nations main cities? Or would the military refuse such orders? 

The truth is that an armed populas can act as a deterrent against a potential tyrannical regime. 

[Zainuu]

On 7/15/2021 at 5:31 AM, MexicanVato said:

@Ali bin Husseinmaybe you zaydis are right. Muslims in general are so complacent and just accept defeat from the elite. 

I am definitely up for the Zaydi idea of strongly standing against the elite like the Yemenis are doing right now. 

It is Islam actually. Islam was always proactive and revolutionary.

[Ali bin Hussein]

1 hour ago, Zainuu said:

I am definitely up for the Zaydi idea of strongly standing against the elite like the Yemenis are doing right now. 

It is Islam actually. Islam was always proactive and revolutionary.

It's not just Zaidi thing Ayatollah Khomeini is great example. Traditionally it's Sunni who say you can't rise against a Muslim leader.

[notme]

20 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

I think your problem is the dislike of violence.

Of course I dislike violence! What human being - man or woman - in their right mind likes violence! It is sometimes necessary, but almost always better to avoid. 

18 hours ago, Patient Warrior said:

The majority of refugees and victims of offset war fighting tend to be women and children.

And men are the protectors of women, so if they are doing their God-given job as protector, they will avoid putting their women and children in this terrible, tragic, and vulnerable situation whenever possible. 

Wisdom is what is necessary. 

18 hours ago, Patient Warrior said:

Since it is the ultimate sacrifice to God and philosophically the best state a human can reach with absence of fear in death and attachment to this world, we should always advocate for it, no Shia should hesitate in this manner. As a mother I would infer that your role is to instill that kind of mindset in your own children someday.

Do you know why our Imams, peace be upon them, didn't always fight? Because dying for no benefit is not beneficial. I'm not even sure it counts as martyrdom to self-sacrifice for nothing. 

[Abu Hadi]

17 hours ago, Sumerian said:

This argument never really made sense, because it assumes the United States Government will simply destroy any real armed uprising simply because of how powerful the US military is.

This clearly ignores the fact that the US military hasn't been very successful in defeating armed insurgencies, even as the insurgents used basic weapons that regular Americans can buy or make.

Another question is, if a true armed uprising did occur in the United States, would the US military really attack with all its might against the insurgents, especially if they take control of parts of the nations main cities? Or would the military refuse such orders? 

The truth is that an armed populas can act as a deterrent against a potential tyrannical regime. 

The US Military fighting an armed insurgency inside the US vs outside the US are two totally different things. It comes down to three things, always, knowledge of the country, including people and culture, control of outside variables (such as foreign nations actions), and popular support in the country. 

The main reason the US has not been successful in armed insurgencies outside the US is because of these factors. First, the soldiers going into the conflict, in almost all cases, had very little knowledge of the country they were going including terrain, culture / language of the people, etc. This is why the US lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam (although they are not willing to admit they lost in Iraq and Afghanistan). Second, they didn't have much control over the outside actors that were participating in the conflict (like Iran and Saudi in Iraq and Afghanistan and Russia and China in Vietnam). Third the popular support for the US in these countries for the actions of the US Military was almost zero. 

If you look at an armed uprising inside the US, all these factors are flipped. US soldiers know their own country and their own people very well, in almost all cases. That is obvious. Second, the US would have alot of control over outside actors for two reasons. It would be political suicide for almost any country in the world to support a popular uprising against the govt inside the US, because this would affect them economically, by the US government placing sanctions on them, and they would gain almost nothing from it either economically or politically. So it would be foolish for them to do that. Also, the US has much more control over it's own borders, via the National Guard and the Army, and they can be easily deployed almost anywhere in the US within a matter of hours with no need for congress to approve their actions (because a state of emergency would be declared which only applies within the US). 

