|
I love how non-Muslims 'know' all about the Quran and 'Jihad'...
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Jihad means "Struggle" not "Holy War"
https://twitter.com/myjihadorg
As for Christians killing innocent Muslims (men, women and children) in the name of god/their religion...
"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
Source
|
On December 18 2014 02:17 LilClinkin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:42 Tien wrote:
Let's talk about today, not what a 14th century Christian would do. This is key. You can't talk about an idea such as religion and how people adopt it into their behaviors without considering the context/environment in which those people live. I agree with you when you say that a modern day Christian or Catholic living in our Western society would not do the same things that we see extremist Muslims from terrorist organisations such as ISIS doing. But, if you change the context ie. take a modern day Christian person and put them back in the 14 century, then the way they will behave will likely be different. Just like in my hypothetical example, if you took people from different religious faiths ie. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and changed the context in which they were living, then you would very likely observe different behaviors than what you see today. History has proved this to be true repeatedly.
It's apologies like these that make me thankful that I've never really considered myself a moral or empathetic person.
|
On December 18 2014 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love how non-Muslims 'know' all about the Quran and 'Jihad'...
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Jihad means "Struggle" not "Holy War"
Can you show me an authority of the Muslim word who considers trying to get more women into college his jihad? The jihad of protecting minorities? It's nice that a twitter account with 2k followers promotes this idea, but how does this change anything about reality?
There are 1.5 billion Muslim people on this planet. If doing hard work to feed your family is the true jihad, why aren't millions of people using this hashtag every day?
|
On December 18 2014 08:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love how non-Muslims 'know' all about the Quran and 'Jihad'...
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Jihad means "Struggle" not "Holy War"
Can you show me an authority of the Muslim word who considers trying to get more women into college his jihad? The jihad of protecting minorities? It's nice that a twitter account with 2k followers promotes this idea, but how does this change anything about reality? There are 1.5 billion Muslim people on this planet. If doing hard work to feed your family is the true jihad, why aren't millions of people using this hashtag every day?
Well this is one example.
-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.
Source
If I had to guess why, it would be basically the same reason millions of Catholics don't believe in evolution or a multi-billion year old universe. It's not because their religion/religious texts forbid it, (The Pope [their ultimate earthly authority] says that it's not in conflict with the religion) but because of ignorance, fear, and confused 'faith'.
|
"A minor jihad?" Mohammed was a warlord who captured Mecca, burned all the Pagan temples and erected a caliphate all over the middle-East. First off that sounds eerily similar to what a certain military group is doing now, secondly that is anything but a minor incident.
The concept that waging a 'just war' is legitimate to spread the religion is simply part of Islam. The problem is that terrorists and Isis are giving a very straightforward interpretation of their scripture and their history.
Even the 'Islamic supreme council of America' says that military jihad is still legitimate to defend the religion against unbelievers. What does defend mean in this context? If secularism is spreading in a society and people start to violate Islamic law does that already require defense?
Even in "liberal Muslim nations" like Jordan or Indonesia the amount of people who support Shariah law is like 30%. Given these facts it simply is irrelevant what jihad literally means. The overall situation of the religion is very dire.
|
On December 18 2014 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:
"A minor jihad?" Mohammed was a warlord who captured Mecca, burned all the Pagan temples and erected a caliphate all over the middle-East. First off that sounds eerily similar to what a certain military group is doing now, secondly that is anything but a minor incident.
The concept that waging a 'just war' is legitimate to spread the religion is simply part of Islam. The problem is that terrorists and Isis are giving a very straightforward interpretation of their scripture and their history.
Even the 'Islamic supreme council of America' says that military jihad is still legitimate to defend the religion against unbelievers. What does defend mean in this context? If secularism is spreading in a society and people start to violate Islamic law does that already require defense?
Even in "liberal Muslim nations" like Jordan or Indonesia the amount of people who support Shariah law is like 30%. Given these facts it simply is irrelevant what jihad literally means. The overall situation of the religion is very dire.
I guess it has to do with where we fundamentally approach the issue. I view religion as a tool, as such the tool itself is relatively benign. It's the people who use it that are the problem.
Like Bush saying god told him to liberate yada yada, and in the process killed tens of thousands of innocent Muslims. It wasn't God or Christianity that was guiding him. But it didn't mean he didn't think god wanted him to do what he did in defense of Christianity a 'Christian nation'.
Christianity and Islam could just as easily be used for peace as for war. Which it is used for has less to do with the 'religion' itself and more to do with the people using it.
Either way we should continue in PM unless you can bring it back to the OP topic.
|
On December 18 2014 08:27 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 02:17 LilClinkin wrote:On December 18 2014 01:42 Tien wrote:
Let's talk about today, not what a 14th century Christian would do. This is key. You can't talk about an idea such as religion and how people adopt it into their behaviors without considering the context/environment in which those people live. I agree with you when you say that a modern day Christian or Catholic living in our Western society would not do the same things that we see extremist Muslims from terrorist organisations such as ISIS doing. But, if you change the context ie. take a modern day Christian person and put them back in the 14 century, then the way they will behave will likely be different. Just like in my hypothetical example, if you took people from different religious faiths ie. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and changed the context in which they were living, then you would very likely observe different behaviors than what you see today. History has proved this to be true repeatedly. It's apologies like these that make me thankful that I've never really considered myself a moral or empathetic person.
