another misunderstanding, perhaps?

Submitted by J.S. (Canada), Oct 3, 2006 at 18:35

I've been reading articles in the paper -- re., the pope's comments. And it seems to me there could be yet another area of misunderstanding (?). The pope in his remarks refers to violent "jihad" as a means to win converts. But Muslims will then respond "we don't want converts." and Muslims will list off all the places of conquest and note that conversion wasn't forced -- in other words, Muslims would conquer an area and set up shop -- form the ruling elite (and allow other religions to continue to practice as per usual, but only so long as they remained as second-class citizens.) I suspect that this rendition of events may be somewhat true (places such as India, etc.) but it probably white-washes much of the violence (and violent conversions) taking place in the early history of Islam.

Anyway, the point here is this -- the current jihadists don't have as their ultimate aim the conversion (violent or otherwise) of the infidels. The jihadists true aim is to gain political domination over the world. This is not the same as "winning converts." Again, it's world domination (not necessarily conversion) which is their goal. I think this makes the jihadists more dangerous and far more troublesome. I wonder if the pope is really aware of this kind of threat? (ie., Europe could be subjegated to Islamic rule, even if the continent is nominally "Christian.")

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".