Author Topic: When you really don't need a tan.  (Read 1865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When you really don't need a tan.
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2012, 04:41:11 PM »
So you didn't look into the conquest of India at all did you?

Jhaid for conquest of new territory is just as Jhaid as is Crusade to reclaim territory  lost to the Saracens is Crusade.

I doubt your whole premise and ....


.... you have missed my point.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When you really don't need a tan.
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2012, 04:46:09 PM »
The Mongol Conquest of India was not inspired by religion any more than the British conquest of India was.
This has become a boring subject.

I don't see that you have a point.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When you really don't need a tan.
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2012, 05:07:44 PM »
The Mongol Conquest of India was not inspired by religion any more than the British conquest of India was.
This has become a boring subject.

I don't see that you have a point.


I am so dissapointed.

How about the Conquest of Spain , Hungary , Constantinople?

Etc etc etc?

All of the wars in Islam are termed Jhiad if they conquer territory for Islam.

Conquering territory for fun and profit went along with Crusaders too, the nobility of the struggle was hardly complete.

Are you certain that the British conquest of India had no Crusading overtone?

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When you really don't need a tan.
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2012, 08:36:43 PM »
I don't think you have looked up.

You don't suppose that when the Mongols took over India in years of bloody conquest and enslavement , that they didn't call it Jhiad?

Sometimes we call it a Crusade when a newspaper takes on a corrupt city hall, or a whistleblowing individual exposes a lawbreaking polluter. It is our word for noble struggle . I think this is the result of the medievel Popes propaganda.

If you bare ever on the receiveing end of Jhaid , you will understand what I mean.

Genghis Khan was a shamanist. Kublai Khan was a Buddhist. Mongke Khan had Muslim leanings. All of them favored freedom of religion. All of these ruled in the 12th - 13th centuries, but while they did invade parts of India, they were not Muslim invaders nor would they have considered their invasions Jihads.

India was, however, invaded by Muslims in 638, about 500 years before the Mongols and Khans.

jihad or jehad  (d???hæd)
— n
1. Islam: a holy war against infidels undertaken by Muslims in defence of the Islamic faith
2. Islam: the personal struggle of the individual believer against evil and persecution
3. rare: a crusade in support of a cause
[C19: from Arabic jih?d  a conflict]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jehad
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When you really don't need a tan.
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2012, 02:29:35 AM »
I think I am quibbling over the definition number 3.

Rare?

What occasion would somone ever describe the war he is ginning up in anything less than the best terms he could?

The diffrence between 1,2,and 3 is perspective, and Number 4 ,which would be conquest ,would be presented as number 1 by anyone who favored the conquest.

Hyperbole is hardly rare , I am not speaking of a Muslim condition , this is human nature.

In perfect reciprocity , as Jhaid is a curse in our ears Crusade is a curse in theirs.