PDA

View Full Version : Some open questions to the faithful


Bailed Out
19th Sep 2001, 04:26
Why can't we all go fly when we like?

Why is it that we are being told that we should show tolerance to Moslems and Islam in this country (and in the US) and then hear that if we enter any military conflict with ANY Moslems ANYWHERE then we will become legitimate targets by ALL Moslems via a holy war?

Is it that Moslems can do no wrong in their own eyes but everyone else must abide by their ideas?

Holy war!!! Surely a contradiction in terms?

Is not religion as an idea the biggest hypocrite of all time?


How about they sort their own problems out? If they truly believe that what has been done in New York is wrong then why can’t they sort it themselves and save us from the bigger argument: Religion, and possibly a world war?

Oh, and if all their homelands are so bloody holy why do they leave them in the first place? (holy mess me thinks)

My own thoughts: -

Sod Mohammed, I’d sooner die an old infidel, than die a young victim of some idiots flawed religious belief. Its time, as a human race, that we moved on from this superstitious bollocks.

Good old UK, once again the rest of the world will use any trick in the book and we are trying to apply the rules of cricket.

Seems to me that as soon as any country have a large population of immigrants (the majority of which have moved is because it’s better than where they came from) they then have to reduce their new home to the same level/mess as their old one.

The exception to this seems to be the US which is probably why they are hated by some of these people, I sense the little green monster thinly disguised with all this political/religious bullshit.

I suspect that most all on this site ever wanted to do was look after their family, be healthy and fly, now it looks like some morons are going to f*ck it all up for a lot of good people……W*nkers
:mad: :mad: :mad:

HugMonster
19th Sep 2001, 04:48
Thank you for that enlightened, equable, intelligent, and liberating thought.

Bailed Out
19th Sep 2001, 05:09
HugMonster, You’re welcome, that’s the first time I’ve ever known you not to contradict, refreshing stuff eh? Maybe slightly outside my normal “PC” envelope though


Bailed

HugMonster
19th Sep 2001, 05:15
When you have a spare moment, take the time to look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary...

Rollingthunder
19th Sep 2001, 05:18
Reuters

Cairo A senior Afghan cleric said on Tuesday the ruling Taliban would launch a jihad against the United States, but officials of the Islamic movement quickly said that he was in no position to declare a
holy war.

The final decision lies with a council of clerics due to convene this week, officials said. Afghanistan, which has given refuge to Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, the top suspect in last week's devastating attacks in New York and Washington, could be a target in case of a U.S. military reprisal, possibly sparking a Taliban jihad in retaliation.

But what does the term really mean?

WHAT JIHAD IS
The Arabic word jihad is often translated as "holy war," but a more accurate translation is "holy struggle." Islamic scholars say the term "holy war" was actually coined in Europe during the Crusades to mean a war against the Muslims.
In a purely linguistic sense, the word jihad means struggling or striving.There are two different, unrelated words that mean war.
In a religious sense, as described by the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, jihad means striving for the benefit of the
community or the restraint of personal sins. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslim or believer. Scholars say it primarily refers to efforts to improve oneself. Jihad is a religious duty. If 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.In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.
The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the
established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam. Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT

Jihad is not a violent concept.
Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims. Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam. Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications.
-----
And, no, I'm not a Muslim. Neither could I give a damn about the religious aspects of these dispicable acts or the particular warped beliefs of the perps.
Hmmm, Air Canada wants between $3b and $4b to recover.

Bailed Out
19th Sep 2001, 05:20
HugMonster, Ditto

[ 19 September 2001: Message edited by: Bailed Out ]

Bailed Out
19th Sep 2001, 05:41
Thanks Rollingthunder, a constructive, enlightening post, the explanation and definition of “JIHAD”, appears to be fundamentally very sound morally. Just that it’s not so good when it gets distorted and it's a very ominous departure from the ideal when people misuse it and try putting it into practice.

NoSurrender
19th Sep 2001, 06:17
Glad somebody else knows how to spell bollocks correctly.

ANGELONE
19th Sep 2001, 16:58
Again, may I suggest that if Islam as a religion and world faith wishes to be seen as non-violent, peaceful and tolerant of other faiths, it needs to stand up and state this clearly. Not encourage religious extremism or insist on strict adherence to a set of rules interpreted by intolerant regimes.

This should be stated not by the free people in the west, the moslems who are allowed to practice their belief and religion relatively free from reprisals for their stance. But, by the leaders, the Immans, the mullahs, the clerics of Islam, situated in Islamic countries. They are the ones who have the power to ensure that Islam is tolerant of other faiths. They hide behind words, but practice intolerance and allow incorrect interpretations to go unchallenged.

It is easy to mouth empty words from a book, especially when you sit in safety and know that you run no risk; but how many of those would fly to Afghanistan and tell the Taleban that they have it wrong. That their 'Pure Islam' is an evil and twisted murderous version. One that has no foundation, nor root in Islam. Which of the Middle East countries has condemned the Taleban for what they do against their people, and other religions.

You cannot absolve the teacher from the teaching, for ultimately a religion or faith is what its followers interpret it as. It is not what is written but what is practiced that defines that faith.

HugMonster
19th Sep 2001, 17:24
Angel, you appear to misunderstand what Islam is.

It is not a Church, with a leader, bishops, priests, lesser clerics...

It is a belief system. It has followers all over the world, some in countries where Islam is the official religion, some where (many) other religion is the "state" religion.

It has teachers. These are largely autonomous, and they are subject to little oversight in what they teach.

There is no "Islam" as a physical presence in the sense that you can point to the Vatican as the centre of Catholicism.

As for condemning last week's events, have you missed entirely, for example, Yasser Arafat's condemnation, and that of Pakistan?

Are you aware of the distinctions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims? Or how much political leaders in the Middle East need to tread a fine line between upsetting the West and upsetting their own citizens?

Remember that, during the Gulf War, the political tensions between the Coalition Forces were stretched tight, when the opposition was neither an Islamic State, nor Arab.

Many Muslim leaders from all over the world have expressed their horror and condemnation for this obscenity, and have reiterated how nothing in the Quran condones or even permits what has been perpetrated.

Be satisfied with that. No religion is perfect. No religion allows what has been committed.

G-OODY
19th Sep 2001, 18:16
The problem is that the mullahs have come to be the loudest, violent and most foul mouthed people in Islam. So the only public statement made about Islam that gets ‘heard’ is the one made by the mad mullahs. Although the peaceful, easy going, loving Muslim does endeavour to stand up and be counted, the West has never taken his / her views seriously, until now.