www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall When will armed Jihad end?

Not until Islam overcomes the entire world and with whatever means necessary.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/105/22.0.html

"In terms of Islamic jurisprudence, only Muslims are innocent�non-Muslims are not. By default, all non-Muslims are rebel criminals against God. Muslims who engage in interfaith [gatherings] are apostate. God discriminates among man on basis of faith. The jihad is not specifically anti-Christian�it is anti-kaffir."

CDL

I find these articles very depressing.

ICXC
NIKA

I think we all do.

CDL

It will end when man's heart turns to God, the Almighty Father, Creator of us all. The deception of the darkness on man's soul has been allowed because we have not done the work God has called us to. I am very guilty of being silent in my life, but I am trying not to be anymore. But we must return to speaking the truth of God according to his Word and love for mankind.

Pani Rose

Jihad shall end when it is the will of the Holy Spirit for it to end.

JP

The article is from a fundamentalist Protestant perspective and that is why it is written in the tone it is. If all Christians were to be judged by their actions and statements our brethern in the Middle East would have been driven into exile ages ago. As it is they are a souce of trouble for them. The last thing we need is to take their advice on what the problem is when both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches know very well what the issues are and work with them. Unless you are inclined towards Protestant fundamentalism I would suggest a change of reading to a more Orthodox or Catholic site in future, they are less given to doomsday senarios.


ICXC
NIKA

Date: 2006-03-16

Respectful Engagement With Islam Urged

U.S. Bishop Calls for More Protection of Religious Freedom

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 16, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A bishop testifying before a congressional panel called for positive efforts to understand and engage Islam and Muslim leaders and to promote religious freedom for Christians in some Muslim countries.

"Constructive and respectful dialogue with Islam is imperative in today's world," said Bishop Thomas Wenski, chairman of the episcopate's Committee on International Policy.

"Rather than deploring a clash of cultures, we need to foster cultures of dialogue and respect as keys to justice and peace," said the Orlando, Florida, prelate.

Bishop Wenski, 55, testified today before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations. The hearing was devoted to the 2005 Human Rights Report of the U.S. Department of State.

At the request of the subcommittee, the bishop addressed religious freedom and the status of Christians in a number of Islamic countries. He offered recommendations for U.S. policies to improve religious freedom in countries with Muslim majorities.

"This focus, which is both timely and relevant, should not be interpreted as suggesting that these are the principal or only countries in which there are serious concerns for religious freedom or that other religious minorities that are not Christian do not suffer from religious discrimination," Bishop Wenski said.

Different expressions

Some of the most significant challenges for religious freedom and forging constructive roles for religion in world affairs are developing relationships between Christians and Muslims, Bishop Wenski stated.

"The violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and several conflicts in Africa come close to being perceived, in overly simplistic terms, as just conflicts of East versus West, of all of Islam versus all of Christianity," he said.

"Like Christianity, Islam is a religion with different expressions," Bishop Wenski continued. "Tensions among these expressions of Islam have been exacerbated by the rise of militant Islam and the misuse and perversion of faith to justify violence."

"Serious conflicts and religious tensions do exist between Christians and Muslims in some Islamic countries and the denial of religious liberty in these situations is a painful reality," he continued.

"But it is essential to recognize that these problems can be made worse by ignoring them or exacerbated by policies that reinforce the sense that Islam itself is under siege," the prelate said. "In addition to addressing forthrightly infringements on religious liberty, our country must be cognizant of a number of other social, economic, political and military factors that contribute to situations in which religious intolerance toward Christians and other religious minorities is more likely to grow."

The full text of Bishop Wenski's testimony is posted at:

www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/2006318drafttestimonyislamandchristianityfinal.pdf. [usccb.org]

ICXC
NIKA

I think this story from today's Fox News sums up Islam better than I possibly could http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188364,00.html
At least the fanatical Taleban are no longer in power.

Dear Pavel you quoted Bishop Wenski as saying:

"Like Christianity, Islam is a religion with different expressions,"

I say:

The article posted in Christianity Today was one expression of Islam. Note what the Sheik said about those Muslims who dialogue with other faiths.

Now the problem with Islam is not the average Muslim, but rather the fanatic. But mind you, people will leave a land if they are being terrorized as long as they have a place to go to.

If the Muslims though cannot leave a place because of their faith, and the Christians will leave because they have places to go to, then isn't it enevitable that the world will become Islamic? If you would note, this has been happening in many parts of the world.

