Defining Jihad: its early inception and modern use.

Discussion in 'Ethnic & Religious Conflicts' started by MegadethFan, Oct 6, 2011.

  1. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Are you asserting Muslims wanted to submit the whole world and/or convert enslave or kill others?

    I disagree. The Rushidun never went anywhere near the real "west". The closest was, perhaps, the raids conducted on the Spanish coast in response to merchant warfare (totally political as per virtually every other violent encounter of the time) that occurred late in the reign of Uthman (the last of them). The only "West" they confronted, which was done mutually, as I explained, was with the Byzantines. You are correct in asserting that early European, or more generally, Christian views of Islam, in terms of reigning socio-political commentary was highly critical, but again this was entirely due to the displacement of the Byzantines as the main source of power in the region during that time - they were going to be pissed with Islam because he had kicked out Christianity as the reigning authority.

    In regards to the concept of jihad, and Islam generally, within mainland Europe, particularly its West heartland, these ideas were, as I correctly described, defined and described during an age of warfare BEGUN by these same Christian groups. It would be extremely ignorant to conflate what is hundreds of years of history in the way you, not surprisingly, have done. The Crusades began in the 11th century - the Rushidun Caliphs had ceased to exist by the beginning of the 8th. The Crusades had nothing to do with religion - Western Europe didnt give care at all about the Eastern remnants of the Roman Empire - and even the Byzantines never considered Islam, as a socio-political force, anything unusually violent or aggressive that it had faced. Europe itself was not Christian in any serious sense until just before this Crusading era, when Catholic hegemony had become king through integration with the Roman administrative system of rule - it still had the process of slowly converting, peacefully and forcibly, the local population. Islam experienced social expansion differently in this way because as it expanded politically, the inhabitants most close to the Arabian Peninsula were primarily Christians and Jews. The Middle East was then, in terms of population, the heartland of Christianity at the time, which meant Islam was embraced, or was implanted, far more easily, however a lack of Roman social organization as was left to the Christians in Europe meant the hierarchy of Islamic theology developed and functioned differently to its European counterpart, but that's another story. But the diverse, unChristian character of the West at that time was the reason why there were so many pagan groups, customs, and even rebellions and social movements at this time that were violently suppressed by Christian rulers.

    As I stated above the expansion of Arab rule was entirely political. You speak of dimmitude and violent expansion of Islam, but as I highlighted, and sourced, this was by no means the goal or driving force of these events. This is evident in the fact the identity of 'Muslim' was a very elite, ie an unimposing one and Arab rule was extremely beneficial for its recipients at the time.

    No, it was not legitimate at all. There was no mass conversions, no 'subjection' in any serious way. You need to analyze the context of the propaganda of the Crusades, which shows that Western views of Islam were intrinsically linked to the political characteristics of the movement, rather than reality. This is EXACTLY the same as when you read Islamic sources describing the Crusaders when they lived and operated in the region - they must be contextualized.

    But it isnt fact at all. It is as much fact as the antisemitism formed in Europe at the same time that dominated Western intolerance with regards to Jews and other religious minorities - Muslims included.

    Of course, although that being said there are pacifist tendencies, but I completely agree with what you have just written.

    I like to think I represent, as does essentially everyone else, only one side - my own. And I like to think my own side is that of truth and reality. I'd happily change my position when it is invalidated.
     
  2. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is rampant in all religion, simply due to the fact all religion requires reflection, reinterpretation etc.

    If you want the most briefest of summaries just read the conclusion.

    I havent abandoned it, I'm just busy at the moment. Sorry for my late reply.
     
  3. gypzy

    gypzy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    4,880
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, it goes to the "stealth jihad" you are talking about as well: duality is an integral part of Islam; that cannot be denied.
    Duality as it applies not only to the meaning of the word jihad, but to the methodologies.

    However, you asked me a question, now you have your answer. we need not discuss it further.

    Duality is not a reference to "reflection or reinterpretation", nothing so ephemeral as that.

