Just the other day we saw the artful dissembler Khaleel Mohammed, the "moderate" Muslim who appeared in Obsession and was apparently fine with having done so until it was distributed nationwide, and then denounced the film, claiming that the "true meaning" of jihad had nothing to do with war. But now the Ahmadiyya go and spill the beans: it was they who popularized the idea that jihad was a spiritual struggle, and not a violent manifestation of Islamic supremacism, beginning a scant 120 years ago.
Does that mean that the Ahmadiyya acknowledge that jihad meant violence before they came along? Is Khaleel Mohammed ready to join the majority of his coreligionists in denouncing the Ahmadiyya as heretics -- precisely for believing that jihad is a spiritual struggle -- or is he ready to declare himself an Ahmadi, renouncing traditional Islam and its violent doctrines? Will Ibrahim Hooper and the CAIR gang praise the Ahmadiyya and declare their adherence to its new doctrine, which coincides so closely with their own stated principles?
"Huge turnout highlights Ahmadiyya Muslims’ tri-state feast," by G.M. Corrigan for the Baltimore Examiner, October 5 (thanks to Jay):
Estimated at 15,000 for the entire United States, Ahmadiyya Muslims from Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Virginia mustered almost 10 percent of that number for their Ramadan-ending feast Wednesday at a packed activity center in Frederick County.“It was wonderful,” Amatul Noor Ahmad, a Clarksville Ahmadi, said of the Eid-ul-Fitr, which means “fast-breaking on the day of happiness” in Arabic. “When we came here in 1973, we had Eid in a very small room for two families, and we ate dinner there. Now there was this huge place [for us]. It was a very good experience.”
Ahmadiyya Muslims are a 120-year-old Islamic sect that claims to be a moderating influence on Islam and takes credit for popularizing the term “jihad” as an internal moral struggle, instead of a violent one.
Ahmadiyya like the Sufi orders are saying this for recruitment purposes and making Islam look more civilized to gullible westerners than it really is.
Still at the end of the day, these people are liars with a agenda. They say one thing to the kuffar and another to the ummah.
Oddly enough neither group will come out and condemn the violent jihad, which points to their real beliefs on this matter.
I actually think that the Ahmadiyya do condemn violence, unlike the Sufis, who are just genocidal maniacs who aren't willing to forego alchohol and pork and who take great pride in their Hindu-holocaust history. I think that non-violence is one of the cornerstones of their ideology.
They're still misogynists who worship a mass-murdering, genocidal, Judeophobic, Christophobic, supremacist, pedophilic, slave-owning, misogynistic, psychopathic, looting, narcissistic, hypocritical, monstrous, subhuman, polygamist cult leader. Their God is a supremacist God, but not one who wants 4/5 of his children dead or enslaved. To that extent they're still intolerable. But they do believe in objective science over the ridiculous craziness in the Koran and the Hadith, so they're not just your average deluded-to-the-point-of-insanity Muslims who think that the Earth is flat and the sky is solid, held in place by mountains. Evil? Absolutely. As stupid and proud of it as your average Muslim? Certianly not. Harmless? Probably.
And becoming an Ahmadi is akin to apostacy to real Muslims, so it's not like doing so is a small deal. And in hellhole Islamic countries being an Ahmadi makes one more of a target than does being Christian in many cases because they regard it as a perversion of their 'faith,' which is worse than outright rejection of it. Pretty hypocritical when you consider that they're so happy to have anyone 'convert' even if they have no idea what it is that they're supposed to believe in, but hypocrisy and narcissism are not only the norm in Islam, but they're the cornerstone of 'morality.' So from our perspective they're Muslims, but they're not fundamentalist Muslims. From a Muslim's perspective they're not Muslims because they're not fundamentalist.
I always knew that 'internal struggle' stuff was crap even though the CSPI managed to read it into 3% of the verses in the Koran and the Hadith. The texts never called it 'jihad.' The CSPI did. They do a great job looking for actual jihad when its not called that explicitly, especially in 'The Political Traditions of Mohammed' and 'Mohammed and the Unbelievers.' I always thought they were mislabeling as 'jihad' all the teachings which instruct Muslims how to treat other Muslims and how to play-act at morality for others. Now I know it.
My favorite copy of the Qur'an is one of the Ahmadiya sect from the 40s or 50s. The explanatory footnotes are startling in their anti-Semitism and misogynism.
I don't care if they are against violent jihad. They are still in favor of civil jihad and are, therefore, dangerous to non-Muslims. As far as I know they have not thrown out the blasphemy and apostacy punishments of Islam.
Isn't a definition of Jihad an internal struggle? But you know what else means "internal struggle" or "my struggle?" Mein Kampf.
Muse see video:
Burning down the house - How it all started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4