Of course this does not mean that we shouldn't do everything in our power to change that fundamental mind set, but we have to realize that it does exist.

Zenovia

You are quiet correct the article does fixate on one arm of Islam. However fundamentalist Protestants don't do as Orthodox and Catholics do and that is talk to the Muslims and live with them. Mind you they have enough of problem acepting that Orthodox and Catholics are even Christians at all.

ICXC
NIKA

Pavel,

It has always troubled me when someone argues against a case based upon his opinion of the presenter rather than upon the issue itself. I gather the message given to Balaam should have been opposed simply based upon the messenger. The Pharisees accused Jesus of being a false prophet because he was "gasp" from Nazareth.

Ok, here is a message from a Muslim that was heard on Al Jazeera. Will you be able to reject the message based upon the messenger?

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20...60.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

Yes, I know that as Schwartz, a Muslim, says "there are many faces of Islam".

What do I believe about Islam? It is a false religion. It exists, to be sure, but it is basically a Christian heresy similar to Protestantism. There are many heresies in the world but that alone makes them spiritually dangerous but not necessarily physically dangerous.

However, there are huge numbers of Muslims who participate in or are supporters of violence against virtually anyone who is a Muslim of a very backward cultic nature. They constitute a minority of Muslims to be sure but the numbers are so large that we ignore this danger at our own peril. These Muslims are so radical that they even pose a threat and have killed many fellow Muslims who do not agree with them.

One confronts heresy with convincing witness. One confronts armed attack with wisdom and if necessary force of arms.

But to focus our attention upon the messengers rather than the message is dubious at best.

CDL

Here is an Islamic question and answer site that may clear up some questions.

http://www.islam-qa.com/

Here's an article that seems to be on target for the question of Jihad.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=43087&dgn=4

Note that the message and the messengers are all Islamic.

CDL

How about a Fifth Column:

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=129&type=issue

Is this an example of one?

http://www.meforum.org/article/920

CDL

I don't know how much better things are though in reality. We all know about this [news.yahoo.com] .

Andrew

That's Sharia. One cannot safely or legally convert away from Islam in an Islamic country. When conversion is seen as an attack upon Islam is anyone really safe? Let us pray that this dear brother remains true to Christ and that if he is to be murdered it will be a seed for the Church. Dear brother, whether he is killed or not, I ask that he pray for us.

CDL

When will armed jihad end?
Perhaps when Britain and the US stop terrorizing Muslims, invading their lands, and supporting Israel blindly?
See this website [robertfisk.com] for the photographs of British journalist Robert Fisk, a man of vast experience in the Middle East [warning: not for the faint of heart; contains disturbing images of civilian casualties].
He also has great credibility because he was denouncing the crimes of Saddam Hussein in the 80s, when the US, Britain, and the USSR were arming and supporting him against Iran...
Radical Islamist jihad is almost entirely the creation of the West; originally British and American intelligence supported and trained the Muslim Brotherhood as a ploy against Communism and Arab nationalists [like Nassar]. And we trained and armed the Taliban and bin Laden's "Afghan Arabs" in Afghanistan. And encouraged Hamas against Yassar Arafat.
Read the history!
-Daniel

Daniel,

When was the last time you saw a Christian behead a Muslim?

I cannot believe you are so brain washed to think the way you do. It is quite scary, actually. The United States is of course not flawless, but come on, reread what you actually just posted.

One dirty bomb will ruin your day.

Wise up, sir.

-uc

Iconophile,

I have read the history and my recollection from reading it goes back much further than 1950. Armed Jihad has been going on since day one of Islam. A lot more than what you prescribe is required to end it.

CDL

I suppose when those who think that taking up arms is the meaning of Jihad and yet the real Jihad has to be fought on the inside against sin.

ICXC
NIKA

I think you are correct. There is a struggle within Islam over this very issue. Always has been. Yet, I don't believe that day will ever come because both forms of Jihad are in the Qur'an and the Sharia. Still we can pray to that end and even better, pray for their conversion to Christ and for our own conversions.

CDL

Originally posted by ukrainiancatholic:

[qb] Daniel,

When was the last time you saw a Christian behead a Muslim?

I cannot believe you are so brain washed to think the way you do. It is quite scary, actually. The United States is of course not flawless, but come on, reread what you actually just posted.

One dirty bomb will ruin your day.


