Originally posted by lil bitchiness
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.
I am not saying that Jihad doesn't exist as an idea of a goal, however the claim that it is a "holy war" is far from accurate - it is much more complicated then that, and its cultural and theological manifestations go beyond mere "holy war" status.
However don't think that I am saying that military actions are not necessarily a part of it (the less worthy version of Jihad) - because they can be. But it promotes an erroneous stereotype of the word and its purpose to claim it is merely a means of "holy war" - this is not a definition supported historically, theologically or culturally.
As to the Christian crusades - the concept of them merely being a defence mechanism for the holy land is another historical definition that no longer stands up to scrutiny. The historicity of the event (the closest fitting your description was the First Crusade) has moved away from the Eurocentric, romanticised image of the Crusades as the sources, studied critically, just don't support it. Just like the Jihad is not clear cut in nature, nor are the Crusades. It is only in the recent terrorist history that Jihad as a pure military act has arisen, devoid of the culturally or theological reasoning it originally. They have twisted it into a pure tool of hate that has harmed both Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
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.
The Jews in Arabia were indeed a powerful faction and influential faction, but "predominantly" makes it sound as if they were the majority either in terms of population or religion, which was not quite the case.
Was the treatment of the Jews wrong? By our standards yes. However it is historically inadvisable to attempt to implant modern Western morality and ethics into historical periods - simply because the two are incompatible. The early Muslims were in no way special in the the way they treated the Jews - in fact the actions you mention are far more favorable then some of the events that occurred to them during Roman. Or in pre-Roman states.
The expelling was gradual, and far from things such as the holocaust - the Manichean's were treated worse by the Persians and then the Christians. Or the Christians by the Pagan administration of Rome.
So, if part of the basis of Islamic condemnation is the interactions they had with Jews and others early on then to avoid bordering on hypocrisy you must condemn equally the Romans. And the Greeks at times. And the Egyptians and Persians. And if it just brutality in general basically any power at the time did worse then the Muslims. Condemn the Germanic tribes, or the Mongol hoard, or once again the Romans, or any number of others. And if it is based upon the fact their religious text advises them to take action against others - plenty of Pagan religions had an active military component that advocated war - for wars sake.
The Muslims in the 7th century are no more historically brutal or prejudiced then many others - and history shows they could be a lot better. And they arose in a period of persecution - remembering that Muhammad and co were not treated favorably by the powers of the time. Sure, it is possible to theorise "that they could have taken it like the Christians" - but they didn't have the same context or cultural background to approach things like that.
Once again I feel the claim "the rise of Islam came through the sword" is an over simplification that fails to take into account the cultural, political, theological and economic realities of the time - was there violence in the rise? Yes. I know there are experts who claim it was a main part. But there are just as many, who present just as strong a case, that there was far more to the rise and its success then just bloodshed. The majority of people who converted where not forced. They joined because they wanted to.
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.
I don't deny that hate preaching should be censored. In fact sometimes I am the first to imply that free speech goes to far sometimes. But far from easy, as you seem to imply, that a minority can be silenced. I am yet to see any real example from history when a group can be decisively shut down merely by consensus of the majority - especially in Middle Eastern nations which tend to have rampant corruption and woeful inadequacies in law enforcement.
But then again some ask why the US doesn't do more to censure those individuals who crow and blog about how the "Middle East should be glassed" or the like. Yes, it is easy to say "no body takes them seriously" - but that isn't really the case. So much media picks up on such opinionated louts and it perpetuates the image that the US is the bully boy war monger - and I am sure you agree the average US citizen isn't.
Furthermore, if Islam was a religion of peace, no twisted mind could possibly turn it into a terrorist heaven.
Yet the same is debated fiercely about Christianity - if it is a religion of peace how were so many able to twist it for so long and use it to promote war, forced conversion and the stifling of intellect/artistic freedom? Things are never clear cut. In fact the more obvious something appears the more likely it is to have at some point been twisted by others. Islam had a golden age - and it deserves respect, just as Rome and Greece deserve respect. However it also has had its dark ages - both these need to be recognised. I don't believe we should shy away from identifying the fundamental problems within Islam, any more then we should shy away from the fundamental problems in any religion. However I don't think it is possible to cast a blanket over the whole religion that is fundamentally incapable of separating itself from war and violence.
Even religions noted for being just and tolerant are not free, in history, of having followers who found a way to use their religion to justify their actions. Hinduism and Buddhism, which I respect greatly - events in Burma and Sri Lanka have shown adherents to Buddhism can find ways to fight. Especially in the Burmese case - arguably The Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (militant Buddhist in membership) claims they are fighting for freedom from the oppressive Burmese government, but at times their methods harm only innocents and have been viewed as overtly fundamentalist and terrorist in nature.
I am sure you will agree, as someone whose knowledge on such subjects I respect, that this would not reflect on Buddhist doctrine or theology in general - yet this is a group that professes a fundamentalist belief in Buddha and have found a way to use the religion to support violent struggle against perceived oppressors (and the Burmese government is oppressing them), but as a result there actions have often harmed Muslims and Christian not involved in the oppression (the destruction of Churches a few years ago attracting some attention, or at least in Australia due to our proximity to Asia.)
The main difference of course is Buddhists texts don't advocate violence where as Muslim one do in the right circumstances (and in fairness so do the Hebrew and Christian ones) - but then it speaks strongly of the lengths then people go to to find a way of justifying their actions.