The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Who's Winning Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Interpretation and Exceptionalism (continued)
loba    1/30/2002 3:26:46 PM
First, one can kill huge numbers of people, while also avoiding any casualties to oneself, without even fighting a war. Consider the economic sanctions on Iraq that are killing off nearly 5,000 children a month, all because our government opposes one man. My point is not to justify war, but to draw attention to one of its faces that we routinely ignore.

Second, Islam did not invent war; it merely teaches a specific approach to it. This approach forbids aggression, or attacking one's enemies unawares, and it also instructs Muslims to cease hostilities if aggression against them ceases. The last point may seem unimportant until one recalls that the U.S. destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the Japanese had broadcast their terms of surrender. More recently, the U.S. army shot about 100,000 Iraqi troops retreating from the battlefield during the Gulf War, with senior U.S. generals calling it a "duck shoot."

Third, it is not just any type of aggression Muslims must resist, but religious persecution. Thus, jihad is not for extending territories, protecting political or economic interests, or killing one's foes, reasons for which all nations, including Muslim, generally go to war.

Fourth, the Qur'an also teaches the precepts of forgiveness and peace. As it says, "Since good and evil cannot be equal, repel thou evil with something that is better, and lo, he between whom and thyself was enmity may then become as though he had always been close unto thee, a true friend" (41:34); and " . . .when you are greeted with a greeting of peace, answer with an even better greeting, or at least the like thereof" (4: 86).

Of course, quoting verses selectively from the Qur'an is not the best way to convince people of the truth of one's argument, much less to impart a holistic understanding of its teachings, but such are the limitations of a ten-minute talk. The point I want to stress is that the Qur'an asks us to read it for its best meanings and it defines Islam as "sirat ul mustaqeem," the straight path, the middle path, the path of moderation, not excess.

There is no question that some Muslims have fallen into extremism and excess and there is also no question that we need to do a better job of reading the Qur'an for liberation than we have done so far. This requires us to struggle constantly to try and redefine our understanding of it. That is why I'm never averse to anyone wanting to know what Islam "really" teaches because such questions can help in that definitional struggle, or jihad.

But, unfortunately, many people who are beating up on Muslims today to identify the "real" Islam are not really interested in our doing so; rather, they use such questions to cast the proverbial first stone at us. To such people, I would say, you have no right to ask this question until you also are willing to assume the responsibility of asking "which is the ?real' U.S.: the one that advocates freedom, civil liberties, and democracy at home, or the one that carries out wars and violence and repression abroad?" Surely, there is much to be learned by asking the "real" U.S. also to "please stand up."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Talk given at Ithaca College, Oct. 29th, 2001

 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

pfd    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism (continued)   1/30/2002 8:14:59 PM
Thank you for a fabulous post! Great clarifications. I have always felt that ' out of context' quotes were a time wasting exersize. It is about time that the geopolitical supeceeded the spiritual in this question. Thank you.
 
