Now Marcus. On 9/11 nearly 3000 people were killed for no reason by radical islamists. Now, we are returning the favor.

And whats next? Some muslim smuggles a nuke through Mexico, and blows up NY completly? Since, I assume your not American, you probably wont give a damn about it, and still support peaceful means. Now you see, they wont mind, cause doing that is SUPPORTED. Now we havent done it, cause all the democrats in DC think we can stop them peacefully. Hahaha yea, cause building a democracy and building up ISF is REALLY gonna change their genocidal ideology.

But then shouldn't there be some Sunnis preaching tolerance and understanding? Maybe there are, but why don't we hear them?

Question
Hi Dr. Badawi. One of the famous quotation that Muslims use when talking about violence and peace is that Islam is a religion of peace and war in Islam is only for self-defense. However, you one day claimed: "Actual armed jihad is permissible under two conditions alone: one is for self-defense, and the other is for fighting against oppression." (cited in Diana Eck, A New Religious America, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001, p. 238).

Although, Dr. Badawi, you are quite accurate in describing the conditions of armed jihad in Islam, what you fail to say is that the definitions of "self-defense" and "fighting against oppression" are much broader than usually understood. Many Orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation's leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are "oppressors" and thus a legitimate target for war (see John Kelsay, Islam and War, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, p. 35). Many Muslims argue that America is a cultural aggressor by exporting its Hollywood values all over the world, and thus any fight against Americans is done in self-defense (see the article by Mark Galli, "Now What? A Christian response to religious terrorism," Christianity Today, Oct 22, 2001). Therefore, there is no end to how a Muslim group can define "self-defense" and "oppression" and thus find an Islamic justification for violence.

Answer
One of the sensible rules of interpretation is not to stretch the meaning of terms the way some people do. The context of permissibility to fight against aggression or oppression has nothing to do with the argument in this question. For example, the Qur'an, in Chapter 60, verse, 8 and 9, gives an explanation of that oppression; that they drive Muslims out of their homes. Furthermore, the best interpreter of the Qur'an is Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) who fought against those who committed acts of murder against Muslims or were gathering to attack Muslims.
Moreover, the historical context clearly indicates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not fight against non-Muslims who did not engage in hostilities against Muslims (for example, the Christians in Ethiopia). It should be noted, however, that two superpowers of his time (the Persians and the Romans) showed their aggressive attitudes towards Muslims and their request to peacefully communicate the message of Islam to others. Some even killed the envoys of the Prophet (an act of war in modern laws like deliberately killing an ambassador of another country). Some wrote to their local governors to kill the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
So, the Qur'anic verses must be understood honestly and contextually without such excess.

Good point. The Iraqi citizens we kill in collateral damage are innocent, as are the Palistinian children shelled on the beach. I think we rationalize this by the argument that the citizens become legitimate targets when their own leaders choose to use terror tactics. If Osama Bin Laden decides that US citizens are legitimate targets, then, as far as I am concerned, the citizens of governements committing those attacks are legitimate targets.

It gets less clear when you realize we are not fighting governments, we are fighting individuals. How do you do that? When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Our interrogations of "high-value suspects", our detainment camps at Guantanemo Bay, our (possibly illegal) phone taps are all efforts to fight individuals. But then we (myself included) complain about infringment of our rights. We are fighting a war we haven't even figured out how to fight

"a war we haven't even figured out how to fight!"

do you follow Islamic media sources or public debates?

That's so naieve it's almost madness.




i can't comment on the scale of your "24" based delusions this is surely television based paranoid ranting.

I suggest you watch television drama's with a sceptical brain and watch reality with more rationality.

This is why "innocents" will always suffer, they always suffer and die for wars without Justification or even an end in sight.

What would Sitting Bull have done if he had WMDs? Is this a parallel to our current situation? Sitting Bull could be defined as a "Native American extremist" trying to take military action to defend his culture. He was gobbled up by the larger society which overtake him.

so how are you suposed to keep out a person with a small nuclear weapon, or biologiclal weapons?

He didn't need WMD to be exterminated.

hhh, when did I ever say anything remotly racist? And yes, I do hate the Islamic extremists, should I not? Cant be racism when I dont have the whole race.

how do we keep people hell bent on killing us out?

My point here would be that the posted message would help build support in the US for a peaceful resolution in Iraq. This message doesn't get publicized. What I hear is the imams calling for destruction. Of course, I get that message through the media, which leans toward the sensational.
The kind of calm, rational thought in your post is what can lead to peace. The IED builders don't think that way though. How can you preach that message to them?

stop interfering in other nations and enjoy your supremacy in solitude

stop interfering in other nations and enjoy your supremacy in solitude


actually, that sounds like a good plan to me. the 'stop interfering' part, anyway.

The world is becoming smaller and more global. We are all connected, and to ignore that invites trouble. We just need to figure out how to live with it.

You can't. The way you prevent it is by guaranteeing an unimaginably harsh response. I truly believe that if a nuke went off in the US and an Islamic faction took credit we would turn Mecca into a large green glass parking lot.

PS some ignorant racists think "racism" is only for certain ethnic groups

some ignorant racists think "racism" is only for certain ethnic groups


Usually it is the ethnic groups that are racist towards 'whites'. Oh sorry i forgot, racism only exists if it is a white person doing it!

Here in Australia sadly there are many outback towns where you get bashed by Aboriginals just for being white. They are extremely racist but it seems to be acceptable because their the 'oppressed indiginous culture'. Personally i do not understand why any society would accept such extreme racism so openly?