Crusades vs. Jihad

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Gav

it's not suprising that Islam and Judaism share some commonalities. They do share the same roots after all.

...the same roots they share with Christianity. Which does have centralized leadership (Catholic and Orthodox, anyway).

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

So you're saying that Jihad as a concept has been transformed from an external and physical act to an internal and spiritual journey? I hadn't heard that, but then I'm not up on my Muslim theology.

Rather the other way around, actually. Jihad was originally taught as an internal and spiritual journey, and has since been twisted around by The Terrorists.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Pkt, I'd just like to make one comment regarding this open letter by 'a retired attorney' to his sons.

Does anyone else see the irony in these two statements?

Also, I find the analysis of France being taken over by Muslims to have more than a few echos of the bigoted railings of last century against the Irish immigrants to this country--especially the dire prediction that they will take over the country by 'outbreeding' the native French.

I think this man is sincere in his convictions, but he suffers from not examining his own premises closely enough and not knowing or not paying close enough attention to history.

I see what you're saying, but don't quite agree. There's a subtle difference between the giving away of rights he refers to in the face of "political correctness", etc., and temporarily suspending some for war time. I'd elaborate on it more, but the words really escape me at the moment.

And while there may be some echoes, I think the two situations are quite different. I do not recall reading in history about similar scenarios of violence, concessions, lack of assimilation, etc. with the Irish. I think the proportions of numbers are also rather different. So, while there are indeed some echoes, I think that there are enough differences to invalidate the analogy.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pkt

Jihad, as it is properly understood by most moderate, civilised muslims, it's a matter for self-, internal-struggle, for improvement. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the corrupted understanding, the call to 'kill the infidels' that the Islamist clerics and their adherents take it to be.

Just for the sake of argument---on what basis have you decided how the concept is "properly" understood, in contravention of the interpretation of their own religious scholars, who have studied the Quran and associated works all their lives and at the end of a long literary and hermaneutic tradition, and in the original language? That is to say, what qualifications have any of us to say that the "moderates" have the correct idea of what the term means and the fiery zealots are wrong?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I'm curious why everyone thinks that "Jihad" is such a bad word, and yet "crusade" has become a part of our everyday language.

Perhaps for the same reason the duality is reversed in the Muslim world: because we understand the modern import of "our" word better than we do "theirs"?

We understand that "crusade" no longer means what it did in the 12th century. It is applied not only to a historical episode but more broadly ( and relatively innocuously ) to mean "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse". Likewise most Muslims perhaps know the more innocuous meanings of "jihad", while "crusade", to them, means the same as it did in the Middle Ages...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

We. Are. Not. At. War. The President does not have the power to declare war. Just because he says there's a war in his speeches does not mean that there's a war.

If there IS a war, Congress and the President obtain certain powers they don't have during peacetime. There is no war. They do not have these powers. If there was to be a war, their actions would be completely acceptable.

Are you a lawyer, by any chance? Or hoping to become one?

The Constitution makes a lot of nice legal distinctions. It says for example that "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops and ships of war in time of peace". So I guess the various National Guard units are illegitimate?

So too with "war". It is not the case that only what Congress sanctions with a formal declaration can be construed as a war, and all other uses of force must be called something else, or that military actions otherwise entered are not wars in all but the narrowest legal sense.

http://www.daveross.com/war.html

If it looks like a war, quacks like a war, waddles like a war, and tastes like a war when roasted---it is a war.

[scrapinpeg]

The Korean War was not a war by MrBiggs' definition. Neither the Vietnam War. Yet they were undeniably wars.

I don't think MrBiggs is a law student, as he doesn't really understand the concept here. He seems to me to be a slightly precocious 17 year old who's starting to really learn things. Like the rest of us did at that stage, he's drawing strong conclusions based on an imperfect understanding. But I'm sure he'll improve, given time, additional reading, and continued debate to challenge him. Perhaps a little socratic method might be in order here, to focus and hone his understanding.

