Posted on 11/24/2006 6:53:25 AM PST by Valin
Knowing the enemy (part I)
Islamdaily.net ^ | 11/22/06 | Mary Habeck
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742640/posts
I don't care about the fine details.
We are at WAR for our very existance as a culture and should comport ourselves accordingly.
We didn't care a lot about the details of the Japanese Bushido cult. We just knew it was either them or us, and we acted accordingly.
Unfortunately, we have no Harry Truman and no Douglass McArthur to do what needs to be done.
And here is why.
The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient,
The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.
And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.
When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand:
In that day shall he swear, saying, I will not be an healer; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people.
For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory.
The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.
Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
~ Isaiah 3:1-12
. .
Thanks for the post and link. Very informative and educational. Thanks Mary Habeck.
I was watching a Bette Davis movie the other day, "Old Acquaintance" and her character was making a speech in at a Red Cross meeting during WWII. One of her lines went something like, "We are in a conflct, the true cost of which may not be known for years, but from which we will not rest until our enemy is totally destroyed."
We don't have that attitude anymore, perhaps we shall get it back.
We don't have that attitude anymore
We don't?
Exactly.
And, by the way, it STILL pertains to Israel, also, who have forsaken their God and have allowed perversion to flourish in their midst.
All of this perfectly fits prophecy concerning the End Times.
It remains to be seen whether the U.S, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain continue as friends of Israel and are counted with her, or destroyed as her enemies.
I fear that they will not persevere with Israel, and that Israel will truly stand alone against the whole world in the Last Days. The English speaking nations that befriended Israel for so long will probably abandon her in the end and be counted among her enemies and destroyed accordingly.
. .
We don't?
No, we don't.
If we did, we would put the MoHamHead world on notice that Mecca, Medina, Tehran, and Damascus are all slated for instantaneous destruction if they perpetrate any attack whatsoever on the American Homeland.
We need not waste another drop of American blood fighting these savages on the ground.
To end the war with Japan, Harry Truman was faced with choosing the deaths of tens of thousands of American servicemen in a land invasion, or dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities.
Harry Truman made the correct choice.
Douglass McArthur wrote Japan's constitution, by which their government still operates today.
And, by the way, Japan is among our most dependable allies today.
.
“How did we so lose our way; the war on radical Islam”??
One reason can be found here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=islam
Way to many people think that "radical Islam" is the mainstream of Islamic life/thought.
(One man's opinion, freely given, and worth almost that much)
"If we did, we would put the MoHamHead world on notice that Mecca, Medina, Tehran, and Damascus are all slated for instantaneous destruction if they perpetrate any attack whatsoever on the American Homeland."
And then what?
This was a really silly stupid idea when I 1st heard it, and it hasn't improved with age. Rightwing fever swamp thought (and I use "thought" in the loosest sense of the word) at it's finest.
Which idea is more stupid and silly?
Wasting more American blood serving in a war executed in observance of Political Correctness, or perhaps waiting for an American city to be reduced to a radioactive crater?
Or carrying through on a threat to evaporate Mohammedanism at its very source, if we come to the point of exasperation we experienced in the war with Japan?
Certainly, "staying the course", calling Mohammetanism a "religion of peace", fighting a war with one hand tied behind our backs, and giving one shred of credibility to any of the lies spouted by our blood enemies will not secure our future as a civilization.
What do you propose?
Rightwing fever swamp thought (and I use "thought" in the loosest sense of the word) at it's finest.
Why not discuss the issue, rather than casting ad hominem?
Your ability to insult does not enhance your ability to field a real argument.
When you put forth a real serious argument, then I'll stop with the ad hominem attacks.
Oh yeah that sounds good to me. The commandment to murder someone. Gotta be good.
If ya need a sarcasm tag, your thinking too hard.
I asked what you propose.
Your response was another ad hominem.
Understanding Jihad
By Farida Khanam
Date: 4 July 2000
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight20000704a.html
In its literal sense jihad in Arabic simply means struggle - striving to one's utmost to further a worthy cause. There is a difference, however between the word, struggle and jihad. The word struggle does not connote the sense of reward or worship in the religious sense of the word. But when the word jihad became a part of Islamic terminology, the sense of reward or worship came to be associated with it, that is to say, if struggle is struggle in the simple sense of word, jihad means a struggle which is an act of worship, the engagement of which earns reward to the person concerned. As the Quran says: Strive for the cause of God as you ought to strive.(22:78)
In its literal sense jihad in Arabic simply means struggle - striving to one's utmost to further a worthy cause. As we say in English, "We must struggle against this prejudice".
