It might help if you read more carefully the position I asserted. The notion that Islam is properly the property of all of mankind that ought be spread, as a communal - and I used the word communal intentionally - activity, is not a recent view. It is the mainstream view and has been for more than a millennium.
What follows is the formulation as set forth by, among others, famed Islamicist Ignaz Goldhizer(d. 1921):
In addition to the religious duties imposed upon each individual professing Islam, the collective duty of the "jihad" (= "fighting against infidels") is imposed on the community, as represented by the commander of the faithful. Mohammed claimed for his religion that it was to be the common property of all mankind, just as he himself, who at first appeared as a prophet of the Arabs, ended by proclaiming himself the prophet of a universal religion, the messenger of God to all humanity, or, as tradition has it, "ila al-aḥmar wal-aswad" (to the red and the black). For this reason unbelief must be fought with the force of weapons, in order that "God's word may be raised to the highest place." Through the refusal to accept Islam, idolaters have forfeited their lives. Those "who possess Scriptures" ("ahl al-kitab"), in which category are included Jews, Christians, Magians, and Sabians, may be tolerated on their paying tribute ("jizyah") and recognizing the political supremacy of Islam (sura ix. 29). The state law of Islam has accordingly divided the world into two categories: the territory of Islam ("dar al-Islam") and the territory of war. ("dar al-ḥarb"), i.e., territory against which it is the duty of the commander of the faithful ("amir al-mu'minin") to lead the community in the jihad.
Are you really saying that Goldhizer is wrong? Note, that he is as close to being an apologist for Islam while being honest as anyone who ever lived. And, he is surely one of the greatest scholars of Islam who ever lived.
Maybe, you do not believe him. I, for one, do, having studied Islam's theology and having found it fascinating. I might recommend that you pick up a book of the writings of Muslim theologians on Jihad. If you did, you would not write what you wrote.
As for your comment that bringing religion into this is pointless, my view is that careful description of phenomena is important. In this case, understanding that we are dealing with people drunk on religion is not just a fact, it is likely the most important fact about the dispute.
Addressing the point you mistakenly associated with my analysis - i.e. Qutbism -, while the view that individual Jihad is contrary to Islam has a theological basis, history tells a very, very different story. In this regard, you might read Patricia Crone's book Gods Rule: Government and Islam. She notes Jihadis living on the border of Islamic territory and conducting regular raids into non-Muslim - most especially Christian ruled - territory. Such was not limited to a few years but went on over the course of centuries at a time.
Such razzia, in fact, often occurred against the wishes of the Caliph. Other writers have noted such razzia including, rather regularly, from Andalusia into France.
In my view, the non-Muslim regions, in fact, face people employing tactics rather similar to razzia. And, the razzia traces all the way back to the time of the Prophet.
by N. Friedman on November 29, 2006 at 4:08 PM