Just what we need, more extremists to fuel the flames of a holy war. I think this guy should get reassigned as a sign to American Muslims as well as Muslims around the world, that we truly are at war with criminal terrorists, not with Islam.


Article

Reassign him?

How about charging him with 'Conduct Unbecoming an Officer' and for 'bringing the service into disrepute'?

Then follow that up with a nice posting to Alaska...

[ 10-17-2003, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

That is indeed not a very smart thing to say in times like this. :rolleyes:

<font color=deepskyblue>Sorry guys, but I have to disagree here. The officer in question is also an evangelical Christian, which means he feels a strong commitment to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians that feel this kind of commitment also feel that God comes first in their life before anything else - including job, family, etc. The comments he made were done so in church and at prayer breakfasts. That is a perfectly acceptable forum for expressing religious beliefs. If he were making these same comments in his morning prep talks to the troops, that would be different.

I also can't help but wonder how "offensive" his statements would be if he were Muslim and was being critical of the Christian God in his prayer breakfasts and church sermons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a far less vilification of his comments and a much smaller outcry for his reassignment. Instead, we would be hearing arguments that the military ought to respect his religious beliefs.

However, I do agree with <font color=silver>Johnny</font> that this may not be the best time for him to make these kind of comments.</font>

[ 10-17-2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

Oh, have no fear; I, at least, have ample venom in reserve for demagogues of all shapes and brands ;)

Nothing wrong with having those views or making the coments. He's just in the wrong job.

<font color=orange>Actually, he is a RETIRED General, however is an Under Secretary in the Defense Department that happens to be overseeing these operations. In otherwords he is a civilian. My personal view is that he needs to be re-assigned to another part of the Pentagon or asked to leave so that he can go back to his speaking circuit. His creditials are impeccable though as a soldier.

And what if Islam is at war with America, American values, American attitudes, American people and American religious freedoms? What then?

By at war I mean, at odds with, and presenting a hostile and revolutionary life ideology, with implimentation through proselytisation, terrorism, the free market, politics and any other means.

What then?

And what if Islam is at war with America, American values, American attitudes, American people and American religious freedoms? What then?

By at war I mean, at odds with, and presenting a hostile and revolutionary life ideology, with implimentation through proselytisation, terrorism, the free market, politics and any other means.

What then? </font>[/QUOTE]There is no "what then" because that is not the case, ask Muhammad Ali.

Like President Bush said: terrorists have hijacked a religion.

Certain extremist Christians are at odds with the American people, American values, American attitudes, and American religious freedom but doesn't mean they all are. Same logic applies to Islam.

Casting Muslims with a broad brush and painting Islam on the whole as at "war" with America is nothing more than a sensational generalization. There is no "what then".

Of course if extremists like this General use there power to wage holy war and demonize the "whole" of Islam for some of it's self- proclaimed "parts" then we may very well have a war with Islam. For Islam would have no choice but to defend itself from perceived "Christian agression".

[ 10-17-2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

I'll discredit extremism, whether it is Islamic or Christian.

This fellow having a prominent position in the war on Terror, the War on "hijacked Islam", sends a message to Muslims that we don't tolerate it when Extremist Muslims call for holy war, but we will overlook it when Extremist Christians do.

On the other hand... how many times don't we hear Muslims speak about "the great white satan", or about "infidel imperialistic pigs", and rant about how decadent and rotten our society is ?

I never hear anyone complain about that. So why must all hell break loose if someone says something similar about their world ?

You're kidding me right? You're quoting George Bush as an expert on a foreign culture????

A truer statement would be "Islam has hijacked terrorism". The people were Muslims before they were terrorists. Terrorism is a means, not an end. Islam provides the ends, terrorism the means. Unless you're proposing that there is a generalised personality type that is predisposed towards terrorism throughout history. A global organisation that decided to use Islam to achieve it's ends.

Hardly.

Interesting, except and extremist fundamentalist Christian would be someone who lives not unlike say Ghandi or some other extreme Pacifistic, possession avoiding person. Following in the path of Jesus to the extreme would involve dying for other people. A Muslim fundamentalist following in the exact path of Mohammad would raze cities and kill women and children.

The difference is in the ideology.

I asked a hypothetical question. What would you do if Islam WAS at war with America? What then? There is no brush stroke. It's a hypothetical.

Again, I said "at war with America" not "at war with Christianity."

Islam is of course "At war with Christianity" but the battlefield is in the hearts and minds of humans, not cities or armies. If a thing conflicts with a thing, it is at war. Islam and Christianity cannot both reside in the same place - a persons mind - so they are at war with each other.

I however, asked what would you do if Islam was at war with AMERICA. If it's values, ideal, aims and objectives directly coaligned with the destruction of your country.

What would you do then?

You're kidding me right? You're quoting George Bush as an expert on a foreign culture????

</font>[/QUOTE]I'm full of suprises sometimes, aren't I? [img]smile.gif[/img]

You are showing an embarrassing level of ignorance of the life of Mohammad - his life was not unlike that of Jesus - and Islamic belief, as you probably do not know, reveres Jesus as fellow prohphet of the *<u>same</u>* god.

Of course, as a non-muslim, you do not need to know about Mohammad or Islam - but you owe it to yourself (if only to not look foolish in front of your peers) to do at least a little reading on the subject before you openly criticise islamic belief.

[ 10-17-2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Apology and Clarification from the General.