Regardless, MrBiggs: Yes. We. Are.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Gav

it's not suprising that Islam and Judaism share some commonalities. They do share the same roots after all.

Good call. Many Christians would be surprised to know that muslims study the Old and New Testament. They consider the Al Quran to be a third (and final?) testament kind of like the mormons. To them Jesus Christ is considered a holy man, a prophet of God. Amazing how this "little" difference has given all three sides a reason to slaughter others in the "name of God".

[Insipiens]

The English language (both in its British and American varieties) has more idiomatic expressions and uses analogy more often than virtually any other language.

In British English at least (and I suspect the same is true of American English but I am not a native speaker ) "crusade" is often used by politicians and others for a thorough and sustained effort to eradicate something or improve something - thus in the UK we are liable to our politicians declaring "crusades" on poverty, illiteracy, AIDS, drug-use, you name it. In its most common usage it has very little to do with the historical crusades of the middle-ages.

Therefore when fluent English speakers use "crusade" it does not have the same connotations as Jihad does to us. Jihad is understood by the West only in the context in which we (Western English speakers) have come to see it used: this is mostly in reference to a violent threat from Islamists (occasionally sponsored by certain states such as Iran and others in the Middle East).

Many Muslims will be in the opposite position, where "crusade" is a foreign term which is only known through its perceived historical signficance. And if this is combined with a one-sided view of history (which it may be but often is not) then it cannot but have very negative connotations. What the idiomatic use of Jihad is in the language it belongs to (my ignorance extends far beyond knowing that) would affect how Jihad is understood by Muslims familiar with the language.

The

[Insipiens]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Good call. Many Christians would be surprised to know that muslims study the Old and New Testament. They consider the Al Quran to be a third (and final?) testament kind of like the mormons. To them Jesus Christ is considered a holy man, a prophet of God. Amazing how this "little" difference has given all three sides a reason to slaughter others in the "name of God".

Without reference to the justification of such violence, the fact that Muslims only see Christ as a "prophet" is to deny the central tenet of Christianity and denigrate the person of Christ. I can see how this might not have gone down well.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Here's the scoop.

We. Are. Not. At. War. The President does not have the power to declare war. Just because he says there's a war in his speeches does not mean that there's a war.

While we are not at "War"--we are certainly involved in war.

Congress gave him the power to use military force against those who planned, commited or aided the 9/11 attacks or harbored the organizations involved. For all intents and purposes, this is a declaration of war--and certainly shows congressional assent to the use of military force. The Supreme Court has likewise indicated that the Presidents use of his "war powers" in the context of the "war on terror" (at least as related to the action in Afghanistan) was proper.

If there IS a war, Congress and the President obtain certain powers they don't have during peacetime. There is no war. They do not have these powers. If there was to be a war, their actions would be completely acceptable.

Which powers in particular are you thinking of?

--Philistine

[Insipiens]

So if the US were invaded and capitol hill wiped out so congress could not meet, the US could not be at war?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Insipiens

So if the US were invaded and capitol hill wiped out so congress could not meet, the US could not be at war?

Correct.

The US is *NOT* at war. It is involved in military actions that any sane individual would call war but it has not declared war on terror, Osama Bin Laden, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia or Afghanistan. These military actions were "Congressionally Sanctioned Military Engagements" (except for Korea, which was under UN auspices) and are limited in scope because of them. Basically, the difference is that the POTUS is not authorised to use the full resources of the armed forces to destroy the enemy but is only authorised to use the force that congress lets him have. In international law, there is really no difference between a state of war and a state engaged in military engagements. Wars of agression are a war crime ("They started it!" is a valid international argument).

