I have just started work on a new book for Regnery Publishing entitled The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, which is slated to come out this Fall as part of their new Politically Incorrect Guide series. Ali Dashti has just kindly sent me an example of the kinds of misapprehensions that I intend to clear up: this questioner at Understanding Islam has gotten the idea -- from a Catholic apologetics book -- that the concept of "holy war" was invented by the Pope at the time of the Crusades. His Muslim respondent is honest enough to explain to him that the idea of warfare for Allah is embedded in the Qur'an, and that that warfare is not defensive:
I have read in Catholic apologetic books that jihad literally means self-defense instead of holy war that the pope coined at the time of the crusades, is this true?Answer:
The Crusades took place between 1095 AD and 1291 AD. The Qur'an, on the other hand, used the word 'Jihad' in the early parts of the 7th century. It, therefore, seems quite difficult to agree with the stated opinion.
As far as the meaning of the term is concerned, one may, indeed, ascribe to the opinion that the Qur'an has used the word 'Jihad' or its derivatives to imply 'self-defense'. However, the Qur'an does not support this opinion.
The Qur'an has used the word 'Jihad' to imply 'striving hard'. The phrase 'Jihad fi Sabeel Allah' thus means 'striving hard in God's cause'. One of the practical applications of such 'Jihad fi Sabeel Allah', according to the Qur'an, is 'Qitaal fi Sabeel Allah' (i.e. fighting for God's cause).
Jihad fi sabeel Allah is, in Islamic theology, specifically jihad warfare. Qitaal is warfare.
Keeping the above explanation of the words 'Jihad fi Sabeel Allah' and 'Qitaal fi Sabeel Allah' in perspective, it should be clear that it is not the nature of fighting - i.e. whether the war is being fought for defense or for aggression - which, according to the usage of these words in the Qur'an, qualifies the action to be termed as such. On the contrary, a war - whether aggressive or defensive - when fought for the sole cause of the Almighty and according to the directives given by the Almighty, qualifies to be termed as 'Jihad' or 'Qitaal fi Sabeel Allah'.It might be interesting to note here that at most of the instances in which the Qur'an has prompted the Muslims to fight for God's cause refer to aggressive rather than defensive war.
In view of the foregoing explanation, I do not consider the referred opinion to be accurate. It not only gives an incorrect implication of the word 'Jihad', but even the literal meaning ascribed to the word 'Jihad' (i.e. self-defense) is absolutely baseless and not supported by any authentic source of the Arabic language.
Sahih al- Muslim has, together with Bukhari, written the most important hadith collection for a billion sunni Muslims. Read his book of Jihad. Not too much "peaceful, inner struggle" here:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html
The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar)
As a child, I was taught the whole outline of the Muslim conquest in class, including its ideological meaning. This was in Italy, forty years ago, and I was nine. Just how corrupt has contemporary education become, that an ordinary Catholic could ask such a disgrace of a question?
'Just how corrupt has contemporary education become, that an ordinary Catholic could ask such a disgrace of a question?'~ Paolo
I see we are close in age, Paolo. But you answered your own question, in a sense- you said '40 years ago.'
It's coming up on 40 years since the radicals of the 60s began infiltrating Academia, the MSM and politics... they've dumbed-down things quite a bit.
http://www.historytextbooks.org/
Yep, that's right Gary. Everything is to blame on the liberals. It must suck to be you.
What, just ONE link? Dam, I was SOOO Looking forward to reading five posts at frontpagemag, three at freerepublic, and two at newsmax.
My dear KJ, it is not a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It is a matter of children being taught factual lies; and lies that, I hope we agree, are damaging to our society. If people are not taught the basics of Muslim history, beginning with the military conquest of the Roman and Persian empires, they are simply denied a basic part of human (not "Western") history, with enormous consequences. And a fallacy never is without consequences: a false idea of history is insinuated in their minds. Philosophy teaches that suppressio veri, the silencing of actual facts, is as much a way to lie as suggestio falsi, treating falsehoods as if they were factual. This is what was done to the person who asked that question; and whether those who did are liberal, conservative, or little green men from Mars, it is a crime. Period.
The basics of Christianity, peace, love, forgiveness are antithetical to Islam, and sadly to Judaism as well. Do unto others as you would have done unto you is in Deuteronomy, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, which is also distinctly Arab and Muslim.
Goddam, why do some insecure people think they should make a commercial for their cult at every opportunity? Hey, waterdragon. I thought that Christians believed “ALL of the bible” to be “God’s Word.” Didn’t Judaism come from God?