I'm not apologising for them. I'm trying to demonstrate an understanding of why they do what they do, which is something many people are incapable of (or even worse, don't even attempt). If you want to come up with a solution to make them stop, you need to understand why they're doing the things they do. If your solution is to kill them all, well perhaps that's a legitimate (albeit extreme) solution. A poor solution is to invade their country and try to change their way of thinking (ie. create a Democracy), because this is actually what incited their violence initially. Another poor solution is to attack the idea of Islam; It's just an idea and isn't inherently good or bad, and once again, you'd incite them to violence due to their perception of being persecuted. You're just as likely to convince Muslims to not follow Islam as you are to convince a fundamentalist Christian that God doesn't exist and that evolution occurred ie. never going to happen.
|
How about just letting them do with they will with themselves? it's their lives and their land. They obviously want an Islamic state, let's just do business with them when they get it all settled.
|
I agree, leaving them to their own business is a possible solution.
|
My personal measure of whether a muslim is extremist or not is based on their position on the penalty for apostates (arbitrary i know).
Apologists like to point to Indonesia as the premier example of moderate peaceful Islam, but even there according to polls 18% of muslims support death for apostasy.
Now if you agree with where I've drawn the line on who is and who isn't an extremist, then it's pretty clear that we have a big fucking problem. What is an acceptable extremist minority? .5 %? 1%? 2%? 5%?.
Here we have a best case scenario of 1 in 5 being extremist.
|
On December 18 2014 11:37 ShadeR wrote:
Apologists like to point to Indonesia as the premier example of moderate peaceful Islam, but even there according to polls 18% of muslims support death for apostasy.
Don't misquote statistics. 18% of the Indonesian muslims who believe Sharia law should be state law (72%) support death for apostasy (so it's more like 13%). Countries like Azerbaijan and Turkey on the other hand have muslim populations that barely support Sharia law at all (8% and 12% respectively). Kazakstani muslims support of death for apostasy is close to 3%. Turkish muslims are around 2%. Saying the best case is 1 in 5 is gross misrepresentation.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
|
Interesting how the Pakistan situation does not even warrant its own thread but this one gets so much attention. Baffles me sometimes on how we value the lives of people different to us.
|
On December 18 2014 12:53 yandere991 wrote:
Interesting how the Pakistan situation does not even warrant its own thread but this one gets so much attention. Baffles me sometimes on how we value the lives of people different to us.
As someone who was working in the office building right next to the event. I am quite surprised as well. After the initial shock, it was quite obvious this was the work of a mentally ill person who happens to be Muslim rather than a terrorist attack. If he was of any other religion and did the same thing people would not be jumping to these conclusion or it getting the coverage.
|
On December 18 2014 12:53 yandere991 wrote:
Interesting how the Pakistan situation does not even warrant its own thread but this one gets so much attention. Baffles me sometimes on how we value the lives of people different to us.
Its baffling to me that you dont value lives differently. I can easily rank lives value. Mine, then family, friends, community members, those who share ideals with me, everyone else. Why would I care about someone i've never met over someone who makes my life better?
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On December 18 2014 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 08:36 Nyxisto wrote:On December 18 2014 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love how non-Muslims 'know' all about the Quran and 'Jihad'...
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Jihad means "Struggle" not "Holy War"
Can you show me an authority of the Muslim word who considers trying to get more women into college his jihad? The jihad of protecting minorities? It's nice that a twitter account with 2k followers promotes this idea, but how does this change anything about reality? There are 1.5 billion Muslim people on this planet. If doing hard work to feed your family is the true jihad, why aren't millions of people using this hashtag every day? Well this is one example. Show nested quote +-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. SourceIf I had to guess why, it would be basically the same reason millions of Catholics don't believe in evolution or a multi-billion year old universe. It's not because their religion/religious texts forbid it, (The Pope [their ultimate earthly authority] says that it's not in conflict with the religion) but because of ignorance, fear, and confused 'faith'.
Using George W as your reference doesn't help your case. We all agree George W Bush is a monster and I was arguing against that Neo con Excalibur on this very forum 10 years ago about how stupid he was for believing in the Iraq War and that entire Weapons of Mass destruction fiasco.
Military action is very rare as a form of Jihad? The entire Islam faith was built on Jihad, Mohammad consolidated the entire Arabic region through blood of the sword via "Jihad". Mohammad's ancestors took up what he did. Killing thousands of innocent people is "minor Jihad" meanwhile praying in your head is Major Jihad? Who are you selling this idea to?
A lot of followers today use that exact term "Jihad" as justification for doing what they do.
When extremist Taliban coordinates a terrorist strike and shoots up a school, they yell "Alluha Akbar" after every single child killed, and you don't think they believe this is "Jihad"? There is both religious and political issues here and its completely within reason to criticize both.
|
you can call ISIS anything you want, and even parts of Islam that are certifiably fucked up.
but blaming 1.3 billion people and ALL of their religion is fucked up as well.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
I'm not blaming 1.5 billion people for anything. I'm criticizing the actual ideas within their belief system and its perfectly reasonable to do so given current events.
|
On December 18 2014 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how non-Muslims 'know' all about the Quran and 'Jihad'... I do not think this word means what you think it means. Jihad means "Struggle" not "Holy War" https://twitter.com/myjihadorgAs for Christians killing innocent Muslims (men, women and children) in the name of god/their religion... Show nested quote + "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it." Source
Jihad has different forms one of which is infact "holy war".
Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Majid Khadduri: War and Peace in the Law of Islam, p. 56
btw that guy knew more about islam than your twitter source or you will ever know.
|
On December 19 2014 01:26 Tien wrote:
I'm not blaming 1.5 billion people for anything. I'm criticizing the actual ideas within their belief system and its perfectly reasonable to do so given current events.
you don't see anything wrong with that statement? anything at all?
and it's not just "current" events. they believed the things they believe in, long before 9/11. or before they migrated to EU and various other places. and you won't destroy ISIS or fundamentalists by condemning them, you have to have the muslims hate them themselves. show them for what those fucks are.
they do a great job anyway with that atrocious and despicable peshara massacre for example, but the US droning terrorists as well as civilians and calling it OK does not help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