Seems thoughtful and sincere enough. He may not be so much an extremist as I had previously considered. Though a decent PR machine can make anyone sound good and he didn't clarify all of his extreme statements, so I shall remain a bit skeptical.

Article

[ 10-17-2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

You are showing an embarrassing level of ignorance of the life of Mohammad - his life was not unlike that of Jesus - and Islamic belief, as you probably do not know, reveres Jesus as fellow prohphet of the *<u>same</u>* god.

Of course, as a non-muslim, you do not need to know about Mohammad or Islam - but you owe it to yourself (if only to not look foolish in front of your peers) to do at least a little reading on the subject before you openly criticise islamic belief. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I have read much of the Qu'ran, many Muhammadian Hadiths and am currently reading a book called "The Islamic Jesus" which explores all the references to Jesus contained in the Qu'ran and Hadiths of various authorship, as well as other oral and literary traditions - collectively informally known as "The Muslim Gospel".

I assure you as a Christian I have made it my business to thoroughly investigate as many alternate paths as possible given my time on this earth, to be assured that the path I am on is the most correct given human fallibility.

Consequently I am very well versed in Muhammads life and story, his marriage, his editting of the Qu'ran after recitation, his initial doubts about the source of his first visions, the removed "satanic verses" advocating polytheism, and am well versed with the explicit instructions contained in both the Qu'ran and his Hadiths regarding war, violence, living amongst Jews and Christians - the "people of the book".

Before you go jumping to conclusions about my own research, simply because it contradicts your own preconceptions, why not kindly ask me what I have read before you denigrate my position.

As it is, I'll ask you.

Have you read the Qu'ran? Do you, as I do, even own a copy of the Qu'ran?
What Hadiths have you read?

The simple fact that you mention that Muhammad revered Jesus as a fellow prophet of the same God, shows your OWN level of ignorance of the difference between not only Christianity and Islam, but also the perceptions Islam has of Christianity,

Are you aware of the Surahs in the Qu'ran where Isa (Jesus) answers Allah about the Christians belief in his deity for example?

The difference between Christianity and every other world religion, is that we believe Yeshua was God on this earth. Fully God, fully human.

Islam declares Jesus is not God, and even decrys Jesus crucifixion. Some Muslim schools of thought hold that Jesus never died at all! But that Judas was substituted for him on the cross.

Many contradictions abound.

In any case the most glaring being that Jesus told his disciples to put down their swords when he was being arrested. He willingly went to die for other people. Muhammad on the other hand waged ruthless and bloody wars and died an old man uncertain of what Allah would do with him.

Which leads to the single biggest problem in Islam. If you lead a life imitating the Islamic exemplar, Muhammad, you HAVE NO ASSURANCE OF SALVATION. As not even Muhammad had such assurance.

However, the Qu'ran quite clearly and succinctly declares assurance of salvation for those muslims martyred, those killed in Holy War.

Protest all you want, but I have read the verses many times, and posted them on Ironworks before, and will do so again if requested.

Or you could simply do your own research.

A Christian has assurance of salvation through accepting the atoning blood of Jesus. A Muslim must shed their own blood as a Martyr to have assurance of salvation. Very big difference.

As to "the same God", that is a matter of contention. Assuredly Allah means "God" in Arabic, but the attributes of Allah differ vastly from the Triune God of Christianity. In Christianity, you see Jesus, you see God. Jesus is God. He said to his disciples, that because they knew him, they knew God.

Allah on the other hand, is not Triune, is far more vengeful and destructive, doesn't offer forgiveness and grace through his death.

So I repeat.

A Christian fundamentalist taking his religion to a legalistic extreme would resemble Ghandi, who it could be argued has most closely followed in the steps of Jesus in recent times. His life is an interesting study in a person trying to follow Jesus without knowing him as the living God and possessing the indwelling Holy Spirit, whereas as Christians we believe Jesus is IN us, enabling relationship with God, (not perfection).

A muslim fundamentalist, is as we observe, a Wahabist terrorist perhaps. Bear in mind, Wahabist Islam (a fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam) has commited more atrocities against fellow muslims than any other faith. Saudi Arabia and the Taliban are Wahabist btw.

The term "Christian aggression" is an oxymoron. I would argue that a Christian that goes to war is RECONCILING his beliefs, in the same way that a Muslim who does NOT go to war is RECONCILING his beliefs.

The Qu'ran and Hadiths are quite clear in it's exaltation of those that go to war against the infidel, over and above those that stay at home or do business with them. Quite clear. The New Testament is quite clear that violence, even retalliation previously and currently justified under Jewish law, is completely unacceptable if taking a legalistic viewpoint.

So.... I am not making a statement in ignorance, and as I said, quite happy to either post the respective verses and their context as proof.

Adios

Yorick.

[ 10-18-2003, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorick, I didn't *need* to ask you what you had read to denigrate your position. You had made a statement that erred to such a degree that no further questions were neccessary - and you have repeated that error once more in your response: "However, the Qu'ran quite clearly and succinctly declares assurance of salvation for those muslims martyred, those killed in Holy War"

Actually, the Qu'ran declares assurance of salvation of those muslims martyred or killed while on a <u>Jihad</u> - not on a holy war.
Jihad simply means 'to strive' - and it has many facets. The man who wanders into the desert by himself to ponder the meaning of 'God's word' is on a Jihad. The one who gives all of his money to the poor and struggles to help them is also on a Jihad. The woman who jumps into a river to save the life of a child is on a Jihad. The Iranian lawyer who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize for peace is on a personal Jihad too. Tareq Ayyoub the Al Jazeera correspondant who was killed covering the Anglo-Iraq war and who had been beaten, tortured and detained in several middle-eastern states for reporting the truth about those regimes was also on a Jihad.