Posted by: kj at February 19, 2005 02:49 AM
KJ:
I didn't write that. Giaour did. I was the one who took him to task for it, pointing out that what he cites from Deuteronomy not only doesn't support his contention that Judaism is a systemically hostile and beligerent religion. I pointed out that his "quote" actually suggests the polar opposite -- that you treat others as you wish to be treated yourself), and further, that Deut is the Fifth Book of Moses.
Giaour then replied by saying the Golden Rule is common to many faiths, not just Judaism and posting a number of Old Testement quotes to support his claim that Judaism is "anti-peace" etc.
"A harmful truth is better than a useful lie"
-Thomas Mann
kj the Liar, once again. You haven't seen an article from Newsmax or FreeRepublic on my list since last Spring- but people like you Must keep towing the line of making out anyone further to your left than Chomsky to be- whatever lies you wish people to believe about them.
Prove what I said wrong, kj. Show me the textbooks in public schools or colleges, written by academia, that don't sway young minds towards 'islam is a religion of peace.'
Paolo, you do say it quite well, thank you.
I’ll post a link to my favorite sites including Horowitz' latest and greatest creation. Here’s a new article summarizing of the meaning of Jihad: http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/guideDesc.asp?catid=124&type=issue
The list of references is excellent. I couldn’t do better myself. Enjoy.
Dear K.J:
As one that is close in age to Gary and Paolo AND one that was forced to use and repeatedly correct those disgusting, downgraded history books, it pains me to say that Liberals are indeed responsible to creating mayhem and confusion in Western classrooms through disinformation, dumbing down of curricula, and creating classes that are sociology disguised as history, ie., a point of view and a string of opinions.
Thus, you may be offended by the accusation that Liberals are responsible. I know this to be true through personal experience.
I must ask: What do you know from personal experience about this or any other subject?
Sincerely,
epg
Waterdragon sez:
Giaour then replied by saying the Golden Rule is common to many faiths, not just Judaism and posting a number of Old Testement quotes to support his claim that Judaism is "anti-peace" etc.
Posted by: waterdragon52
You tried to take me to task, but alas you never proved your case, whereas I did prove mine.
That the concept of love and forgiveness is not in the Old Testament (TeNACH) but is in the Christian Bible and the golden rule predates the Christian Bible, but is not found in the Old Testament.
I asked you to provide me quotes that would refute my statement, which I backed up with quotes.
You have done nothing but wave your hands and make unsubstantiated claims.
But to be fair and even handed let me quote Robert Ingersoll, from Orthodoxy.
Or how about Thomas Szaz, The Myth of Mental Illness.
My challenge to you waterdragon, prove me wrong, provide me quotes, hand waving assertions just don't hack it.
Come on gary, you either have blinders or double standards
I have no idea of what is in textbooks these days, as my graduate work is way behind me, but you obfuscate you DO quote Frontpage and Townhall, which are as much propaganda organs as Al Jazeera.
I repeat what I said yesterday as regards Chalabi, both his detractors and critics use the same information and facts, but put a different spin on it.
Same is pretty much true in all battles for public opinion and support, and one lets' their own loyalties, identity, fears, hates, brainwashing filter in and out information.
I am as concerned as you about the misleading spin being put on Islam in our society, but unlike you I hold your hero Bush and his administrations feet to the fire, they permit the Saudis to disseminate subversive literature in the US, they are business partners with the Saudis, the Bush family calls Prince Bandar, Bandar Bush, he visits Crawford and has slept 14 times in the Lincoln Bedroom. Wolfowitz eulogized Ayatollah al Hakim and compared him to Abraham Lincoln, the neo cons have supported and approved Islamic Republics in Afghanistan and Iraq, they support the Albanian and Kosovorian Muslims, the Bosnian Muslims, yet you rant against the "left", while being betrayed by your hero's the "neo cons" and the Bush administration.
Go figure.
more false pretenses along with smoke and mirrors and a dog?....calling a tail a leg does not a leg make.
Good God, giaour. Not only are you not even willing to see what is going on in the public schools and college campuses, you automatically tag any attempts to bring light to the problem as a vast right-wing conspiracy? How many thousands of examples do you want?
I'll list a few for you to read over at the co-jet blog. You may refute them there, as you see fit....
Wait a moment. Mr. Spencer Himself has written about some of these, or posted reports of same. Is he also part of your arab-texan conspiracy theory?
Eh. I need to finish a few things IRL. Even tho I am a sci-fi writer I am having a difficult time understanding a mind so far out the rarefied gases amount to an atom per cubic mile.
I don’t see why anyone is arguing about Christianity on this site. I’m not religious and I occasionally have differences with some who are but today’s threat – Islam – is several orders of magnitude greater than any from the Christian right of left.
