I am so sick and tired of the hearing the stupid word "Islamist". It's just an attempt to water down our diin and make it just another "ism", like Buddh"ism", Hindu"ism", or Christian"ity". Utterly ridiculous.
How does calling Islam another "ism" water it down? Nevertheless, I agree with you, any orthodox Muslim is by definition an Islamist IMHO. Islamism is simply the misguided attempt by Western scholars to separate 'Islam the religion' from 'Islam the political ideology'. Such a separation is of course artificial. Yet, I don't see how you think that waters down Islam.
MTAFFI, you have to realize that naming a child "Jihad" in a non-Muslim country is nowhere near the same as naming a child "Crusader" in a Muslim country. Whereas the Crusades were an attempted genocide aimed specifically at Muslims, the word "jihad" has nothing to do with the intention to harm others, regardless of what you may see and hear in the news about "jihadis" and Al Qaeda. If the people don't know the true meaning of the name Jihad, then that's their problem, not ours. Jihad sounds like a perfectly good name for a child.
I disagree strongly. "Crusader" is a word that has the same problem as "Jihad". In that has a double meaning of both "striving for" and "holy war".
Look at the dictionary definition:
- capitalized : any of the military expeditions undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims
- a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm
Unless speaking in a historical context, the word "Crusade" is hardly ever used anymore to refer to an actual religiously motivated Holy War. It has little religious meaning unless it is in relation with "The Crusades". As such, a crusader, does in todays Christian context hardly ever refers to the Crusades that took place in the Middle ages.
I also disagree with your attempt to define Jihad as a defensive doctrine and the Crusades as offensive. It is historically inaccurate to describe the Crusades as "an attempted genocide". The goal was very clear to
recapture the Christian Holy Lands from Muslim rule. The first definition from the dictionary says at much. I think it's unfair and incorrect to portray the Muslims as an innocent religion that had to defend themselves against the unwarranted attacks of genocidal maniacs. Lets not forget that Muslims conquered almost half of the Christian world, including its most holy places! Now, I would agree the Crusaders were in general brute and with little regard for life, but it is fallacious to think the Crusades were unprovoked.
I also disagree that 'Jihad' has nothing to do with an intention to harm others. It has everything to do with harming those who are perceived enemies of Islam! Surely, you accept that meaning of the word as well? All religious scholars and important Islamic websites also use that meaning! Islam-qa.com very clearly explains the four different kinds of Jihad:
http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=20214&ln=eng&txt=Jihad
... jihad is of four kinds: Jihad al-nafs (jihad against one’s self), jihad al-Shaytaan (jihad against the Shaytaan), jihad against the kaafirs and jihad against the hypocrites.
...
Jihad against the kaafirs and hypocrites is of four kinds: with the heart, the tongue, one’s wealth and oneself. Jihad against the kaafirs is more along the lines of physical fighting whereas jihad against the hypocrites is more along the lines of using words and ideas.
This is not an insignificant meaning of jihad as for example Islam-qa.com uses it frequently. Unsurprisingly, kafirs are most interested in the Islamic ideas of "jiahd against the kafirs". Many Muhajedeen, who consider us their enemies, use it frequently when they address us or their fellow Muslims.
lets see if you stay a man of your word or back down or make an excuse saying nooooooo infidel and kaffir isnt the same!
