What is Jihad in Islam

@Justin,

That's exactly my point, if resources are running low, but it doesn't have to be that way, there are other ways of resourcing, it's all here in this forum, if you explore. And you will find that nature has a way of repairing itself but it has to stop, (a bit like smoking really), but we are in control of these resources and it is what we do with that is probably the most important decision of you life.
Thanks

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;91371 wrote:

No, that is not what bigotry is, Xris. You might try a dictionary. Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, or having the characteristics of a bigot. And a bigot is ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

I am not obstinate in that I am only too happy to hear claims that run contrary to my own, though I should not be expected to take them seriously when they come without evidence (or some source) and when they directly conflict with the evidence I have at my finger tips. If you'd like a reference, I'd be more than happy to provide.

Further, I am not intolerant - you're more than welcome to display your views, regardless of their accuracy or merit: in fact, that is exactly how a discussion forum functions.

Therefore, me correcting your ahistorical narrative is not bigotry.

Again, I never once commented on the Iraq war in this thread, nor did I justify the Moorish invasion of Spain. Instead, I pointed out how your narrative of that invasion was incorrect, in that it did not correspond to the facts of the invasion as understood by the vast majority of historians.

Why you feel so compelled to turn my correction of your fuzzy history into a debate about the justification for a contemporary invasion is beyond me.

Lets say you are technically correct in your exaggeration of their call for help, whats your point ? Do you think under these circumstances invasion was the answer, the subjugation of the whole peninsula was a necessity ?

@xris,

Except that, according to everything I have read, I am not incorrect and that my explanation is not an exaggeration.

My only point was to correct your narrative of the events.

No, I do not think that Moorish occupation was necessary - I would much rather have had the Spaniards and Goths unilaterally disarm and treat everyone like brothers.

Though, I do know that the people of Spain were, by and large, far better under Moorish rule than under Gothic rule, and were, by and large, better under Moorish rule than under the Spanish dominion that followed the Reconquista's push south.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;91371 wrote:

And a bigot is ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

It comes to me from this thread how religion and group identity are related. In the middle ages, many Western Christian leaders were terrified of Islam. They saw it as Antichrist, or particular Islamic figures as the Antichrist (Bernard McGinn's book: Antichrist.) For those who don't know, Antichrist is a freakish image in Christian tradition which was like the Frankenstein monster, a vampire, and werewolf all in one. His coming would signal the onset of Armageddon. (This is not Augustinian Christianity, but Franciscan.) Poetically speaking, we could see this horror of Islam as fear of the unknown on the one hand, but also reasonable fear of the destruction of Christianity. Without that horror which created a drive to defend the West from Islam, the West could possibly have become Islamic (if they dropped the sanction of alcohol, that is... Europeans would under no circumstances would give up their drink.) So what looks on the surface to be religiously motivated violence, is actually stemming from the drive of a collective identity to protect itself.

I'm happy to say we've come a long way in terms of allowing ourselves to look at other humans with an eye to how we're the same, even if we can't completely understand how we're different. At the same time, I think it would be foolish to think that group identities aren't still underlying motivations in human life. Isn't the common hope of us all that we're smart enough now that we can chose how we respond to our fears?

@Arjuna,

You would think so, Arjuna, but some people just prefer to irrationally hate large populations of people. It's a shame. I hate on a case by case basis (not to justify that hatred, but to be honest, when I hate, it's a particular person - except in college football... freakin' hate Tennessee and USC...).

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;91396 wrote:

Except that, according to everything I have read, I am not incorrect and that my explanation is not an exaggeration.

My only point was to correct your narrative of the events.

No, I do not think that Moorish occupation was necessary - I would much rather have had the Spaniards and Goths unilaterally disarm and treat everyone like brothers.

Though, I do know that the people of Spain were, by and large, far better under Moorish rule than under Gothic rule, and were, by and large, better under Moorish rule than under the Spanish dominion that followed the Reconquista's push south.

That is a matter of opinion that can be disputed, I dont claim christians had any better claim to rights nor any other tribes that seeked to conquer. The point of the debate was and is that Islam was not a peaceful religion and just like everyone else it had its horror stories. 1066 a momentous time for England and the slaughter of Saxons also was the time thousands of Jews were massacred in Granada by a mob of muslims. History is written by those who won and is expressed in many ways, you cant define history or claim to be more knowledgeable than I ,least of all abuse me for disagreeing.

@Justin,

Invasion is not the answer, peace is and control and the hands of all equally, that way no one loses and no one wins, no one is going to get hurt or angry and end up doing something stupid, or end up dead or whatever.
Thanks.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;91406 wrote:

You would think so, Arjuna, but some people just prefer to irrationally hate large populations of people. It's a shame. I hate on a case by case basis (not to justify that hatred, but to be honest, when I hate, it's a particular person - except in college football... freakin' hate Tennessee and USC...).

LOL!!
I would avoid anyone wearing orange, Didymos... especially on St. Patrick's Day... they're just no good.

@Arjuna,

xris;91417 wrote:

The point of the debate was and is that Islam was not a peaceful religion and just like everyone else it had its horror stories.

And you failed to support the point that Islam is not, or was not, a peaceful religion. What you have done is show that Muslims can be violent - but this is not the same as showing that Islam is not peaceful. Any human can be violent, regardless of said humans spirituality or lack thereof.

xris;91417 wrote:

you cant define history or claim to be more knowledgeable than I ,least of all abuse me for disagreeing.

Actually, you can define history. Typically, defining history is the first topic covered in World History 101.

