Jihad and Islamic Law

[scipio337]

Ron Paul is right, we should believe what they tell us. Rudy and Romney were high on Jihad in debate last night. Rudy knows better and was just pandering to Israel lobby in debate last night, Romney is genuinely ignorant and trying to outdo Rudy's deceptive fear mongering, he can't even pronounce correctly terms he was citing after being coached by his briefers.

UK's Guardian newspaper had published OBL's letter in 2002, he starts with Palestine , Iraq . I recall an analysis on it back then, he mentioned the word Palestine/Palestinian more than Iraq, he used it 16 times while explaining his cause in that published letter. Israel's occupation of arabs and our military support of Israeli policies in territories seems like the bigger issue for Arabs even than Iraq issue.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,845725,00.html




US/Saudis/Pakistanis were the main sponsors of that Afghan Jiahd, Osama and his foreign arab fighters there were fighting alongside US sponsored Afghan Mujahideens against Russians. Talibans are next sour gen of same Afghan Mujhideens ( Jihadis ) we funded/armed back then to help them fight against Russian occupation. What is going on now in Iraq is so ironic, we are supporting SCIRI/Dawa Islamist parties with Iranian ties against secular arab nationalists, Baathist types.


Going by debate last night, Rudy did not read books that were assigned to him apparently. He's still consulting with Israeli lobby propaganda for his debate notes and his campaign staff is top loaded with war monger neocons, no wonder he's soliciting campaign donations through Israeli newspaper readers.

http://rudysreadinglist.com/

Perhaps you would be better served to post the "other" side of that coin, too:

Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?......

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.....

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.....

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

While I agree with some of what has been said here, anyone who thinks bin Laden would be running a falafel stand in Khartoum, sans any US ME interventionism is sorely mistaken, and doesn't have a clue about Islamist motivations. Why have "apostate" regimes in the ME been attacked? Because they don't conform to his narrow version of the religion.

Start with Sayyid Qutb. The motivations against the west weren't our foreign policy, it was that our culture passively coaxes Muslims into a state of disbelief, jahiliyyah, away from (Qutb's) true Islam. Interesting that a man who was oppressed by a Soviet backed (Nasser's) regime would rail against the "evil and corrupt" West.

"They attack us because we’ve been over there" is simplistic. If we are to listen to the people who attacked us, you have to start with Qutb. I suggest starting here:

Ma'alim fi al-Tariq

Pay attention to chapters 3-7.

 

[truelies]

.........................."They attack us because we’ve been over there" is simplistic. If we are to listen to the people who attacked us, you have to start with Qutb..............
................................

Perhaps so, BUT.............if we leave their Lands and expel them from ours, find alternatives to their one product (oil) and cease selling them military hardware THEY BECOME UNABLE TO HARM US NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HATE US.

 

[Smiley Gladhands]

Although the 'curious newbies' may have disappeared, I'll throw an idea or two into this 'debate'.

It was stated that muslim law dictates that muslims are in a perpetual war, and also it was stated that we shouldn't allow their desires to dictate our policies. But if our response to their seeing it as a perpetual war is to join in that perpetual war, then their desires are dictating our policies. I know you would hate to let that happen...

Also, if nations choose perpetual war, based on religious interpretations, they will do so only to their own detriment. Wars cost a lot. You might notice some economic problems in arab countries, and many arabs probably realize that inefficient perpetual wars are expensive and will perpetuate those same problems (inflation, unemployment, unequal distribution of weath, etc.). If muslims choose perpetual war against all non-muslims, they will lose because there are a LOT more of us, and we have a WHOLE LOT more military and economic strength. So tell me again why it even matters that some muslims desire perpetual war with all non-muslims....and do you see how that policy may have contributed to the fact that these are 3rd world nations? And why should we adopt a policy that has perpetuated the third-worldliness of these nations?

Perpetual war is a bad idea. We should let the more extreme muslims figure that out on their own, instead of reinforcing that their extreme teaching is apparently correct since our forces are perpetually on their land.