It is a common human trait to work very hard in order to achieve some goal. There are words in every language including Arabic, to express this human quality. The word Jihad conveys this same sense of striving, that is, a great striving.
There is a difference, however between the word, struggle and jihad. The word "struggle" does not connote the sense of reward or worship in the religious sense of the word. But when the word jihad became a part of Islamic terminology, the sense of reward or worship came to be associated with it, that is to say, if struggle is struggle in the simple sense of word, jihad means a struggle which is an act of worship, the engagement of which earns reward to the person concerned. As the Quran says:
"Strive for the cause of God as you ought to strive." (22:78)
Jihad in the Dictionary
The root of the word jihad is judh, which means striving one's utmost. For instance we say in Arabic bazala juhduhu (I exerted my utmost struggle). Jihad or ijtihad thus means, striving one's utmost in any matter.
The word Jihad in the Quran
The word Jihad or its derivative has appeared in the Quran for four times in the same literal sense, as we find in the Arabic dictionary. At each place it has been used in the sense of effort and strength and not in the sense of war and fighting.
The first verse in the Quran in this connection is: "Say: 'If your father, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribes, the property you have acquired, the commerce in which you fear a decline, the homes in which you love, are dearer to you than God. His Apostle and the striving in his cause (Jihad fi sabilihii), then wait until God shall fulfill his decree. God does not guide the rebellious." (9:24)
In this verse of the Quran the Muslims are enjoined to extend their full support to the mission of the prophet, to the extent of making sacrifices. Here the phrase "jihad fisabilil lah" has appeared for helping the Prophet in his mission of dissemination of the message of Islam, and not for waging war.
Another verse of Quran says:
"Do not listen to the unbelievers, but strive with them strenuously with it (the Quran)" (22:52)
The word jihad is again clearly used for the mission of the Prophet . No other sense can be implied by the word jihad in this context of doing jihad with the Quran.
The word jihad has appeared in the Quran for the third time in chapter titled "Mumtahana" .
"If you have come out to strive in My Way and seek My Good pleasure." (60:1)
This verse was revealed shortly before the conquest of Mecca. The Prophet was preparing for the journey from Mudinah to Makkah. It was indeed a peaceful journey made for achieving peaceful results in the form of Hudaiybiya peace treaty. One incident makes it clear that it was a march of peace. For during this march one Muslim uttered these words aloud: "Today is the day of fighting". The Prophet responded immediately, saying that " No today is the day of mercy."
The fourth time the Quran has used this word in chapter 22:
"And strive in his cause as you ought to strive." (22:78)
Here too jihad is used for struggle for the cause of God's religion.
The word "Jihad" has nowhere been used in the Quran to mean in the sense of war in the sense of launching an offensive. It is used rather to mean struggle. For fighting and war another word called qital is used. Qital is to engage in war at the time of aggression on the part of the enemies. The qital or war is purely in self-defence in accordance in accordance with God's commandment also involves a struggle this came to be called jihad as well.
The command of war in Islam
There are certain verses in the Quran conveying the command to do battle (qital) 22:39. The first point in this connection is that the launching of an offensive by the believers is not totally forbidden. It is permissible with certain conditions. The Quran states:
"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not be aggressive."(2:190)
This clearly shows that only defensive war is permitted in Islam. The believers are allowed to fight in self defence. Initiating hostility is not permitted for Muslims. The Quran says: "They were the first to attack you." (9:13)
What is to be noted is that even in the case of the offensive being launched by the other party, the believer's are not supposed to retaliate immediately. Instead, all efforts should be made to avert war. Only when avoidance has become impossible battle is the inevitably resorted to in defence.
This stand point is fully supported by the example of the Prophet.
The biographers of the Prophet have put the number of ghazwa (battle) at more than 80. This gives the impression that the Prophet of Islam in his 23 year Prophetic career waged four battles in a year. But this impression is entirely baseless. The truth is that in his entire Prophetic life , he engaged in war only on three occasions. All the other incidents described as ghazwa (war) were intact examples of avoidance of war, and not instances of involvement in battle.
For instance, in this books of Seerah (Biography) the incident of Al Ahzab is called a ghazwa (battle), where as truth is that on this occasion, the armed tribes of Arabia, twelve thousand in number, reached the borders of Madina for waging war, but the Prophet advised his Companions to dig a trench between them. This successfully prevented a battle from taking place. The same is the case of with all the other incidents called ghazwa.
The opponents of the Prophet repeatedly tried to get him embroiled in war, but on all such occasions, he managed to resort for some such strategy as averted the war, thus defusing the situation invariably.
