Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It wasn't quite that originally. It is one of the problems from 18th century European scholar's that the Jihad was viewed as simply a Muslim Crusade - which wasn't its actually meaning or function.However the term has been twisted by modern terrorist cells and they use it in that sense, which is unfortunate, as it reaffirms the historically inaccurate use of it as the "Muslim Crusade."
And it must be remembered that the motives and claims of the terrorists doesn't stand up to there actions - "declared war on everything non-Muslim" - yet the majority of deaths in places like Iraq isn't the western contractors or soldiers, but rather Muslim civilians that the Terrorists are targeting.
This info is incorrect.
Jihad as an idea and as a goal existed BEFORE Islamic expantion to Persia and Europe, and it can never be called Islamic Crusaide, because the Crusaide begun because the safety of Christians in Christian holy land, which was occupied by Muslims was no longer guaranteed.
furthermore, the best place to look for what Jihad has to say, is to look at Hadiths, and what Muhammad said regarding it.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
To my knowledge the Muslims in the 7th century (the founding period) weren't especially unique in their conduct, nor any worse then other groups/powers before, during or after the time. In fact they were less violant then many of them.And certainly after that the Umayyads, the Abbasids and the Arabs were, in context, very good empires, especially in terms of what Alliance was talking about earlier in protecting and advancing intellectualism. It was, in my view, the coming of the Turks that did the most damage.
Again, no.
Arabia was predominantly Jewsih at the time. Muhammad and his followers, expelled and murdered ALL Jews and Christians in the Arabia at the time, through war and raids.
Why, Muhammad himself beheaded a whole tribe of Jews, killing between 600 and 900 men.
A famous story, which is roudly studied in the Middle East and Arabia, is the torture of Rabi of one of the tribes, ordered by Muhammad himself, in order to obtain information as to where Jewish gold and treasures were.
The raise of Islam came through a sword.
For more information, I suggest ''Life of Muhammad'' There is a free version online. I'll hook you up with a link.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not really. Minorities are known to get the media attention. The masses who go about their lives not causing trouble don't draw attention to themselves - it is the minorities that cause the stir.The unfortunate thing is that the attention drawing actions of the few tend to lead to majority being tarred with the same brush.
And I don't know how easy it would be for the majority to do anything - after all, the collective might of the worlds most powerful nation and its allies have been brought to bare... and hasn't really achieved anything.
I tend to disagree.
Hate preaching is not condemened at all to the extent in which it should have.
Only people who condem such behaviour are non-muslims who are usually called bigoted and hated.
Why, a Muslims fundamentalist came ona radio just few days ago, praising 9/11 and 7/7 bombers as great people.
12 minutes of air time. Shocking.
Furthermore, if Islam was a religion of peace, no twisted mind could possibly turn it into a terrorist heaven.
As I have already mentioned, in Islamic theology, Muhammad is considered the 'perfect man' whos example is to be followed.
If you read the historical account of Muhammad's life, you will find that Terrorist have converted 7th century warlord type behaviour which when transleted in 21st century produces terrorism.
As I have mentioned numerous times before - there are peaceful and moderate muslims, but here is no peaceful and moderate Islam.