Quote    Reply

Ben    Corrections to Interpretation and Exceptionalism    1/31/2002 9:00:51 AM
" Consider the economic sanctions on Iraq that are killing off nearly 5,000 children a month," Often repeated but a lie. Food and medicine are specifically exempted by the sanctions. Children die becuase Saddam, who bypasses sanctions with ease to build palaces and air defense sites, wishes it. No other reason. "Second, Islam did not invent war; it merely teaches a specific approach to it. This approach forbids aggression, or attacking one's enemies unawares, and it also instructs Muslims to cease hostilities if aggression against them ceases." Islam teaches nothing of the kind. People teach. God is pretty quiet on the subject of military doctrine these days. Only people teach, and some say they are teaching to God's lesson plan. They may teach one thing and call it Islam, they may teach another and still call it Islam, and no one has the right to judge. "The last point may seem unimportant until one recalls that the U.S. destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the Japanese had broadcast their terms of surrender." Not true at all. "Third, it is not just any type of aggression Muslims must resist, but religious persecution." Not true. There is no nation in which is illegal to practice Islam. There are nations calling themeselves Islamic in which it is illegal to practice other religions freely. "Fourth, the Qur'an also teaches the precepts of forgiveness and peace." No, again, people teach what they wish to teach, a book teaches nothing. "responsibility of asking "which is the ?real' U.S.: the one that advocates freedom, civil liberties, and democracy at home, or the one that carries out wars and violence and repression abroad?" Surely, there is much to be learned by asking the "real" U.S. also to "please stand up." One can easily see how few Americans actually celebrate the deaths of Muslim civilians. The reverse is not so obvious.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism (continued)   9/12/2002 6:20:18 PM
Yet another in a long line of historical errors, tortured logic, and self righteous twaddle masquerading as "analysis". Rather than waste more time in yet another detailed, line by line refutation, I'll just pick two flagrant inaccuracies: 1)Jews introduced "modern terror" to the Middle East in their war against colonial British rule. Wrong. The examples cited, themselves, repudiate this twaddle. For instance, the bombing of the King David Hotel, an oft-cited example for this bit of propaganda, was the headquarters of the British Mandatory Government. IOW, it was NOT an innocent civilian target. It was a *military target* under both contemporaneous and current international law. Indeed, virtually all fighting against the British colonial government was completely justified under the general international norms OF TODAY. Fighting against Arabs in the same period was hardly any different as those same Arabs had begun a campaign to kill or drive out the Jews of the region. What part of "self defense" do you folks have trouble understanding? 2)America is in NO WAY responsible for the deaths of Iraqis under the sanction regime. In order for America to be responsible, America would have to have, in some way, prevented Iraq from obtaining food, medicine, etc. In actual fact, this has not happened. To the contrary, neither food nor medicial supplies are or ever were embargoed. And, Iraq is allowed to export oil to cover essential national expenditures such as food and medicine. In fact, the reason Iraqis have died is because the leader, Great Saddam, has refused to use the money he earns exporting oil to PAY for the food or medicine the country needs, instead using it for his military, efforts to smuggle or build prohibited weapons, pay-offs to maintain his rule, and his own jollies. Funny how critics of American policy seem unable to grasp any essential link between cause and effect, instead substituting their own politics and secret demons.... bsl
 
Quote    Reply

Nilefury    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism (continued) loba   9/8/2003 7:58:39 AM
Defending Islam is a task that requires: 1-Planning 2-Preparation to prevent Piss Poor Performance in debates I appreciate ur zeal to defend Islam. But don't undertake such a task unless you ARE prepared for it not THINK YOU ARE prepared for it. People are convinced by facts not opinions. i.e when muslim nations start to make progress economically scientifically politically (democracy)and militarilly they will be respected ,before that is a fact it really helps to stop talking and focus on the problem at hand and find real solutions instead of starting debates which lead no where. When u have a chair in the SC u will be heard before that is a fact of life, u zip the lips and work hard :)
 
Quote    Reply

Interrested    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism (continued) loba   9/8/2003 8:19:50 AM
On the first part: Yes, people should be informed and than talk. Or ask to be informed. So I fully agree with Nilefury Secondly, again I agree..facts,facts facts not fiction. Third, sorry I disagree. The SC does not have a monopoly on "the truth". Every country has a right yo be heard. All we can hope for is that the people who speak and the ones who listen are equally prepared to look at the facts, look at common ground and move forward. Putting the arab would down, even if it is sometimes very very very....tempting, is not going to give us any answers. (PS don't tell me that nobody here on this forum doesn't share my views that the truth has been streched a bit to convince us of being "right". Like somebody said here, countries don't do what's right...they do what's right for them!)
 
Quote    Reply

Nilefury    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism (continued)   9/8/2003 9:27:59 AM
What is right? What is right for u inn't for me and vice versa :) So who's the judge on what is right and what is wrong? Yup u guessed it, Darwinian law of survival of the fittest and the absolute perishment of the incompetent. So which side u want to be on? :) Deeds not Words.
 
Quote    Reply

Nilefury    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism (continued) loba   9/8/2003 9:52:14 AM
What I'm trying to say is , if u expect to stay on top for a long time debating is useless coz ur doing just fine. on the other hand if ur at the bottom debating won't get u anywhere would it :) But realistic discussions about strategy ahh I can't hope to over emphasize their importance. Summary: not about iddeology , about material.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy