Qur'an promote war?

Your post was quite confusing! Anyhow...

schmikbob wrote: Chrysalis, lets take these one at a time then 1. "Individuals (such as Usama Bin Laden etc) cannot give a call for Jihad. Jihad can only be initiated by the Muslim leader of an Islamic State. (i.e. a valid/authorized leader - not Average Abdullah)".  In fact Usama Bin Laden has given a call to Jihad as have numerous others non heads of state.

So? I thought I already explained how only head of state can give a call for Jihad, and not ordinary individuals. So what are you trying to explain with your Usama e.g.? I think my point was pretty self explanatory. Usama's call is not a valid call for Jihad, more so because it doesn't even meet the other requirements.

Bob: Not only that but innummerable muslims have answered this call.  You are saying that all of them are outside the bounds of Islamic Law.

Which call are you talking about? Are you talking about Al-Qaeda? and the WTC bombings? Yes they are all outside the realms of Islam and cannot be termed Islamically valid/legal/allowed. Rather it would be a sin.

2."It is forbidden to kill innocent women/children in a Jihad. Hence it can only be waged against a military or an army. Civilian targets would be forbidden, and would be considered murder - not part of Jihad."  In fact immeasurable targeting of civilians has taken place.  You are saying that all the members of Islam doing this "Jihad" are also outside the bounds of Islamic Law.

I'll repeat myself. Any muslim who claims "jihad" all the while killing civilians such as innocent women, children, people of religion (monks/priests) is performing outside the realms of Islam (/ic law). E.g. WTC, plane bombings, etc.

3. "If a Muslim community (country A) is attacked by a foreign force and has its land occupied, and they call for help from other muslim communities (country B)... that is also a valid Jihad, even though country B wasn't attacked. Since the Muslim Ummah is one nation"  Bob: One recent example of a nation being attacked and it's land occupied is the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.  Oh wait, there was no call for Jihad there and only the US and it's allies chose to intervene.

Pls explain what you're trying to say. If there was no call for Jihad, why are you using this e.g. then?

schmikbob wrote: Sign Reader, your rants are becoming more and more disjoint with code word jargon thrown about so randomly that it is no longer even worth my time to decipher your attempts at using the English language.

Look at your own English!
Who sent you an invitation to gutter snipe here?
BTW the Tomdispatch article was written expressly for knuckleheads like you!
I am telling you! Read the article or you don't, couldn't care less cuz the truth is bitter medicine but also a healer for the sick!



Edited by Sign*Reader - 09 January 2011 at 6:39pm

Sign Reader, your rants are becoming more and more disjoint with code word jargon thrown about so randomly that it is no longer even worth my time to decipher your attempts at using the English language.     

schmikbob wrote: Sign Reader, you need to read a little closer.  I did not say the Muslim leaders of 1300, I said the Muslim leaders of the last 1300 years following the revealing of the Quran.  Also, with reference to European colonialism and Hinduism, just because the Muslim Jihads were halted and pushed back doesn't mean that they didn't occur.  I wonder if you understand what the Christian Crusades were a response to??  Lastly, what was pushed by President Reagan in the 1980's was the rolling back of cummunism and the Soviet Union which succeeded.  It had nothing to do with religion.  How that was done was deplorable only because you and I have perfect 20/20 hindsight.  I'm not sure what "the combined unbelieving NATO forces" have to do with this thread but I've come to accept your throwing around all manner of irrelavent opinions in your relentless attempt to blame all the worlds ills on the United States.

I may unscrew your head and screw it back on the right way...
And I am going to make it bit clearer for a dense agnostic's edification... There were only three dynasties, that held the realm... Ummayads,  Abbasids and then Ottomans and I wouldn't count others like the Mugals etc.
The first one got established after a settling a conflict amongst Muslims, the second one after an insurrection led by a non Arab group against the last Ummayad ruler and the third one was a Turkish interest that began by consolidation of the Muslim ruled states in present day Turkey and remnants of the Abbasid empire that was knocked over by Halago Khan...that makes a span of 1300 years!
So pray tell, where was the Jihad in these 1300 years?
It is the branding of crusades in the western psyche that has kept flames of colonialism alive for ever and force other to do the same by default! Wasn't the Bush war against Iraq and Afghans a crusade!
So by default what choice do you let the victims have?
And here is perfect article about the Crusades: I bet it will blow you away even if you intro as ignostic:
Tomgram: John Feffer, Crusade 2.0 &The lies of Islamophobia

There was no certainty of rolling back of Communism!
It was a covert scheme that kindled the effort, the result was a serendipity that even blew past Bush Sr. when USSR gone broke decided to withdraw from fighting Afghan guerrillas...

Don't tell me about your ignorance, if Americans had done all that overtly it would have been a WWIII.
That was a war on the cheap but the current one the shoe is on the other foot the most expensive now, that driven zionist occupied government has gone broke being told by the world to quit printing money to fight crusades...lol

If the genesis of the Afghan Jihad was American doing, hindsight 20/20!LOL Every criminal pleads the same thing! Just don't deny the evidence and continue to obfuscate and blame the victims!
You need to listen to Dr. Petit's press talk... in America there are no victims rights and same mentality pervades every where they go crusading!

The NATO thing was in response to your comment about "It tends to unite the unbelievers against you" Duh...



Edited by Sign*Reader - 09 November 2010 at 4:57pm