Hello Ron

I agree that the radical militants tend to get more notice than moderate peace loving Muslims. However for those militants like Al-Qaeda with their ideology of �jihad� where do they get it from? They appear to be getting it from the Koran itself. The Koran does appear to be violent. It�s full of militancy. For example here are some verses. Admittedly some are in the context of defense � but violent all the same.

�Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors�. 2:190

 �And slay them (the infidels) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter�

 2:191

�And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression�. 2:193

�Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not� 2:216

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory soon shall we give him a reward of great (value)" 4:74

 �Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.� 4:89

"Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home "4:95

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" 8:60

"O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding" 8:65

"Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, and heal the breasts of the Believers"  9:14

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"  9:29

"Say: can you expect for us (and fate) other than one of two glorious things (martyrdom or victory)? But we can expect for you either that Allah will send his punishment (for not believing in Allah) from Himself, or by our hands. So wait (expectant); we too will wait with you" 9:52

Also here is a quote from the famous Pakistani thinker and theologian Maulana Maududi

�Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless  of the country or the Nation which rules it. �

Maulana Maududi, - Jihad in Islam, p.6, 7,22.

Or another one from the Ayatollah Khomeini who is quoted by Amir Taheri as stating �

�Islam make sit incumbent on all adult males provided they are not disabled and incapacitated to prepare themselves for the conquest of (other) countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.

But those who study Islamic Holy war will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world � Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war Those (who say this a) are witless. Islam says kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you�.

Islam says what ever good there is exists due to the sword and the shadow of the sword. People cannot be made obedient without the sword. The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for Holy warriors.

There are hundreds of other (Koranic) psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls wjo make such a claim.

Holy Terror by Amir Taheri page 226 -227

Also look at the Muslim concept of Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Harb (the abode of war) provides the contrast to Dar al-Islam. Dar al-Harb denotes territory that is not governed by Islam.

While these terms are not found in the Koran or Hadith and confusion exists in the Islamic world as to their definition they have been interpreted in a violent context.

Muslim radicals claim that warfare (jihad) can be invoked in order to convert the abode of war into the abode of Islam. For example.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi was quoted in As Sarq al Awast of  July 19, 2003 as saying: 

"It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb are not protected."

Likewise, Sheikh Ali Gomaa said  in an interview published in July 2003 by the Egyptian newspaper Al-Haqiqa:

"...it is permitted to kill him, because he is a Harbi and the Harbi spreads corruption throughout the face of the earth."

Also in regards to the person you quoted saying �

Islam also teaches its followers to be very flexible and to use open warfare only when Muslims are stronger than their enemies. When Muslims are weak, they should pretend to be peaceful and wait for right time to strike at the non-Muslims, but the goal (domination of Islam) always remains the same.

Earlier verses written in Medina when the Muslim armies were weak are less militant than the later militant verses written in Mecca when Mohammad�s armies were strong.

NABA wrote: first of All a person cannot b called a Muslim unless he is peaceful,so there is no question to quote peaceful Muslims.if a person calls himself a Muslim then automatically he is peaceful,because Muslim is a person who acquires peace by submitting will to Allah and follow Quran and sayings of prophet.a person does not need to have arabic/persian name to b a muslim.for eg take this verse Surah Al Fussilat ch 41 v 34-Allah says no doubt a bad deed cannot b equal to a good deed,b good to your enemy and then U will c that he had become ur best friend.jihad doesn't mean to fight or cause terror,jihad means to strive and struggle.a common man doing hard work to feed his family,this is jihad,a wife taking care of whole household,this is jihad.those people who call themselves jihadists and cause terror among innocent human beings are not Muslims,they are those who are buildings their place in the hell.

That's fine, NABA, but you need to tell that to people like Ronson, not to me.

Do you think it would be jihad to defend Islam on the Internet, especially in places where it is being unfairly criticised and there is no one to give a true understanding of Islam?

�O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allaah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin�

[al-Nisa� 4:135] 

if enemy does not become our friend we will continue to do good deeds because it will open the pathway for paradise as mentioned in Surah Al Asra ch 103 v 1-3-with token of time man is in state of loss except those who have faith,does good deeds,resorting people to truth,resorting people to patience and perseverance.Prophet Muhammad was the best human being,but he was a warrior too,what will u do if someone try to kill u,u will fight.we should b thankful that we are nit living during war periods,in those times every civilian should bbready for war,as today in Saudi.in Surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 6-Allah says if any disbeliever wants peace forgive him and cast him to protective place.those violent verse were for those who want mischief on the land.