The domestic legal difference between an official state of war and warlike military engagements are:

(1)Allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend licenses relating to atomic energy, recapture
special nuclear material, and operate nuclear power facilities;
(2) Allow the U.S. to seize property of the Tennessee Valley Authority for the purpose of manufacturing
explosives or for other war purposes;
(3) Authorize the President to “apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove” alien enemies; and
(4) Allow electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information without a court order for 15
days after a declaration of war.


http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/DeclarationofWar.PDF

[Gav]

Without reference to the justification of such violence, the fact that Muslims only see Christ as a "prophet" is to deny the central tenet of Christianity and denigrate the person of Christ. I can see how this might not have gone down well.

Remember that 'Christ' is a title not a name. It's an honorific. Jewish [or jehova's witnesses for that matter) people do not think of him as being the Son of God either. Muslims do not denigrate Jesus - they revere him as a prophet.

[Inquartata]

Which is more, it must be said, than Christians do for Mohammed.

To anyone not very familiar with either book, large sections of the Quran would seem indistinguishable from the Bible in tone and subject material.

[Insipiens]

Originally Posted by Gav

Remember that 'Christ' is a title not a name. It's an honorific. Jewish [or jehova's witnesses for that matter) people do not think of him as being the Son of God either. Muslims do not denigrate Jesus - they revere him as a prophet.

In the context I was referring to Jesus as Christ through laziness, my apologies.

To someone who considers Jesus to be divine to deny his divinity (however much you honour or revere him as a prophet or teacher) is to denigrate (in the sense of to belittle ) the person of Jesus whose nature is divine. I am sure the intention of (for example) Muslims who say Jesus was a prophet is not to belittle Him, but as you say to revere him. But if you believe Jesus is much more than just a prophet, your viewpoint is very different.

And, of course the Jews do not think Jesus is divine (or the Christ, for that matter). A combination of laziness and expecting people will conclude that the same applies to Jews without my bothering to say it is to blame. What Jehovah's witnesses think/believe I do not know.

None of this of course should justify violence dressed up as Jihad or Crusade.

[damion18d]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Here's the scoop.

We. Are. Not. At. War. The President does not have the power to declare war. Just because he says there's a war in his speeches does not mean that there's a war.

If there IS a war, Congress and the President obtain certain powers they don't have during peacetime. There is no war. They do not have these powers. If there was to be a war, their actions would be completely acceptable.

I realize that the letter was not written by PKT, and that everyone has mostly agreed that they guy was a little extreme on most points, but I've been saving that one up for while.

As many people on the board have so eloquently said, maybe not by the perfect gov't standard are we at war. I would challenge you though to come to Iraq and tell any one of the 40 soldiers who share our compound that they are not in a war. Shortly there after you would find your arse soundly kicked. I have not come here in a military capacity(this time)but working for a gov't agency, yet I still stand just as rigid and snap my salute just as hard when I attend services for these fallen young men. You are young and idealistic, congradulations you should be at your age. These young men and women are not much older than you are and just as idealistic. Everytime they are shot at or an IED goes of beside thier vehicle I guarentee you, they know they are in a war.

[mrbiggs]

My mistake. I thought that Congress had not yet declared war.

Scrapinpeg, you are very observant.

Damion, I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that the whole Iraq war is a joke, I'm saying that the President and Congress only have the power to take away our rights during a time of war. I think that just about everyone agrees that the Iraq war is very serious.

[damion18d]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Here's the scoop.

We. Are. Not. At. War. The President does not have the power to declare war. Just because he says there's a war in his speeches does not mean that there's a war.

If there IS a war, Congress and the President obtain certain powers they don't have during peacetime. There is no war. They do not have these powers. If there was to be a war, their actions would be completely acceptable.

I realize that the letter was not written by PKT, and that everyone has mostly agreed that they guy was a little extreme on most points, but I've been saving that one up for while.

Biggs I understand your route point, but the way and things you say to illustrate said point leave lots of room for interpretation. You aren't talking about the difference between coke and pepsi, you're talking about a situation where thousands of Americans put thier lives on the line everyday. Americans who plegded to protect your rights and way of life. Whether you agree with the reason or method of the war, don't denegrate the acts of those Americans.