    "All religion" is a blanket statement. I can't speak to that. However, speaking of the Abrahamic religions, there is no duality in Judaism or Christianity, that is a matter of abrogation. Islam is sharply different in that it contains - maintains - both the Meccan and Medinian Korans: this is the source of its duality. (which btw - goes right back to your op)
     
  4. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,666
    Likes Received:
    26,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's not what I asserted, but these prominent Muslims have asserted such themselves:

    In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.
    -- Ibn Khaldun

    Islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world, and Muslim nations are not like normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world.
    -- Mawlana Sayid Abul Ala Mawdudi

    The Holy War (Islamic Jihad), as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy war has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of Allah said: ' I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his messages… The concept of Holy War (Jihad) in Islam does not take into consideration whether defensive or an offensive war. Its goal is the exaltation of the Word of Allah and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of Allah’s Kingdom on Earth regardless of the means. The means would be offensive warfare. In this case, it is the apex, the noblest Holy War.
    -- Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti

    Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.(*) The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.
    -- Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

    Evidently, this sentiment is based on Muhammad's own statement that

    ...I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah...

    http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/001-smt.php#001.0033

    Moving along to what I, myself, have asserted, I pointed out the historical fact that Muslims attempted to do just that in the West, but were stopped at Poitiers in 732CE and later at Vienna in 1683CE. That's almost 1000 years of aggression, killing, slaving, etc., etc. (this doesn't even account for the same activity in the East)....

    The Rashidun calpihs invaded the the lands of the Byzantine Empire, which many, including myself, consider part of "the West".

    Actually, that "commentary" was based primarily on two things: the expansionist aggression of Muslims and the theological arguments against Islam itself. The so-called "displacement of the Byzantines" was merely a product of the aforementioned aggression that, for the most part, informed Western views of Islam, Muslims and jihad.

    That's a fine bit of ahistorical propaganda. For the most part, the concept of jihad was brought to the West (including Byzantium) by the invading Muslim armies that taught Westerners the meaning of the term at the point of a sword. This age of warfare was instigated by the expansionist warfare of the Rashidun caliphs and was continued by the caliphates that followed (from the Umayyads to the Ottomans). Another factor that began influencing the development of the concepts of Islam and jihad (as "holy war") in the West were the polemics of Byzantine clerics and scholars vis a vis Islam and jihad that were transmitted by other scholars throughout Christendom.

    It would be extremely ignorant to overlook the centuries of jihad that preceded the Crusades in the way you, not surprisingly, have done. It is also extremely ignorant to underestimate the sophistication and scholarship of the Greeks/Byzantines who had already established a long distinguished history of scholarly activity up to the point of the Muslim invasions.

    [/QUOTE]The Crusades began in the 11th century - the Rushidun Caliphs had ceased to exist by the beginning of the 8th. The Crusades had nothing to do with religion - Western Europe didnt give care at all about the Eastern remnants of the Roman Empire - and even the Byzantines never considered Islam, as a socio-political force, anything unusually violent or aggressive that it had faced.[/QUOTE]

    We're all aware that the Crusades began in the late 11th Century CE and the Rashidun caliphate had given way to those (Umayyad, Abbasid, et al) caliphates that followed. What you don't appear to be aware of is the profoundly obvious fact that the Crusades were motivated, in large part, by religion, including the Muslim destruction of Christian holy sites (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre being the most infamous example) and the persecution of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land.

    As for the Byzantines, they most certainly considered Islam (and its votaries) as a violent and aggressive force, which is hardly surprising in light of the repeated Muslim invasions of their territory.

    I disagree. For the most part, Eastern and Western Europe had been Christianized well before the Crusades, particularly in the areas that bordered Islamdom.

    That's somewhat of a misleading and disingenuous position given the fact that politics are an integral part of Islam, and the Arabs were motivated, in no small part, to impose their ideology upon the unbelievers who resisted its hegemony in the West.

    Expansionist warfare and dhimmitude (as well as conversion and enslavement) were what drove and sustained the Muslim conquest of the West. The motives were numerous and varied, but religion certainly played a major role in inspiring and legitimizing that warfare and imperialism.

    That's pure negationist propaganda. By the time of the Crusades, Westerners had been exposed to centuries of Muslim warfare, raids, massacres, conversions (even mass forced conversions, ex., the Arab-Christian Tannukhs at Aleppo), and the subjugation and persecution associated with dhimmitude. Their views were based on direct observation of the words, deeds and ideology of the Muslims who had invaded their lands, from Georgia and Anatolia in the East, to the Levant and North Africa, to Spain, Western France and Southern Italy, prior to the Crusades.

