h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You poor, poor person. You're posting in such a conversation almost at exactly midnight...

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Tango

Poor soul, you think it's midnight everywhere? Deary me.

Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you have missed the point entirely.

If I, or any other I should think, were to write an article on Christianity it would not include the atrocities because they are not part of the religion. There is nothing I have read in The Bible that justifies these actions. The same goes for Islamic Jihad and the rest. They are not part of Islam as much as some may try to make it so.

If the article was about the History of Islam, then perhaps there would be some justification for including these things. As it is not, so why include something that it is not. This article is about what Islam is, not what ignorant, bigoted people would try and have you believe it is.

Balance doesn’t come into it. Balance is only required when the subject matter is contentious. If you are saying that it is contentious, then you are implying that Islamic Jihad, the Taliban and All Queda are all part of Islamic traditions.

Stuart

Wells there's always the option of entitling it "Is Islam a Relgion of Destruuction - a Muslim Viewpoint" there are opinion pieces in the EG but they are clearly stated to be opinion pieces... such as this one on democratic anachy A658037 and I don't see why this should be any different. This is a statement of what is in the Koran and what most people in a religon think! eg I think you could write about the Church of England without mentioning the desolution of the monastries in the past.

It was midnight everywhere that matters!

Tango

"I think you could write about the Church of England without mentioning the desolution of the monastries in the past."

What I think you meant to say was that you could not write about the Church of England without mentioning the dissolution of the monasteries in the past.

This is true but writing about the Church of England is not the same as writing about Christianity. The Church of England is a classic example where an individual hi-jacked the religion to further his own agenda.

Stuart

>Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you have missed the point entirely

It's a great shame that just because I dare to disagree with other people's opinions they start getting bitchy with me. I hoped we could have a discussion on a more sensible basis.

So, I've missed the point. The Crusades had nothing to do with the Christian religion, eh? The Spanish Inquisition - auto da fe means act of faith, for Christ's sake - had nothing to do with the teachings of the Catholic Church, you reckon? The damning accusation that the Church levelled against the Jews for two thousand years (and have only just withdrawn, after all these centuries of antisemitism) that the Jews bore collective responsibility for deicide, which all the faithful were required to believe as the sacred teaching of Holy Mother Church, was not part of the religion, you think? All I can say is there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Anyway, this is off-topic. The topic is Jihad. It's quite simple, really. People reading this entry in the here and now have heard of Islamic Jihad, have heard of the Mujahidin. Okay, a particular interpretation of the Q'ran would have it that Jihad doesn't mean holy war. Therefore it is necessary to point out that Islamic Jihad either doesn't want a holy war, or if it does it isn't Islamic. But these people do claim to be Islamic, and they do most definitely want a holy war and are prepared to martyr themselves and go straight to paradise in the prosecution of such a holy war. If it wasn't holy they wouldn't go straight to paradise, right?

Therefore there is more than one possible interpretation of the Q'ran (not surprising, really, since scholars have been discussing the interpretation of the holy scriptures for millennia). Therefore, as a minimum, the entry needs to say there there are various possible interpretations and the one given isn't the only one, and there is at least a branch or faction within Islam that thinks Jihad means holy war.

That doesn't mean that all Muslims believe in that, of course, but some do and some don't, there are hawks and there are doves, and in the interests of balance and fairness this needs to be mentioned.

After all, Christianity has many divisions and denominations. Even on something as fundamental as the nature of the Trinity there is no single interpretation that satisfies all Christians. A deep and so far irreconcilable schism occurred early on simply because the Orthodox couldn't accept one single word - 'filioque' - in the Catholic creed.

Judaism likewise has many divisions and denominations. There are for example religious Jews who regard the State of Israel with disgust as an abomination, and believe that Jews would do better to remain in exile until the Messiah comes to take them back to the Promised Land.

So there is nothing amiss in suggesting that perhaps Islam also has one or two differences of opinion here and there. For example, the differences between the Shia and the Sunni. I just do not see what is wrong with pointing out that there are different schools of thought.

In highly contentious topics such as politics and religion, fairness requires that different points of view are put forward. This seems pretty obvious to me.

I get the impression that dissenting views are not very welcome in this thread. Minds seem to be closed. That is a pity and, if I may say so, the cause of much misery in the world. But in my opinion the entry as it stands needs more balance. Right now it is opinion and interpretation and very one-sided.

Well if you were writing a general piece on the church of England you couldn't miss it. if you're writting a piece of the "Is the Church of England a religion of destruction" I personally would only metion there things that would affect the current stance!

“The Crusades had nothing to do with the Christian religion.”

Not a lot. They just tried to make you think it was. Tell me where in The Bible it tells you that Christians had sole right to the City of Jerusalem to the exclusion of Jews and Moslems, which is what the Crusades where about. Another case of the west using religion to further the own personal aims.

Also I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible where it says that anyone daring to criticise the established order should be declared a heretic and severely punished if not burned at the stake. That’s what the Spanish Inquisition was about. Not my understanding of Christianity.

“the faithful were required to believe as the sacred teaching of Holy Mother Church”

Don’t remember reading that in The Bible either. As for the rest of the paragraph, your grammar seems to have gone awry and a cannot make out what it is you are trying to say.

“Okay, a particular interpretation of the Q'ran would have it that Jihad doesn't mean holy war”

Not an interpretation of the Q’ran, its an interpretation of the Arabic language where Jihad means to struggle to achieve and objective. That objective may sometimes include Holy War, but is not always the case. The Moslems mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca can be considered a Jihad and that doesn’t require a war.

Islamic Jihad is the Moslem equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition and is dis-credited as much. No one suggests that the Spanish Inquisition should be resurrected and Islamic Jihad will go the same way.