Servetus wrote: And all I can say is that if the Evangelical Christian Zionist types who seem to frequent Matt Slick's board would loosen their laconic tongues and condemn their own jihadists, sometimes in IDF uniforms, who, with comparative impunity, incinerate Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip with white phosphorus, who decimate a largely hapless Iraq with depleted uranium, and who stand by, as mute as they are mum, while war profiteers and others ransack the Treasury to finance their "crusade" (GW Bush's malapropism, correction, apropism) to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony, then maybe Muslims wouldn't have to do it for them.

I don't often see allegations of Christian jihadism in mainstream press.  Maybe in Muslim nations, in which case it might be worthwhile for Christians to visit those sites; but I am commenting on the negative view of Islam in my own culture and suggesting that Muslims might want to speak up.  I'm getting tired of defending their reputations, especially if they can't be bothered themselves.

Experiential wrote: The question here as posed at the beginning of the thread was whether there is violence inherent in the doctrines and theology of Islam itself.

Well no, that wasn't my purpose in starting this.  I am taking it as given that Muslims do not consider Islam to be an inherently violent religion.  I am asking them to say that where it matters, -- not just here, but wherever their religion is being attacked.

It seems to me that this would be a worthy project for Ramadan.  But what do I know?

Servetus wrote: I just sent Experiential a link to an article in the rather mainstream New York Times, entitled "Jesus and Jihad." Read it often and you will.

My first reaction is .  Not so much that Christians might imagine their God like that (I know many of them do), but more that they would find it in any way entertaining or "Glorious".

But let's keep in mind two important differences: one, that this is a work of fiction (I might say fantasy); and two, that God is the jihadist here, not Christians.  It may be a bit unsettling that some Christians indulge in such fantasies, but it's really none of my business.

Although the word, jihad, isn't overtly mentioned, here, and though it is a bit dated, is another example of many an article of its type which could be cited as proof. It is another mainstream media report, appearing in the New York Times, this time of cleric John Hagee having gone up to Washington D.C. to inform us of what "God's foreign policy" is. It should not be too surprising to note that, to him, God's policies and those of AIPAC are essentially indistinguishable. AIPAC, in consequence of the good Christian's announcements, has practically beatified the passively militant cleric. If you want to read the fatwah, it is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Although I don't necessarily agree with Hagee's politics (much less his religion), I'm not sure I would describe him as a jihadist.  Why would you call him that?  Because he supports Israel's right to exist?  Because he wants to see Hezbollah (a terrorist organization by most standards) defeated?  Because he has faith that his God also wants those things?

No doubt Christians commit atrocities, but they rarely do so explicitly in the name of God.  They do not shout the equivalent of "Allah akbar!" as they saw through their enemies' necks.  That is the kind of behaviour that demeans Islam, and that is what good Muslims cannot afford to remain silent about.

Servetus wrote: I might also add that, by linking to CARM, you are suggesting that Muslims go to a board which is, at its root, as biased against Ishmael as was Sarah (according to the Biblical, in contradistinction to the Quranic, record of the event).

I linked to that particular thread because it was the one that inspired my post here, but I wasn't intending to promote that site; and in hindsight, it wasn't even a particularly egregious example.  It's not hard to find Islam being attacked all over the Internet, often much more strongly than this.

Thus, no matter how persuasive any given defense of Muslims may be, at argument's end, to the true and largely intransigent believers on that board, one of the leitmotifs of the Old Testament will nevertheless remain: the rights of the first-born will have been switched to the second-born and the "bondswoman," i.e., Hagar, will have been cast out. Ishmael, no matter how legitimately grieved, polite and articulate he may be, will still be perceived, by many a Bibliophile, as the "wild ass" of Genesis 16:12, however that may be interpreted.

Yeah, that's the response I get from Muslims all the time.  "It's too hard, and it won't do any good anyway."  ("Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it." (2:216))  But nothing worthwhile is easy, and if I didn't believe that presenting alternative (even unpopular) viewpoints wasn't worthwhile, I wouldn't be here.  No, of course you won't change anyone's mind in the course of a debate, but I believe you can make progress over the long term.  I have often noticed that if I return to the topic months or years later, my opponents' positions have moderated slightly.

Thanks for the link Servestus.