If you have misconstrued this basic term, then your reading has been for naught - because it is the most basic ideal of Islam, from which all of the philosophy springs.

[ 10-18-2003, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

We do the same johnny. How many times have you heard that the Arab nations are uncivilized etc.? Heck we even do it to Asia as well.

Interesting post Yorick, the last one. I mean that. Of course that's your interpretation, one of I don't know how many. And that's also the problem. One verse can be interpreted as a peaceful message by one wheras another man finds it to be a message of holy war. But could you point out the verse that says "Islam provides the ends, terrorism the means" please? ;) And don't bring up martyrism since that is definitely not an answer...

<font color=deepskyblue>I've been giving this thread a lot of thought over the last couple of days, especially the original comments made by the general. And after careful consideration, I still don't see anything inherently wrong with what he said and in the context which it was said. Let's look at some of the key issues.

He said that the Islam god is an idol. He has since gone on to clarify his meaning in this statement, but taken at face value, it is still consistent with his Christian beliefs. Christianity holds that there is one - and only one - God. If Allah is different than God, that means that (according to Christian faith) he is a false god - or idol. You may or may not agree with that concept, but I have had to endure the same statements being made about my God on this very forum numerous times. That doesn't mean there is any inherently malicious intent in the statement itself....it is simply a statement of ones beliefs.

The general said he knew his God was more powerful than his enemies god. Again, from a Christian perspective, this is just a true reflection of his beliefs. Christians do believe that only one Omnipotent Being exists. By definition, all other gods would be weaker than God.

The general also said the "true enemy" he was facing in this confict was Satan. This is by far the truest statement and reflection of his Christian beliefs. In saying that the enemy is Satan, he is NOT implying that the Islamic faith worships Satan. Rather, he is correctly stating that Satan has managed to convince a handful of fanatics to commit unspeakable atrocities in the NAME of the Islamic faith. By doing this, he has caused anger and resentment towards those of the Islamic faith here, and given atheists and other non-beleivers more "proof" that ALL religions are inherently "bad". Satan doesn't like religious beliefs of any kind, and anything he can do to smear religion in general is considered a victory in his eyes.

Finally, for those who say the general should be reassigned from such a "sensitive and important policy making position" due to his beliefs...that's all well and good. Provided you are willing to call for the same reassignment of any top aides on the Muslim side who may personally believe that America IS the "Great Satan". After all, we wouldn't want anyone with extreme beliefs to be in a decision-making or policy-influencing position and I'm certain we could agree that this should apply to both sides of the equation equally. ;)

I'm already seeing arguments about people "misinterpreting" or "misunderstanding" the Muslims and their religion. However, I see just as much misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the Christian religion by these same members. Just because the general may have these personal beliefs does NOT mean he is going to call for a "holy war" based on these beliefs. President Bush holds the same fundamentalist beliefs as the general, yet he was the first to say that this was NOT a war on Muslims and that Americans should NOT hold Muslims in general responsible for the acts of a few. I also hold the same beliefs of the general, but I also realize that the terrorist acts of 9/11 are no more representative of the Muslim faith than the KKK is of the Christian faith, even though both groups claim these faith systems as the guiding force behind their actions.

BTW, I think it shows a lot about the generals Christian character that he felt the need to issue an apology and offer clarification of the statements he made. Remember, the only real argument his opponents have is that he was wearing his uniform when he made some of these statements, even though the statements were made in a perfectly acceptable forum. If the general truly were the "zealot" many are trying to paint him as, he would have felt no need to offer an apology or clarification of his comments.</font>

[ 10-18-2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

Yorick, I didn't *need* to ask you what you had read to denigrate your position. You had made a statement that erred to such a degree that no further questions were neccessary - and you have repeated that error once more in your response: "However, the Qu'ran quite clearly and succinctly declares assurance of salvation for those muslims martyred, those killed in Holy War"

Actually, the Qu'ran declares assurance of salvation of those muslims martyred or killed while on a <u>Jihad</u> - not on a holy war.
Jihad simply means 'to strive' - and it has many facets. The man who wanders into the desert by himself to ponder the meaning of 'God's word' is on a Jihad. The one who gives all of his money to the poor and struggles to help them is also on a Jihad. The woman who jumps into a river to save the life of a child is on a Jihad. The Iranian lawyer who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize for peace is on a personal Jihad too. Tareq Ayyoub the Al Jazeera correspondant who was killed covering the Anglo-Iraq war and who had been beaten, tortured and detained in several middle-eastern states for reporting the truth about those regimes was also on a Jihad.

If you have misconstrued this basic term, then your reading has been for naught - because it is the most basic ideal of Islam, from which all of the philosophy springs. </font>[/QUOTE]Again you are both incorrect, and quick to display a willingness to swallow politically correct propaganda.

The Hadiths and Qu'ran make clear examples of WARRIORS falling in battle. Distinction is made between those that stay at home, and those that take up arms. It is not a simple as reconciling the word "Jihad", for examples, stories are offered that clarify the intent. Additionally, the word itself, translated as struggle or strive IMPLIES "al-Qitaa" the physical fight.