 

[Hardrock]

Are you insane? America does not have an empire? What would you call a nation that has over 700 bases around the world in 130 other countries? What would you call a nation that has over 500,000 troops stationed outside of its borders? What would you call a nation that spends more money on its military than the rest of the WORLD combined

Considering that "empire", those 700 bases in 130 countries, and those 500,000 troops are funded
with counterfeit illusion provided by Zionist International Banks, (Fed Res)
I would call that nation "ISRAEL by PROXY"!

A quick review of who dictates it's foreign policy would pretty much solidify
that assumption.




Ya still wonder why Islam wants to kill us?

 

[truelies]

.................................
Ya still wonder why Islam wants to kill us?

They will want to kill us regardless of what we do, HOWEVER if we are in North America and THEY are in the M.E. without the weapons we keep selling them there would be no danger as they could not get at us.

 

[Hardrock]

They will want to kill us regardless of what we do, HOWEVER if we are in North America and THEY are in the M.E. without the weapons we keep selling them there would be no danger as they could not get at us.

Agreed.
My point being whoever controls the US, it's currency, and it's foreign policy,
controls all the levers in the ME that breed conflict, hatred and purpetual war.

Looks to me like there's more than one entity in the ME that believes in
perpetual war, and one of them is crafty enough to have the US not only
launder the money to fund it, supply the military to fight and die in it,
AND still make shitloads of hard (laundered) cash from it.

Ironically, they both seem to believe the entire globe has to kneel
before their G-d.

Anyone doubt that this is anything BUT and all out religious war?

 

[Hardrock]

What we've done in the past and what we're still doing just doesn't work.

We stumbled blindly into the middle of this mess a long time ago and haven't
yet had the sense to see we're being played. Big time!

Suppose we abandon their currency, cut ALL funding to the ME, (both sides)
restore a non-interventionist foreign policy per our Constitution, eject all the
"alphabet soup" special interest groups and agencies, establish our own trade
agreements, patch up relations with our allies, develop alternative energy
sources, and rebuild our economy.


Would you prefer to engage in a full scale, fully equipped, balls out
world wide religious war with the US fixed firmly in the middle, or sit
within our own secure sovereign borders and watch a few relatively
small countries beat each other over the head with sticks?

Aside from the nukes and what they have on hand now it wouldn't even
compare to what it could escalate into with the US involved.
With no US patsy to defend or agitate either side, no funding from the US,
no war machines from the US, and no trade with the US, they would
either annialate each other or they would reach an agreement.
An agreement that the US would never have to fight to enforce.
Oil? We don't need their damned oil!

Restored diplomacy and fair trade with other nations might just
re-create a coalition strong enough to contain the problem.

Sounds like a decent political platform to me......(grin!)

 

[scipio337]

Perhaps so, BUT.............if we leave their Lands and expel them from ours, find alternatives to their one product (oil) and cease selling them military hardware THEY BECOME UNABLE TO HARM US NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HATE US.

You would have a valid point, if the US were the only oil consumer/weapons maker on the planet.

And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weapons" considering a $75 IED can destroy a $4MM IED. War is a luxury only the poorest nations can afford.

We need to work smarter not harder

 

[Hardrock]

You would have a valid point, if the US were the only oil consumer/weapons maker on the planet.

And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weapons" considering a $75 IED can destroy a $4MM IED. War is a luxury only the poorest nations can afford.

We need to work smarter not harder

"War is a luxury only the poorest nations can afford."

That's a very profound statement. Wether it was intended or not,
that speaks volumes about the current status of the US.

There are those that believe we simply can't afford to withdraw
from the ME.
Other's say we can't afford to stay entangled.

Sadly, both sides measure "affordability" in either
fiat dollars, or barrels of oil.

If we were to work smarter instead of harder, we might just start
defining "wealth" in completely different terms.

A wealth of......
"backbone", "Freedom", "Independence", "Liberty", "Self-determination",
"Knowledge", etc.

