History of Islamic Jihad

Yes there is, and it is a fear of Islam.

I do agree that the term is too often applied as a rhetorical quip. But its not some 'creation' in the childish manner you describe.

Or its just some bs term created by ignoramus to support and even more ludicrous theory.

I have read the second, not the first. I find Spencer extremely lacking in his conclusions. Not only that but he always ties his theories into an absurd cosmic war that positions terrorists as 'true' Muslims. As for your comment about them being "scholars" I'd like to see what your definition for the word is. To begin with Gabriel, whom I dont much care for after reading a few articles and reviews of hers, was describe by the Center for International Policy quite accurately as someone who "has made a post-9/11 career out of roundly denouncing Islam, decrying 'political correctness,' and promoting the concept of an existential clash of cultures."
http://www.cipamericas.org/
She has no academic training in religious studies, let alone history, politics or Islam. Its a similar story for Spencer. He has no extensive academic background in the field of Islamic studies. His masters thesis was on Catholic history! That being said I've also read Spencer's 'the PIG to Islam', which I also found deeply flawed, historically and in terms of religious discussion.

HOWEVER I would still very much like to discuss the views of either. That being said I'm not going to go out and buy or read the books. Instead, you should pick a particular topic from it, or use a section of one of the books, or both, to make a certain point and we can discuss it.

As I said, pick a topic and we'll discuss it. Dont think I have limited my research to one aspect of literature on the subject. I have read articles, books and studies from various points of such discussions. I have the feeling you haven't and expect everyone should just roll over once the read people like Spencer, but the fact is I did read him and I didnt - quite the reverse.

So as I say, pick a topic and we can discuss it. Jihad is on your mind, so that may be a good place to start.

 

"Well they are very close, not only in detail but also in practice, history (in some ways) and application. Examples: they both have texts as a major function of determining how to live. They follow the same line of prophets - one just has more. Not only this but they follow the same God and have very similar principles, such as helping the poor, looking out for oppressed etc."

FALSE ! They are exact opposites. Christianity preaches love and peace. Islam preaches (and practices) hatred and war.

"Well, both can be used to justify wife beating, yes. Its really interpretation. This passage from the Quran (4:34) derives the word and terminology of 'beating' and 'beat her', 'scowled her' etc, from one term - adribuhunna, which equally can mean - 'turn away from them', 'ignore them', or even, quite amazingly "have loving sex with them".


FALSE ! Sura 4:34 of the Koran specifically advocates and advises Muslim husbands to BEAT THEIR WIVES. This is NOT INTERPRETATION at all. It is clear instruction.

Islamapologists commonly present the "interpretation" argument to conceal the truth. This is a red herring. Here is a transliteration of the word in verse 4:34 of the Koran > "Tad-ru-bu-hu-nna". It means BEAT THEM. There is no other translation. Here are 5 different translations from the Koran that addresses the beating issue :

Ali translation:...refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)

Pickthall translation:...admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them

Dawood translation:...admonish them and sen them to beds apart and beat them

Shakir translation:...and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them

Arberry translation:...banish them to their couches, and beat them

It might also be noted that the word "lightly" is only shown in the sanitized version of the Koran sold in Western countries. In the Middle Eastern version the word "lightly" doesn't appear.

Wife beating in Islamic countries is more prevalent than one can imagine. In Pakistan, it's been reported by the Institute of Medical Sciences that 90% of it's female population has been beaten for such "wrongdoings" as giving birth to a daughter, or cooking an unsatisfactory meal.
In the African country Chad, when legislators attempted to outlaw wife beating, Islamic clerics derided the bill as "un-Islamic".

In addition to this atrocity here's a quick partial summation from the Koran and Hadith, poisoning the minds of Muslims all over the world right now, as it has done for 1400 years :

Females can be shut in separate rooms.

They can be beaten.

They are to be treated like domestic animals.

They possess nothing.

They need to hide themselves behind cloaks and veils.

They are unclean in the sight of Allah.

You can pray if you have touched a woman, and not washed your hands.

The witness of a woman in court is equal to half that of a man.

Women have deficient minds compared to a man's.

The majority of inhabitants of hell are women.

 

HA HA HA HA !!!

What did I tell you folks ? Invalidation is hardwired into Islamapologists. This wasn't hard to predict. I've been listening to these guys for 10 years. They are consistent. Their strategy never changes. If they can't defeat the message, AKA the truth (and of course they can't), they go after the messenger. Ho Hum. Another Islamapologist trying to use invalidation. Well of course. They don't have anything else.

HA HA. Oh I should "pick a particular topic from it, or use a section of one of the books, or both, to make a certain point and we can discuss it."
Good idea, I just did that. In post 102.

As for scholarship, it can be defined by one's academic education alone, as you mention, or it can be defined by the thousands of references cited by the authors in their footnotes, and the academic achievements of all those authors, many of which are official US government documents. In my academic education (City University of New York, Princeton Univ., Stanford Law School) I was taught that the latter is preferable.