Your interpretation of "Jihad" is precisely what I'm saying about a peaceful Muslim RECONCILING the more violent aspects of Islam. Good for them. I'm glad they do. Wish more would.

It doesn't change the reality of what they do.

I once dated a Muslim girl who had reconciled many aspects. I do as I said, know what I'm talking about, and if you cared to purschase a copy of the Qu'ran and read it as I have done, you may find you see things as I've described.

Certainly when Saddam Hussein calls for a Jihad against the West, Islam knows what he means. When the wife of a Hamas terrorist is exultant now that her husband or son is a Martyr, exultant that he is in paradise, it's not to hard to see the correllation with the teachings in the Qu'ran.

A persons perception is their reality. It solves nothing to look at suicide terrorists and call them "madmen" "insane" or whatever. What they do is perfectly logical and understandable given their worldview.

Were my world shit, devoid of money, pleasure or food, lived in constant fear and oppression, I would possibly look at an assurance of an eternity in paradise as a viable option too.

It is pointless to deride my interpretation, when it co-aligns with the interpretation of the vast majority of Islamics, especially the terrorists - whose mindset is the one I am seeking to understand. Living in New York during 9/11 gave me a sense of urgency in seeking why the willingness to die for a cause - an action of incredible power - was used to destroy instead of build.

Western Muslims are already reconciling the commands not to be doing business with us. It is no wonder they have reconciled Jihad.

As I said, good for them.

I sincerly recommend you read the Qu'ran for yourself, and develop your own understanding before continuing this discussion. Regurgitating politically correct propaganda does nothing for your argument, and clearly inhibits your ability to read mine with any degree of open mindedness.

Until such a time, there is not much more I have to say on the subject.


-----------------
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 558:
Narrated Anas:

Haritha was martyred on the day (of the battle) of Badr while he was young. His mother came to the Prophet saying, "O Allah's Apostle! You know the relation of Haritha to me (how fond of him I was); so, if he is in Paradise, I will remain patient and wish for Allah's reward, but if he is not there, then you will see what I will do." The Prophet replied, "May Allah be merciful upon you! Have you gone mad? (Do you think) it is one Paradise? There are many Paradises and he is in the (most superior) Paradise of Al-Firdaus."


Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out."


Surah 009:111
God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.


Surah 3:169-71
"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah...the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They rejoice in the Grace and the Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least)."


Volume 9, Book 90, Number 333:
Narrated Al-A'rai:

Abu Huraira said, Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand my life is, I would love to fight in Allah's Cause and then get martyred and then resurrected (come to life) and then get martyred and then resurrected (come to life) and then get martyred, and then resurrected (come to life) and then get martyred and then resurrected (come to life)." Abu Huraira used to repeat those words three times and I testify to it with Allah's Oath.


Volume 4, Book 53, Number 412:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

Allah's Apostle said on the day of the conquest of Mecca, "There is no migration now, but there is Jihad (i.e.. holy battle) and good intentions. And when you are called for Jihad, you should come out at once"
Allah's Apostle also said, on the day of the conquest of Mecca, "Allah has made this town a sanctuary since the day He created the Heavens and the Earth. So, it is a sanctuary by Allah's Decree till the Day of Resurrection. Fighting in it was not legal for anyone before me, and it was made legal for me only for an hour by daytime. So, it (i.e. Mecca) is a sanctuary by Allah's Decree till the Day of Resurrection. Its thorny bushes should not be cut, and its game should not be chased, its fallen property (i.e. Luqata) should not be picked up except by one who will announce it publicly; and its grass should not be uprooted," On that Al-'Abbas said, "O Allah's Apostle! Except the Idhkhir, because it is used by the goldsmiths and by the people for their houses." On that the Prophet said, "Except the Idhkhir."


***NB: "Holy Battle" is the Narrator and translators definition, not mine. I have not added a word. - Yorick ***

[ 10-18-2003, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I have no need to buy a copy of the Qu'ran - I am fortunate to have been given two copies, one in english and one in arabic (although I must admit that I have persused the arabic copy much less as my arabic is far from adequate to study the book in that language).
Throughout my time in the middle-east I have had many late night, coffee-filled evenings of talk on the subject of Islam with some very authoritive speakers. It became almost a ritual as, at some point in the evening, I was always asked the same tired old question of Why do westerners, hate/fear/loathe/look down upon us? A heavy debate on the merits and failings of Islam always seemed to follow - as much of western prejudice is incorrectly linked to Islam - when the reality of the 'failings' has far more to do with historical social and political issues than the religion itself.

Jihad is a SPIRITUAL BATTLE - not a physical one. If you can not accept this basic precept, and transpose the meaning to its direct opposite, you will *of course* see Islam in a bad light.

It's akin to transposing the word 'love' in Jesus's sermons for the word 'murder'. I could then say that Jesus never promulgated 'love thy neighbour' but instead asked people to 'murder thy neighbour'. A 'small' misinterpretation along those lines has a dramatic effect upon the meaning and easily casts an innocent phrase into one with an ominous tone.

Likewise, quoting excerpts from the Qu'ran out of context can also lead to misassumptions on the relgion. I could say, for example that in the bible it states: [/i]"You may hear that the residents in one of the cities which the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 have been led away from the LORD your God by worthless people. You may hear that these people have been saying, "Let's worship other gods." 14 Then make a thorough investigation. If it is true, and you can prove that this disgusting thing has been done among you, 15 you must kill the residents of that city with swords and destroy that city and everyone in it, including the animals, because they are claimed by God. 16 Gather their goods into the middle of the city square. Then burn their city and all their goods as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. It must remain a mound of ruins and never be rebuilt." (Deuteronomy chapter 13)
Aha! So in the bible it states that anyone who doesn't worship 'our' god should be put to the sword - so Christians want to kill all people who worship other religions because their god tells them to!