Third, it is doubtful whether the majority or even a significant minority would support such an uprising. As most people know, American politics is divided into factions, and only that faction would even have a chance of supporting it. The US government keeps the population divided into factions for a reason, and the main reason is that if there were ever an armed uprising, this fractionalization would act as a backstop or a firewall against this uprising spreading. Also, most Americans realize that we have a good example on our Southern Border of a country with a weak central government that is basically controlled by armed militias, i.e. Mexico which is controlled by the Drug Cartels. So you ask Americans of almost any political leaning and they would definitely be against the US going in the direction. So at this point in time, most likely the popular support would go with the US Govt, because it would be very easy for the govt to tell people 'Just look across the Southern Border, is this what you want'. This would be enough to turn most people against the insurgency and toward the govt. 

People have attempted to do armed insurgencies against the US govt before, in modern times, such as Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge and David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Tx. These ended quickly and resulted in the slaughter of those who did the uprising, and they didn't accomplish anything of their goals. So probably we should look at these and take a lesson from them, if we want to think rationally and deal with reality as it is today. These factors might change in the future, but for now this is how it is. 

[MexicanVato]

5 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

It's not just Zaidi thing Ayatollah Khomeini is great example. Traditionally it's Sunni who say you can't rise against a Muslim leader.

Yup and fools like Abu Khadeejah likely think it was wrong for our Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) to rise. I heard him praise Saudi government and said they are conducting real jihad on Yemen. A statement that is laughable if it did not have such a serious implication. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

9 hours ago, notme said:

Of course I dislike violence! What human being - man or woman - in their right mind likes violence! It is sometimes necessary, but almost always better to avoid. 

Have you read any accounts if battles during the prophets time ? How can you say violence against the unjust is disliked ?

Human history of violence.

Wars, death sports, most myths/legends revolving around heroic acts of violence, 

Modern cinema, UFC, boxing

[Ali bin Hussein]

5 hours ago, notme said:

 Do you know why our Imams, peace be upon them, didn't always fight? Because dying for no benefit is not beneficial. I'm not even sure it counts as martyrdom to self-sacrifice for nothing. 

It more likely it was due to Ahlulbayt repeatedly being let down by those who said they were willing to fight....but then folded when the going got tough.

Read Imam Zainul Abideen dua 27 Sahifa sajadiya or Imam Ali sermon around conflict.

By the way I'm not saying everyone like violence but a good majority do and those that don't.....

Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. surah 2:216

[notme]

2 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

 How can you say violence against the unjust is disliked ?

You are twisting what I've said. Read it again. 

Sin exists too, and has always been part of humanity, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. Like violence, sin always causes damage, and occasionally produces a positive result. Just like violence, there are conditions under which what would normally be sin is permitted. 

[notme]

2 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. surah 2:216

I did not say fighting back is never the right choice, and when our Imam orders us to fight none will be able to refuse in good conscience. But wisdom and common sense are necessary until the Imam reveals himself and takes reign over the ummah. 

Being eager to respond to violence with violence, or worse, being eager to initiate violence, without having an endpoint and a plan for afterward is immature and unwise. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

7 minutes ago, notme said:

You are twisting what I've said. Read it again. 

Sin exists too, and has always been part of humanity, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. Like violence, sin always causes damage, and occasionally produces a positive result. Just like violence, there are conditions under which what would normally be sin is permitted. 

I'm not twisting anything you said no one should like violence.

Violence against the unjust is praised. Just read accounts of the jihads 

Sin isn't praised you can't compare the 2.

[notme]

1 minute ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

I'm not twisting anything you said no one should like violence.

Violence against the unjust is praised. Just read accounts of the jihads 

I didn't say anything about "should". 

Justice is good. Violence is sometimes necessary. There is a difference. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

1 hour ago, notme said:

I didn't say anything about "should". 

Justice is good. Violence is sometimes necessary. There is a difference. 

Ok I just realized your are female. I dont think women should be involved in talks of jihad as they generally are not agressive and dislike violence. You won't be able to understand a males perspective and we won't be able to understand yours 

Let's just end on what we agree on. That we need to defend the weak.

[Sumerian]

7 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The US Military fighting an armed insurgency inside the US vs outside the US are two totally different things. It comes down to three things, always, knowledge of the country, including people and culture, control of outside variables (such as foreign nations actions), and popular support in the country. 