 

I disagree. They can be just or more peaceful or violent than each other.

The Quran specifically states it as a last resort and even then to be limited - not an imperative. As I said, one can find other passages to render it improper as one can within the Bible over similar dilemmas.

No what you need to say is, within the sentence it refers specifically to admonishment.

As I said above, one cna find means of essentially rendering this passage backward. I went through this already. Its the same as the Bible.

We aren't discussing sexism in countries, we are discussing your proposition of sexism in the Quran. As I have said there clearly are sexist tendencies, but the extent one takes them to the extreme extent you suggest is totally up to the individual.

Yes.

Well no, the Quran says they must be treated as subjects of god - not animals of god. Much like the Bible however, they are in many ways to be shielded, quite authoritarianly by their husbands, however this sentiment is greater in the Bible.

Actually they have the right to inherit, own property and live independently.

Also wrong. The Quran only suggests modesty - for men as well.

Only during menstrual cycle - same as in the Bible.

I agree, you can.

In traditional Islamic jurisprudence, yes. Modern scholars have began debate over this however.

That is not true.

Also wrong.

 

Cuba is an Embargo, not a Blockade. There is a gigantic difference between the two.

One stops the entry of some or all goods in and/or out of a country. That is a blockade. And the only time we ever put a blockade around Cuba was way back in 1962 during the Missile Crisis. The only things prohibited from entering were nuclear missiles. Nothing else.

What is happening with Cuba is an Embargo. That is where the US has made it a policy to forbid trade of US goods to Cuba, and Cuban goods to the United States. Nothing else. And this is not an act of terrorism, unless you believe that a country does not have a right to decide who it wants to conduct trade with.

And if that is true, then a great many countries in your mind are "Terrorists". Including Russia, Hong Kong, Australia, the UK, Greece, the EU, and the United Nations.

 

You are correct, my mistake - its an embargo, not a blockade. It is still an act of terrorism however - not because it is an embargo, but because of the reasons behind it. If you have read any scholarly analysis on it you'd know since its establishment it was to 'punish the people of Cuba" into removing Castro, whether they liked him or not and whether he actually posed a threat or not, which he didnt.

 

Why does not really matter to me. If you are saying that this embargo is "terrorism", then every embargo that any nation or group of nations chooses to do is also terrorism.

I happen to believe that a country, company, or individual is free to choose or not to choose to trade with anybody else. This is simply their choice, and the decision to not trade is not terrorism.

The US is not attacking Cuba. They are not demanding that other countries not trade with Cuba. They are not stopping any other countries from trading with Cuba. They simply choose to not trade with them themselves.

If your definition is this broad, then you obviously have no idea what "Terrorism" is, other then it seems to be anything that you do not like.

 

It does to the law. Intent greatly shapes an acts criminality. eg manslaughter and murder, trade of info and blackmail etc etc

How so? You should have read what I wrote. Again, the US embargo on Cuba is a form of terrorism because it is not directed at defense, or limiting a states threat - its entirely targeting the people of Cuba for exercising a social expression, in this, support for Castro and friends.

But it isnt a choice - its force. The US state is forcing the US country not to trade with Cuba. It isnt "choice" its force. Your premise is flawed. I agree that embargo should be allowed, but for just causes. Of course I beleive the authority of states should be recognized, however this doesnt change the fact that in the case of Cuba its terrorism, plain and simple.

Again, you dont need to attack someone by physical force or get others to do the same in order to conduct terrorism. By the US's own definition of the term, it is terrorism in this case because of why it is applied.

ter·ror·ism
noun /ˈterəˌrizəm/ 
1. The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=U...l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e63f411d40bdb19e

Like I said, I'm not opposed to the concept of an embargo, nor the use of one to cripple a government in order to deter violence, crime etc. However I do find it to be an act of terrorism when it is specifically designed to terrorize innocent people into carrying out a specific social or political agenda, as the US is doing with Cuba. International support also helps - something the US lacks.

 

Exactly. An embargo is not intimidation. It is simply refusal to trade with them. The reverse is intimidation however, such as "The Great White Fleet". It would possibly be intimidation to go to somebody and say "Trade with us or we will blow you the heck up!". I would have no argument there.

But what is the threat here? Is the US threatening to go down and destroy Cuba? Are they saying they will do anything worse then not trade with them?

We are getting off topic, but you are really seem to have no idea what you are talking about. If my wife decides to not have sex with me, is she making a violent threat at me? Because that is pretty equal to what you are saying. Refusal to do something is not the same as a threat.

 

Same with Catholic ..

 

As I have said, if you read government policy as to why the embargo is on, you would see it is entirely to punish and threaten the very survival of the people of Cuba in order that they change their leadership.

But that is exactly what the US did. Ever heard of the Bay of Pigs? Obviously not. The embargo is the fallout of that operation's failure.