You see how ridiculous it gets when you take passages out of context and 'misinterpret' important words?

Clearly we will not see eye to eye on this.
Let's agree to differ.

<font color=deepskyblue>Ok, I'm gonna get a little out of line here and do the dreaded mini-Mod routine. I sincerely ask BOTH of you to let this issue drop with your last posts rather than filling up a page with off-topic arguments of semantics and misinterpretations. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

<font color=yellow>Yorick</font> - I love you like a brother, my friend, but sometimes you get entirely too hung up on semantics. I understand that word definitions are more of a concrete item than theological interpretations, but you sometimes get so carried away in insisting the other party accept the definition you have provided in a given situation, even after it's clearly obvious this isn't going to happen. Let it go, my friend, and concentrate on the larger picture.

<font color=white>Skunk</font> - We've had our differences of opinion in the past and I'm sure we'll continue to do so, but that has nothing to do with my comments here. Please forgive me for being blunt, but your accusation that <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> basically keep his mouth shut until he has actually studied the Muslim religion was simply an ignorant statement to make. Not ignorant as in stupid, rather it was ignorant as in showing a lack of knowledge. You've been around the board more than long enough to read <font color=yellow>Yorick's</font> comments in other "religious threads" and in threads dealing with Islamic religion. It wouldn't have taken long to realize that he has studied the Islamic faith in great detail. Just because he hasn't reached the same interpretations or conclusions as you does not mean he hasn't done his research on the subject. If that were true, I could claim you haven't adequately researched Christianity, since haven't reached the "correct" interpretations from my point of view. Or I could (and do) simply accept the fact that you don't view it the same way I do. Again, I apologize for being so frank, but I really don't want to see this thread get derailed for two pages by a personal argument.

I agree with your final statement completely. Just agree to disagree and leave it at that.</font>

I have no need to buy a copy of the Qu'ran - I am fortunate to have been given two copies, one in english and one in arabic (although I must admit that I have persused the arabic copy much less as my arabic is far from adequate to study the book in that language).
Throughout my time in the middle-east I have had many late night, coffee-filled evenings of talk on the subject of Islam with some very authoritive speakers. It became almost a ritual as, at some point in the evening, I was always asked the same tired old question of Why do westerners, hate/fear/loathe/look down upon us? A heavy debate on the merits and failings of Islam always seemed to follow - as much of western prejudice is incorrectly linked to Islam - when the reality of the 'failings' has far more to do with historical social and political issues than the religion itself.

Jihad is a SPIRITUAL BATTLE - not a physical one. If you can not accept this basic precept, and transpose the meaning to its direct opposite, you will *of course* see Islam in a bad light.

It's akin to transposing the word 'love' in Jesus's sermons for the word 'murder'. I could then say that Jesus never promulgated 'love thy neighbour' but instead asked people to 'murder thy neighbour'. A 'small' misinterpretation along those lines has a dramatic effect upon the meaning and easily casts an innocent phrase into one with an ominous tone.

Likewise, quoting excerpts from the Qu'ran out of context can also lead to misassumptions on the relgion. I could say, for example that in the bible it states: [/i]"You may hear that the residents in one of the cities which the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 have been led away from the LORD your God by worthless people. You may hear that these people have been saying, "Let's worship other gods." 14 Then make a thorough investigation. If it is true, and you can prove that this disgusting thing has been done among you, 15 you must kill the residents of that city with swords and destroy that city and everyone in it, including the animals, because they are claimed by God. 16 Gather their goods into the middle of the city square. Then burn their city and all their goods as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. It must remain a mound of ruins and never be rebuilt." (Deuteronomy chapter 13)
Aha! So in the bible it states that anyone who doesn't worship 'our' god should be put to the sword - so Christians want to kill all people who worship other religions because their god tells them to!


You see how ridiculous it gets when you take passages out of context and 'misinterpret' important words?

Clearly we will not see eye to eye on this.
Let's agree to differ. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't agree to disagree. You are incorrect in your accusation that I knew nothing of Islam and that I had made a grievious error about Muhammad.

One of the Hadiths I quoted mentions Muhammad speaking after he led a conquest of Mecca. My very point, long ago in this thread, that you took issue with, was that Muhammad had waged war. Physical war, and destroyed cities and the lives of children. A point which you contested by saying I knew nothing about Islam and that Muhammad and Jesus were both prophets of the same God.

Despite our conversation, you are yet to apologise for this unwarranted attack.

Regarding this post. Please. Don't give me the "out of context" bullshit. If you had even read the Quran, or the Hadiths in your alleged possession, you would understand the Poetic way in which the Quran is written is very different to the narrative style of many of the Bibles books. The Hadiths as well, are posted COMPLETE. Mini stories and sayings. There is no more context to provide. In actual fact THE CONTEXT of what I posted points precisely to Jihad being Holy War. DID YOU EVEN READ MY QUOTES? Or did you blithely dismiss them with a cursory glance. THEY ARE IRREFUTABLE. In the context, the Jihad is physical battles. Islam itself was born in a time and place of regular violent struggle. Many Hadiths are records of saying of Muhammad after one battle or another.