    It most certainly is a fact that four centuries of Muslim aggression and conquest did inform the Western concept of jihad prior to the Crusades, thus, it is not surprising that we also find that the first extant theological inquiry and discourse on the subject dates back to the early 9th Century CE (ex., Theophanes' Chronicle).
     
  5. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    MegadethFan, et al,

    Defining the word "Jihad:"

    Well, I must admit, you have written a very good paper. It is worthy of scholarly praise. Having said that, at the end of the day, the meaning of a word is based on the concept it communicates.

    For instance, the mere words "Islamic Jihad" conveys anything but peace and tranquility; it is a threatening phrase. The idea being transmitted is almost universally accepted as terrorism is full bloom (asymmectic warfare); as a means of spreading fear in support of religious, political or ideological goal.

    It is very rare that you will find anyone in the Muslim world, that uses the word "Jihad," that does not intend to strike an emotion.

    [​IMG]

    Languages, like imagery, convey something --- invoke something. Whatever the original intent, it has evolved and imparts something new; something sinister, dangerous and evil.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    gypzy and (deleted member) like this.
  6. protectionist

    protectionist Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    13,898
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not quite sure what you are babbling about in the first very unclear part, but whatever it is, if you think the Muslim Brotherhood still does not adhere to the proclamations in the Explanatory Memorandum, and you think they are not to be taken very seriously, you can argue that out with the US Justice Department who certainly does think they adhere to it and are to be taken seriously, and proved that when thy just sent 5 leaders of that rogue organization to prison for the rest of their lives, after the recent US vs Holy Land Foundation trial.

    As for your second utterance, so you don't know what I want you to do with the Quiz, huh ? HA HA HA. Well, that's amazing. LOL. Especially when the last line that you quoted me saying was this > "We're still waiting for you to Identify them. Waiting.....Waiting......Waiting.........Waiting.. ............ZERO !" Maybe you just don't know what the word "IDENTIFY" means ? HA HA. Well, got a dictionary ? This shouldn't be too hard.

    Now, that I've had a little fun with you MR QUIZ ZERO, it's been obvious all along, and still is, that you have no clue who the people in the quiz are, or what the things in the quiz are, you are lost on the subject of stealth jihad, and your only pathetic recourse is to pretend that you think it doesn't exist. Right. Like a little kid says bugs are bad. I don't like bugs. There's no such thing as bugs. There that takes care of it. HA HA HA.
     
  7. protectionist

    protectionist Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    13,898
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it depends on how they present their positions. You present yours like an Islamist. Simple as that.
     
  8. protectionist

    protectionist Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    13,898
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Islamist. Islamist all the way. One of the sure signs and highly typical characteristics of Islamist is their perpetual practice of turning history on its head, of rewriting it in such a way as to portray Muslims as the "good guys" when that is as far from the truth as anything could ever be. It's not possible to "assert" that Muslims wanted to submit the whole world and/or convert, enslave, or kill others", when this is common historical knowledge, and has been for centuries.

    For an accurate account click this :

    http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj//content/view/87/27/
     
  9. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Biggest bunch of crap Ive heard in a while. Here are the first 23 of 56 verses from the Bukhari hadith that contain the word Jihad. THE most authoritative hadith among the sunnis. As we can see, the so called "popular but incorrect" usage is the popular and correct usage in the bukhari hadiths.
    Should give some pause to ponder the motives of someone putting out such misinformation on Islam.

    Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:
    Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."

    Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:
    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."

    Volume 1, Book 10, Number 505:
    I asked the Prophet "Which deed is the dearest to Allah?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents" I again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's cause."

    Volume 2, Book 15, Number 86:
    The Prophet said, "No good deeds done on other days are superior to those done on these (first ten days of Dhul Hijja)." Then some companions of the Prophet said, "Not even Jihad?" He replied, "Not even Jihad, except that of a man who does it by putting himself and his property in danger (for Allah's sake) and does not return with any of those things."

    Volume 2, Book 24, Number 547:
    Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) ordered (a person) to collect Zakat, and that person returned and told him that Ibn Jamil, Khalid bin Al-Walid, and Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib had refused to give Zakat." The Prophet said, "What made Ibn Jamll refuse to give Zakat though he was a poor man, and was made wealthy by Allah and His Apostle ? But you are unfair in asking Zakat from Khalid as he is keeping his armor for Allah's Cause (for Jihad).