I think I�ll stick with the Bible rather than the ''Glorious Appearing,''

Servetus wrote: Again, it is a fictionalized version of Daniel and Revelation.

So, a fictionalized version of a fantasy.

If the authors of the books have the Christians conveniently "raptured" to the top floor, above the fray, while the Muslims, Jews and others confront each other, in a final showdown, upon the Meggido Plain, it is only yet another indicator that, as I've said, Christians of this type tend to be passively aggressive: that they are, as one of their critics, Nietzsche, put it, emasculated (even if, in this case, their Messiah evidently is not). ... You seem to make the jihadists of Islam your business. Why not add the Christian and Jewish (to say nothing of the Mammonist, or secular worshippers of money) jihadists to your list as well? They're certainly on mine.

I am not so much concerned about "passively aggressive" jihadists.  My main concern is "aggressively aggressive" ones.  As for the "secular worshippers of money", I have them on a list as well, but it's a different list, i.e. not the subject of this discussion.

Ron Webb wrote: Although I don't necessarily agree with Hagee's politics (much less his religion), I'm not sure I would describe him as a jihadist. Why would you call him that? Thank you for asking. Let me count the ways. For one thing, when he tells us that God's foreign policy is to "support" Israel, he is not talking about knitting booties for Jewish orphans. I think it rather more likely that he has such things as white phosphorus and so called "preemptive" strikes against Iran (Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia, Persia, Libya and all of the other countries mentioned in Ezekiel 38) in mind. He is a militantly passive jihadist who fights behind soldiers in IDF uniforms and AIPAC executives in Georgio Armani suits.

I'm not sure that "I think it rather more likely" is a strong enough justification for labeling someone a jihadist.  Has he actually advocated or at least expressed approval for the use of white phosphorus or preemptive strikes?  I know nothing about Hagee beyond what I've read since joining this discussion, and I am open to being convinced otherwise, of course; but lacking any evidence to the contrary I think it is at least as likely that he is appalled by human suffering just as we all are.  His support in general for a regime or a goal does not imply specific support for every tactic and every weapon used by that regime or pursuant to that goal.

Anyway, this is drifting away from my original intent.  I will concede that there are individuals who might be labeled "Christian jihadists".  The difference is that when such extremism is discussed in various public forums, there is normally a healthy contingent of mainstream Christians who are willing to condemn extremism and to distance their religion from the extremists.  I just don't see that on the Muslim side.  Islamist extremism is denounced in formal statements by Muslim organizations, but this denunciation is rarely echoed by mainstream Muslims in public discussions.  The impression is thus created that Muslim leaders are either out of touch with "real" Muslims, or just plain lying.

Ron Webb wrote: No doubt Christians commit atrocities, but they rarely do so explicitly in the name of God. The reclamation of the Biblical "land" of Israel is being done in the name of God.

That may be your suspicion, and there may be cheerleaders like Hagee who might make that connection, but the ones actually doing the reclamation (armed forces and political leaders) would never say that.  If they did, I would be among the first to object.  (Mind you, I object anyway, FWIW.)  And so would a whole heap of mainstream Christians.

Anyway, Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. What were the Christians doing 600 years ago?

If I had been around six hundred years ago I might have said the same things about Christian crusaders.  (If I had a death wish, maybe.) 

I have an idea. Why don't you and I try to get Wal-Mart to stop carrying Christian jihadist literature and allow the Muslims to get their own house in order?

Because it's a fantasy based on a fiction.  People can indulge in whatever gruesome and (to me) disgusting fantasies they like.  None of my business.

Servetus wrote: In that case, examine the role of the passively aggressive jihadists, the block of Christian Evangelicals, who vote(d) for the crusading George W. Bush. Their passivity was expressed in the ballot box and became decidedly active. As far as I know, although Johns Hopkins put out some numbers, there is no record of the dead civilians as a result of Bush's crusade, continued by Obama, to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony.

Bush himself always gave entirely secular justifications for his Middle East policies and actions.  Whatever his supporters might have said or believed, you can't blame Bush for that.  And coming back to my original point, there is no need and no opportunity for a Christian apologist to dispute Bush's religious views, because he never said anything that discredited the Christian religion.  In fact, as far as I know, he never said much of anything about religion in an official capacity.

Why exclude them from the subject of this discussion? I will quote one: "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." That was said by Master of Halliburton and ex-Vice President, Dick Cheney, GWBush's fellow crusader in the Middle East. To which "good Lord" do you suppose he is referring? I would suggest that he is referring to Mammon (money). In any case, I would call him an aggressively aggressive jihadist.