Going back to the poetry of the Qu';ran, it was the poetry, the form of the Qu'ran, in Arabic, poetry of the highest quality, which Muhammad and others used as proof it was divinely inspired.

As such, comparing it to the arguments and threads of thinking in the Bibles books is totally innacurate and incorrect. I posted IN CONTEXT. As I said, read for yourself before regurgitating opinions. Even if they are opinions of wonderfully wise Islamic gentlemen in the Middle East. Bear in mind in their eyes you are still "only a woman."

An intersting paradox is that Muhammad asked a woman - his wife - as to whether the initial vision he had was from God or from the Devil. He was unsure. It was she, who told him it was from God.

Anyway that's all beside the point. The point initially was, that Jesus did not take up arms against the Roman oppressors despite people longing for him to lead Israel to freedom. Muahmmad by contrast DID take up arms and conquer, pillage and kill. Physically. His anecdotes were physical. He gives strict instructions as to physical matters of waging war, making peace, treating enemies.

"Jihad" can be viewed in the same light as the Christian use of "Grace". Grace has a meaning. In Christian theology the word has far greater significance than, "charitable generosity". Similarly, Jihad literally means strive or struggle, but as I wrote implies physical fight, and contextually regularly means "Holy War". The translator of the last Hadith - which I presume you did not read - translates Jihad in the context of the Hadith as "Holy War". Which was the context I was initially speaking about when you chose to take issue with me.

I stand by my initial points. There is nothing you have posted - no proof, no quotes, no counter commentaries on the specific passages I quoted - nothing that in any way indicates I am incorrect or unreasonable in making the statments I did. Especially considering comparing the teachings to the actions of the professed followers finds harmony.

One must always compare the source work with the actions of those who claim to follow the source work.

A quick glance of the New testament, find the crusades totally at odds with following Jesus, so we can ascertain religion was used by politicians in that instance. A comprehensive study of Hadths and the Qu'ran, finds the actions of certain militant Muslims resonating with what is written, not conflicting.

I repeat, I am delighted Islam brings peace and harmony to peoples lives. I have no problem with Muslims. I dated a Muslim girl, as I mentioned. My point remains though, that if you follow the life of Islams exemplar to the letter, you would wage war, kill and destroy. If you followed the Christian exemplar, you would die instead of those you love and love your enemies, forgiving them even as they killed you. If you followed Jesus you would, in love, die for the very people that kill you.

[ 10-19-2003, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Context or not, this passage you have posted is from the OLD TESTAMENT, and only serves to show that you could, by taking the narrative style of the bible (as opposed to the poetic style of the qu'ran) out of context, justify war in Judaism.

We all know Judaism allows retaliatation. Israelis are open about that.

The New Testament does not. Christianity does not. (from a legalistic literal interpretative point of view)

I addressed the fact that the Hadiths are complete entities in my previous post, and that the context actually supports what I am saying.

[ 10-19-2003, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Where else do I go Cerek? This is the Current events forum, and this thread is about perceptions of Islam. I've already been hounded out of GenCon despite not breaching any T.O.S. :( The issue of what Jihad means is fiercly debated by Muslim clerics. Usually western ones emphasising the spiritual aspect, while historically the physical element has been emphasised. (See the violent expansion and conquests of Muslims INCLUDING Muhammads own armies as proof of this)

Semantics in this case can mean life or death for some Muslims. Martyrdom means something altogether different with a different twist. Were Skunk correct, 9/11 would not have happened. :( :( I sincerely wish she was correct.

If you read the first post you will see this thread is actually about about extremism in Christianity. Which has been somewhat explained, somewhat clarified, somewhat glossed over, and somewhat deflected from to discuss extremism in Islam instead.

edit- not that I mind off-topic discussion, as long as it is respectful of course. There is room here for most everyones opinions and perspectives. We can be straight to the point and respectful. I have seen it happen. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-19-2003, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Where else do I go Cerek? This is the Current events forum, and this thread is about perceptions of Islam. I've already been hounded out of GenCon despite not breaching any T.O.S. :( </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>The obvious answer would be to PM's, but if you feel your point is worthy of a continued discussion in an open forum so others can weigh in with their opinions too, then a separate thread would be the best answer. I'm not asking you or <font color=white>Skunk</font> either one to compromise your beliefs. Just suggesting that this current argument could well become a complete thread on it's own and then it wouldn't be taking this one off-topic. I'm not asking you to keep quiet or not stand up for your beliefs....just saying that a new thread might be in order to continue this particular discussion.

And of course, just butting my nose in where it probably doesn't belong...but you especially know there are times when I don't let a little thing like that stop me. ;) </font>

If you read the first post you will see this thread is actually about about extremism in Christianity. Which has been somewhat explained, somewhat clarified, somewhat glossed over, and somewhat deflected from to discuss extremism in Islam instead.

edit- not that I mind off-topic discussion, as long as it is respectful of course. There is room here for most everyones opinions and perspectives. We can be straight to the point and respectful. I have seen it happen. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]This is why I brought up Islam. You keep speaking about extreme Christianity, or extremist Christianity, but totallt ignore the necessity of defining it by using the respective teachings.

A murderer killing in the name of Jesus is an oxymoron. False. Not a Christian extremist, but someone using Jesus name to justify something incorrectly. There is nothing in Jesus life or teachings that would indicate murdering in his name is following Christ IN EXTREME MEASURES.

