Try being serious, KalvinB
First off,
KalvinB, those are excellent links. However, I'll wait for you to raise a
serious issue from them.
Look at it this way,
KalvinB: you and I can read the same words out of any book and interpret them to mean two different things. This does not restrict itself to simple botched definitions of words, but of base perspectives. For instance, Justice: to me, Justice is equality 'twixt people; knowledge, integrity, and compassion are its primary attributes. To others, though, Justice sometimes means something much, much different. There are religious folk from all manner of faith who seem to believe that Justice is the statistical triumph of their particular paradigm over another. There are patriotic folk who think that Justice is whatever serves the nation best. And there we can see another difference of perception: what serves the nation best? Is a people best served by tyranny? What constitutes service in that sentence?
Right now, as I look over your four points, some basic reactions arise:
*
who is the enemy - unbelievers This is like giving the police a description of your attacker: he has dark hair. In that case, you have reduced the probable attackers to, say, half the male population. In the same sense, what are you actually describing here? Among all three Abramic religions there are special regards aimed at the unbelievers.
*
who has the authority to fight them - any believer You're still showing signs of envy around the gills on this one,
KalvinB. It's like how you came riding in, proclaiming Christian principle, but paying only lip service. Your cruelty and aggression was quickly apparent in a number of threads, and the betrayal of your faith came down to one point: you didn't want to have to turn the other cheek; you wanted to be like other people who have chosen to guide their actions by wisdom and will instead of according to a book. And here, you seem quite hung up on the idea that you don't get to be the executioner like you see among the Muslims. As
Adam has pointed out, what's the difference? As we see from the
Al-Islam link, permission for warfare is granted to
those who are attacked and definitely wronged. As an interesting third-party comparison, we might note
Adam's atheistic position that makes no distinction 'twixt whether or not he was
wronged.
*
when can the enemy be fought against - when the unbelievers start it This is a far sight better than going forth to aggressively evangelize by the sword. Bottom line, I don't see why this is an issue. If there's something you have chosen for some reason not convey about your sentiments, I urge you to do so--it would help convey your meaning if you didn't leave vagaries hanging. Presently, I'm looking over this list and wondering what your problem is. Your examination of these points has reeked of condemnation to the point that you've had to overlook the paucity of your own comparative examples and ignore data which you find detrimental to your editorial position. What answer did you want to see as far as when the enemy can be fought? Whenever the hell one feels like it?
*
when does it end - when the unbelievers side with the believers, surrendor or are wiped out Actually, I believe it's when the aggressors sue for peace (4.90); and this is part of what motivates me to question the integrity of your motives on this topic. It seems more like bitch-propaganda against Islam. Such as in your topic post, when you wrote,
As far as I could tell the Koran really had no guidelines for war or prophets. If anyone can prove me wrong on that I'd greatly appreciate it.
Strangely,
KalvinB, your own link is that knowledge you seek, yet you look past it:
It is said about Christianity that it has the distinction of not having any rule governing war. We, on the other hand, say that Islam has the distinction of having the law of jihad. If we look closely, we see that in Christianity there is no jihad because it has nothing at all. By which I mean that there is no Christian structure of society, no Christian legal system, and no Christian rules as to how a society is to be formed, for these to contain a law of jihad.
You equate
jihad and war, calling the distinction 'twixt the two an "annoying word game". And then you criticize Islam for having "no guidelines for war or prophets". Hmm ...
* Jihad = War (
KalvinB)
* Qur'an describes rules for Jihad (fact)
* Islam has "no guidelines for war ...." (
KalvinB)
... and if
that isn't enough, you go on to provide a paper about those rules which you say don't exist. This last point would be of no consequence, except that you've declared to stand on those earlier, erroneous efforts.
Karen Armstrong reminds us of this and other points about Islam and warfare in
this poorly-reproduced article (lacks original publication information--e.g.
New York Times, AP,
USA Today, &c).
Bearing in mind Ayatullah Mutahhari's notes on
conditional and
unconditional verses, a couple of bits on warfare:
*
Therefore, if they keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, God bids you not to harm them. (4.90)
*
Believers, show discernment when you go to fight for the cause of Allah, and do not say to those that offer you peace: "You are not believers,"--seeking the chance booty of this world; for with Allah there are abundant gains. Such was your custom in days gone by, but now Allah ahs bestowed on you His grace. Therefore show discernment; God is cognizant of all your actions. (4.95)
And a couple of possibilities that you haven't explored:
* Can a book "born of war" lead people to peace? Why do you presume that this book "born of war" is designed to perpetuate war? Why do you
insist on this slander?
* Given that there must be no coercion in matters of faith (2.256), what, then, becomes the point of killing the infidel? As we see, according to the notion of conditional verses, the ability of any Muslim to strike me down for witchcraft is undermined by the notion that there must be no coercion in matters of faith. For instance, coming across a witch, what can a Muslim do? He cannot take aggression, for the witch has not provoked him through aggression. He cannot slay the witch for idolatry because that equals coercion; it demands adherence to Islam at a mortal price. The conditional result of that being that should I raise a coven of warlocks and underrtake the oppressing of this Muslim, he is to destroy me once it is established that he is definitively wrong. What is left of your spiteful approach to the Qur'an at this point? About as much as Mutahhari notes of substance in Christianity: nothing.
I would hope you're prepared to address these and other issues which you've thus far neglected before proceeding. Otherwise, I'd advise that you save yourself the effort of further embarrassment.
Good show, Ben. The infidel, atheist, and pagan communities all thank you for your continuing contribution to the decline of the Christian menace.
thanx,
Tiassa