The main reason the US has not been successful in armed insurgencies outside the US is because of these factors. First, the soldiers going into the conflict, in almost all cases, had very little knowledge of the country they were going including terrain, culture / language of the people, etc. This is why the US lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam (although they are not willing to admit they lost in Iraq and Afghanistan). Second, they didn't have much control over the outside actors that were participating in the conflict (like Iran and Saudi in Iraq and Afghanistan and Russia and China in Vietnam). Third the popular support for the US in these countries for the actions of the US Military was almost zero. 

If you look at an armed uprising inside the US, all these factors are flipped. US soldiers know their own country and their own people very well, in almost all cases. That is obvious. Second, the US would have alot of control over outside actors for two reasons. It would be political suicide for almost any country in the world to support a popular uprising against the govt inside the US, because this would affect them economically, by the US government placing sanctions on them, and they would gain almost nothing from it either economically or politically. So it would be foolish for them to do that. Also, the US has much more control over it's own borders, via the National Guard and the Army, and they can be easily deployed almost anywhere in the US within a matter of hours with no need for congress to approve their actions (because a state of emergency would be declared which only applies within the US). 

Third, it is doubtful whether the majority or even a significant minority would support such an uprising. As most people know, American politics is divided into factions, and only that faction would even have a chance of supporting it. The US government keeps the population divided into factions for a reason, and the main reason is that if there were ever an armed uprising, this fractionalization would act as a backstop or a firewall against this uprising spreading. Also, most Americans realize that we have a good example on our Southern Border of a country with a weak central government that is basically controlled by armed militias, i.e. Mexico which is controlled by the Drug Cartels. So you ask Americans of almost any political leaning and they would definitely be against the US going in the direction. So at this point in time, most likely the popular support would go with the US Govt, because it would be very easy for the govt to tell people 'Just look across the Southern Border, is this what you want'. This would be enough to turn most people against the insurgency and toward the govt. 

People have attempted to do armed insurgencies against the US govt before, in modern times, such as Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge and David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Tx. These ended quickly and resulted in the slaughter of those who did the uprising, and they didn't accomplish anything of their goals. So probably we should look at these and take a lesson from them, if we want to think rationally and deal with reality as it is today. These factors might change in the future, but for now this is how it is. 

 

The United States never really lost a battle against armed insurgents in any of the countries you named, they just failed to maintain security in those areas. Iraq was easily occupied by the US, the Americans just couldn't stop the wave of car bombings and IED's. And it wasn't a case of they don't know the terrain, they had occupied it for years they knew exactly how Iraq's terrain is, it was due to their presence being unpopular in many areas and the ease of getting hold of a weapon in Iraq.

Secondly, you are assuming that there would be no advantage for the US in fighting overseas vs fighting domestically. Would any American President command the use of an incredible amount of force, the likes of which we have seen in Iraq and Vietnam, against his own cities? Would the military itself obey such orders? If you remember when Donald Trump tried to invoke the Insurrection Act because of the rioting that had gone on in several American cities, many top officials and generals were opposed to that. 

It would be political suicide in many ways to use full American force against an American city.

Anyway, my hypothetical scenario is envisioning a potential dictatorship-like administration (unpopular) taking hold of America and trying to rip away people's constitutional rights, leading to tens of millions of gunowners on the streets, including members of the police and National Guard, as well as gaining support from many influential politicians and persons that are opposed to this hypothetical dictatorship. I see that after a period of unrest and insurgency in the main cities, the President will be removed by his own cabinet or Congress and the military would refuse any illegal or excessive orders.

Is that an impossible scenario in your eyes?

[notme]

1 hour ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Ok I just realized your are female. I dont think women should be involved in talks of jihad as they generally are not agressive and dislike violence. You won't be able to understand a males perspective and we won't be able to understand yours 

Let's just end on what we agree on. That we need to defend the weak.

Your dismissive response is precisely why more Muslim women need to be involved in discussions of war and diplomacy, politics and power. 

All sane and sensible people dislike violence. 