It would actually NOT be following Christ. Were he present, he would tell the person to lay down their weapon.

I used Islam as a COMPARISON, to highlight that Muhammad would be fighting alongside the Muslim extremist who resorts to violence. Muhammad was a warrior himself.

Extremism is relevent to the beliefs.

A Vegetarian extremist is one that pursues vegetarian eating to the letter, not lax at all. A Pacifist extremist is one that is pacifistic TO THE EXTREME, and so under all circumstances would be nonviolent.

Why can't you see this. The topic offshooted into Islam, because for me to make my point, my example, it seems I needed to prove that what I was speaking about Islam holds - which it does.


EXTREMIST ACTIONS DIFFER DEPENDING ON THE STATED BELIEFS.

Surely this is obvious?

A Monk is a Christian extremist. A nun, also. Mother Theresa is a Christian extremist. Taking Christian beliefs to the extreme application.

Where else do I go Cerek? This is the Current events forum, and this thread is about perceptions of Islam. I've already been hounded out of GenCon despite not breaching any T.O.S. :( </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>The obvious answer would be to PM's, but if you feel your point is worthy of a continued discussion in an open forum so others can weigh in with their opinions too, then a separate thread would be the best answer. I'm not asking you or <font color=white>Skunk</font> either one to compromise your beliefs. Just suggesting that this current argument could well become a complete thread on it's own and then it wouldn't be taking this one off-topic. I'm not asking you to keep quiet or not stand up for your beliefs....just saying that a new thread might be in order to continue this particular discussion.

And of course, just butting my nose in where it probably doesn't belong...but you especially know there are times when I don't let a little thing like that stop me. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]As I stated, for point A to hold, point B was elaborated on. Putting it another thread defeats the purpose of discussing it. It is like working out what the ingredients are before you cook them in a recipe.

You know, in Northern Ireland as a young officer, I saw how two Christian factions were so embittered upon 'misinterpretations' that they used passages from the bible (both Old and New Testament) as justification to blow off the arms and legs of women and children.

After apprehending a protestant paramilitary who had shot off the knee caps of a 15 year old 'alleged' car thief - we asked him what on earth gave him the idea that it was the right thing to do. He replied that the bible passage John 2:15 gave him ample justification:
“Making a whip of cords, he [Jesus] drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables.”
That animal went to prison - no doubt he reconciled that with various passages in the bible that related to jesus's persectution.

I'm pretty sure that most Christians would disagree with his interpretation of the New Testament. The interpretation of a minority should not be used to paint Christian faith as bad, should it? I think that the same goes for Islam.

You know, both of us hold opinions which can not be substantiated as 'fact'. Islamic (and Christian) scholars have been wrestling with these issues for centuries without resolution. Given that, it seems futile to continue the debate (as interesting as it is) as we are unlikely to agree. You have made your point - I have read it - and can not agree. What more is left than to respect each other's point of view and move on?

By the way - I'm a man not a woman - seems we have both made an error of judgement in our assement of each other.


Well, perhaps there is one last thing to say before moving on. There is something that I owe you (as Cerek gently pointed out):
Yorik, I apologise if my assement of the depth of your study was lacking in accuracy - all the more so if it gave rise to offence (as it seems to have done).

Now can we agree to differ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

You know, in Northern Ireland as a young officer, I saw how two Christian factions were so embittered upon 'misinterpretations' that they used passages from the bible (both Old and New Testament) as justification to blow off the arms and legs of women and children.

After apprehending a protestant paramilitary who had shot off the knee caps of a 15 year old 'alleged' car thief - we asked him what on earth gave him the idea that it was the right thing to do. He replied that the bible passage John 2:15 gave him ample justification:
“Making a whip of cords, he [Jesus] drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables.”
That animal went to prison - no doubt he reconciled that with various passages in the bible that related to jesus's persectution.
</font>[/QUOTE]First up, the Wilsons of my family came from Northern Ireland. Secondly, when I was in Ireland I also went to some Catholic Churches (despite being a proestant) and heard messages of peace.

Put simply, to simplify "the troubles" as being a contest between two Christian factions is an extreme insult to the plight of the Irish people in the face of centuries of English repression. It has nothing to do with relgion and everything to do with RACE. The Catholics being Irish, and the Protestants descendents of Scottish and English colonists. Irish were forced to convert to Protestantism by their English overlords in exchange for food. Nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with politics.

Christians following Jesus on both sides seek peace, and would NOT retaliate, but turn the other cheek.

All that is shown by your verse and a subsequent reaction of "justified violence" shows complete stupidity from the protagonist. There is nothing in there that advocates his actions. All that would be justified if you emulated Jesus, would be forcibly throwing out people using a Church to rip off people seeking to worship God - sending a strong warning to corrupt televangelists mind you. He did not kill anyone, maim anyone, or even hit anyone. It's argued he didn't even use "miraculous power". The simple weight was the moral weight. Everyone knew the tax collectors and merchants were ripping people off. They themselves knew it. His violence was against inanimate objects, not life. It does say much about how God feels about people using religion for their own gain however. ;)

A simple reading of the passage provides this truth. Reading of the passages I quoted backs up what I said. Need I remind you, you haven't as yet offered any alternate explainations of what I posted.

[ 10-20-2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I feel that it would be ill-advised to continue a debate in the increasing irascible nature of the posting on this thread. So I am afraid that I will be unable to furnish you with the explanations that you requested.