There are only three instances of Muslims really entering the field of battle. Badr, Uhud and Hunayn. The events tell us that at all these occasions, war had become inevitable.
The prophet was compelled to encounter the aggressors in self-defence. Furthermore, these battles lasted only for half a day, each beginning from noon and ending with the setting of the sun.
Thus, it would be proper to say that the Prophet in his entire life-span had actively engaged in war for a total of a day and a half that is to say, the Prophet had observed the principle of non-violence throughout his 23-year Prophetic carrier, except one and a half days.
Another well-known instance of the Prophet's dislike for hostilities is the Hudaibiyyah peace treaty made by accepting, unilaterally, all the conditions of the enemy. In the case of the conquest of Mecca, he avoided battle altogether by making a rapid entry into the city with ten thousands Muslims - a number large enough to awe his enemies into submission. In this way, on all occasions, the Prophet endeavored to achieve his objectives by peaceful means.
This makes it quite clear that Muslims are not permitted to initiate hostilities. Except in cases where self-defence has become inevitable. The Quran in no circumstances gives permission for wanton violence.
In the past, when the sword was the only weapon of war, militancy did not lead to mass loss of life and property such as modern warfare brings in its wake. In former times, fighting was confined to the battlefield; the only sufferers were those engaged in the battle. But today, the spear and the sword have been replaced by megabombs and devastating long range missiles, so that killing and destruction take place on a horrendous scale. It is the entire human community which has now become the global arena of war. Even the air we breathe and the water we drink are left polluted in war's aftermath. Hence people find Islam outdated and irrelevant today precisely because of its militant interpretation.
What is needed is to discard the militant and political interpretation of Islam, and to adopt the original 'old' version of Islam based on peace, mercy and the love of mankind. The so called Muslim Fundamentalists have been exhorting their co-religionists to do battle all over the world. But the Quran says: "...and God calls to the home of peace." (10:25).
________________________________
Knowing the enemy (part I)
Islamdaily.net ^ | 11/22/06 | Mary Habeck
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742640/posts
Ideology
Jihadis are a small minority within the Islamist movement that believes violence must be used in order to create the perfect Islamic state. Within jihadism there are disagreements about at whom this violence should be aimed, how it should be carried out, what it will accomplish, and what the Islamic state law will look like when it is finally created. Here, I address those jihadis who agree with al-Qaida and affiliated groups on several important issues.
Only a very small minority of Muslims believe in violence and are willing to participate in it, which — in addition to great FBI work—explains why no attacks have been carried out in the US since 9/11, and why there have been few attacks in Europe or other places.
Jihadist ideology can be reduced to unusual definitions of four Islamic words (tawhid, jihad, caliphate and da’wa) and a few simple concepts. The jihadis believe, first, that they’re the only true Muslims in the world, the saved sect, the victorious party; that they’re the only ones going to Paradise. Second, they believe that hostile unbelievers control the world and have only one purpose in life, the destruction of Islam. In fact, according to several histories put together by jihadis, the entire purpose for the founding of America was to destroy Islam. Thus, thirdly, jihadis feel that war against the hostile unbelievers is permitted, because they’ve been attacked and aggressed against for at least ninety years, since the May 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement (which divided the Middle East into areas of influence for France, Great Britain and others). Bin Laden frequently references that agreement. Other jihadis have a more expansive vision of this war, believing it began either with the Crusades or fourteen hundred years ago or even with the creation of man. To them, history has been a constant fight between the believers and unbelievers, light and dark, truth and falsehood. Thus, for jihadis, all their wars have been defensive.
Finally, jihadis want to create an Islamic state for all the reasons that Islamists do — so that Islam will be correctly practiced, so that sharia law will be imposed, etc — but also to carry on this eternal war. Eternal war is the only foreign policy they envision for the caliphate, or Islamic state. When the war ends, it will be Judgment Day, the end of time. This is a dark, Manichean vision of the world.
As noted, the jihadis have very specific views of the concepts of tawhid, jihad, the Islamic state and da’wa.
(snip)
3 words Stay The Course.
That doesn't seem to be working very well.
Do you have a "Plan B"?
.
You seem to assume there is anything holy in Islam.. Do that and those "acts" would become merely 'excuses' for further murder and mayhem.. Islam is Not a religion it is a GANG posing as a religion... fighting for territory..
The loss of few cities(areas) would mean nothing.. Allah is not God and Islam is a GANG.. "tribal" and exactley corresponds to GANG mentality..
That doesn't seem to be working very well.
Actually it's not going that bad.
The problem is to many fine folks are not using the right timeframe. Think Cold War and this is 1953.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.