Jihad is it right or wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

No objection here. The US is ENTIRELY at
fault for 9/11, by resorting to imperialism.

We tend to throw our weight around the
world in a horrific manner.

Just glad to see this mercenary army
NOT on our shores, but stuck somewhere
else.

Jesus said, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Mt 7:1-5)

It never fails to amaze me how people can excuse the crusades, ignore the inquisition, pretend that the anihliation of the natve Americans never happened, that the cross wasn't used to colonize and brutalize much of the world, or convince themselves that hundreds of years of brutal slavery were a minor error by fringe elements. Christianity is a force for good!! Only Islam is evil!! Us good!! Them bad!

Sure, and in 500 years, Islam will be where
Christianity is today. Meanwhile, there will
be another, newer and more violent one.

Maybe Scientology.

I don't think there is a linear progress. During Europe's dark ages, the Arab world was a beacon of reasonableness and progress. Then they lost their game. And I'm not sure that the west today is something to shoot for. But I get your point.

I agree that there is no moral justification for 9-11, and that responsibility for that lies only at the feet of Al Qaeda.

But the UN resolutions on Iraq were being enforced. The UN had inspectors on the ground, who concluded that Saddam did not have programs of WMDs. The US only had the stones to disagree and lie about that, invaded, and then eventually called off the search and admitted that there were no WMDs.

According to a "Learned Persian" friend of mine, who happens to be a devout Muslim, many many people are reading the rules of Jihad wrong. And thats many many muslims, I might add.

Variously..

Jihad can ONLY be called by basically what amounts to the Cardinals council in catholicism. Thats to say.. the TOP muslim religious leaders, NOT some beardy weirdy in a cave with a grudge.

Jihad forbids the mistreatment of innocents, such as women and children, or of prisoners of war. (So driving cars full of bombs into Glasgow airport is not on, nor is pinching passenger planes.) (Blode because thats the BIG ONE.)

Suicide is forbidden.. a suicide bomber will NOT go to heaven, will not pass go, will not collect 200 pounds.

So basically, its a lot like the geneva convention in many ways. its a set of rules and suggestions as to how to conduct a religious war with someone with honour and respect. Not a bona fide reason to slaughter innocents.

My Persian friend also pointed out that the koran suggests that Muslims should generally get on fairly well with christians, because roughly speaking we do follow the same god, and revere his prophets to a degree (ie jesus.) .. its the jews they are meant to hate and loathe beyond all reason. IE christians are MORE acceptable to them than Judaism. So we arent the great western satan at all.

ps: "learned Persian" is a term of affection, not a pisstake. It amused him greatly

Uncle Beer wrote -

'Crashing loaded airplanes into crowded buildings is nothing short of evil.'

OK, that is entirely true, so was holding the world to ransom with Nuclear weapons for 50 years which is what both the USSR and the US did, and the US continues to do.
Cruise missiles destroying civilian facilities in 1991 was seen by many the world over as cowardly and overkill and the treachery of Madeline Albrights set-up leading into it can be seen as the point at which the stakes were raised by the Muslim world at the urging of people who had been willing pawns of US corporate policy.
Jihad is an interesting concept and I have it on the authority of several different Muslims that the hard line meaning given to it by both the extremists and the western media fails to understand it's full depth of meaning and contextual meanings.
ALL the Muslims I have met denounce the acts of terrorism as barbaric and contrary to the true spirit of Islam, however they also condemn the actions of western powers that have led to the current situation.

Again we have a thread posted by an American with the sole intention of causing trouble and giving a platform to US/neo-con agendas, I presume the insults will start soon?

I find it disappointing that virtually every English language forum on the WORLD wide web is being dominated by a vocal but surely small minority of Americans. Do you guys seriously think,

A/ the world revolves around you?
B/ the world cares about your domestic psychosis?
C/ you can make such inflammatory inputs and not be considered a loony?

Is Jihad wright or wrong?

Well if someone is invading my country, declaring my peoples the enemies of God and good men and attempting to deny us a voice? NO! I will resist to the last breath, I will denounce them from the highest peak.

If someone is minding their own business and I am left free to enjoy my life and liberty as they do theirs, well where is the need for Jihad?

peace j

Jihad means "Holy War against non-muslims" It is used to make converts at swordpoint. That is what Jihad is.

I think this sort of proves the point. Obviously this religious text is heavily interpretable, and can be shifted to suit most viewpoints. ( I suspect most of them are.)

Different muslims will give different answers as to what their book says, as will christians. After all, I'm pretty sure it says "Thou shalt not kill" in big letters (with bullet points?) in the Bible, but theres been plenty of that gone on, driven by those supposedly most learned in that book. Its unsurprising that other religions do the same thing.

Personally, Im hoping that because Islam is a relatively young religion, it will mellow out with time, get past its crusade phase, and shift into a more peaceable one. After all, If i, a 6ft blue-eyed (non practising) 2nd generation renegade baptist raised by methodists, grandson of a minister, married to and divorced from a catholic, can be liked and respected by a devout muslim and Learned Persian, then i dont see why anyone else cant.

What happen when they're the majority in the western countries? Are they still going to be peaceful when they no longer have to be?