Jihad in literal Arabic is derived from the verb "juhd" which is closer to a preventive verb than an actual initiative. This it is related to the individual as a right to use force against another, on one hand, and as a human factor preventing him from avoiding harm and preserving society from his human faults, on the other. Thus the personality of a believer is formed and is deemed chaste when meeting its God in the afterlife. This type of Jihad is called Jihad of the soul.

As for Jihad involving a group with real leadership, its purpose is to establish foundations of Allah's will for how society should be, which is an issue free of animosity and of coercing others to change their beliefs and free of finding other patterns in changing societies in complete agreement with what Islam dictates because the call to the divine path can only be through mercy, good guidance and reliance on discussion and mutually agreeable solutions until the situation reaches a point where animosity emerges. Then, the decision, dictated by logical foundations and the secrets of nature, becomes to defend all a person owns (thoughts, soul and wealth). Accordingly, Allah's Prophets used all that was deemed necessary in the act of defense/protection. Hence, they applied force at times, and prayed that Allah's wrath fall upon their disbelieving people at other times – and Allah eradicated the disbelievers.

In spite of all that has been said, it is not necessary that Jihad be linked with violence as is understood in Western thought today as a result of the actions of those who have personal agendas not condoned by Islam.

We believe that Islam does not condone the use of violence and as such, your question should be about the conditions under which Jihad is permitted in Islam. Then there would be no reason to tell suicide bombers because they either do not initially acknowledge anyone other than themselves, or they hail from social reality which no one else can penetrate, as it is formed on their own special foundations. They can be likened to a boulder on which you plant a bag of wheat, in order to cultivate bread.

Answer 2:

We cannot specify a general Islamic legal judgment by way of an abridged definition without this definition being lacking. This would be acceptable if the goal was to understand a topic, but unacceptable for someone who wants to get a good grasp of the topic and use it a basis to form an opinion, as the definition would then be the point of view of the person defining the topic. Objective truths to understand a principle are not built on the point of view obtained from a definer who believes in that said principle.

As such, you need to be aware of the meaning of apostasy in Islam and not simply the definition of apostasy. Its meaning is then no different from its meaning for any society or system where a member leaves and becomes a threat. Thus each heavenly religion is in agreement with other heavenly religions regarding the non-acceptance of whoever leaves that religion for another, unless that action is categorized under freedom of opinion and belief. Thus, we can understand the seeming contradiction, put forth in your question, between the impermissibility of religious conversion and the non-coercion of followers of a specific religion (which respect other religions) to change their faith.

The first is concerned with the embracer of the religion, and it is what all religions agree upon, while the second is more general and concerns the followers of each religion through which it is believed that Allah's approval can be attained.

The topic of apostasy in Islam is a tricky one to broach especially after it has been mixed with political tendencies/opinions. It is synonymous with the sultan's legitimacy and his right to rule in isolation from the "other" point of view, especially if he has no claim to legitimate rule. And from this point, the topic of apostasy developed and was refined and conforms to Bedouin reality which is characterized by seriousness, boasting, haughtiness and the non-acceptance of others. As such, the topic of accepting the idea of apostasy was focused on Islamic societies which stand in the desert or on its outskirts and only understand what they wish to comprehend of religious judgment.

Islamic thought does not accept labeling anyone as an apostate or non-believer except in accordance with specific rules which do not differ from the governing rules of any other religion or principle. These rules encompass the act of actually letting go of one of the necessary pillars of that religion or principle -- knowingly, purposefully and intentionally-- while moving to believe in another issue, which may be completely different from, or interrupt or even contradict previous belief.

Answer 3:

I believe that no religion, principle, or faith has given women their rights in the manner by which Islam has and there exists no other faith which has respected women and raised their status the way Islamic thought has. This does not constitute rhetoric or "boasting" in hope of validation.

This is a reality which started with the acknowledgment, in a divine speech, of women as partners for men. In one civilization, women were items of physical and worldly pleasure for men, only to be gotten rid of if they were deemed shameful. This was followed by a second civilization where the existence of women's souls was in doubt. Later, in a third civilization, women were raised to the highest status that had ever been achieved. In this civilization, women were acknowledged, but their financial independence was not. This is how women were perceived by Arabs in the pre-Islamic period and in pagan and Christian Rome and in Zoroastrian Persia. Remnants of these thoughts lingered until recently in both Western and Eastern societies.

Islam gave women numerous rights, some of which Western and Eastern civilizations can't fathom. This was achieved through the commitment that women should not be an object of lust for men, whenever and wherever they please. This was accomplished by arranging a special "chastity" for women, in agreement with their seen and unseen physiological characteristics.

Thus Islam's view of women does not differ from the Western view except for not physiologically identifying women in so far as their responsibilities and what they do are concerned, on one hand, and in the absence of Western control of male enjoyment of women by going overboard in uncovering what leads to both male and female arousal. Thus, Western women only seemingly have their complete rights, while in reality they are subservient to men, who control them as they please. This is not in accordance with what Christian men believe to be the "rules" in their perception of women.

Translated from Arabic by Rana Kanaan, an Arabic language faculty member at George Washington University. Kanaan is writing Arabic Language learning material for Random House publishing. She also is a translation consultant for the Library of Congress and various international development organizations.