It has since the turn of the century. Did you know, when the US 'liberated' Cuba from the Spanish, it didnt let the Cuban generals attend the surrender talks the Americans had with the Spanish, even though the Cubans had fought most of the war?

Not currently, no. But over 500 assassination attempts on Fidel gives you a good direction of US policy. The US has also harbored various terrorists in the region that have broken the law in Cuba, as well as other South American nations.

Using your poor analogy, we would say that, you being the US, would then cut off your wife's access to the home and then switch the sprinklers on while she sleeps outside.

It is if the use of violence is entailed in the policy and the PURPOSE of the policy is to threaten and force people to act a certain way in an illegal and immoral fashion;

"The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted Tuesday for a resolution calling on the United States to end its five-decade old embargo of Cuba.
The 19th straight annual condemnation of the embargo was supported by 187 countries, with only the United States and Israel against and three smaller US allies abstaining. The 19th straight annual condemnation of the embargo was supported by 187 countries, with only the United States and Israel against and three smaller US allies abstaining."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/27-4

The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water,[30] medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population. Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked the embargo to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases.[31][32] It has also been linked to epidemics of specific diseases, including neurological disorders and blindness caused by poor nutrition.[31][33] Travel restrictions embedded in the embargo have also been shown to limit the amount of medical information that flows into Cuba from the United States.[30] An article written in 1997 suggests malnutrition and disease resulting from increased food and medicine prices have affected men and the elderly, in particular, due to Cuba's rationing system which gives preferential treatment to women and children.[32] However in 2011 the malnutrition is different with massive increases in obesity. Some 43% of the Cuban population were classified as overweight or obese in 2001 [34] and this is certainly higher now.[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

 

While nothing that you said shows that an embargo is illegal or a terrorist action like you claim, this alone shows how little you seem to understand things.

The US Embargo against Cuba was started back in October 1960.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion was in April 1962.

So how, exactly, did the Bay of Pigs create an Embargo that had already been in place 1 President and over a year prior?

 

Originally Posted by protectionist :

"I really don't have time to debate with an idiot. There's no such thing as Islamaphobia."

"Yes there is, and it is a fear of Islam."

No there isn't. The word "phobia" denaotes an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about fear of Islam. It is 100% normal/rational, based on 1400 years of Islamic genocidal imperialism, Koran doctrine specifying taskeover of all governments by force and establishmnet of worldwide caliphate, and the proclamation of the Mulsim Brotherhood to do that in North America, and th confirmation of all of this by the actions of jihadists.

There is no such thing as Islamaphobia.

 

You can pray if you have touched a woman, and not washed your hands.

I agree, you can.

TYPO ERROR. ) I meant to say > You CANNOT pray if you have touched a woman, and not washed your hands.

 

It's plainly obvious that I most certainly have proved all my points, and used the words of the Koran to prove it (ex. Sura 4:34 "...and beat them.")

 

Uh-huh....

 

Your ignorant retorts show your lack of knowledge. That's really all you are showing here. You' re an unseasoned, green rookie, making a fool of yourself.
I've provided ample proof of that (ex. Koran 4:34). Please don't try to debate me any further. I don't accept you as an opponent, MR QUIZ ZERO. - you're UNQUALIFIED.

 

You can paint a picture any way you want. With cartoons or whatever. None of that changes reality. The term "Islamophobia" is a deliberate attempt by Islamapologists to spread a lie that there is nothing to fear from Islam.

You make yourself look very stupid by trying to pass a falsehood when the clear-cut refute of it is in the quote that you quoted. LOL.

 

If Islamophobia doesn't exist, neither does Islamapologists.

Can't have one without the other.

 

According to Ali, its 'beat them lightly'. So lightly in fact, the Prophet was recorded in the Hadith as saying that if so much as a bruise could be seen or a mark of such punishment, the man who performed such acts should be punished. Given his cultural conditions and today's there is no reason why laws regarding spousal abuse should not or cannot be incorporated and readily accepted within Islamic society and modern sharia.

 

Oh well if that's what you meant, then you're wrong as far as I'm aware.

 

And yet you can only give one Sura as evidence and it is irrelevant to the majority of your other claims.

You have professional training in Islamic studies? Please describe such credentials. If you dont have any, please dont further lower the debate by claiming you have some academic high ground, since you clearly lack any serious knowledge, as demonstrated by your week argumentation.

 

I think I should whip up an essay on the origins of jihad. I'll put it up here soon. It wont be definitive, but it'll have some ideas. It might be lengthy though. When I write an essay I struggle to get under a 3000 words. Would people still read it?

 

Nonsense. Islampologists are anyone who try to defend Islam as not being the genocidal imperialist scourge that it is. The term "Islamaphobia" is part of that Islamism, which tries to portray protectionists as having an irrational fear (which current and past events prove is not irrational at all).

 

Not anyone here. We all know you're an Islamist.