Sounds like a longshot doesn't it.:o

Compared to what, though?
A 100 yr. war/occupation?
Certain economic collapse? Recession/depression?
(only to "cycle" the same economic rise/fall repeatedly)
Living under totalitarian NWO rule?

Either outcome looks pretty bleak in terms of lives/dollars.

Some would rather chance standing in defense of Liberty, Truth, and Freedom.....

Others would prefer to lie down and become subservient to their masters.

"If ever man can claim true Freedom, it will undoubtedly be expressed by how he choses to live and die."


.

 

[Dieseler]

Hey Hardrock. I agree with a lot of what your saying.
Check out this thread.
Hell everybody check it out, surprised not many have commented on it.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Dr. Paul appears to believe that the United States is primarily, or even solely responsible for the war Islamic Jihadis wage on us.

That is not a fair statement at all. The fact is that Dr. Paul simply understands that it takes two to tango.

 

[american empire]

okay Ruy and Sally you guys are way too transparent so I won't even bring the troll word....

I can see what you guys are doing so I will like to debate you....

Sadly you havent read the Quran to its entirety .....

Do some research on the word "Jihad" and NOT the smear on the internet....Jihad means "to strive"...that would mean to strive against all the things prohibited in the religion.....gambling, adultery and all sins which seem attractive....overcoming the urge for vices is the biggest Jihad in Islam....do you hear that NO....b/c jihad=terrorist=fear is an easier sound bite on FOX CNN AND NBC.....

please stop using this forum as a smear tactic and I would love to debate you by pm....that goes for you sally....

America is not an empire?
read "the secret history of the american empire" by john perkins.....then come back and debate....sorry but I feel like Ron telling Rudy to Read....sory sally but you had it coming

 

[Elegy]

Alot of you all have no clue of what you are talking about. I have spent almost 2 of the last 4 years out here in Iraq. If you do not believe that there are Muslims that want worldwide Islamic law, then you are being naive. Do I believe that being over here incites citizens to hate us, that would otherwise not? Yes I do. I have seen it first hand. My main reason for wanting to withdrawl is that we cannot afford the projects going on out here.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Hi Ron Paul supporters.

Dr. Paul appears to believe that the United States is primarily, or even solely responsible for the war Islamic Jihadis wage on us. I'm curious to know what his supporters know about the teachings of Islamic Law on holy war, Peace (particularly peace treaties), equality under the law, how Islam sees the world, etc.

Best regards;

You are twisting Paul's position. He has never said that American was responsible for terrorist attacks by islamic fanatics. In regards to 9/11, he said (paraphrasing), "The thugs who attacked us, are 100% responsible. But in a murder investigation, people still seek to understand the motive of the killer. Looking for the motive is not the same thing as blaming the victim."

You are attempting to say that Paul is blaming the victim for the attacks and that is false.

Furthermore, your efforts to cast this conflict as based on some fundamental and inextricable attribute of islam are counter-productive and useless. Certainly there are religious extremists who have some fantasy of imposing their ideology on the world. However, it's likely that such fanatics exist within every major religion on the planet, with the possible exception of buddhism.

It is ludicrous to try to base our foreign policy towards the 1 billion + muslims on this planet based on a reaction to the beliefs of a tiny minority of fanatics. Your position naturally leads to one conclusion: either islam is utterly destroyed, or everyone submits to islam. I would call this a false choice.

Paul's position is quite simple. The U.S. policy of imperialism aggravates muslims, and increases the influence of islamic radicals within the muslim community. A more just policy of leaving these people alone, and only acting in our own defense, would reduce the motivating factors that allow the fanatical muslims to recruit more to their cause. Without our constant provocation, the muslim fanatics would be more likely to be marginalized and shunned within their own community.