    Volume 2, Book 26, Number 594:
    The Prophet was asked, "Which is the best deed?" He said, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle." He was then asked, "Which is the next (in goodness)?" He said, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause."

    Volume 3, Book 29, Number 84:
    I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shouldn't we participate in Holy battles and Jihad along with you?" He replied, "The best and the most superior Jihad (for women) is Hajj which is accepted by Allah.

    Volume 3, Book 31, Number 121:
    ...So, whoever was amongst the people who used to offer their prayers, will be called from the gate of the prayer; and whoever was amongst the people who used to participate in Jihad, will be called from the gate of Jihad;

    Volume 3, Book 46, Number 724:
    Allah's Apostle said, "A pious slave gets a double reward." Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (i.e. holy battles),

    Volume 4, Book 51, Number 33:
    When 'Umar got a piece of land in Khaibar, he came to the Prophet saying, "I have got a piece of land, better than which I have never got. So what do you advise me regarding it?" The Prophet said, "If you wish you can keep it as an endowment to be used for charitable purposes." So, 'Umar gave the land in charity (i.e. as an endowments on the condition that the land would neither be sold nor given as a present, nor bequeathed, (and its yield) would be used for the poor, the kinsmen, the emancipation of slaves, Jihad, and for guests and travelers; and its administrator could eat in a reasonable just manner, and he also could feed his friends without intending to be wealthy by its means."

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 41:
    I asked Allah's Apostle, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Apostle anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 42:
    Allah's Apostle said, "There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 43:
    (That she said), "O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah's Cause?" He said, "The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet's tradition and is accepted by Allah)."

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44:
    A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 56:
    ,,,Later on it happened that she went out in the company of her husband 'Ubada bin As-Samit who went for Jihad and it was the first time the Muslims undertook a naval expedition led by Mu awiya.

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 79:
    On the day of the Conquest (of Mecca) the Prophet said, "There is no emigration after the Conquest but Jihad and intentions. When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately." (See Hadith No. 42)

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 81:
    In the life-time of the Prophet, Abu Talha did not fast because of the Jihad, but after the Prophet died I never saw him without fasting except on 'Id-ul-Fitr and 'Id-ul-Aclha.

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 85:
    ....He told us that Zaid bin Thabit had told him that Allah's Apostle had dictated to him the Divine Verse:
    "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives.' (4.95)
    Zaid said, "Ibn-Maktum came to the Prophet while he was dictating to me that very Verse. On that Ibn Um Maktum said, "O Allah's Apostle! If I had power, I would surely take part in Jihad."

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 87:
    Allah's Apostle went towards the Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and saw the Emigrants and the Ansar digging in a very cold morning as they did not have slaves to do that for them. When he noticed their fatigue and hunger he said, "O Allah! The real life is that of the Here-after, (so please) forgive the Ansar and the Emigrants." In its reply the Emigrants and the Ansar said, "We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on Jihad as long as we live."

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 88:
    The Emigrants and the Ansar started digging the trench around Medina carrying the earth on their backs and saying, "We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will I carry on Jihad as long as we live."

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 104:
    The Prophet said, "Good will remain (as a permanent quality) in the foreheads of horses (for Jihad) till the Day of Resurrection, for they bring about either a reward (in the Hereafter) or booty (in this world."

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 112:
    The one for whom they are a source of reward, is he who keeps a horse for Allah's Cause (i.e. Jihad)
    http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/
     
  10. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113

    What horse (*)(*)(*)(*) apologetics. Within 80 years of Muhammads death, Muslims were waging a jihad of conquest in Spain in the west and Afghanistan in the east. Muhammads death marked the beginning of the Ridda Wars, Wars of Apostasy.
     
  11. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.

    Ibn Khaldoon defined it as: A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.

