How to start a Jihad -101
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Now that was a big mistake! Even Navy Seals fear the Vaticans black-ops.
unclehobart
New Member
I wonder if his position will give him a faster death or a longer life as a barganing chip via the media.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
....someone understood the situation with a measure of clairity.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-01-18T111256Z_01_L18487533_RTRIDST_0_INTERNATIONAL-IRAQ-BISHOP-FREED-DC.XML
unclehobart
New Member
I heard some scuttle that the Syrians asked that he be let go since his diocese also encompassed into their territory and that their own populace was being a bit touchy about killing one of their own. Kill the foreign devils... not our domestic ones.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Not to mention that you don't want to make enemies the fellas that gave you the crusades.
tank girl
New Member
MrBishop said:
Start a Jihad? sheesh, I would've thought the origins of it 'started at least 50 years ago...thanks to the mistakes of a few, the juicy bits are only just coming into fruition.
If you want to be more accurate perhaps, make that at least 500 years ago. but who's counting...
Jihad is the reality of the 21st century.
Alaska
New Member
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
'cept the Catholics didn't declare it to be such this time. Imagine the furor if, f'r instance, the Pope got assasinated by a car-bomb driven by Muslim extremists.tank girl said:Start a Jihad? sheesh, I would've thought the origins of it 'started at least 50 years ago...thanks to the mistakes of a few, the juicy bits are only just coming into fruition.
If you want to be more accurate perhaps, make that at least 500 years ago. but who's counting...
Jihad is the reality of the 21st century.
If the vatican-city (a country in its own right) declares a war or crusade against all those of the Muslim faith....now THAT would be a Jihad.
Unlikely to happen...but if they'd found the head of that Archibishop on a country road somewhere...you can damn well be sure that the Pontif would be slower in turning the other cheek.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
MrBishop said:
*DISCLAIMER* I am NOT trying to pick a fight here, just want your opinion on something.
I am a Christian, but not Catholic and am admittedly ignorant of the tenets of that faith, so my question is based in that ignorance. Do you not find that stance just a bit hypocritical? If the pope (and if that should be capitalized forgive my error) advocates for peace and understanding, why then would a reaction such as you describe not be hypocrisy? Similar to someone saying to a neighbor, "I do not support the neighborhood children settling their differences by using violence against one another", and then saying later that "If any of these kids picks on MY son, I'll let him kick their asses all over the playground."
Just curious...
tank girl
New Member
MrBishop said:....declares a war or crusade against all those of the Muslim faith....now THAT would be a Jihad.
GWB has already done that with his "war on terrorism" has he not?...but it doesn't take explicit declarations of war to initiate such a thing. ALthough bombing the hell out of places helps
... These days its more implicit - through manipulation and disinformation...which people agree and hold as the truth.I don't know much about Cathlolicism, but I know that It doesn't take the catholic faith to declare where the Jihad starts...it is an Islamic term and understanding that I don't think anyone can really fathom. ALthough translated as "Holy War" in english its not as clear cut and simple as that.
In general; Jihad is a very broad word with many meanings that describes both an outward and inward struggle - and is intricately tied with the realisation of Islam.
It can be both non-violent and violent; though the violent meaning is the one that is more often subscribed to by those wishing to such as fundamentalists.
In fact, the traditional teaching of islam is nonviolence and that understanding is the founding of Jihad yet it has developed in two different ways - today the violent one holding full force but the non-violent, inner - spiritual understanding the underlying basis completely as akin to "the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires", in order to become as close to God and true as possible to their religious values.
Traditionally it has been up to the highest religious authority to declare Jihad but since, fundamentalist groups feel it is their duty to take the cause on actively themselves.
There is also two cases in which Jihad can be undertaken: defensive and offensive.
Defensive is in retaliation whilst Offensive is the actual invasion of hostile nations.
To understand Jihad you must understand that it is intertwined with the very basis of the faith of Islam.
To say that Islamic people shouldn't believe in Jihad is like to say to a christian that it is wrong to rever Jesus for dying on the cross - ridiculous. The belief is inseperable - but the violent element of Jihad is only neccesary where it is felt as being under threat.
To most Islamic people, the enforcement of the western ideals of democracy and freedom on their established way of life is akin to the deliberate destruction of the islamic faith - no different from the crusades - they don't seperate the political from their theological belief, and thats why they see the need to fight. Their belief requires them to defend their faith, unfortunately at whatever cost - and since the offensive against the middle-east is more explosive than ever - the more and more appealing and appropriate and neccesary the defensive appeal of the violent understanding of Jihad as propelled by fundamentalists seems to be for those upset by relations of westerners towards the middle east, and the more people affected by such things as the war in Iraq don't need much convincing to stand for what they not only believe in defending, but what they live and breathe for.
source - excellent article "JIHAD"
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Hypocritical or not...that's life. Catholics are human too and from Pope to comman layman subject to human emotion. I'm sure that the rule of peace-mongering would survive albeit wounded.SouthernN'Proud said:
There are levels of anger in everything. A stranger dies...you might feel angry at the circumstances. A coworker dies...some more anger. A friend dies.. vengeance rears its ugly head, family dies...it's personal now mutha'fucker!
I can love God with all my heart and soul... but don't fuck with my family.
You say it's hypocritical...I say, it's human nature washing over the veneer of society and revealing the real man.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
As I said, it was asked out of genuine ignorance on my part. I always heard that the "role" (for lack of better word) of the Pope is to be the direct intermediary between God and Catholics. My information may be off-base; it is as I said my own ignorance of Catholicism. If that is his role, it just seems contradictory to me. No personal insult intended. Just trying to get some education on the matter.