longwayhome
Posts: 1035
Joined: 1/9/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote:
ORIGINAL: WhoreMods False analogy, that, Greta: not all white folk are white supremacists and not all moslems are jihadists, but you're talking like one bunch are. All Muslims are Jihadists. Fighting Jihad has two methods. 1) Fund it via donation financially and stay out of actual action which majority does through their mosque and various "Muslim Charities". 2) Actual action You do of course know that jihad doesn't only refer to holy war but that the word was appropriated last century to only mean holy war? "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." Source http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9 To say that all Muslims are jihadis is technically correct but only in the sense that all Muslims are encouraged to internal jihad, referred to by the Prophet as the "greater jihad". "The five Pillars of Islam form an exercise of Jihad in this sense, since a Muslim gets closer to Allah by performing them. Other ways in which a Muslim engages in the 'greater Jihad' could include: Learning the Qur'an by heart, or engage in other religious study. Overcoming things such as anger, greed, hatred, pride, or malice. Giving up smoking. Cleaning the floor of the mosque. Taking part in Muslim community activities. Working for social justice. Forgiving someone who has hurt them." Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/jihad_1.shtml Jihad in the literal sense of the word means struggling or striving and all Muslims are expected to do that, in a very similar way that Christians and Buddhists are expected to try to become better people by being less bitter, hateful and greedy and by forgiving others. Incidentally the Qur'an is very specific about what constitutes a just war. "A military Jihad has to obey very strict rules in order to be legitimate. The opponent must always have started the fighting. It must not be fought to gain territory. It must be launched by a religious leader. It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of. Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war. Innocent people should not be killed. Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt. Women must not be raped. Enemies must be treated with justice. Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers. The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace. Property must not be damaged. Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare." Apart from the use of the word Allah, the Muslim concept of a just war looks far more like the Geneva Convention than a justification of religious violence, and was written many years prior to that. The attempt to define just war is very modern and would not be out of place in twentieth or twenty first humanist concepts. In terms of attitudes towards other faiths, The Qur'an also refers to Christians and Jews as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected, bearing in mind that Allah and God are regarded as the same person - Arabic Christians and Muslims both use the word Allah, Jews use the word Yahweh and Europeans Christians refer to God. The point in all of this is that we have popularised the word jihad to mean violent, sometimes inhuman, acts often perpetrated by extremists on non-Muslims, including innocent non-combatants like the general public or women and children. This totally contrary to the Qur'an. What extremists and splinter groups do in the name of Islam and jihad is not what the Qur'an teaches about jihad. In other news, Christianity cannot be used to condone actions carried out by Christians such as the actions of Northern Irish terrorists during the Struggles, the Holocaust, the recent mass shootings in American or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, just as the teachings of the Buddha do not support the murder and terrorisation of the Rohingya in Myanmar. The problem is terrorism not religion. Where religion is used to justify acts of terror, it is a misrepresentation of religion for political ends. On the flip side using criminal acts of some adherents of a faith to justify demonisation of that faith is also a misrepresentation of religion for political ends. Those of us who refuse to demonise Muslims are not siding with the terrorists, nor do we necessarily agree with all or any of the teachings that make up the Qur'an. We are siding with our communities (of all faiths and no faith) against the real criminals. Anti-terrorist, not anti-Muslim. Couldn't be clearer.
|