This story is unavailable.

While I too do not wish to offend, your 18th and 19th century comment regarding the West’s “whip” is conceding to my argument. I see that you are attempting to not allow full concession, but your argument has allowed to the reality of my point.

With regard to Vienna, your inclusion of this example only buffers my argument with regard to the West taking offense to Islam’s ability to play their own game.

By no means am I willing to suggest that Islam’s history is completely angelic, and certainly as it relates to its spread East, there is far more to bolster your argument than its spread West in a few examples. But, it would also be, if not ignorant of the fact, certainly disingenuous to not consider the variety of instances in which Islam was tolerant and accepting of those who chose not to accept Islam as their religious tradition once conquest had succeeded; undeniably being far more tolerant than Christians who sought to force their religious beliefs onto the conquered.

With regard to jihad, your viewpoint appears to be the typically western-centric interpretation. This may be a misunderstanding on my part but your argument appears to be considering this akin to ‘holy war,’ which historically speaking is a gross misinterpretation of the term and practice among Muslims. Only within the last 100 years, more or less, has this been vaguely interpreted as such, with a much longer historical interpretation viewing the term in its more literal translation as ‘struggle’ with considerations manifesting in both the internal and external corporalities, the external being, overwhelmingly, what the West believes as ‘holy war’ and far less awareness of the ‘internal struggle’ and how this is the far more central perspective historically speaking and approach taken with the term.

Finally, with regard to your historical claim that Islam’s core practice is to “expand or die” and was supposedly practiced on the part of the Prophet is also an exceedingly biased Judeo-Christian western-centric interpretation of history, and among many Islamic Studies and Religious Studies scholars an example of the losers perspective and a willingness to be on the wrong side of history.

I too wish for us to “all just get along,” but with the West’s history of the last 100 years, give or take, being the aggressors imposing their way or no way, while at the same time Islam’s transition into a more external interpretation of ‘struggle,’ without intending to justify terrorism, the West is getting what it is asking for, and I would be willing to argue, has played into this knowing full well it to be a good way to make additional profit off of. Imho, until the West is willing to take a step back, accept the decades if not centuries worth of blow-back that they have created, I don’t see the modern practice of jihadism ever going away.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Anointed Wand’s story.