The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Wednesday, 31 March 2010

On Jihad [by FreedomFry]

- by FreedomFry

My contention and the contention of many in the counter-jihad movement is that the actual teachings of Muhammed are imperialist and oppressive, and someone who is following them correctly will neccesarily seek to change our way of life and impose Muslim rule, since that is a very clear commandment from the Koran and Hadith. I am certainly against Christianity in that I don't believe it's central tenets, however I am not under threat from it as I am from Islam because at it's core Christianity is not an imperialist ideology as Islam is. Christianity took 300 years to develop the concept of holy war, and that was only achieved with a heavy perversion of the teachings of Jesus. Islam was founded as an Imperial system; the teachings of Muhammed are those of holy war and oppression of the unbeliever. While warlike Christianity needs to distort the teachings of Jesus, peaceful Islam will need to distort the teachings of Muhammed. That is perhaps the most essential difference between the two. That is not to say that Christianity has not been a warlike religion for most of its history; it has, and it has caused untold suffering to my people, in the crusades and elsewhere. But because Christianity has, buried deep underneath, a pacifistic core, and also because it's scriptures do not claim absolute perfection, it has always had the potential, as we have seen demonstrated in our own age, to reform and be a benign influence on the world. As to the Crusades, as i've mentioned, Jews have a fairly decent grievance, but it is important to remember that we are not talking about the conquest of Muslim lands and the forced conversion to christianity. We are talking about the reconquest of what was formerly at the heart of the christian byzantine empire, only captured by the muslims shortly before the crusades. At that time, most people in the holy land were still christian, albeit byzantine rather than latin christians, and forced conversion of the populace was not carried out, although largely because it wasn't necessary. To be fair, the reason it was still christian is because the Muslims didn't carry out forced conversion either. They never have, throughout history, because they like having non-muslims in a muslim state, as they can tax them through the ears and use them to enrich the Muslim population. The reasons for conversion to islam in muslim states has historically been because living as a dhimmi carried so many humiliations and disadvantages that people wanted to convert to islam to become one of the oppressors rather than the oppressed. The muslims actually discouraged conversion at many times to keep the numbers of the muslim elite from growing so much that they stopped being a privileged few.
just a quick potted history there

No comments:

Post a Comment