[Oxymandias]

@Zamuel

Noir hasn't redefined anything … Palestinian protestors are practicing Jihad, as defined by the prophet. They proudly acknowledge this.

No, it isn't jihad. You don't know what jihad is and that is what I am talking about, noir is not using the term jihad properly, he is redefining it. He calls Palestinians jihadists for protesting their own living conditions and thus causing an inconvenience to Israel. Therefore, he is call Palestinians jihadists for being inconvenient.

Your suggestion perverts Islam and dishonors Muslim dead. Even the Israelis don't do that.

Zam, you don't know the first thing about Islam. For all intents and purposes you are not qualified to speak about it. I know more about it than you and I'm a former Zoroastrian so I recommend that you don't try to tell me what the definition of jihad is given that you don't know anything about it. You had no idea, prior to me talking to you, that jihad meant "struggle". You don't know anything about Islam so you cannot tell me whether or not it is perverted or not.

I told you this was coming.

The enemy wasn't America. America can't do anything to Iran outside of refuse to contact with them. This was the case for most of modern Iran's history.

You didn't say anything. To be completely honest, I find these protests to be beneficial to Iran given that it will serve as the backdrop for greater reforms. This has nothing to do with a violent overthrow of the current government or whatever you have wet dreams about. A revolution now would only cause a civil war and the destruction of the current democratic institutions which still work in Iran. The goal is to empower these democratic institutions and further decentralize Iran, drawing power away from Tehran and distributing it. A violent overthrow of the current regime is against everyone in Iran's interests, not just the governments. Iranians are aware that the current regime is better than the previous and so many are working within the system to destroy it rather than violently kill it. This method doesn't look good on Western media but it certainly is a more sustainable method of reform than destroying everything and starting from scratch.

[Zamuel]

No, it isn't jihad.

The rest of the world seems to disagree.

He calls Palestinians jihadists for protesting their own living conditions

Yes

and thus causing an inconvenience to Israel. Therefore, he is call Palestinians jihadists for being inconvenient.

No. Calling them Jihadists for their actions is definitive. Calling them an inconvenience is logical.
Trying to equate the definitive and the logical is nuts …

ie: Clouds are water (definitive)
Breath water and you will drown (Logical)
Breath cloud and you will die (… NUTS...)

Zam

[Oxymandias]

@Zamuel

The rest of the world seems to disagree.

What the rest of the world thinks doesn't matter. The actual definition of jihad matters more than the world's flawed perception of it.

No. Calling them Jihadists for their actions is definitive. Calling them an inconvenience is logical.
Trying to equate the definitive and the logical is nuts …

Well Noir isn't a logical person by any means. Most people with irrational bias aren't. Noir seems to have negative connotations with jihad and Palestinians and hates them both so he created a narrative which places Palestinians and jihadists in the same camp. It's like how you equate Mohammed Reza with secularism and thus, erroneously depict him as an atheist despite him being a Muslim or how you associate mosques with authoritarianism and wrongly depict them as totalitarian institutions despite being breeding grounds for diverse ideas prior to the revolution. These connotations are due to ignorance rather than logic and an overwhelming allegiance to one's own narrative.

[Atlantis]

Europeans are considering ways of protecting their economies against the US. We should just switch all oil and gas business from dollar to euro. That'll bring the Yankee empire down on its knees in no time at all. We are far too nice.

EU to reactivate 'blocking statute' against US sanctions on Iran for European firms

Germany to help its firms in Iran after US pullout from nuclear deal

[daf]

Bitcoin Becomes Store of Value for Iranians Hit by Hyperinflation
Iranians rushed to panic-buy Bitcoin, which despite price fluctuations is a better store of value compared to the Iranian rial.



Read more: https://cryptovest.com/news/bitcoin-bec ... inflation/

[Zamuel]

What the rest of the world thinks doesn't matter. The actual definition of jihad matters more than the world's flawed perception of it.

Yes it does, go find a hole and make up your own words if you like, but you'll be doing it alone, most likely. Without getting all scholastic. Jihad is Islam's version of "eye for an eye."

Well Noir isn't a logical person by any means. Most people with irrational bias aren't. Noir seems to have negative connotations with jihad and Palestinians and hates them both so he created a narrative which places Palestinians and jihadists in the same camp.

Noir is a fine thinker and a pretty good observer of reality. Palestinians have been playing "eye for an eye" Jihad for over 50 years now, Noir didn't create anything. You, on the other hand have been making shit up left and right. like this:

It's like how you equate Mohammed Reza with secularism and thus, erroneously depict him as an atheist despite him being a Muslim or how you associate mosques with authoritarianism and wrongly depict them as totalitarian institutions.

Atheist? Totalitarian Mosques? distorted BS you just made up on the spot. You've got plenty of text to work with, show the world where I've ever said either thing.

due to ignorance rather than logic and an overwhelming allegiance to one's own narrative.

That sums up what you've said pretty clearly, I'd say. I'm not sure why. Reality and accurate information are plentiful. Let them shape your narrative and not vice-versa.

