Jihad as a holy war against infidels, is the "new" interpretation.
In older less revised books, it is clearly stated as an internal struggle.
Moreover, suicide is condemned; as is the spilling of a single drop of innocent blood! There is no place in paradise for either!
Just because this or that self promoted control freak, changed the text a few centuries ago; and or interpretation? Doesn't mean that the fanatic's view or revision, is the correct one!
In fact, the prophet was forced to correct his 2IC, when returning from one of his many battles with the crusaders, when said lieutenant, compared war against the crusaders, to a holy war or Jihad.
Yes, some terrible acts of violence were perpetrated, none worse than the murder of around six million Muslims by the crusaders; all in the name of their God; coupled with, all manner of medieval torture to force the Muslims to recant their religious beliefs.
There are plenty of historical examples that call into question the so-called superior moral values of Medieval Christians?
And so-called holy books, so revised and edited, that they bear little if any resemblance to the originals teachings or evocations of the founding father(s)!
Those that hate, need to find reasons or justification for their hate! Be they the Waffen SS or Jew hating Arab?
Sure, some highly disillusioned or mentally ill suicide bombers, were once doctors or lawyers or some such! But the overwhelming majority of suicide bombers/terrorists, were and are created in the religious madras, with its endless repetition of a religious message, that may have little or nothing in common with the original text or teachings?
Might one suggest, some of the Islamiphobia exampled here, is only possible because ignorant proponents hang on to their largely unjustifiable hate of all things Islam?
The rioters do not represent the face of Islam, just a highly revised extreme version, that has almost nothing in common with the original teachings or sanity? Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty,

Your write that

".... the prophet was forced to correct his 2IC, when returning from one of his many battles with the crusaders, when said lieutenant, compared war against the crusaders, to a holy war or Jihad."

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the first Crusades didn't get under way until well into the eleventh century, four hundred years after Muhammed's death, and those first Crusades were organised to get back territory which had been Christian for many hundreds of years, in Egypt, Syria and Palestine.

So .... we are going to have to fight the Crusades all over again, in a never-ending game of Nyah-Nyah ? Or are we going to bite the bullet and talk about the complex issues of the 21st century ?

Joe

Rhrosty,

Jihad, schmihad! The name is irrelevant, the fact remains that Islam was spread by the sword from the beginning.
Europe was under continual Moslem attack for a thousand years from the 7th to the eighteenth century, the Crusades, as Loudmouth indicated, were a minor and ultimately unsuccessful counter attack. Arguing over the definition of "jihad" is a diversion.

Those Moslems and their apologists who whine about the Crusades don't mention the far more devastating Mongol attacks in the 13th century and the destruction caused by Timur's armies in the early 15th. Timur was a Moslem BTW. Western guilt is an easy instrument to play.

Squirrel,
That makes no sense, you criticise us for essentialism and then blanket us as "Islamophobic", you're too funny. It's always amused me how you people falsely pathologise us as Xenophobes when you are suffering from extreme Xenophilia yourselves, maybe you're really not in a position to judge others due to your own frame of mind. People who are a little bit too interested in other people's children are more of a worry for a parent than people who have no interest in children at all, right? I'd say we have more to fear from Xenophiles than people who don't want anything to do with people of other races.

Opposing Islam isn't a pathology, neither is being fearful or distrustful of people of other races, let's be frank, until we're honest and frame this as a racial issue we get nowhere.
All the things we value in our 21st century society come from Europe, all the things we hold in contempt come from the orient, it's Occidental civilisation versus Oriental barbarism, West vs East, we should defend the West against attack from the Orient because it's good for Europeans and as Europeans we must always do what's best for our families.

individual writes - "They're just the religious version of our unions."

Bravo individual! LOL.

Naturally, for most posters here, it seems they hold the idea that "my evils are nicer than your evils" or to put it another way, "of course my bottom doesn't smell".

Cheers all.

Well, as others have indicated, the official crusade didn't kick off until the thirteenth century?
However, there were a number of fighting, dark age Popes, who were actually generals heading up armies, engaged in ongoing wars against so-called barbarians?
Amongst those barbarians, were many Muslim nations?
And, bless his name, the Prophet Mohammed!
Given passive Sofie tradition is the oldest Islamic tradition and arguably the least revised!
It is reasonable to also believe that was the tradition that the Prophet founded?
And given genuine inquisitorial inspection, the least revised or amended!
Central to traditional Sofie beliefs, is meditation, which is a universal pathway to ancient wisdom!
Given the truly passive nature of traditional Islam, only the abysmally ignorant, would ever believe that the rioters represented the face of Islam?
Almost without exception, virtually all of the world's major religions, had founders deeply immersed in meditative practise. Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Jew and Muslim, with Buddhist, Hindu and esoteric Christian believing in and teaching reincarnation.
In the Christian tradition, it is expressed, to reach unto the kingdom of heaven, ye must be born again.
And, so as you sow, so also shall you reap.
Or, the sins of the father will be visited on the children.
Imagine for just a minute, reincarnation, were actually true, and that at some future point, we returned and inherited a world and traditions, we in greater or lesser part, helped create?
It would also rationalise some of the extreme inequities, we now see in our world?
If we accepted reincarnation as real or possible? Perhaps we would be far less hostile; and or, take care of; or, treat others as we would be treated, were we stood in their shoes?
And perhaps we might take more care not to despoil the planet or our home?
Rhrosty.