Dear uc,

And American bombs are "clean", I suppose? When was the last time you saw a young Iraqi child disfigured by American weaponry? Check out the site I linked to..

I am speaking of jihadism as a modern reality. The revival of Wahhabism is directly related to American and British intelligence operations [see the book "Devil's Game", by Robert Dreyfuss], promoted and funded also by our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.
You, sir, are the one who seems brainwashed by the neocons, who are using the monster they created to scare us into support for their global corporate empire and erosion of our rights at home.
This is not to say that Islam does not have within it elements that are dangerous and violent. All religions evolve: does anyone remember the Taborites? Or the early Anabaptists? Or Simon de Montfort, who massacred villages in the name of Christ?
However, the growth of radical jihadism is for the most part a reaction against the West and Israel.
Bush and his neocon handlers have done more to make Islamism attractive than bin Laden ever did.
And you all, when you generalize about Muslims don't help matters, either.
Heck, even some conservatives [Fukayama, Buckley, etc] are seeing the light -or at least abandoning a sinking ship- but some of you are still marching blindly behind Bush & Co...

-Daniel

Daniel,
Excuse my ignorance, but what did the early Anabaptists do so terrible? One (or more) sides of my family came (were probably expelled) from Switzerland before the American Revolution because they were Anabaptists. The Amish are also Anabaptists and came from Switzerland.
Who were the Taborites? And whom did Simon de Montfort massacre - Huguenots?
Thanks, Wolfgang

Daniel,

I thought we were discussing religious matters. Now you insert politics. I really wish you'd stay on track.

CDL

Daniel,

Your post can only be taken as something out of Alice in Wonderland. Up is down, down is up, right is left, left is right, etc.

I suppose the innocent peace loving Muslims were responding to American and British 'terror' (one of your Alice in Wonderland statements) when they
invaded, conquered, and pillaged Serbia in the 1300s and continue to do so today. Oh it must have been the US 'terror' that caused Kosovo, which was the cradle of Serbian culture, to become 90% Albanian Muslim. And if the Muslims were behind it, it was peaceful right? The Serbs moved out on their own? Give me a break!

Can you explain to me how it is US and British 'terror', and especially the Jews, that are causing the conflict between Muslims and Christians in the Phillipines.

Or maybe you can explain how the US and British 'terror' are causing the Muslim and Buddist conflict in Kashmir.

Certainly you could explain to me how US and British 'terror' are causing Muslim terror in Chechneya.

Or maybe you can explain how somewhere between 80%-90% of the conflicts in the world are between Muslims and their neighbors.

Before you try your 'Neocon' label on me, know that I would have preferred us to stay out of Iraq(and thus disagreed with the Neocons), only because I knew that this administration would never take the gloves off and do what was necessary to win in Iraq.

Are you that misinformed on history? Armed Jihad was ocurring well before the US was even founded. For crying out loud, it was happening before Columbus was around.

You and Robert Fisk ought to be thankful that we have men and women willing to put their lives on the line to clean up Islamofascism. If your granddaughter ends up wearing a burqa, we'll see how much of a hero Robert Fisk is to you. Oh, that's right, it will be the Jews fault if that happens to her.

mc

What about the burning of the Alexandrian library? Was that the cause of American and British abuse?

What about the murder and rapes in Armenia? What about the conquest of Abyssinia? The Sudan? Egypt? North Africa? South Asia? What of the overwhelming of Constantinople? What about so many other expressions of armed Jihad? These are and were done by Muslims performing Jihad.

CDL

I disagree with much of what Daniel says regarding Islam, but I will give him some credit.25 years ago, I and I'm sure many other Westerners of Slavic or Russian descent, felt that Communism was the number one enemy, so much so that we ignored the rise of radical Islam.It's like my parents generation supporting Hitler in the hopes that Russia would be liberated from Communism.MY parents didn't support Hitler because they were leftists, my mother wasn't of Slavic descent.Like most leftists they lauded Stalin's treaty with Hitler which helped to bring about WWII as a great piece of strategy.I now believe our time resemble those of the pre WWII years.Then, you had Nazism and Fascism on the far right and the Soviets on the far left, both enemies of Christianity.Now, we have militant Islam on the far right and the radical gays and others like them on the far left, who more often tha not will defend the Islamofascists.Sadly,if militant Islam does get the upper hand, they will turn on these ACLU types who have been defending them, just as Hitler and Stalin turned on those who helped bring them to power.

Fr. Al,

I like your analogy.

