Thread: Al-Qaeda: The Cracks Begin to Show

Originally Posted by astralis

AG,

therein lies the problem of the definition of "just".

Um, I don't think I get it. How is there a problem defining 'just'? 'Just' means righteous, good, and so on. Certainly defining 'just war' is difficult, that's a tricky one for most religions, but 'just' and 'war' by themselves are pretty clearcut.

that's simple enough, what's just and righteous for one isn't so just and righteous for someone else.

Originally Posted by dalem

How can the forceful conversion or subjugation of all people everywhere to one's will be viewed as "just" from without?

-dale

1) Nowhere in the article does he state what he means by 'jihad,' therefore I don't think we can be justified in assuming that is what he meant by jihad.

2) Haven't you read Shek's stuff on using proper terminology? Unless we want to declare war on Islam, we've got to speak their language. In Islam, 'jihad' is, by definition, just. A Quran following Muslim is not going to say that jihad is not just. Therefore, it is in our interest that "the forceful conversion or subjugation of all people everywhere to one's will" not be considered jihad.

Originally Posted by astralis

that's simple enough, what's just and righteous for one isn't so just and righteous for someone else.

Obviously, but that ain't a solvable problem, outside of proselytizing and/or subjugation, which is what we're trying to avoid here.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

1) Nowhere in the article does he state what he means by 'jihad,' therefore I don't think we can be justified in assuming that is what he meant by jihad.

Of course we can. In fact, to get any meaning out of the article we must.

2) Haven't you read Shek's stuff on using proper terminology? Unless we want to declare war on Islam, we've got to speak their language. In Islam, 'jihad' is, by definition, just. A Quran following Muslim is not going to say that jihad is not just. Therefore, it is in our interest that "the forceful conversion or subjugation of all people everywhere to one's will" not be considered jihad.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, that's what jihad is. You either become a Muslim or do the dhimmi tax thing. That may be "just" to Johnny Mohammed, but it's not "just" to me.

-dale

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

1) Nowhere in the article does he state what he means by 'jihad,' therefore I don't think we can be justified in assuming that is what he meant by jihad.

2) Haven't you read Shek's stuff on using proper terminology? Unless we want to declare war on Islam, we've got to speak their language. In Islam, 'jihad' is, by definition, just. A Quran following Muslim is not going to say that jihad is not just. Therefore, it is in our interest that "the forceful conversion or subjugation of all people everywhere to one's will" not be considered jihad.

Exactly.

Hirabah (hee-RAH-bah) -- Unholy War and forbidden "war against society" or what we would today call crimes against humanity.


Jihad al Akbar (gee-HAHD ahl AHK-bar) -- this "Greater Jihad" is a personal and spiritual struggle or striving to become closer and more faithful to Allah and his teachings as set forth in the Qur'an.

Jihad al Saghir (gee-HAHD ahl Sahg-HEER) -- "Lesser Jihad" is a physical -- and even a military -- struggle to protect or to free Muslims and non-Muslims from oppression, but only in strict accordance with reasonable, compassionate and non-terroristic standards set forth in the Qur'an, which provides that only the Caliph (or head-of-state?) can legally declare such a Jihad. (Note: UBL was neither and had no authority whatever to issue his 1996 and 1998 faux fatwas of purported "Jihad Against America and the West.")

Jihad al Kabir (gee-HAHD ahl kha-BEER) -- the spiritual and intellectual quest to promote common knowledge of Divine Revelation through all of Allah's Prophets and to carry out what is called ijtihad (consultative efforts throughout the Umma) in applying both Revelation and Natural Law to human affairs.

Jihad does not include Hirabah.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Exactly.

Hirabah (hee-RAH-bah) -- Unholy War and forbidden "war against society" or what we would today call crimes against humanity.


Jihad al Akbar (gee-HAHD ahl AHK-bar) -- this "Greater Jihad" is a personal and spiritual struggle or striving to become closer and more faithful to Allah and his teachings as set forth in the Qur'an.

Jihad al Saghir (gee-HAHD ahl Sahg-HEER) -- "Lesser Jihad" is a physical -- and even a military -- struggle to protect or to free Muslims and non-Muslims from oppression, but only in strict accordance with reasonable, compassionate and non-terroristic standards set forth in the Qur'an, which provides that only the Caliph (or head-of-state?) can legally declare such a Jihad. (Note: UBL was neither and had no authority whatever to issue his 1996 and 1998 faux fatwas of purported "Jihad Against America and the West.")

Jihad al Kabir (gee-HAHD ahl kha-BEER) -- the spiritual and intellectual quest to promote common knowledge of Divine Revelation through all of Allah's Prophets and to carry out what is called ijtihad (consultative efforts throughout the Umma) in applying both Revelation and Natural Law to human affairs.

Jihad does not include Hirabah.

But Hirabah is not the only item above that allows or encourages violence.

And the guys flying planes into building and tying C4 vests to retarded kids sure think they are on a jihad.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

But Hirabah is not the only item above that allows or encourages violence.

And the guys flying planes into building and tying C4 vests to retarded kids sure think they are on a jihad.

-dale

Sure they do, but they are not.
The trick is to change the mindset amongst the west and Islam that they aren't. If we, the west, keep reafirming the Irhabis claim that they are in fact on jihad, we legitimise it in the minds of every listener.
If the Germans during WWII had declared they were Holy Warriors on a mission from God to ride Europe of evil, do you think the allies should have refered to them that way as well?
just because the irhabi declare themselves to be holy warriors on a mission to protect or to free Muslims and non-Muslims from oppression, doesn't mean we have to agree with them every time we talk about them.

Can I at least still call them scumbags?

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Can I at least still call them scumbags?

-dale

Call the bastards anything you like as long as it isn't holy warriors on a justified mission from god

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Call the bastards anything you like as long as it isn't holy warriors on a justified mission from god

Fair enough. I'll try to retrain.

-dale

Jihad is a just war for the Moslems since it is just for them to ensure Harb ul Islam - the state of mankind where there will be peace and Paradise on Earth!

That is their view and it need not coincide with ours.

Originally Posted by Ray

Jihad is a just war for the Moslems since it is just for them to ensure Harb ul Islam - the state of mankind where there will be peace and Paradise on Earth!

That is their view and it need not coincide with ours.

So to ensure peace and paradise on earth , they go kill / destroy every one /thing who is not of their view to achieve it huh ? well scuuuuuuuuuuuuze me if we dont give it them back ? seems a bit hypocritical and convoluted to me , as for the tosser in Q he wants to ubinate up other peoples backs and tell em its raining but dont like it when he gets ubinated on ?

OTOH, Bosnia and Kosovo would be, I think, excellent examples of 'just war.' Don't know that they would fit the complete meaning of jihad, but they seem to meet that requirement.

Attacking population centers from the air is justified? A just war, at least as defined by Aquinas, needs to be proportional in response.