The islamic world is far from monolithic, and there are many muslim communities that have different interpretations of their religion. They are not all wahabists. What we need to do is step back, and stop radicalizing these people through our constant meddling in their sovereignty. The U.S. actually does bear a certain responsibility for the recent rise of radical muslims because of our efforts to stir up jihadist fervor during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. We funded a vast operation that trained and equipped jihadis to fight the soviets, and when the soviets were defeated, our radical muslim attack dogs turned on us.

The jihadis are not killing themselves to destroy the free, prosperous, and infidel people of Switzerland. Why do you think that is?

The U.S. has enough firepower to kill everyone on planet earth several times over. Our military budget is orders of magnitude greater than all the other nations of the planet put together. There is a principle in international relations known as the security dilemma. As states militarize in order to preserve their own security, that military power can become perceived as threatening to other nations states, sparking their own militarism in response. Security is not always improved by building weapons. Sometimes it's improved by reducing military power, and the threat that power poses to other nations.

I would suggest that our policy of constant saber rattling towards the Iranian regime is exactly the wrong policy to deter them from pursuing nuclear weapons. Rather, we should be making guarantees of respecting their sovereignty, and make strong promises to never again use nuclear weapons except as a response to attack by WMDs. By our actions, it is clear we only respect other nuclear armed states. That is an attitude that seems designed to encourage other states to go nuclear to defend themselves, which is exactly the situation we are trying to avoid.

 

[SeanEdwards]

America does not have an Empire. She has hegemony as a hyperpower, but no Imperialistic characteristics.

That's nonsense. We impose our demands all over the world, and weak nations that oppose the wishes of U.S. leaders have been repeatedly crushed, either economically, covertly, or militarily.

As to the collapse of the dollar, that is up to the financial markets, and frankly I don't give a damn.

More fool you. The U.S. is an engine that drives the entire world economy. If we collapse, we'll be dragging the entire modern world down with us. The only people that won't be severely affected are third world peoples who scratch their subsistence out of the dirt. Since you're here jawing on the internet, I don't think you qualify.

So what about military defeat for your country? How do you think Ron Paul's policies would influence victory or defeat for the US military?

Military defeat? One of our ballistic nuclear subs alone has enough firepower to vaporize around 50 major cities. No nation state on the planet can hope to defeat us and survive. The greatest danger to our military comes from our empire suffering a financial collapse, or from our aggressive policies forcing our enemies into a desperate position where they see no way out except by attacking us (see Japan circa 1941). These are exactly the situations that Paul's policies are designed to prevent.

 

[Hardrock]

Hey Hardrock. I agree with a lot of what your saying.
Check out this thread.
Hell everybody check it out, surprised not many have commented on it.

Hey Dieseler!

I was hesitant to express some of those views, simply because
it is considered almost "off limits" in some forums, but I just don't
believe we can have any educated discussion without looking at all the facts.

If this is taboo, just have a mod delete it.......

The short version is, the ME is a religious "circle jerk", and somehow, the US has
been unknowingly appointed the "pivot man."


I know there are alot of underlying religious factors that draw the US into that circle,
but if you begin to question the motives behind nearly all religions,
a person can begin to see that religion is actually nothing more than any given culture's belief system.

If we refer to it as "belief" instead of "religion", people are more willing to
discuss it.
They say the two things you never discuss are politics and religion....
Few people realize they are one and the same.

I always get a chuckle out of the separation of church (religion) and
state (politics)
debates!

It could very well be that Christianity, Islam, and Judism, when taken to
the extreme, and held within the body politic, all reach for the same brass ring.

Key word here........extreme.

While it may not be possible for those core "beliefs" to co-exist in total peace
for any measurable length of time, the extent we go to, or fail to go to,
in order to "reign in" extremism on ALL fronts, will determine the duration
of that peace.


It's easy for us here in the US to identify "extremists" abroad, but we
seldom look any further.

One way to curb extremists is to structure foreign policy in such a way as to
"Stop stiring the sh!t."

Another would be "kill'em all, let G-d sort'em out."


I see this election as the crossroad between those two choices,
and can only hope the majority of Americans see the same.......