Zam

[Oxymandias]

@Zamuel

Yes it does, go find a hole and make up your own words if you like, but you'll be doing it alone, most likely.

No, it doesn't. The actual definition of the word matters more than what people think the definition is. I follow the truth rather than lies.

Without getting all scholastic. Jihad is Islam's version of "eye for an eye."

You really do know nothing about Islam! Alright then, let's get scholastic. I want to see how much you actually know about Islam. I doubt it'll be that much.

Noir is a fine thinker and a pretty good observer of reality.

>Noir
>Fine thinker

Choose one. Noir doesn't even make his own arguments most of the time, he just goes around posting pro-Zionist tweets. I don't even think he has a viable ideology, he just consumes anything that is pro-Israel or puts Israel's actions in a good light.

Palestinians have been playing "eye for an eye" Jihad for over 50 years now, Noir didn't create anything.

Noir made up a definition of jihad which does not even exist in public consciousness. I already defined jihad for you, you simply refuse to admit it.

Atheist? Totalitarian Mosques? distorted BS you just made up on the spot. You've got plenty of text to work with, show the world where I've ever said either thing.

My argument was based on connotations not if you said it. You write of Reza as a secularist and progressive and Islam as backwards and anti-progress. This leads me to believe that you thought of Reza as either irreligious or certainly not Muslim. I also should've specified exactly what I meant by mosques. What I was referring to by mosques was the institution of Islam itself. I didn't want to use a fancy word like Ulema because you would have no idea what I am talking about. Therefore, I am basically stating how you associate the Ulema with authoritarianism.

That sums up what you've said pretty clearly, I'd say. I'm not sure why. Reality and accurate information are plentiful. Let them shape your narrative and not vice-versa.

I have plenty of reliable information and I have given you plenty of reliable information. Instead of criticizing others, why don't you take your own advice? Also you shouldn't have a narrative to begin with. Narratives stifle thought.

[skinster]

Well, the Palestinians were definitely wrong focusing on "destroying" Israel rather than being busy establishing their own state.

They can't build their state that was offered to them when Israel was offered to European zionists, because Israel won't allow it and imprisons and occupies the Palestinians instead.

[Zamuel]

“Atheist? Totalitarian Mosques? distorted BS you just made up on the spot. You've got plenty of text to work with, show the world where I've ever said either thing.”

My argument was based on connotations not if you said it.

Like I said, you make shit up to suit yourself (and it's always wrong). Just like what -*YOU*- want to call Jihad.

You write of Reza as a secularist and progressive and Islam as backwards and anti-progress.

I wrote of Reza as a "Divinely appointed Monarch" which is how he saw himself … How you equate "divinely appointed" and "atheist" is beyond me. I wrote of his (fundamentalist) clerical opposition as backwards and anti progressive, not Islam. Again, you just make shit up to suit you.

Zam

[Godstud]

Hopefully, a little education can go a long ways.

Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not
WHAT JIHAD IS

The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving.

The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".

In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s),"jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.

Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.

In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.

The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT

Jihad is not a violent concept.

Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.

Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications
http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/unders ... ml?start=9

[Oxymandias]

@Zamuel

Like I said, you make shit up to suit yourself (and it's always wrong). Just like what -*YOU*- want to call Jihad.

Either you don't know what connotations are or you're feigning ignorance. I didn't make anything up, the connotations are there. Furthermore, you are the one who spent loads of effort creating a fully-fledged romanticized re-telling of Mohammed Reza's life. You'll be going places in Hollywood.

I also didn't make up the definition of jihad, you just don't know what it is and assumed that a person who has lived in an Islamic country doesn't know what jihad is and that a person who just made up a definition of jihad on the spot is apparently the correct one. You need to check your priorities.

I wrote of Reza as a "Divinely appointed Monarch" which is how he saw himself … How you equate "divinely appointed" and "atheist" is beyond me. I wrote of his (fundamentalist) clerical opposition as backwards and anti progressive, not Islam. Again, you just make shit up to suit you.

You didn't say that, you said that it is his divine right as monarch to wield absolute power, not that he was divinely appointed. Furthermore you clearly asserted several times that the actions of the clerics can be attributed to Islam and you cite out of context quotes from the Quran with no citation to support your argument.

[Zamuel]

Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not

In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad "jihad" has many meanings. - Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement.

Which is where the "eye for an eye" principal is borrowed from the early Jews.

In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.

Which is where extremists like the Ayatollahs and Hamas come in. They pervert the tradition to their own ends.

Jihad is not a violent concept.

Traditionally no, many moderate Imams have recognized the false Jihad promoted by extremists. They condemn it but are powerless to enforce anything.

Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.

Sorry no. Can you tell me any historic "Calls for Jihad" that have been rejected ? I'd call your attention to the investiture of Spain, the Umayyad incursion into Europe, the Byzantine Wars, the Rebellion of 1857 in India, and relatively recently the Mahdist War in Sudan.

(don't mind me, a certain Iranian is sure I know nothing of Islam.)

Zam

[Godstud]

Those "Jihads" were the same as the "Crusades". They were not based on religion but in acquisition of resources and wealth, as is the usual reasons for such things.

