|
|
The Rules of Holy War
New -- 11 November 2010
Most if not virtually all of the religions of the world contain within their most fundamental philosophies all manner of rules and prescriptions which laud mercy, justice, and benevolence as a high priority and an essential personality characteristic of devotees. The Golden Rule, for example, shows up over and over again... from one religion to the next. As has been pointed out by the Dalai Lama [1]:
Shouldn't such commonality of fundamental precepts preclude even the existence of Holy War? Well, if we base our answer on the history of the last four or five thousand years, then obviously and consistently not! Inevitably, when it comes to philosophical differences, the religious leaders almost never apply the Golden Rule to anyone whose religion... or even their sect or branch of the same religion... differs from that of the leaders. For example, in the Albigensian Crusade... when members of the besieging army were asked about how to treat the defenders once the battlements were breached... or more importantly, how to distinguish between the innocents and the guilty... they were told to: "Kill them all; let God sort them out." [2] Keep in mind that while the speaker of these infamous words might or might not have had the actual authority to order a slaughter of innocents, this same individual was nevertheless obeyed by the military officers of the siege... thereby demonstrating very early on the essential validity of the Milgram Effect. The fact that religions constantly bestow authority upon individuals who may be demented and fundamentally evil, with said authority being in turn inflicted upon the masses... makes pretty clear the dangers of religion and/or Holy Wars. Modern crusades might hopefully be somewhat less cavalier with human life and dignity, but as the actions at Abu Ghraib in Iraq might suggest... quite possibly not. The fact that the more extreme "kill them all" scenario has been adopted by certain, allegedly secular combatants in modern times would in fact probably lay the possibility of religious tolerance in warfare to rest... permanently [pardon the pun]. While there might be a great deal of lip service on how to treat prisoners, combatants and bystanders... one always has to wonder to what degree there is any real effort to restrain the soldiers on the front lines... those who are risking their lives in a genuine life and death struggle... from taking their vengeance against what they might quite rightly have perceived as their injuries and the loss of their comrades.
Some optimists might tend to be encouraged by the assumption from classical Islamic jurisprudence, concerning the rules associated with armed warfare, which are covered at great length. Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas. One must wonder if not killing women applies to female soldiers and sailors. Probably not... particularly in light of the fact that said rule has apparently never been followed to the letter in all of history. Of course, modern Muslims have tried to interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam. Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression. Such a view might appear to be quite legitimate... until... one tries to interpret precisely what is meant by "persecution" and/or "oppression." Is "criticism" included... i.e., can you be killed merely for criticizing a religion. The issuing of Fatwas by certain Islamic "authorities" against writers or cartoonists who have directly or indirectly criticized Islam, makes it clear that "criticism" can always be treated as a crime by religious fanatics... be they Islamic, Christian, Jewish (e.g., as in an Anti-Defamation League?). Clearly, both "persecution" and "oppression" could occur even via long-distance... and include verbal criticism.
Based upon all of the above, one can see the immediate problem:
This is particularly unfortunate in that:
Similarly,
Minor including, perhaps, the issue of female cashiers in supermarkets. Wow! Meanwhile, on the eastern shores of the north Atlantic Ocean, there is a prevailing view that the European Union will not exist very much longer... in part due to what is being called Islamization. The consensus now is talking about civil wars in Europe... especially in those countries with large Muslim populations. in fact, according to the CIA and EU, these civil wars will in fact occur because of Islamization AND because the social systems are breaking down. This latter, critically important, economic reason is due in large part to the Muslims who are coming to Europe, who are allegedly insufficiently educated, committed to living on the dole, and/or, perhaps more importantly, refusing to integrate in their host countries' societies. Instead, in many cases, these Muslims have moved directly into the existing social support systems, the latter which in turn only get worse because there is simply insufficient money to support everyone. Most Muslims appear to be unwilling to learn their adopted country's language, and simultaneously seem to be demanding special privileges for their Islamic culture (like praying rooms in schools, more mosques, etc.), as well as the enactment of laws that are used against non-Muslims. There is also widespread belief that if Turkey, a predominantly Islamic nation, is allowed to join the European Union, that there may be a lot of EU stalwarts dropping out. Naturally, the United States is unlikely to be immune from this disease. Consider, for example, the dire prediction from such prophets as Gerald Celente who is predicting Civil War in America (and Europe) by 2012 (and likely lasting until 2016)::
