zondag 17 november 2013

Dossier jihad

Soms sta ik verbaasd als ik er achter kom dat ik van iets zeer voor de hand liggends geen dossiertje heb aangelegd. Zo ook in dit geval. Rechts van hier staat wel iets over seksuele jihad, financiële jihad en juridische jihad, maar jihad in het algemeen komt niet voor. Daar moet bij deze maar eens verandering in aangebracht worden dan.

Ik wil starten met een redelijk goed artikel dat ik aan het lezen was. Zoals gewoonlijk ben ik het niet met alles eens. Als er bijvoorbeeld gemeld wordt dat Ataturk een secularist was kan ik daar nog wel in meegaan, maar dat ie de jihad compleet verwierp geloof ik dan weer geen bal van. Ataturk was net zo'n massamoordende Turkse nationalist als zijn Ottomaanse voorgangers en in die zin niet van islamitische invloeden vrij. Vraag het de Armeniërs maar, of de Grieken of de Koerden, heel toevallig zijn de eerste twee geen mohammedanen.

Het was Ataturks eigen geadopteerde (hij was impotent) dochter (Armeens, ouders waren vermoord door Ataturks troepen) die als eerste vrouwelijke gevechtspilote ter wereld een heel Koerdisch dorp naar de andere wereld bombardeerde.

Maar dit gaat niet over Ataturk of Turkije, maar over jihad. Ik begin met een uitgebreid citaat uit hoofdstuk twee van dit essay (hoofdstuk 1 geeft de politiek correcte visie weer, die vervolgens grandioos weerlegd wordt) dan een linkje naar de rest van het artikel en ik heb het vermoeden dat er in de toekomst nog vele linkjes aan toegevoegd zullen worden.


En als copy-pasten niet gaat jat ik het wel via een print-screentje. Klik voor groter:

link naar artikel:
Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning - See more at: http://hnn.us/article/1136#sthash.56XudkfQ.dpuf
Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning
Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning - See more at: http://hnn.us/article/1136#sthash.56XudkfQ.dpuf
JIHAD AND HISTORY
In premodern times, jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims, then as now the Islamic majority.** It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in Arabic as dar al-Islam) at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims (dar al-harb). In this prevailing conception, the purpose of jihad is political, not religious. It aims not so much to spread the Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power (though the former has often followed the latter). The goal is boldly offensive, and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world.
By winning territory and diminishing the size of areas ruled by non-Muslims, jihad accomplishes two goals: it manifests Islam's claim to replace other faiths, and it brings about the benefit of a just world order. In the words of Majid Khadduri of Johns Hopkins University, writing in 1955 (before political correctness conquered the universities), jihad is "an instrument for both the universalization of [Islamic] religion and the establishment of an imperial world state."
As for the conditions under which jihad might be undertaken—when, by whom, against whom, with what sort of declaration of war, ending how, with what division of spoils, and so on—these are matters that religious scholars worked out in excruciating detail over the centuries. But about the basic meaning of jihad—warfare against unbelievers to extend Muslim domains—there was perfect consensus. For example, the most important collection of hadith (reports about the sayings and actions of Muhammad), called Sahih al-Bukhari, contains 199 references to jihad, and every one of them refers to it in the sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims. To quote the 1885 Dictionary of Islam, jihad is "an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the traditions [hadith] as a divine institution, and enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims."
JIHAD WAS no abstract obligation through the centuries, but a key aspect of Muslim life. According to one calculation, Muhammad himself engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch) was defensive. Within a century after the prophet's death in 632, Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in the west. Though such a dramatic single expansion was never again to be repeated, important victories in subsequent centuries included the seventeen Indian campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 998-1030), the battle of Manzikert opening Anatolia (1071), the conquest of Constantinople (1453), and the triumphs of Uthman dan Fodio in West Africa (1804-17). In brief, jihad was part of the warp and woof not only of premodern Muslim doctrine but of premodern Muslim life.
That said, jihad also had two variant meanings over the ages, one of them more radical than the standard meaning and one quite pacific. The first, mainly associated with the thinker Ibn Taymiya (1268-1328), holds that born Muslims who fail to live up to the requirements of their faith are themselves to be considered unbelievers, and so legitimate targets of jihad. This tended to come in handy when (as was often the case) one Muslim ruler made war against another; only by portraying the enemy as not properly Muslim could the war be dignified as a jihad.
- See more at: http://hnn.us/article/1136#sthash.56XudkfQ.dpuf
JIHAD AND HISTORY
In premodern times, jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims, then as now the Islamic majority.** It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in Arabic as dar al-Islam) at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims (dar al-harb). In this prevailing conception, the purpose of jihad is political, not religious. It aims not so much to spread the Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power (though the former has often followed the latter). The goal is boldly offensive, and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world.
By winning territory and diminishing the size of areas ruled by non-Muslims, jihad accomplishes two goals: it manifests Islam's claim to replace other faiths, and it brings about the benefit of a just world order. In the words of Majid Khadduri of Johns Hopkins University, writing in 1955 (before political correctness conquered the universities), jihad is "an instrument for both the universalization of [Islamic] religion and the establishment of an imperial world state."
As for the conditions under which jihad might be undertaken—when, by whom, against whom, with what sort of declaration of war, ending how, with what division of spoils, and so on—these are matters that religious scholars worked out in excruciating detail over the centuries. But about the basic meaning of jihad—warfare against unbelievers to extend Muslim domains—there was perfect consensus. For example, the most important collection of hadith (reports about the sayings and actions of Muhammad), called Sahih al-Bukhari, contains 199 references to jihad, and every one of them refers to it in the sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims. To quote the 1885 Dictionary of Islam, jihad is "an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the traditions [hadith] as a divine institution, and enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims."
JIHAD WAS no abstract obligation through the centuries, but a key aspect of Muslim life. According to one calculation, Muhammad himself engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch) was defensive. Within a century after the prophet's death in 632, Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in the west. Though such a dramatic single expansion was never again to be repeated, important victories in subsequent centuries included the seventeen Indian campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 998-1030), the battle of Manzikert opening Anatolia (1071), the conquest of Constantinople (1453), and the triumphs of Uthman dan Fodio in West Africa (1804-17). In brief, jihad was part of the warp and woof not only of premodern Muslim doctrine but of premodern Muslim life.
That said, jihad also had two variant meanings over the ages, one of them more radical than the standard meaning and one quite pacific. The first, mainly associated with the thinker Ibn Taymiya (1268-1328), holds that born Muslims who fail to live up to the requirements of their faith are themselves to be considered unbelievers, and so legitimate targets of jihad. This tended to come in handy when (as was often the case) one Muslim ruler made war against another; only by portraying the enemy as not properly Muslim could the war be dignified as a jihad.
- See more at: http://hnn.us/article/1136#sthash.56XudkfQ.dpuf

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie plaatsen