[Zamuel]

Those "Jihads" were the same as the "Crusades". They were not based on religion but in acquisition of resources and wealth, as is the usual reasons for such things.

No Godstud, they were all religiously sponsored jihad, with conversion of the conquered to Islam a major priority. Do your research before defending irresponsibly.

Zam

[Oxymandias]

@Zamuel

Which is where the "eye for an eye" principal is borrowed from the early Jews.

There's no eye for an eye principal. Muslims are only permitted to defend themselves. When a persecutor stops attacking them, they stop attacking. It isn't an eye for an eye mentality. Also the eye for an eye rule came from Hammurabi's code, not Jews.

Which is where extremists like the Ayatollahs and Hamas come in. They pervert the tradition to their own ends.

That is true. Both the Ayatollahs and Hamas were created by their people however as a reaction to the conditions they find themselves in. People don't strip themselves of their rights willingly, it is through times of desperation do they put their faith in authoritarians like them.

Traditionally no, many true Imams have recognized the false Jihad promoted by extremists. They condemn it but are powerless to enforce anything.

Fixed it for you. Nowadays anyone with a beard and a turban can call himself an imam. The term itself lost all meaning. An imam isn't a guy you listen to for religious instruction (in fact, you're supposed to be your own imam), they're people of the community as in, they try to help improve the community they're located in. They're not supposed to have political power. In the earlier Caliphates imams had no political power. It is only under the Ottomans and a tradition of religious sponsorship did imams have power.

Sorry no. Can you tell me any historic "Calls for Jihad" that have been rejected ? I'd call your attention to the investiture of Spain, the Umayyad incursion into Europe, the Byzantine Wars, the Rebellion of 1857 in India, and relatively recently the Mahdist War in Sudan.

The medieval ones weren't jihads. They were wars and the early Caliphates were clear with this since no Islamic sources call them jihads (if they were, they would have no problem saying they were). The only major jihad in medieval history was against the Crusader states and it was a jihad for obvious reasons. The Rebellion of 1857 in India was a reaction towards British occupation. In Islam, you are supposed to overthrow any injust ruler. This isn't jihad however (the Arabic term is lost on me right now). The Mahdist War is a jihad however since it was purely defensive.

So yeah, you were right about the Rebellion of 1857 and the Mahdist War in Sudan as jihads. Everything else was wrong however. You seem to think that Islamic expansion is jihad. It isn't by any means.

[Oxymandias]

@Zamuel

No Godstud, they were all religiously sponsored jihad, with conversion of the conquered to Islam a major priority. Do your research before defending irresponsibly.

Jihads aren't expansionist. You don't go on a jihad to take over territory, you go on a jihad to defend yourself from someone. What you are talking about is the Dar-al Harb which is expansionism under Islam and even then, the idea of the Dar-al Harb and expansionism under Islam has been out of fashion for eons. ISIS reviving it doesn't mean that all Muslims want to go on a never ending quest for conquest against non-Muslim territories.

[Zamuel]

Also the eye for an eye rule came from Hammurabi's code, not Jews.

Hammurabi wrote it down, he didn't invent it. Mohammed borrowed it from the Jews. (like a lot of other things.)

What you are talking about is the Dar-al Harb which is expansionism under Islam - ISIS reviving it doesn't mean that all Muslims want to go on a never ending quest for conquest against non-Muslim territories.

No, just the extremists, terrorists, Ayatollahs, and the millions of Muslims praying for their success.

Zam

[Oxymandias]

@Zamuel

Hammurabi wrote it down, he didn't invent it. Mohammed borrowed it from the Jews. (like a lot of other things.)

The Torah wasn't written during 1810 BC. It was still an oral tradition by that point and the persecution of the Jews hasn't occurred yet by this point meaning that the Jews haven't written down their religion. There's more evidence that Judaism took inspiration from Hammurabi's laws, not the other way around. Mohammed was a Nestorian prior to founding Islam. Any influence would come from Nestorianism rather than Judaism. That's not to say that he wasn't influenced to some degree by Judaism, simply that, in terms of theology, many of these similarities are due to Mohammed being more exposed to Jews than Greek Christianity.

No, just the extremists, terrorists, Ayatollahs, and the millions of Muslims praying for their success.

You forgot that the Ayatollahs are Shia and ISIS wants to murder all Shias. Wahhabis even dislike ISIS and they're the epitome of Islamic extremism. The idea that millions of Muslims are praying for them is a HUGE overstatement and shows how little you know about Islam.

[Zamuel]

The Torah wasn't written during 1810 BC. It was still an oral tradition.

Is repeating what I just said an attempt to confess all and seek redemption ?



See, that wasn't so hard was it? Take it up with Godstud or 1 Degree.

Zam

[Beren]

:eh:
They can't build their state that was offered to them when Israel was offered to European zionists, because Israel won't allow it and imprisons and occupies the Palestinians instead.

If it's up to Israel only, the Palestinians should ask them politely for permission perhaps?

The Israelis focused on establishing a state all along, while the Palestinians didn't, that's the problem.