17 hours ago, Patient Warrior said:

The majority of refugees and victims of offset war fighting tend to be women and children.

Is this assertion true? And if so, it doesn't bother you? 

Edited July 17, 2021 by notme

[notme]

If your response to a counter to your point is "oh you're a woman", you know you've already lost the argument. 

 

Anyone who claims to like violence is either a psychopath, or has never had to live through it. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by notme

[MexicanVato]

22 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Remember we praise Imam Ali cutting Marhab in half (in a single strike(which is awesome)

Haha totally agree hermano 

[Zainuu]

3 hours ago, notme said:

If your response to a counter to your point is "oh you're a woman", you know you've already lost the argument. 

 

Anyone who claims to like violence is either a psychopath, or has never had to live through it. 

I was mostly a silent reader on this. But sister, when we talk about a general/normal/usual situation, no war is needed and there are plenty of ways to stand for the truth.

But within today's context, water is literally wayyyyyy above the line. And therefore, violent or non-violent, countries like US, France, Germany, UK need a revolution. They can't do a thing under the system in which they are living. It is designed to benefit the tyrant. Also, you can't let your voice heard except by force of some kind to bring them down.

Violence by itself is disregarded but violence for a just cause is all permissible and if it is the ask, we should deliver it.

Quran 17:33) And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.

 

4 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Ok I just realized your are female

With all due respect, I dislike and disagree with this. It is your opinion and I would have ignored but it is a dangerous opinion.

I think, that keeping women out of many important issues has caused a major setback to the muslim society. This was not the way of Aima (عليه السلام) and in the holy wars, women did go to the war zones and treated the wounded. In fact, wives of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were quite actively involved in such discussions. Like Hazr at Umm Salma. In fact, rationally speaking, women were kept out of intellectual circles and stopped from using brains which made the muslim society vulnerable to foreign invaders. 

A nation or society with religiously and intellectually weak women will never develop.

Imperialists conquered us and one of the factors that they were successful was that they indoctrinated women with there fancy modern world and developed a rebel within our homes. This is discussed in detail by Dr. Ali Shariati in his book Fatima is Fatima.

So, I appreciate sister @notme and would like to encourage other women also to get involved. Np. Though, we should avoid to talk about the specifics of horrific scenes in the war. Like if someone's head blows away.

Also, remember that speeches praising Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) valor are full of detailing how the foots of Amr were cut and also how he cut the legs of the horse and also how merhab was cut into 2 etc. while no one cares that in the audience even some women are present. What about that? 

So, it seems to me no problem. 

[Zainuu]

3 hours ago, notme said:

Is this assertion true? And if so, it doesn't bother you? 

Imam Husayn's (عليه السلام) example in Karbala is a great one.

There are priorities:

We should care about women and children. Why not! But not on the expense of our identity and our faith getting eliminated. 

When conditions develop where we are to face-off a brutal enemy, we should hand over our family concerns in the refuge of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Take up the charge to attain victory or martyrdom.

We can discuss this, if you can bring up an example, a situation. It would be easy to understand where we are on this, if you give a general example.

 

[Gaius I. Caesar]

6 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Ok I just realized your are female. I dont think women should be involved in talks of jihad as they generally are not agressive and dislike violence. You won't be able to understand a males perspective and we won't be able to understand yours

Only a weak-minded person would somehow believe this generalization to be true; Both men and women partake in the greatest jihad of all: jihad al-nafs. It is an universal part of the human experience. 

[Patient Warrior]

On 7/16/2021 at 9:51 AM, notme said:

And men are the protectors of women, so if they are doing their God-given job as protector, they will avoid putting their women and children in this terrible, tragic, and vulnerable situation whenever possible. 

Wisdom is what is necessary. 

Duty to God trumps that of the family. Karbala is an excellent example of this. Many instances of individuals sacrificing their children and beloved for the sake of Allah.

On 7/16/2021 at 3:41 PM, notme said:

But wisdom and common sense are necessary until the Imam reveals himself and takes reign over the ummah. 

