the islamic fundamentalist view of life as a perennial battle
By David Zeidan
This article analyzes how radical Islamist movements have altered traditional Islamic concepts to justify their worldview. Based on the writings of prominent radical Islamist leaders across a wide spectrum, it analyzes the ideas of a cosmic struggle between good and evil as reflected in the individual and in society. It traces the reinterpretation of traditional Islamic concepts such as jahiliyya, takfir, hijra, mufassala, jihad and istishad to justify indiscriminate violence.
Read More...
I am putting this out there as part of my own small attempt at understanding what is happening in the Middle East - without all Bush's rhetoric. As near as I can figure (this is very much simplified) the primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state .
Apparently, the greatest outrage of all is the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, which is an outright infidel occupation of the "land of the two Holy Places the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka’ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims." Some regimes in Muslim states, including the Saudi government, have joined this evil alliance, becoming mere puppets of the Americans and suppressing faithful ulama who would reveal the truth to their people. Westerners living in the Arabian Peninsula are not people of the book, but infidels occupying Muslim Holy Land and must be expelled by violent jihad., a call upon all Muslims - Iraqis and non-Iraqis alike - to support Jihad on U.S. forces in Iraq.
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.
Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.
For 14 centuries this has been the way of life in the Middle East. While their Customs and their Culture may be different from ours, it is still theirs. People don't like being bossed around and most especially not by the United States.
Democracy in the Middle East? Not going to happen. It just doesn't fit in with their cultural beliefs. They may make a show of it because of political necessities, meaning that they are either to impress the West, or to balance and maintain the current status. There is not a real, genuine move to democracy in any Arab country at the moment, except maybe Iraq now for the moment.
Bin-Laden also accuses the Western powers of plotting to divide Iraq into three mini-states (the north for the Kurds, the middle for the Sunni, and the south for the Shia), and that they plot a similar partition in Saudi-Arabia: one mini-state around the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina, one in the middle, and one in the oil-rich Eastern region.
While it is certainly laudable that the United States would like to see Democracy in the Middle East I think it is fair to say that the real agenda is access to oil, cooperation and assistance on counterterrorism, fostering peace between Israel and its neighbors, stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and preventing Islamist radicals from seizing power.
That's My View of "It"
Jul 20, 2007
My small attempt to understand
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hello Carol. :)
This is certainly an interesting post.
I'm afraid I disagree with much of it such as the supposed reinterpretation of traditional Islam. For instance 'jahiliyya' (time of ignorance) was a philosophy by Mohammed himself and carried out in deed when he destroyed the pagan icons in the Kabba. The destruction of the Buddhist statues of Bamiyan in Afghanistan was merely following the words and actions of the Prophet from the Koran and Hadith.
'The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power' I disagree, it was to spread God's word.
'Jihad', as you know, means 'struggle'. Jihad is both defensive and offensive as is stated also in the Koran. It's both a personal struggle and a group struggle, often via violent means. Remember how Islam spread from Arabia to Spain in the West to India in the East.
I think most Westerners and non-Muslims forget that the Koran is not arranged chronologically and that the rule of 'abrogation' plays a major role. In other words, later verses replace earlier verses rendering the latter, null and void. The later verses are unfortunately when Mohammed was power crazy after some stunning military victories, hence the non-misunderstood modern day followers who call for world domination and destruction of the 'House of War'.
I have written too much for a comment but I genuinely feel the problems in the Middle East stem from the Islamic Religion. That's where the catalyst is and that politics and religion in Islam are one and the same.
Best Wishes.
(I will write an essay on my thoughts about this later in the year, on my blog)
I think that Politics corrupt Religion - or is it the other way around?
I will look forward to reading that Essay my friend :)
Post a Comment