It’s not that either.
And all of those organizations were created in the 20th Century and rejected the mainstream Sunni and Shia interpretations (that is, in fact, why they were created, because the interpretations of their founders were so different from the traditional, historical interpretations - Qutb’s Milestones, for instance, is one long angry rant about how pretty much every other Muslim and Islamic scholar on the planet is wrong, and only he is right).
The monstrous lie that jihad means holy war was trounced on this board over a dozen years ago. It can be used that way by al Qaeda and ISIS, but anyone who tries to claim that that is “the meaning” of the word displays nothing but a hatred fueled ignorance. Rolling eyes at your nonsense equation is the most polite response it deserves.
If by “culture”, you mean “material factors”, they can absolutely be blamed for radical Islamism. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood - it was started to oppose British colonial exploitation of Egypt, with Islamism pitched as an easy solution to difficult, but real, social problems. No colonialism, no Muslim Brotherhood.
And using a centuries-old term classically-synonymous with religious military obligation does not defuse the term itself.
It just packages the term in a new box.
Once again, nope.
I really recommend that you read at least those two works I mentioned above. It will help you immensely.
A good parallel, I think, is the Marxist terminology of “struggle”. For most of history, such “class struggle” was almost invariably violent, as the victims did not have the political means to carry on their “struggle”. But parliamentary conflict without a drop of blood spilled is still “struggle”. I have even heard some rather devout Marxists refer to arguing over fine points of Leninist theory as a “struggle”. Similar with jihad, it can mean something entirely personal, as one seeks a closer communion with Allah. It can be interactive, correcting someone else’s misunderstanding and/or ignorance. Or it can mean a violent conflict. “Can” being the operative word. But it ain’t necessarily so.
Cecilians have declared jihad on ignorance. We have yet to develop a radical and paramilitary cadre.
Well, yeah, but that’s kinda irrelevant, isn’t it? I was responding to madsircool’s ridiculous assertion that the Holocaust took place outside of Germany. Dachau may not have been a death camp, but 41,500 people were killed there; the crematoria ran twenty-four hours; medical experiments were performed on prisoners there; as well as outright torture.
Even if the local Bavarians didn’t know exactly what was happening in Dachau, they must have noticed the 200,000 who passed through on their way to the camp, and knew that it was unsafe to be a Jew, Jehovah’s Witness, gay, Roma, or dissident in Germany at the time. I understand the point you were making, and will concede that ordinary Germans probably had no conception of the lengths the NSDAP went to extirpate the “Untermenschen”, but really, to say that the Shoah only occurred in the death camps is ludicrous.
Funny to always see such claims about history from those who do not know it but advance ignorance and false information confidently.
In fact jihad, the greater jihad of the spiritual improvement is a concept and the meaning that is a thousand years old. It is not a new package. It is an ancient one that is the emphasis of the sufi paths for hundreds of years.
Of course the verb that is the root and is transparent to any arabic speaker, it is the ordinary verb and the ordinary noun for “to strive to do something.” The word I use in every day speech for efforts, jahood… the verb, jahada. The act of reasoning and the rational analysis, ijtihad. These are all meanings transparent to the arabic speaker. The primary meaning is not in any way warring, despite the ignorance.
so much for the struggle against ignorance.
Cite?
Seriously?
Ask any Marja.
Husbands are slower to have up to four wives but they must provide for each equally and are for each equally.
Obviously this is extremely difficult if not impossible which is why most modern Muslim clerics in the West object to it.
Oh, so that’s why we’ve yet to see you at the training range ! We’ll get you on the mailing list ASAP.
Yeah, that’s not a cite.
I have never seen any text in the Quran or any Hadith that says anything whatsoever about female sexual satisfaction, and have the impression from reading essays by exmuslims that I have not run across them because they do not exist. Maybe they do. If they do exist I would like to be directed to them with a citation.
If it is so obvious then why do you have to qualify your statement in such a way? If it was so obvious I don’t think you would have to limit your assertion to most “modern” clerics in “the West”.
There is nothing cited there that discusses female sexual fulfillment directly. I guess you could say it as an implication of the general love and kindness that is commanded, but that is quite a stretch. It is good of the author of the page to put forth the effort to make the argument nonetheless.
Really?
Because that sure looks to me like it very clearly, directly, and explicitly talks about the fulfillment of women’s sexual needs in marriage.
A married man who takes the time and patience to learn the arts of husbandry is just flat out gonna have a happier life. As well, if one is inclined to plural marriage, she is more likely to be cool about it if there’s plenty to go around. Plus, someone to talk with behind your back, about what a hopeless doofus you are…
(Ought to teach it to boys in middle school. Watch porn, take notes. As homework, not in class, that would lead to…problems. Standing up and walking out, for instance…)
That webpage does, but the verse it cites does not. It gives men the permission to have sex with their wives at night during Ramadan. It refers to men and women as each others garments, which according to one of many tafsirs is “a metaphor for their embraces or their need for one another”. But it doesn’t refer to female sexual desire at all, let alone announce a religious obligation on the part of the husband to satisfy it. While the same texts are not at all shy about referring about male sexual desire and it’s fulfillment,for example:
It’s definitely the practice in West Africa. Men are, without exception, expected to provide for their wives exactly equally. And a part of this is that they are expected to spend the night at each wife’s house in a rotation. To spend multiple nights with one wife would be an enormous no-no, leading to discord in the household and scorn in the neighborhood.
I had a friend who was married to two women- one was a political match with a noblewoman from his village and the other a love marriage. He was always deeply torn because he had no interest in his arranged spouse- causing him to feel terrible about the whole thing.
These communities often aren’t particularly shy about sex, either. Among married ladies, the conversations can get quite bawdy. Women are often considered to be the more lustful sex, with men as the calm and cool headed ones.
Here’s the problem, the 20,000 people who were torn to pieces by a religion (this year alone) were killed in the name of Islam.
There are no religious comparisons to the fatwas on cartoons or other innocuous displays of ideas. I’ve posted examples of how the Christian religion is routinely made fun of without local riots let alone riots half way around the world.
This is what the thread is about. The never ending, worldwide violence committed in the name of Islam.
Sad, yes, perhaps you can send teams of moto-parachutistes to suppress after the never-ended nation wide school shootings violances in your country are suppressed by these teams.