Foreign policy. Who dictates it, funds it, and benefits from it may very well
be the cornerstone from which this nation will be rebuilt.


.

 

[Sally]

I can see what you guys are doing so I will like to debate you....

That sounds a bit paranoid. What is it you think I am doing and why does it make you want to debate me?

Sadly you havent read the Quran to its entirety ...

Oh yes, I have. Many times.

Do some research on the word "Jihad" and NOT the smear on the internet....Jihad means "to strive".

I know the literal meaning of the word jihad, thank you. The literal meaning of Mein Kampf is my struggle. Its the application of those words that count.

.that would mean to strive against all the things prohibited in the religion.....gambling, adultery and all sins which seem attractive....overcoming the urge for vices is the biggest Jihad in Islam..

That is one application of the word jihad, yes. It is not the only one, and depending on which scholars you listen to, it is not necessarily the most important either.

.b/c jihad=terrorist=fear is an easier sound bite on FOX CNN AND NBC...

I have never watched any of those television stations in my life, so I couldn't care less what their soundbites are. What do you think gets said about jihad on al-Jazeera? What soundbites on the subject have you heard from Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi? Or the esteemed scholars from the al-Azhar university?

I know some of you probably think that America is the centre of the universe, but I'm afraid the above bodies are the ones who influence hearts and minds in the Ummah, not CNN, and not some sugar coated version of Islam spouted on the Internet by wishful thinkers hoping for isolationism.

 

[Dieseler]

Hey Hardrock. I agree with a lot of what your saying.
Check out this thread.
Hell everybody check it out, surprised not many have commented on it.

I forgot to add the link
I wasn't talking about this one lol.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=84641

 

[Spirit of '76]

What is it you think I am doing and why does it make you want to debate me?

I know you directed that question to someone else, but what it looks to me like you are doing is agitating for our country to use its military might to crush radical Islam because of some personal or nationalistic axe you have to grind there in whatever foreign country you call home.

Why don't you fight your own fight and let US prioritize and solve our own problems on our own terms?

I have never watched any of those television stations in my life, so I couldn't care less what their soundbites are. What do you think gets said about jihad on al-Jazeera? What soundbites on the subject have you heard from Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi? Or the esteemed scholars from the al-Azhar university?

I have never watched al-Jazeera in my life, so I couldn't care less what their soundbites are. I also don't think that America's foreign policy should be predicated on the rantings of jihadist preachers; nor should it, for that matter, be based on the concerns of foreigners who want us to fight their battles for them.

No, the cold hard reality is that less American intervention -- especially military interventionism -- in the Middle East and Central Asia would deprive those who preach violent jihad of one of their chief propaganda weapons and would lessen their influence over otherwise sensible muslims who are not predisposed to their violent brand of Islam.

Furthermore, a strategic redeployment of our forces back to the US, coupled with heightened border security and an enhanced scrutiny of visa applications from countries know to sponsor terrorism (all of which are part of Ron Paul's platform) would allow us to rebuild our weakened and over-stretched forces, more effectively prevent further attacks on American soil, and strengthen diplomatic relations with those countries who have been moving to distance themselves from America because of our foolish actions in recent years.

Now you and Rudy can bleat for the sheeple all you want about how the evil Islamofascists want to rule the world, but the fact is that they could never rule an economically-strong, well-defended, and FREE America, no matter what their desires might be or what they do in the Middle East. We here can see that you're just leading us down the garden path to economic ruin and the total abandonment of Liberty with your nightmare bedtime stories about the big, bad islamic boogeymen.

We see what you're sellin', but we ain't buyin'.

 

[WilliamC]

I know some of you probably think that America is the centre of the universe, but I'm afraid the above bodies are the ones who influence hearts and minds in the Ummah, not CNN, and not some sugar coated version of Islam spouted on the Internet by wishful thinkers hoping for isolationism.

Oh look, Sally is back...

**looks around for RuyDiaz**

...but by herself this time.

How nice.