    Al-Mawardi defined it as: Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia).
    http://www.islamic-world.net/islamic-state/theobasis.htm


    Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. ...
    This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth. ...
    . After annihilating the tyrannical force, whether it be in a political or a racial form, or in the form of class distinctions within the same race, Islam establishes a new social, economic and political system, in which the concept of the freedom of man is applied in practice.
    http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/chapter_4.htm

    Their fascination was arisen after the defenders of democracy and the
    defenders of other such false ideologies (who have no religion) defended democracy simply for the sake of it, and they mixed the falsehood with the Truth.
    ..... They distort the Truth with Falsehood, and mix the Light with the Darkness, and the Polytheism of democracy with the Monotheism of Islam. But we, with the help of Allah, replied to all of these fallacies, and showed that democracy is a religion. But it is not Allah’s religion. It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
    Maqdisi
    http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/DemocracyReligion.pdf
     
  12. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Interpretation of islamic doctrine is called ijtihad. The Sunnis believe the "gates of jihad" were closed. Islamic scholars at the time took all the interpretations of Islamic doctrine, agreed to by the all the sunni, islamic schools of thought at the time, and declared them off limits to new interpretations. Essentially freezing Islam into a 10th century framework where it remains today.
     
  13. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thats the same intent it had from the beginning. The AK47 has simply replaced the sword.
     
  14. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He copied and pasted it.

    http://www.faisaly.jo1jo.com/dir/showthread.php?t=1395080
     
    gypzy and (deleted member) like this.
  15. gypzy

    gypzy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    4,880
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Thank you, Dix!

     
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems to be a habit of his. Id rather just let him continue, and we can continue to point out that he copied and pasted it from elsewhere.
     
  17. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL Religious is intrinsically based on duality by way of doctrine. If you want to argue about 'stealth jihad' sure, but this would render most of the previous conversation, about Saudi Arabia etc irrelevant, unless you want to elaborate.

    If you are talking about intrinsic hypocrisy, contradiction and malleability of religion, in this case Islam, I wont argue, since I agree. Any religion can be manipulated to any end, or 'reinterpreted' also as I described earlier. If you are talking about jihad specifically, you'll have to delve a little further.

    LOL Actually both Judaism and Christianity follow the same flaw. Whilst Jesus was a pacifist, the early Jews condoned genocide. Yet the Bible speaks of both as God's will. The only disagreement we have here is whether Islam is different in this respect, which I dont think it is, but regardless of our disagreement here it is irrelevant.
    If you are arguing Islam isnt consistent, I'd agree, and I'd simply add no religion is.

    ps. I'm an atheist.
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There are just as many that disagree. I have given links. Ibn Kaldhun was a good medieval historian, but I disagree with his interpretation and his view fits right in with my time line, ie the development of the concept, which certainly was offensive during his lifetime. Mawdudi is an Islamist, so I dont care much for his opinion since it is entirely, in his case, politically motivated. Again with al-Buti I disagree. You seem to be making some appeal to quotes, which doesn't really prove me wrong, it just shows some Muslims would disagree with me and I certainly wouldn't deny that.

    You didnt show that at all and as I have explained, early expansionism was hardly a religiously motivated venture.

    Sure, but it was a certainly within mutual hostility. They didnt just spring upon their neighbors like religious crazies. These events were ENTIRELY political.

    LOL Actually the West (excluding the Byzantines) cared very little for Islam. Byzantine Christian authorities were not upset of the "evil" you seem to be trying to paint in Islam - they were aggravated that they had been displaced from power. Ordinary Christians in the area were treated and lived quite well and happily during these times. It was only during the high middle ages, under mostly exterior forces that such conditions changed.

    So you are asserting the Byzantines lived entirely peacefully and had no expansionist and Imperial policies in the region? LOL

    Which I have shown were mostly propaganda driven by political anxiety.

    Where have I done that?

    LOL Again where have I done this? The fact is politics, particularly in such early societies, and religious politics to boot, bleed into such accounts. The same is true of ALL history. If you had read any literature on the subject you'd see most historians acknowledge the fact of such Byzantine work I describe. Religion was, especially for the imperialist Byzantine authorities attempting to stretch and maintain their power across the region, a key feature of identity and was part of the competition to take control and authority in the land. The political activities of the Rashidun were in no way unusual, and as I explained they treated their subjects far better than anyone in the region. They entered into the political fray out of necessity not expansionism, although its certainly became that.I have explained this in detail.

    This is disputed, highly disputed. I doubt it was "in large part" due to such events, especially when they were rare, Christians historically didnt care when they happened, and the Muslim authorities almost always gave compensation and corrected the crimes involved. Certainly the Byzantine leadership that called for the European military support to begin with (something they did regularly as a form of hiring mercenaries, not begging for a regional conflict) were extremely surprised once the papacy managed to muster a mostly French horde to enter the Middle East.