Or from the perspective of the future (in 2012):
Okay... you get the idea. Meanwhile, from another source, we have:
Note the video as well... albeit it is worth also noting:
In any case, you might decide that much of this sounds pretty serious. There are many who already see the first skirmishes of the coming civil wars... aka holy wars. These include numerous examples in various Western capitals of demonstrations of pseudo power in the from of blocking streets. Others have also claimed that these are but a part of a master plan. See, for example,
This “death by percentages” may be quite important... especially in that many of the current actions of the day appear to be in full accordance of this “method behind the madness”... all aimed at the imposition of Sharia Law throughout the world. One might also note:
...as well as taking special note of the Pope’s comment, i.e., "Show me just what (Islamic Prophet) Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
The noises in recent years of the Pope’s inclination toward holy war... just might not be all that far fetched as many might have imagined. The Case of the Moderate Muslim One vitally important key is whether or not so-called moderate Muslims are likely to welcome Shari’a in their adopted country, particularly in the United States where such an assumption has become pretty much routine. In other words, is there a significant percentage of Muslims living in the West who have no interest in returning to a religious state? To buttress this idea, there was a news report recently on NPR radio where they were talking about there being more openness in Syria, as the youth found the ideals of the West to be more attractive than those in the Middle East. In other words, is everything really going to be all right... and we can ignore all of these fear mongers? Well... take the case of Turkey, a country that has been forcibly secular for several decades. There is now happening a notable turn toward Islamic fundamentalism. Any generals or military officers who are attempting to maintain the secular state... are being systematically eliminated. That's not a good sign. Plus which, virtually no government in the world has ever really listened to their students and youth! Recently, The Week [10] reported on a statement by Clifford May in the American ultra conservative National Review Online that: “Only a small minority of the world’s Muslims share [Osama] bin Laden’s violent world view -- a mere 7 percent, by some estimates. But that amounts to ‘more than 80 million people -- a formidable force backed by enormous Middle Eastern oil wealth.’" However... as a very strange aside:
On the much less amusing side, the fact remains that 80 million Muslims... if they respect no limitations whatsoever on what they can do... can greatly influence cowardly governments throughout the world. That should give most anyone... pause. Okay... did you pause" If not, go back and do it again.
A possibly more moderate view is that of Azril Mohd Amin, writing in Malaysia’s New Straits Times [16]:
But of course, it has been precisely that. Another ASIDE... but one that is curiously relevant:
Accordingly, Americans, while perhaps not taking things personally, might nevertheless avoid accepting at face value the idea that hating Americans is simply politics... and not a mandate of some religion. It’s just that being Muslim means literally to be someone who submits to God... and such submission has traditionally been that everyone either submits to God, OR submits to those who did submit. There is, of course, the problematic bit of what exactly constitutes “God” [See for example, Oh, God,] but Islam... like most major religions... has pretty well found innumerable authorities to provide a definitive definition of God (and the interpretation of His demands upon humanity)... and thus every Muslim must be viewed as someone who submits to the authority of his or her choice of God... sort of a cafeteria style of “Will the real God please stand up?” Holy Peace In terms to moderation... It has been said that peace is an Islamic goal. Well yes... but there is world peace... and on the other hand, a quite different "temporary" peace. The latter is, in fact... technically not peace... but rather a breathing spell for the war forces of Islam to gather back their power after losses in the battles of the day. (There's also a clever dodge called Taqqiya.) The important point is that there is never any intention by a true, orthodox Muslim to honor a peace or a treaty except as a means to gain time and reposition the Muslim forces of war. (Sometimes, this can take decades, but Muslims can also be patient... at least patient in their goal of world conquest -- it’s a big job.) An excellent video -- albeit about 100 minutes long -- on many of these topics is:
Among other things in this video, one should note that all the passages in the Koran about “peace with others” was written in Mecca, when Islam was insufficiently strong to survive conflicts with others. The other, conflicting bits -- such as the absolute requirement of Muslims worldwide to subjugate (to servant status) and/or kill all the Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims -- these bits were written later in Medina. And yet these kill-all-infidels precepts actually take precedence. It turns out that in cases of conflicting views in the Koran, the latter statements are given priority over the earlier ones. Thus, the being nice to other religions can... and is... in fact ignored... in full accordance with the Koran. The big peace... i.e., world peace, or the absolute peace envisioned by many Muslims is actually more of a Pax Romana, where no one is at war because everyone is under the dictatorial rule of Rome. (Of course, even the Romans were somewhat tolerant of other religions. Well... perhaps except for the Jews who at the time were in turn notably intolerant of the Roman gods, gentiles, pigs, and so forth and so on). The great horror of any religion, when infused with political and armored power, is that EVERYTHING IS JUSTIFIED IN THE NAME OF THE RELIGION. This applies equally well to the Grand Inquisitors of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy (and all the minor, self-anointed inquisitors of modern day Catholics, Protestants, and Republicans)... as well as Islam. This Dominionism style thinking is the fundamental [pardon the pun] threat to anyone on the planet who is not sufficiently demented to adhere to a whole wrath of fantasies, idiocies, and/or licenses to main, kill, or just be thoroughly nasty. Currently, any Muslim... according to the Koran and related “holy” books -- is not only licensed to maim, lie, and kill to their heart’s content... but are actually rewarded for every such act that might... in the broadest possible terms... be considered as defending the faith, being martyred for an entrance ticket to paradise, and in general participating in jihad... with the latter being selectively and uniquely defined by most any Muslim cleric on the planet. Also importantly, the very notion of a moderate Muslim is something of an oxymoron. By definition of the Islamic holy books, one cannot be a “cafeteria Muslim” (picking and choosing those attributes that one will adhere to). The only true Muslim, the only true member of Islam, should be out there subjugating and/or killing all the non-believers. The only possible justification for being a “moderate Muslim” is that, until Islam has the political and war powers to conquer by the sword, it is permissible (if not advisable) to lie and deceive the enemy (every non-Muslim on the planet). According to the Koran, “War is deceit”. But then... if one looks at the holy books of Jews and Christians (the Old Testament, e.g.), there is not a lot of tolerance of other religions and beliefs by these westernized religions either. It’s not so much being a Muslim that is suspicious; it’s being religious in the style of orthodox, absolute and unchanging-despite-all-the-evidence faith. Of course when the same is applied to Christianity, et al, it's pretty much the same for the orthodox... where cafeteria Christians are also wholly unacceptable. Points of View One might suspect that any and all of the above is something of a slanted view... and it probably is. However, it might also be sufficiently accurate to say that any discrepancies may ultimately have no effect in the greater scheme of things. Many allegedly moderate Muslims may in fact rush to note all of their peaceful intentions... but in order to actually be an orthodox Muslim and adhere strictly to Islam, they would likely be lying in order to deceive their enemies, so that ultimately they can defeat them. And please note, that if you’re not a Muslim, then you’re one of “them”...one who is destined to be deceived. One hopeful note is that just as the Christians and other major religions eventually grew up... i.e., accepted the fact that their opinions and beliefs were not carved sufficiently deep in stone in order to whether the ages... then, perhaps we can hope for Islam to do the same. After all, when the Catholics were on a rampage to conquer the world -- just as the Muslims might be dreaming of now -- there were the Protestants to put a damper on their ambitions. And there might be some actual-in-fact moderate Muslims with the same intentions. But thus far, there hasn’t been the sort of feedback that the Protestants demonstrated in standing up to the Catholic hoards. Accordingly, every non-Muslim might want to consider whether or not they want to “submit to God”... i.e., adhere strictly to someone living on gruel in a cave and making inane and essentially insane comments about the universe. Or whether or not it’s time to cease the Islamization of the non-Muslim enclaves (their nations, communities, or homes). _______________________________ References: [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm [2] See: http://www.hendersons.net/straitway/2001/03012001.htm or http://www.military-quotes.com/misc%20quotes.htm... the latter which demonstrates how a religious philosophy... or merely the interpretation of a religious philosophy by one possibly demented church leader... can carry over into wars other... supposedly... holy. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war [4] http://www.ist.rit.edu/~jxs/jargon/html/H/holy-wars.html [5] Gerald Celente, "The History of The Future: Trends 2012; The Great War,” The Trends Journal, Spring, 2010, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, page 2. [6] "The History of The Future: Trends 2012; The Second Greatest Story Ever Told,” The Trends Journal, Summer 2012, Vol. XVIII, No. 23, page 22. [7] ibid, page 9. [8] ibid. [9] ibid, page 10. [10] The Week, September 24, 2010, page 6. [11] ] ibid, page 18.
Comparative Religions Chronicles of Earth Forward to:
Racism and Culturalism Multiculturalism Perils of Immigration Free Speech The (9) Supremes The Halls of SCOTUS
|
|
The Library of ialexandriah2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved
|