Why the Obsession with Jihad?

[blackarmchair]

Not to point fingers but many posters on this forum seem to fault the muslim people for the alleged use of "jihad". Which is far and wide the most misunderstood and overused term to ever exist. Plus let's open up the old history book and take a glace at Christian history shall we? Hmmm 1...2..3...4..5..6 all the way up to 16 crucades! And that's not counting Bush's crucade (as its not done yet). Yep Jihad is an evil thing...praise Jesus.

[AeroDynamic]

Might have something to do with the fact that the Crusades happened centuries ago and Islamic terrorism and "Jihad" is happening in the present.

[One_Armed_Scissor]

quote:Originally posted by blackarmchair:

Not to point fingers but many posters on this forum seem to fault the muslim people for the alleged use of "jihad". Which is far and wide the most misunderstood and overused term to ever exist. Plus let's open up the old history book and take a glace at Christian history shall we? Hmmm 1...2..3...4..5..6 all the way up to 16 crucades! And that's not counting Bush's crucade (as its not done yet). Yep Jihad is an evil thing...praise Jesus.

So are you trying to justify modern day Jihad by events that happened over 800 years ago? Really... you could do better.

If anything, I see jihad more as a justification for despicable acts of violence. Regardless, I would be willing to bet the word jihad is going through something of a semantic change.

[This message has been edited by One_Armed_Scissor (edited 11-29-2006).]

[blacksh33p18]

quote:Originally posted by AeroDynamic:

Might have something to do with the fact that the Crusades happened centuries ago and Islamic terrorism and "Jihad" is happening in the present.

Thats about all one needs to know right there but, to be fair they are living VERY close to the same way they lived 800 years ago in the islamic world.

[One_Armed_Scissor]

Also... alot of those 16 Crusades you mention aren't even considered crusades by most historians.

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't jihad mean to struggle and/or religious war... or something to those extents. Granted, one can relate both meanings just as easily as they can contrasted. What does it say about (insert) when a multi meaning word is so oftenly used to justify senseless, atrocious killings?

Really, how can a religion primarily compiled of peaceful, rational people tolerate such a thing as jihad?

[Zman]

weren't the crusades defense?

[One_Armed_Scissor]

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

weren't the crusades defense?

For all practical purposes, no. They were not defensive (or did you really mean to use the word "defense"?). However, this could be argued either way, because the Byzantines asked for help from the West (from the latins) after they lost at the Battle of Manzikert.

Any formally Orthodox/Byzantine lands, which were recaptured by the Christians, were to be handed back over to the Byzantines. However, this wasn't the case.

[Mantikore]

Jihad means the "holy struggle", not neccessarilyy war. it is a struggle primarily over one's own demons of greed, lust etc. but those fuckers in iran/hezbollah twist the koran and use the "lesser offensive jihad of the sword" which is the holy war we see today to get good, naive teenagers to pick up an AK in the name of allah.

the west, seeing how the muslim leaders use the term jihad, assume it is all about the "lesser offensive jihad of the sword", and not fighting one's sins.

this "obsession" is used by the media a lot, as it is not in english, which deliberatley provokes fear, as humans fear what they do not know.

[Nitronick]

You spelled Crusade wrong.

[postdiluvium]

I'm not sure if this is right, but doesn't a Jihad have to be declared by a Holy Cleric of Islam? Until then, there is no Jihad.