During the cold war I opposed both socialism and communism but I never conflated a social democrat with a Stalinist. Justice requires getting the picture right and judging ideas and philosophies in proportion to their merits and failures. Can we move on to the greatest threat to us all?
Giaour:
Far more telling about the nature of Judaism than a few quotes among many from Tanach, or the opinions of the two writers you cite above is the contribution Jews have made over the ages and right into modern times to all aspects of human endeavour -- the Arts, Humanities and Sciences, one that is way out of proportion to the tiny percentage of the population we represent. (And if T. Szaz is the psychiatrist I'm thinking of, he's about as valid a source as Craig Unger is when it comes to the sequence of events following 9/11. He made himself quite the name for the bizarre experiments he ordered when he was running some institution which led to his dismissal. Trust you to be a big fan of his.)
You style yourself an independent secular thinker, but what you are is a bit of a misanthrope with a large ego and lots of time on your hands.
"I don’t see why anyone is arguing about Christianity on this site. I’m not religious and I occasionally have differences with some who are but today’s threat – Islam – is several orders of magnitude greater than any from the Christian right of left."
Ah yes but that requires discernment, which is hard work. Why not smear all religions with the same broad brush? It makes your moral world easier that way.
As a child, I was taught the whole outline of the Muslim conquest in class, including its ideological meaning. This was in Italy, forty years ago, and I was nine. Just how corrupt has contemporary education become, that an ordinary Catholic could ask such a disgrace of a question?
Posted by: Paolo at February 21, 2005 09:01 AM
I learned absolutely nothing about Islam until I got to college and there I learned the same thing you learned when you were nine; the entire bloody story with no revisions, no ommissions, no embellishments or sugar coatings. The first muslim I ever met was my college professor, who was actually an apostate but I did not know that for a long time.
This was twenty-five years ago and I curse myself frequently for discarding my old textbooks. I saved them for years and now that I really need them, they're gone.
The lies that are being taught in schools and colleges are outrageous but there are several explanations for them. Here's one:
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2001/sept01/soci
alism.shtml
Greetings,
Im an ideological muslim revivalist, I would like to contribute to the discussions here upon this site, to provide a more varied and in depth debate about the issues raised here. Since there is so much to discuss here on this site, I would like to set the record straight regarding Jihad.
Jihad is the foreign policy of an Islamic state where fighting is one of the means of spreading the ideology. Diplomacy, Intellectual challenge and 'ideological influence by example of its application' are other means of spreading the ideology.
Like the America uses Military means to maintain the status quo of its political and economic dominance:
"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas."
[Thomas Friedman, NY Times columnist - RESIST newsletter, September 2000, p4]
But Jihad is used to make the ideology of Islam be implemented over others with the express intention of eliminating opression, injustice and the inequity of systems which produce and reinforce poverty amongst people.
Because Islam is the only ideology where its purpose its not self benefit or greed but of the genuine elevation and enlightenment of mankind such that it brings real peace and stability.
I know they are alot of comments and misinterpretation about how islam treats it inhabitants but the simple fact of the matter is, my country (algeria) along with others still have people retaining their islam (en masse) even when all semblance of Islamic authority is passed. The portuguese (of which I share half my background with) remember the islamic civilisation as with fondness and awe. The indonesians converted to islam en masse just with the interaction of their society with our traders and merchants, the Islamic economic system was experienced by them- convincing them of Islams justice and enlightenment.
Other examples abound, the Mongols who conquered the islamic lands in the east only themselves to be conquered by Islam (i.e. the became muslims upon witnessing the islamic civilisation).
Another blatant example was the composition of an army of 80% marionite chrisitians who fought alongside muslims to repel the crusaders!
The Quranic ayat is taken out of context due to the nature of the translation you read, 'feeling subdued' means they accept the soverignty of islam upon them in their societal interactions.
This is similar to saying that all new citizens of america (who emigrate) should feel part of the society they are in and do not resist integration and thus they should interact others based upon the ideas america up holds which is Freedom and secularism.
Islam gave the best minority rights ever experience by a minority then and since, what country grants minorities their own laws to govern their own societal interactions?
Yes, the Dhimmi's had to pay a citizenship tax (1.5% on excess wealth) but this was only on men of working age and they payed it as a waiver to obligatory military service. Muslims pay 2.5% (on excess wealth) more tax then Dhimmi's and have to enter into military training to fight to protect all the citizens of an islamic state (muslim or otherwise!). So who has the more hardship in an islamic state?
I sincerely hope we can enter this discussion of mutually understanding and comparing ideas for the purpose of attaining the truth.
I welcome all questions, replies and challenges, thanks for reading.
Salam
Abdul