Is there anything as frightening as Jihad?

Well commented! Thanks t k kidwai

Turkey declared jihad, 'holy war' against Yemen and the Arab tribes 1914 - 1916.

Ottoman Empire wasn't an Islamic state..During life time of the  last Caliph the Islamic state was converted into monarchy by the then governer of Syria  and after that no Islamic state was established any where.Rhetorics and false claims don't change realities.Neither Turkey was an exception,nor are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.The later two have sponsored terrorism in the guise of jihad.

Ottoman Empire wasn't an Islamic State. LOL

Logos, Pathos and Ethos weep.

Caliph  aka  "Commander of the Believers"

Caliphate "Khilafa" system of  Islamic governance.

Ottoman Caliphate was constitutionally abolished on March 3, 1924.  The Sultan and his family were exiled.

...false claims don't change realities. 

LOL LOL .Ignorant. Caliph means vice-regent,not commander of the faithful.Commander of the faithful is Ameer-ul-momineen in Arabic.Learn history or keep mouth shut.

t k kidwai

Once again you lead with name calling and follow up with base assertion.

A common translation for khilafa is vicegerency. NOT vice-regent. They do not mean thew same thing.

As in the vicegerency of the prophet. Which could be used to signify either Imamate [al-imamah] or al-Khilafa. Depending on sect. 

Not vice-regent

The caliph, or head of state, was often known as Amir al-Mu'minin "Commander of the Believers".

Learn proper Arabic and you wont have to embarrass yourself with sloppy Urdu transcription like  "Ameer-ul-momineen" .

I should not have to tell you this but, you have no right to tell anyone to keep their mouth shut on these boards.

Trans-Parere you are wrong again.In Arabic there are two words.Khalifa(caliph) means viceregent;Khilafat(caliphate) means vice-regency.Consult any book this subject,don't go by what I say.

As I stated in my earlier post that the last Caliph was Ali.During his life time governor of Syria,Muwaiya, raised banner of revolt and declared himself Caliph.That was the end of Caliphate and begining of monarchy.The title of Amir al Momineen was conferred on Umar.

Ottoman empire wasn't Caliphate.Do some history reading and analyse objectively.Neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan at point of time were Islamic states,nor are.Zia-Ul-Haque wanted to legitimize his brutal dictatorship and needed Mullahs' support.Mullahs' support came instantly the moment Zia announced promulgation of Shariah(Islamic laws),blind following of one of the schools of jurisprudence.That is what I meant when I said that rhetorics and false claims do not change reality.Saudi Arabia is a monarchy,ruled by one of the most corrupt family,and Pakistan a failed state.

India boasts of being the biggest democracy.But the question is: is India really a democracy?is not easy to answer.In mid- 60s Late John K.Galbriath,US ambassador to India described India as functioning anarchy.In my opinion that was best description of India's so-called democracy.Even today I hold  the same opinion and express it at various forums that in India what we call democracy is anarchy ratified through ballot boxes or EVMs(electronic voting machines).Bottom line is that deliberate printed lies are not part of history,but are made to be so that we accept them without questioning.

t k kidwai

I do consult books. Just not the books a revisionist seeking to rewrite events would choose. I gave you the exact date the Turkish GNA abolished the Caliphate. Constitutionally. According to Turkish history. Not your interpretation.

If you do not wish to accept that, so be it. I'm not here to change your mind.  Just to offer information to the reader visiting these boards.

"According to Ottoman understanding, the state's primary responsibility was to defend and extend the land of the Muslims and to ensure security and harmony within its borders within the overarching context of orthodox Islamic practice and dynastic sovereignty."

That is a good definition of al-Khilafa. One defined by the Turks themselves of their own intentions.

Just as the O.I.S [Organization of Islamic States] today is a good definition of what is defined as an Islamic State.

If you can not accept that, so be it, but I am not about to engage in some battle of semantics or revisionist argument.

Trans-Parere Thanks.thats fine.We won't agree.We know.OIC is abbreviation of Organization of the Islamic Conference.

anything more frightening than jihad. yes. indoctrination of youth to war in name of jihad. criminally frightening.

@anymoose(not verified).This is the crux of my argument.Youths could easily be misguided through indoctrination,and this is exactly what happened when Jihadis were being recruited by CIA,ISI of Pakistan and Saudi intelligence to wage Jihad( fake) against atheist Russians who had occupied a Muslim land.

No, there is nothing more frightening than little Jihadists all over the world being raised to hate:  the west, freedom of speech, all non-muslims. . . It will take at least a generation, if not 2 or 3, for them to begin thinking for themselves, and rebel against the fundamentalist views of those who raised them.  The biggest problem is: The Koran itself contains all the ingredients to promote this violent Jihad.  In my own opinion, as long as there are apostasy laws (laws against leaving Islam), there will be a violent form of Islam.