    And as I have said such views were political. The Byzantines you are describing are the elite - not the everyday subject. Most were apathetic and if not, quite relieved once encompassed under Islamic rule due to the tolerance they experienced.

    All religion is political. You cannot be political and not be religious. What I said was in no way disingenuous. I clearly showed that the Arab elite expanded their borders for resource and economic security, not religiously motivated hegemony. These forces had absolutely no desire to invade Europe at that time. You realize many Christians joined these early armies? It was a regional conflict that escalated. Certainly later, the Islamic forces sought to expand into Europe but these were under different circumstances; part of the historical conditions shaping jihad's conceptualization and use.

    This is completely false. It was actually the COMPLETE reverse. You see the Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians had attempted to religiously as well as political dominate the inhabitants its conquered. The Arabs were different. Mostly due to the strategic goals I described above, the Arabs left local rule primarily to existing peoples and allowed almost all, ie Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and some compliant pagans, to retain their faith. This was in part why their rule was so stable - people didnt mind it. The primary reason, which I described, for why the Arabs were so successful in their expansion was because the Byzantine and Sassanian empires were militarily exhausted from constant warfare.

    I do not disagree. It certainly was an element for justification, manipulated, shaped or applied in so far as it could be used as a propaganda tool, but it was not chief instrument in this regard either. As I said, many Christians were in these armies. In terms of defining jihad, it does not give it a definitive description, in fact this historical phase is far from it.

    Again total nonsense. Christians and other locals, such as Jews, were treated far well under Islam at this time. The random and sporadic injustices you describe were exactly that and were often compensated by Islamic authorities, not only this but whilst the pilgrimage route of Christians in the land grew (why would it grow if it were so bad and why would local authorities protect them if they had to kill them all? obviously because they didnt want to nor have to), but Christian authorities in Western Europe hardly ever cared when such events took place.
     
  19. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not at all. The first Crusade didnt hit the ground running. It took ages to spread propaganda and means of rallying the populace (mostly from France) to attack.

    That is certainly a fact, but the "fact" of "Muslim aggression" is not, nor are the ramblings of politically motivated observers who misinformed the Western understanding of the concept either in trying to define it.
     
  20. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I dont think a good system of establishing the definition of words should be based on current social 'emotions' attached to it. They certianly play a part, but a concept of warfare, particularly a religious one, such an approach would be detrimental to true understanding.
     
  21. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    They went to jail for supporting Hamas, right? Also, the legal indictment did not say the entire MB was at fault, did it? Nor did anyone involved say the entirely organization, let alone the entirety of its leadership agreed with such views did it?

    So the answer is.... ? Funny how instead of actually addressing my arguments with some fact or accurate info, you create your own sad quizes! ROFL. I dont think I've ever seen a debate won by a guy who asks someone a question and then says proclaims personal victory when the other responds with the answer you didnt like! That's like laughing at your own joke and calling others idiots for thinking its crap. Hilarious!
     
  22. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    OH I see so, instead of mindless insult, its a guilt by association insult! Oh yes that makes total sense :rolleyes:
     
  23. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Haha. I told my buddies at uni you called me an Islamist and they all laughed their guts out - even the guys that think I'm wrong! Funnier still how my "rewriting of history" comes from mainstream Western, non-Islamic historians (some being Orientalists, such as Bernard Lewis).

    Your article is about Muslim Spain, which spoke little of wanting to 'take over the world.' You could at least aim for a guy who is not so blatantly biased and is versed in Islamic historiography. The saddest thing about your methods in this regard is you never see an opposing view, nor the mainstream historical analysis. This leads to a very narrow and radical perspective, void of change or logical reasoning, as displayed by your idea I'm an Islamist, which in many ways mirrors the conspiratorial fantasies of your buddies, like Geller, Trifkovic and so on. Its amusing though.
     
  24. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL In other parts of Al-Bukhari (I quite sure its Bukhari, it could be al-Muslim) it states repeatedly the best deed is prayer and religious practice, along with chastity and piety, with generosity etc. There is one in which Mohammad told a soldier, after returning from combat, that the "greater" jihad was self piousness. But by all means whether dying for a just cause is considered the best or not doesn't bother me and if it were I dont see how it would change my position.
     
  25. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    For reasons I have outlined.

    Correct - a war Muslims did not start.
     

Share This Page