“ But these people do claim to be Islamic”

What you claim to be and what you are are two different things.

“there is at least a branch or faction within Islam that thinks Jihad means holy war.”

Only those that want to use the religion to further there political objectives. As much relevance as the Spanish Inquisition.

It is interesting to note that in the original article, Adib, to his credit, never mentioned Shia and Sunni. He concentrated on Islam and nothing else.

Just one question for you Didi. I base my understanding of Islam on having lived amongst Moslems in an Islamic country. When did you last live in an Islamic country?

Stuart

If you are asking "Is the Church of England a religion of destruction" I would probably answere Yes. But if you were to ask "Is Christianity a religion of destruction" the answere would be No.

Stuart

Hi Didi.
You do not go straight to paradise for doing Jihad. Them people who are seeking to make Jihad are using Islam as a excuse to start a war. They are not proper Muslims.
If you participate in Jihad seeking to become a martyeryou will go to hell. The only reason you go in to Jihad war is for God for example Palenstine.
The palestinte munslims are not allowed to worship or go to there mosques by the Isralie jews. The Intifada are comitting Jihad war on Israel. Unfortunatly other groups have come up and use it as a excuse for terroism. The attacking of militry targets is permissable but killing civilian's and women and children and the old is not. Those who do kill the innocent are not performing Jihad war as it should be.
There is a sunna I can tell you that gets to the point but its a bit long.
I can't remember it properly like the names and stuff but this is the jist of it.
A man came to a scholer (this is at prophet Mohammads(pbuh) time) and asked him who will God punish to hell first on the day of judgement.
The scholer replied on the day of judgement God will ask for three people to come forward. One who has memorised the whole Quran, one who died in Jihad and one who gave money to charity. God will turn to one of them and say "tell me what did you do with your life".
The man replied "I fought in Jihad for you and got slain in battle".
But God could see his inner desires and said "You lie" and the angels repeated "you lie".
God tells him (and every one at judgement day) You fought so you could be called a martyer and that is what you was called in your life so you will not be rewarded now for it".

I wont put it all and thats not it is written as I had to improvise to try and let you know what its about. But anyway the the first people who will go to heaven are those who say there did some thing for only Allah but was actually doing it for there own vain desires.
In the whole story above it teachs you not to do things on this world for reward do it because its the right thing to do.
For example if I gave a billion pounds to a poor man so people would call me generous then I would not be rewarded when I dye. If I give him that money because I want to do that with no need for reward then I will be rewarde for it. Does not matter if I get called generous or not as long as my intention is right.

Adib

This entry is not about Islam, it's about a very specific topic in the great big topic that is Islam; it says so right in the title. If someone were to write an entry entitled "Islam", then yes, I think it would have to include the various extremist movements that began about twenty years ago. But this only as a part of the much vaster history of the religion. As it is, this entry states what it is about and discusses it, to the exclusion of all that it is not about.

Anybody seen the author?

Yeah thats me.

Adib

Oh, hello,

I've just come across this thread. Perhaps the contributors might like to have a look at a relevant conversation I started a while back:

F19585?thread=218405

Also, I'll get my mate Iskander (as in El-Iskanderany) to have a look through the article, tomorrow probably.

Jack

Hi Muzaakboy, your posting had been moderated so I thought you hadn't been seen for a while. Have you given thought to taking on board the (helpful) comments in this thread?

Going back a bit, my understanding of Jihad in Islam is two-fold, Jihad meaning struggle.

The first is 'inner jihad' which is about the inner struggle, resisteance to temptation, strength of faith, etc.

The second is 'outer jihad', which the xenophobic western gung-ho media seems to think means war for the sake of islam. It is not, it is about defence of self, family, land, God, etc. When attacked, a moslem is given the right to defend himself.

Wrong or right, Masakboy?

DMT

Hi Adib,

With reference to your last paragraph, The Bible teaches the same message. The Parable of The Widows Mite (Luke 21) and St Pauls 1st Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 13 both say pretty much the same thing as the Quran, which is not surprising since both books have the same roots.

My personal Jihad is to live by the principles outlined in 1 Corinthians 13. Whether I succeed or not, only God will judge.

Stuart

Indeed you are right DMT.
Hi Stuart I have not read the Bible that much so I will take your word on that.
Thanks for letting us know.
Muslims believe that the Bible was origanly sent from god but over time the message got distorted and people added and took away parts of it.
Actually this is the view Muslims have on all religions.
We believe in one God and over time God has sent us hundreds or Prophets (Messangers) to guide us on the right path, but they all got distorted which is why the Quran is Islamic and written in a way that makes it impossible to change ayaats (verses).
The first prophet was Adam.
The messangers for christanity moses, jesus, jonah etc are all considered prophets of Islam aswell.

Muslims are told to make peace with all people who believe in one god and Muslims are also told to make peace with people who idol worship but we have a juty to talk to people about Islam and spread the message with tongue not sword.

Adib

As I see it, the "(d)uty to talk to people about Islam and spread the message" is part of the Jihad (struggle).

A Moslem has to feed his family before he goes to prayer. Allah won't look kindly on a Moslem who ignores the needs of his family for the sake of pretentious piety. As such, a Moslem's duty is to defend his family. If his family becomes under attack, he has a duty to fight (to the death if necessary) to defend them. That is also Jihad.

In this case, the Moslem world sees Zionist occupation of Palestinian lands as personal attack on their livelihood. As a result, they have a mandate in Islam to defend their land, by giving their lives where necessary. I understand that this does not include civilian targets, but can legitimately include military targets.

DMT

Yeh thats right. There is a Hadith that says the true believers will not eat to his fill while his naibour goe hungry.
Muslimss have a obligation to look after every one but other Muslims come first unless that Muslim is in the wrong.
Adib