CDL

The Mennonites, of which the Amish are a subsect, were the pacifist branch of Anabaptism; other groups were apocolyptic, vowing to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven by force of arms.
An Anabaptist group under John of Leyden took over the city of Munster, took multiple wives, and started executing the reprobate. Neighboring cities conquered them and executed John of Leyden.
The Taborites were medieval apocolyptics, also attempting to bring about the Kingdom by violence.
Simon de Montfort was a leader in the crusades against the Albigensians [Cathari] and razed whole villages of alleged heretics, killing men, women, and children. He is attributed with the infamous aphorism "Kill them all; God will sort them out."
These violent Christians went into battle quoting the Bible; mostly Old Testament, but not entirely ["I bring not peace but the sword"].
Hope this helps.
-Daniel

Very humorous, Dan, as if one could discuss violent jihad without mentioning history and politics...
And Fr Al; insightful post. I would only add that it wasn't just a matter of ignoring the rise of radical Islam. It was in fact directly funded and armed by British, and later, American intelligence as a wedge against Communism and Arab nationalism. This is a matter of history; if it seems to turn reality upside down, Alice in Wonderland style, perhaps it is because such operations are not widely covered in the establishment press.
I would note too the uniqueness of Wahhabi and Salafi extremism. They have none of the culture or philosophical interests of the Andalusian Muslims, lack all tolerance, which some Muslim regimes possessed to varying degrees, none of the artistic attainment of the Moghuls. They are the most intolerant, puritanical and anti-human form of Islam to come down the pike, and they have grown to be a threat because of the actions of the US and its allies.
It seems that the old game of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" inevitably blows up in your face.

-Daniel

Thinking about it, it occurs to me that violent interpretations of Christianity are not just a thing of the past; Ronald Reagan was reputed to hold apocalyptic views that led to a sort of fatalism regarding some of his military adventures.
And do you remember Bud McFarlane's apocalyptic Catholic novel from the 90s Pierced by a Sword , arguably the worst novel ever, which ended with Marian militias, fighting the forces of the Antichrist violently?
I have in fact spoken to many Latin and Byzantine Christians who seemed to look forward to a violent confrontation with the forces of evil.
But "My Kingdom is not of this world."
Right?
-Daniel

Those who are foolish enough to fight the devil with violence will be the first to have their bones crushed by his war machine.

So, if we make nice with the Jihadists they'll stop bothering everybody?

The people of God have always fought Just Wars. Including Fasting, Prayer, and yes violence. We have an obligation to defend that which is Holy. Whether it is physical places and things or people.

Uh, I hope you are not equating "the People of God" with the United States..

Isn't that what you just did in your previous post?

CDL

What are you talking about? I view Protestant apocalyptics and other militant Christians as false prophets.

"And American bombs are "clean", I suppose? When was the last time you saw a young Iraqi child disfigured by American weaponry? Check out the site I linked to..

I am speaking of jihadism as a modern reality. The revival of Wahhabism is directly related to American and British intelligence operations [see the book "Devil's Game", by Robert Dreyfuss], promoted and funded also by our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.
You, sir, are the one who seems brainwashed by the neocons, who are using the monster they created to scare us into support for their global corporate empire and erosion of our rights at home.
This is not to say that Islam does not have within it elements that are dangerous and violent. All religions evolve: does anyone remember the Taborites? Or the early Anabaptists? Or Simon de Montfort, who massacred villages in the name of Christ?
However, the growth of radical jihadism is for the most part a reaction against the West and Israel.
Bush and his neocon handlers have done more to make Islamism attractive than bin Laden ever did.
And you all, when you generalize about Muslims don't help matters, either.
Heck, even some conservatives [Fukayama, Buckley, etc] are seeing the light -or at least abandoning a sinking ship- but some of you are still marching blindly behind Bush & Co..."

These examples are from the distant past. Today, as we speak, Moslems are killing innocent people. Look at the Afgan man who was condemned to death because he converted. Do we Christians today burn any one at the stake because of their religous beliefs?

We "march blindly behind Bush and Co." because we want to live. Look at the killing of the Dutch film maker, the riots in Denmark, and the rest of the Moslem world over a cartoon!! Yes, someday your daughter will wear a berka because you ignored the militant Moslems and their beliefs.

Is your post directed at Iconophile? I don't quite follow your argument whoever it's addressing. President Bush nor his father, nor his father's father or grandfather, when the Wahabis and the Saudis made their pact.