And I would suggest that this is a mere figure of speech, something that even I might say.  It's not a religious pronouncement; and even if it were, what exactly ought a Christian apologist to say in response?  Is Christianity being misrepresented in some way?

Ron Webb wrote: I'm not sure that "I think it rather more likely" is a strong enough justification for labeling someone a jihadist.  Has he actually advocated or at least expressed approval for the use of white phosphorus or preemptive strikes? Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf-Su-xZVU&feature=player_embedded - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf-Su-xZVU&feature=player_embedded

Point taken.  But if you read the http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/transcript1.html - transcript of the interview, you will see that Bill Moyers is doing exactly what I advocate that Muslims do with their own extremists.  He accuses Hagee of "bigotry towards different faiths".  He quotes Bill Donahue, the President of the Catholic League, expressing the "outrage of many Catholics".  He points out the hypocrisy of McCain in welcoming Hagee's endorsement, when just eight years earlier he had been cautioning against "pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance."

As I see it, your original intent is to get the Muslims to remove the sliver from their eye. I am suggesting, to the point of insistence, that we first remove the beam from our own. I am sometimes more than a vestigial Christian.

Well, not exactly.  My intent is to get Muslims to actually defend their religion, which is under constant assault in the media and in public discussions; and specifically to defend it where it counts, in the same media and public discussions where the assault is taking place.  I see no such assault taking place against Christianity, and where it is occasionally misrepresented by guys like Hagee, there are plenty of Bill Moyers to set the record straight.

I just don't see that on the Jewish side. Mitzvah wars -often stealth- to reclaim Eretz Israel by way of illegal settlements and colonization are denounced by Jews, but this act of jihad is rarely reported upon by the mainstream press.

I'm not so sure about that -- I see plenty of stories in the mainstream press about illegal Jewish settlements -- but that's beside the point.  Quite possibly Jews should take a more active and vocal approach to defending there religion too, but they are not the subject here either.  And by the way, there's nothing "stealth" about Jewish settlements.  They are openly sponsored by the Israeli government.

How many of them are objecting on CARM?

Agreed, there is a double standard, but again that's not what I'm talking about.

Ron Webb wrote: Because it's a fantasy based on a fiction. "Final Countdown Over Jerusalem" isn't and that is the one I referenced.

Then I must have misunderstood you.  I thought it was a fictionalized version of the Books of Daniel and Revelation (which itself is a fantasy).

Servetus wrote: Ron Webb wrote: Bush himself always gave entirely secular justifications for his Middle East policies and actions. I repeat an excerpt from my above post of 26 July in which I quote the late Senator George McGovern's address to the National Press Club: "Mr. President {G.W. Bush}, Sir, when reporter Bob Woodward asked you if you had consulted with your father before ordering our army into Iraq you said, "No, he's not the father you call on a decision like this. I talked to my heavenly Father above."

Having given the order, the president walked alone around the circle behind the White House. Months later, he told Woodward: "As I walked around the circle, I prayed that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty. Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of his will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for forgiveness."

 

Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'"

Servetus wrote: The strength to do what, exactly? The Lord's will? Where did that lead him and us? I don't think that Senator McGovern was too far afield to conclude that Bush, according to his own admission, appealed to his Heavenly, or "higher" Father for the strength to destroy Fallujah, Iraq, with, among other things, depleted uranium (which was one of the net results of his invasion).

The strength to make difficult decisions and do the right thing, obviously.  Not to justify the war based on God, as he stated explicitly.  There is no mention of God telling him to destroy Fallujah, and no mention of depleted uranium.  You're just mustering an army of strawmen.

Sorry. That doesn't sound very secular to me and veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward was reportedly struck by something in that exchange.

He is acknowledging his belief in God.  What's wrong with that?  Are you saying that theists should not be allowed in public office, or that they should deny their beliefs?

But anyway, even if Bush did always give entirely secular justifications, how does that solve anything? Are secular crusades to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony somehow more justifiable, in your opinion, than religious ones? I, personally, think crusades, by any other name, even a secular one, smell as foul.

Maybe so, but we were comparing the need for Muslims vs. Christians to defend their religions from extremists who discredit them.  Clearly if the justifications are entirely secular, then there is nothing for Christians to defend against.