I look forward to further debates in the future [img]smile.gif[/img]

Coincidentally enough, I happened across an article in the newspaper.

Sometimes it is not who is wrong or who is right, but if both... ... ;)

I feel that it would be ill-advised to continue a debate in the increasing irascible nature of the posting on this thread. So I am afraid that I will be unable to furnish you with the explanations that you requested.

I look forward to further debates in the future [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Debate? You have not, as I have said posted a single counter explaination for the passages I quoted. All you attempted to do, was use a weak "out of context" argument, which was false. The one passage you quoted from the New testament you claimed was used by a person to justify violence, was easily shown to be a gross misunderstanding on the behalf of the perpetrator.

You on the other hand have offered no explainations of the passages I quoted, and now offer a feeble cop-out based on the atmosphere of this thread? The atmosphere exists because you insist on holding a frustratingly incorrect line without seeking to understand what you are defending.

It is clear you don't understand Islamic theology enough to make a coherant argument as to what the passages mean. All you have offered as any reason I should accept your word, is that you had some discussions with wise middle eastern men.

Convince me. Convince me that Jihad does NOT contain implications of a Holy War. Don't just ask me to accept your word. Pull apart the Qu'ran, the Hadiths. If you believe there are contexts supporting your position, show me them.

I have shown you quotes, I have explained the contexts, I have offered as further proof the numbers of adherants actions.

Attempts to deflect, such as using Northern Ireland are ridiculous.

Let's look at Northern Ireland again.

Divide and conquer. Wonderful British legacy. India/Pakistan, Eire/Ulster, Kuwait/Iraq, Palestine/Transjordan, Malaysia/Singapore.

Notice a similarity? Everywhere the British pulled out of, violence errupted. Singapores internal problems subsided, but hostility still remains between the Chinese Singaporeans, and the Malay Malaysians (when I was there Mahathir mobilised the army near the border because of a quote from the Singaporean leader). We all know how Ghandi felt about partition. We all know the result of the creation of the Kuwaiti state, of the creation of Palestine by Britain. Need I say more?

Blaming religion on the Troubles so flies in the face of history and reason.
It's convenient too. It's so much easier to say "Protestant" rather than Scottish/English colonial descendents.

Look at the names for further proof. The "Protestant" surnames are usually English/Scottish in origin. The "Catholic" names, Irish Gaelic.

As further proof, I offer that Catholics and Protestants live harmoniously side by side in every nation of the world other than Northern Ireland. A scientific approach to ascertaining cause and effect, would include looking at all the ingredients for constants in each scenario. For example, the constant in both the Inquisition and Crusades, is the political element. The inconsistency of the teaching of Christianity along with the political aims and objectives of the perpetrators.

Comparison with Islam shows

India/Pakistan - Muslims vs Hindus
Israel/Palestine - Muslims vs Jews
Talban in Afgahnistan - Muslims destroying Buddhist landmarks.
Libya - terrorism vs Islamicly perceived "Christian" nations England and America.
Iran/Iraq - Shiite Muslims vs Sunni Muslims
Saudi Arabia - Wahabist purges

Compare the fruit in the most ardent Muslims. Whether or not they are correct, whether or not they are right, they are justifying their actions in the words and recorded actions of their exemplar Muhammad. Just as he fought wars, so are his followers.
Jihad clearly is ABLE to be read as Holy War, by virtue of people today using it in the context of a Holy War.


Dundee - great post mate. However, I must point out, I have acknowledged Jihad meaning strive/struggle. I have acknowledged the spiritual element to Jihad. I am speaking INCLUSIVELY, not EXCLUSIVELY as Skunk is doing. I am arguing both definitions exist. Skunk is arguing for an exclusively spiritual definition. Yet clearly vast, vast numbers of Muslims disagree, and based on what I have read, and shown here, so do I.

I don't seek irascibility. However, I do take umbrage at suggestions of ignorance or stupidity when a divergent opinion is expressed.

However apology accepted. No worries Skunk.

RE topic ... That General Boykin is something else. I'm not really surprised about his comments. There are many more like him in offices of power. And there are many unlike him also in power. However, Boykin's likeness is more numerous sadly. What makes me uncomfortable are his statements: 1) his God chose Bush to be the President and go to war, 2) This is a Christian nation, and 3) the war is a crusade to drive out Satan. Arggggh! To wage war in the name of their religion?! That is pure discrimination and, dare I say it, racist, against all those who are not of "their kind". Why the hatred? Come on General! Is that why you joined the military just so you can have ALL that power and kill? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I apologize to any who feel I went against any religion but I didn't. I hope I didn't seem that way. :D Namaste. I honor your spirit as I honor mine. ;)

It seems we got an edited apology last week.


Article

It has been mentioned that Islamic Extremism may not be as heavily critisized like the General's remarks have been. In light of this I consider this commentary:
Link

The words of the General in the original news article illustrate some of what I think Christian extremism is. It surely ain't Mother Theresa, more like Pat Robertson.

Here is a site to provide an overview of Christian extremist groups and ideaologies including information about Christian violence through out history, reconstructionists, and the radical right.

Link

Hum... before this thread, I had never heard of jihad as anything other than a holy war, the arab equivalent of the word crusade. I looked at dictionary.com and they define it as physical or spiritual war against infidel and for belief. Does anyone have any links discussing more about the other aspects of the word jihad?

[ 10-21-2003, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

Here is post from GD a while back where I reference this explanation: