This is no more than hearsay...

Submitted by Murtaza (United Arab Emirates), Nov 1, 2003 at 02:45

i do not agree with 90% of what i have just read here. firstly, you can not base the meaning of a word as deep as jihad on the actions of a tyrannical despot. jihad actually means to strive, and in striving there is progress. saddam may have used the word jihad when he called for resistance to the american invasion, but how does that represent the global islamic view on jihad? please do try to understand the deeper meaning of the term jihad before jumping to conclusions like this.

secondly, territorial expansion was not the goal of all the conquests that took place. it was more to spread islam. Peace in islam is held in a higher status than war. every conquest that was authorised by the prophet was to deliver a message of islam to a non-islamic state, and the army was not to intimidate or threaten, it was to protect the messengers from aggression.

thirdly, it's so surprising isnt it? when the taliban was US funded, it was anything but a terrorist state. once it becomes an independent entity, it suddenly becomes a "radical", "terrorist" group, with no goal besides "inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence"!!! the same goes for any other terrorist group. while its useful to have them around, they get funding and weapons and whatever else they might need. as soon as they serve their purpose, they are portrayed as extremists!

fourthly, please note this: islam is a humanitarian religion, and has no place for sadists. if whatever was written in that article is true, then please realise one thing: the prophet himself, and any other proper muslim, would be as horrified by these acts. however, these actions are no less than what happened in vietnam, in bosnia, chechneya, iraq, and just about everywhere a war has taken place. what i wanted to point out was the very subtle way in which only islamic atrocities are exposed. this isnt humanitarian concern talking, it is just anti-islamic propaganda! look at this: "Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era." if my memory serves me correctly, the worst humanitarian catastrophe was always shown to be the holocaust with six million dead and all...how did this become the worst?

lastly, in referance to this: "violent jihad will probably continue until it is crushed by a superior military force". hasnt anybody noticed? all these "terrorist" groups came about as a RESULT of these kind of controls? u talk about modernizing islam. what do you even know about islam? how cna you even claim that islam is not modernised? for that matter, how do you even know that modernization is the best option? i'm not living in the past, i love fast cars and enjoy movies and stuff, but where in the world did you get the idea that there is anything wrong with Islam? i'm not talkin about the muslims here, only islam itself. u want violent jihad to go away? here's a tip: open your ears and eyes, don't invade countries, and don't corrupt countries from behind a veil of secrecy. if jihad does not stop even then, thats when you start complaining. how can you keep crying over a result of the actions of a government that you support? just for information: jihad is of 2 types, the greater and the lesser. if the muslims were ever given a break from the physical part - which happens to be the LESSER - then they may concentrate on the greater part, which is all about fighting the devil within and not succumbing to temptations. this jihad is a never ending one, and does indeed involve controlling anger and all, but when a persons family is killed in front of him because somebody somewhere SUSPECTS that area is being used for atacks, and then the houses are bulldozed, no one can blame that person for reacting.

jihad has more aspects than meet the eye, and focusing on certain aspects and highlighting them is not the way to truly analyse jihad.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".