And although I have never claimed to be more knowledgeable than you, people most certainly can make such a claim - my guess is that nearly anyone with a Ph.D. from an accredited history department is more knowledgeable than either of us.

And I most certainly can correct inaccurate historical narratives with more accurate narratives. As for abuse, I think you are casting stones in a glass house - I'm not the one calling the other a childish bigot. You do recall referring to me as such, hmm? All I did was contend that some of your claims were incorrect.

@Arjuna,

I have not expressed any hate or animosity towards any on this forum, unlike the expressed abuse i have received. I have constantly asked to be pointed to the statements that i have made that can be classified as bigoted, offensive or untrue, now if no one can point to them , i would like the insinuations and snide remarks to stop.Thanks, good night.

@Justin,

Since when did philosophy become a shouting match or a contention of right versus wrong? Truth is what we should be seeking. In order to do this, we must ALL admit that we could be and are very likely wrong. We can then move on from there.

I am calling a cease fire in this thread. If we cannot get things back on track, I WILL lock this thread. I am not being threatening, I am serious.

This is getting out of hand and I refuse to sit here and watch this forum degrade into some sort of "pwnage" match between intellectuals. So will all of you please calm down and get back to the subject matter? Leave the attitudes at the door and speak like experienced, intelligent adults. I am asking nicely. This is the one and only chance you all get.

@Justin,

Thank you, I was thinking exactly the same thing.

@xris,

xris;90868 wrote:

I do believe that the vast majority of Muslim only wish to be free to worship, bring up a family and be reasonably happy. The christian bible recommends all types of horrendous things to homosexuals adulterers and non believers, thankfully they do not abide by the scriptures as they did in recent history. Muslims are the same, I believe, but the problem arises for Christians and Muslims when these horrors are used to convert disadvantaged youths into fundamentalist nutters.

What I see in this post is not bigotry. It's outrage. What person with an ounce of human feeling is not outraged that a young person might become a terrorist through training that is undeniably religion based? The word spread around is that the mosques of Saudi were the only places young men could go to find some outlet for their frustration.

People like Osama Bin Ladin are demogogues. They require one thing for their success: frustration. They gather it up and make it into a storm. Condemn them or laud them, they're part of human life. They're condemned because so often they lead the people no where. Every now and then, there's a fine line between a demogogue and a true reformer. Martin Luther was a demogogue, Jesus was a one. And no, Pangloss, I'm not saying that Bin Ladin and Jesus are the same in any way except one: they both represent a desire for change. The thing is, what we do with the storms they create is up to us. We make it what we want it to be. Out of the mess of bloodshed and shame around us: we still have the world in our hands.

Josh is right, it's not for non-Muslims to dictate how Muslims ought to be. Salima's right: fear is the enemy. Nobody can prove to you why we can go forward with trust. Science won't do it. Philosophy won't. That comes from inside. Right?

@Justin,

How many nations are Christian because of Christian conquest?
How many Christians commit daily violent acts in the name of the Bible?
Christian nations are the freest on earth while only three nations with more than 20% muslim population are considered free.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;97784 wrote:

How many nations are Christian because of Christian conquest?

Every single nation that is a Christian majority nation is so because of Christian conquest.

EmperorNero;97784 wrote:

How many Christians commit daily violent acts in the name of the Bible?

Countless. Recall that White Supremacy organizations typically rest upon supposedly "Christian" values. Recall that anti-gay violence is often backed by supposedly "Christian" values.

EmperorNero;97784 wrote:

Christian nations are the freest on earth while only three nations with more than 20% muslim population are considered free.

Which is fine - except that religion has nothing to do with this number.

@Didymos Thomas,

Let's cut the crap. I could respond in detail how your responses make no sense point by point. But frankly I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the Quranic conquest, because they seem to crush everything that I don't like.
It's just funny that those who will get crushed - progressives, feminists, gays, etc - are the apologists. While the ones who would get along under Quranic ruling the best are the ones fighting against it out of principle. Maybe they should embrace Quranic rule instead. See how you lefties like it, if you think the worst thing in the world are white supremacist, anti-gay marriage, anti abortion Christians who want tax cuts for the rich.

Let's compare the Quran to the Bible if you look at the circumstances they were written in and leave out the religious elements. The Bible aimed at a new Jewish sect by appealing to that times underclass. Granted, it was a slave religion, but it tries to convince by being appealing to the individual. The Quran was written to get people to willingly die in battle. Thus Quranic nations were conquered.
The aims of the two documents are fundamentally different. This is why saying "the Bible has mean stuff in it too" makes no sense.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;97891 wrote:

It's just funny that those who will get crushed - progressives, feminists, gays, etc - are the apologists.

What do you mean by apologists please? Because I can tell you, as a femminist, I dont apologise for nothing.
Thanks.

@Caroline,

Caroline;97899 wrote:

What do you mean by apologists please? Because I can tell you, as a femminist, I dont apologise for nothing.
Thanks.

How they treat women in Quranic society. Are feminists screaming about it? No. The only problem they see is stuff white males do..

@EmperorNero,

Sounds like you might just become a fundamentalist jihadi , i can see the similarities to extreme right wing attitudes and in their aims.

@xris,

xris;97904 wrote:

Sounds like you might just become a fundamentalist jihadi , i can see the similarities to extreme right wing attitudes and in their aims.

Yes, I might. Then you would have to become apologist with what I do...

Philosophy Forum

What is Jihad in Islam

Quick Links

My Account

able2know