CDL

Daniel,

You look at the malicious and intentional beheadings of innocent civilians by Muslim fanatics and the accidental killing of civilians by the American military during wartime and you see moral equivalence?

In fact, independent journalists, as opposed to the "imbedded", or should we say "in-bed-with", kind, report that there have been vast civilian casualties in Iraq. Of course, our government learned in Vietnam that it is unwise to report numbers of enemy, let alone, civilian casualties. Like in the first Gulf War, when we bulldozed vast numbers of Iraqi dead into mass graves, not attempting to count or bury them decently [in violation of the Geneva Conventions].
If "accidental" it is an accident caused by reckless behavior, like bombing cities.
And what does it matter, this claim that it is all a misunderstanding?
Imagine: you are standing in the ruins of what once was your house. Your child is in a bloody heap beside you. What is your reaction when the perpetrator says "Oops, sorry. It was a mistake. No hard feelings, okay?"
Now multiply that rage by tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of the victims of our bombs, of the bombs of Israel, and you have some notion of the roots of Islamic radicalization.
I am not denying the barbarism of contemporary jihadism; I am saying that it did not arise in a vacuum, that we should try to understand and admit the responsibility we carry.
And "distant" history? Like a couple of weeks ago, you mean?
Americans have short attention spans. Alas for us, the rest of the world does not.
-Daniel

So then is it fair to say that you do see a moral equivalence?

And I refer back to my first question: If we make nice with the Jihadists will they stop bothering everybody?

I wouldn't say moral equivalence, rather moral continuity.
And no, of course the jihadists would not respond to our tardy nice-playing. However, we need not make more and more jihadists by our arrogance and violence...

What's the difference?

Unfortunately no. Has anyone seen Father Richard John Neuhaus's article in "First Things" # 162 April 2006?

In "The Public Square" he speaks about how we are to understand this conflict in "The Two-hundred Year War". He offers an analysis of the books he was reading:

"The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" by Samuel Huntington

"The Closed Circle" by David Pryce-Jones

"Dream Palace of the Arabs" and "The Arab Predicament" by Fouad Ajami

and

"The Crisis of Islam" and "What went wrong" by Bernard Lewis.

Father Neuhaus agrees with Mary Habeck (of John Hopkins) who wrote "Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror"

From Fr. Neuhaus...

"As is obvious in Europe, that vision [of the final victory for Islam, eg. when all the world is Moslem] is powerfully appealing to young Muslims, including those who are second or third-generation immigrants. The jihadis declare that they are prepared for a war of two hundred years, or as long as it takes, even to the Day of Judgment."

Are we prepared to be better Christians than they are Moslems, and can we work (even if it takes two hundred years) until Christ is all, in all?

Nick

I don't like to talk in terms of moral equivalence because from there it is a short step to the "WE are not so bad; just look at what THEY do!" blindness. Look at the Palestinians and Israelis: neither side can see the evil they do as they are blinded by the evil of their enemies [though more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than Israelis by Palestinians, if you are looking for a quantitative standard].
But quantitative standards don't apply. Lives become an abstraction, when they are anything but. Is the Armenian genocide unimportant because "only" a million Armenians died and 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis? Is 9/11 not the moral equivalent of Hiroshima because only a fraction of numbers of the Japanese dead were killed in the Twin Towers?
Secondly, how are we judging moral equivalence? Subjectively? Those Iraqi children you see in the photos are considered "collateral damage" by those who bombed them for the sake of [at best] spreading democracy or deposing a tyrant.
But the jihadists, however misguided, believe they are killing and dying for the sake of the literal reign of God.
This subjective question of motivation is important: most Americans, even Catholics who should know better, justify the targeting of civilians in World War II by appealing to the good that came from it. Even Christians are transformed into full blown relativists, consequentialists who justify evil in the name of a greater good. By this standard, the jihadists have the highest motivation, the reign of God on the earth.
On the other hand, if there is objective moral truth, killing the innocent is never just, no matter what.
And do not forget that the Holy See called this war unjust. "Collateral" deaths in an unjust cause are murder.
-Daniel

Nick- If the Rev Neuhaus is reading Huntington and Lewis of course that is his conclusion: Garbage in, garbage out.
Neuhaus was and is among those who argued against the Holy See that this "preemptive" war was just. I don't believe they have even said "I'm sorry" when it turned out that Iraq no longer has WMD and their fear was unjustified....
-Daniel