Qur'an promote war?

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

Sign Reader, I realize that this article fits right in with your anti everyone mentality.  I also realize that you think your grasp of English is excellent what with the whole "gutter sniping" and "knuckleheads" labels.  I realize this because the military school I went to occationally had undereducated cretins with gigantic egos like yours right before they were ejected for various inabilities to perform.  You should take your ugly finger pointing screeds elsewhere.  Anyone can point a finger.  Maybe you should propose a solution occasionally.    

schmikbob wrote: I understand what you are saying Chrysalis.  My point does not concern the literal meaning of the word.  My point was that Muslim leaders of the first 1300 years after the revealing of the Quran have further defined it to be literal war or armed conflict.  That has changed in the last 100 years probably because it is not a sound long term strategy to go around calling for armed conflict against anyone that is a non-believer.  It tends to unite the unbelievers against you.

I'm actually very glad that the majority of Muslims today see jihad as a personal struggle, despite the fact that this was different in the past. There seem to be significant differences between meccan and medinan suras. And the same can be said for the the Old and New Testament. The majority of Christians today don't interpret Deuteronomy 7 as a command to start genocide: "And when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."

Non-militant Islamists are a minority and militant Islamists are a tiny minority. Ultra-conservative Christians are a minority and militant ultra-conservative Christians (killing abortion doctors) are a very tiny minority. But because both non-militant groups seem to be growing we have to remain watchful. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

I think tolerant Christians, tolerant Muslims, tolerant Agnostics and tolerant Atheists share a common goal here.



Edited by Matt Browne - 21 November 2010 at 4:57am