This kind of mindset can be attributed to all the suffering in the world. We should NOT take the stance of Evangelists who are awaiting the Messiah and encouraging the violence by abstaining from actions that show resistance to the face of tyranny.

On 7/16/2021 at 9:51 AM, notme said:

Do you know why our Imams, peace be upon them, didn't always fight? Because dying for no benefit is not beneficial. I'm not even sure it counts as martyrdom to self-sacrifice for nothing. 

I'd argue the majority of Imams didn't fight because they were predestined to keep the spirit of Islam alive. Their lives must be cherished above all else since they are predestined to pass the banner down to the Mahdi. Without them the true traditions of Islam would've died. However a lot of them actively oversought campaigns of Jihad; Muhktar and Imam Zaid are perfect examples of this. They also practiced Taqqiyah to distance themselves from rebellious Shia. This was absolutely mandatory upon them. It is the duty of the Muslims to be on the frontlines of such engagements not the Imams.

But that's neither here or there. You're advocating for wisdom and patience but I'm sure you would agree wisdom in these kinds of scenario is more preparation than abstinence.

20 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Only a weak-minded person would somehow believe this generalization to be true; Both men and women partake in the greatest jihad of all: jihad al-nafs. It is an universal part of the human experience. 

There's definitely something to be said about the difference between perception on war between men and women. The jihad al-nafs is pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand and it is not equivalent to the jihad of the battlefield. Unless you're willing to quote a hadith that contradicts the quran. Those who perform Jihad of holy war have already mastered jihad al-nafs. There is no greater state than detachment of the material and the willingness to sacrifice ones life for the pleasure of Allah. You do disservice to our martyrs by undermining that.

[Ali bin Hussein]

2 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Only a weak-minded person would somehow believe this generalization to be true; Both men and women partake in the greatest jihad of all: jihad al-nafs. It is an universal part of the human experience. 

That's jihad nafs:

And whoso doeth good works, whether of male or female, and he (or she) is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date-stone (surah nisa)

As for physical jihad war :

As regarding a certain woman, she is in the grip of womanly views and malice is boiling in her bosom like the furnace of the  blacksmith. If she were called upon to deal with others as she is dealing  with me she will not have done it. (As for me), even hereafter she will be  allowed her original respect, while the reckoning (of her misdeeds) is an  obligation of Allah. 

Imam Ali Nahjul balagah.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Ali bin Hussein

[Gaius I. Caesar]

36 minutes ago, Patient Warrior said:

Those who perform Jihad of holy war have already mastered jihad al-nafs

Funny how you are describing the lesser jihad as a "holy war", which implies a religious sanctioned offensive or terrorism as Orientalists, big media and Islamophobes would have people erroneously believe about jihad, totally skipping the fact that it is self-defense or it's limitations. 

42 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

As regarding a certain woman, she is in the grip of womanly views and malice is boiling in her bosom like the furnace of the  blacksmith. If she were called upon to deal with others as she is dealing  with me she will not have done it. (As for me), even hereafter she will be  allowed her original respect, while the reckoning (of her misdeeds) is an  obligation of Allah

It's not applicable for all women, this particular woman made the grave mistake of rising against her caliph, Ali ibn Abu Talib (عليه السلام), getting involved in political conspiracies  and starting the first civil war in Islamic history.

1 hour ago, Patient Warrior said:

The jihad al-nafs is pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand and it is not equivalent to the jihad of the battlefield.

You're absolutely right, there is no comparison. Al-Jihad al-Akbar is the greater struggle, it trumps Jihad bis Saif, which is a lesser form of Jihad.

[Ali bin Hussein]

22 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

.

It's not applicable for all women, this particular woman made the grave mistake of rising against her caliph, Ali ibn Abu Talib (عليه السلام), getting involved in political conspiracies  and starting the first civil war in Islamic history.

.

Imam made both a specific and general statement within the same sermon. He compared a specific woman to a general view. Basic English no need to argue a point for the sake of being "right". If you don't agree with the authenticity or translation that's a seperate issue 

As for all woman I was careful to use the word general do denote there are exceptions.