Cafer says :
"Don't associate Islam with terrorism. It's really annoying.Makasi, it gets to a point where I have to explain Arabs and Pakistanis for political violence. It is so easy to blame our religion for imperfect human actions.No one is innocent? More like an excuse used to kill and murder civilians (or the more PC terminology, collateral damage).Oddly enough, the author of Body of Lies is the same asshole that cut off Erdogan at the Davos conference.I smell bullshit."
harjo says
"cafer, i don't take position for the author either. but i noted your point. That movie has America propaganda. However, my point is simply the war is the mistake of both, nobody can or should put their head straight up standing in either shoes the American (or UK or people claiming themselves as civilized nation) or the terrorist muslims (acknowledging some muslims practice "peaceful" religion.
Cafer says:
" mistake of both? No, I don't think so. One side chooses to engage in it, the other side does not have the option. You ignore the imbalances in power. ANd what do you mean SOME Muslims? Almost all Muslims life peaceful lives.It doesn't matter, you didn't address any of the points I made in my response. You are making the assumption that I am defending the conflict, when I am not.I am responding to the common conceptualization on "Muslim' terrorists, which I find offensive and I am tired of not speaking up and defending my din. I'll try to start from the beginning,
I have no problems w/ Harjo's initial statement.Yes, both sides are guilty in conflict.However, it is not that simple.There are varying degrees of complacency and a disproportionate power balance.In no way am I defending the actions of people that use violence on innocent civilians. At the same time, one side has a monopoly on state violence and the ability to manipulate politics in other countries (without consent from constituents).Because these situations arise, conflict springs up and both sides do repulsive acts.My problem stems again from the terminology. For a very long time, Muslims have been passive in the global media and we have not struggled against this "Muslim" terrorist association. As if people of faith are strongly inclined to use force, when in fact the actions are unduly unIslamic.This is the last point I have a problem with. But this is changing, more Muslims are speaking up and no longer letting others define us."
Harjo says:
personally find the text problematic in both Holy Bible and Al-Quran. I am aware that in Al-Quran there is part of the letter (surat) which reinforces the idea of jihad and martyr. This is consistent with the term used in Holy Bible. I can cite to you the Arabic and Hebrew language if I have time to research. My point is this language allows wars, killings and the use of force to defend the dignity of the religion if threatened. God (not capitalized because it loses my respect) in both text is described as vengeful and destructive. Holy Bible describes god’s anger when he swept out the whole mankind except Noah. This is not justifiable for whatever grave sins human has committed (it is said that god is forgiveful BIG JOKE). Another example is Sodom and GOmora incineration (can be found in Quran text as well). I find this god’s character, if not followed, interpreted extensively by both religions. No wonder, it incites so much vengeful character in both congregations
I note your point on power imbalances, and how one side started the war. I also note your point on how most not “all” muslims are living peacefully, yet severe oppression caused them to start speaking up. I have great appreciation to those people.
First, a power imbalance is not an excuse to kill enemies, if not muslims’ own kind. In the operation, the senior jihadist will kill his junior if the junior might be arrested. This is done to prevent information leakage. Bombs exploded in the centre of many Islamic cities. This character again stems from god’s character depicted in Quran. I am not saying there is not virtue in god described in Quran. I am saying the description is inconsistent and there is a minor flaw. God must be perfect, one flaw means he is not perfect, and if he is not perfect, it should not be god.
Take example from Buddist teaching. This is clear in Myanmar junta totalitarianism. Look at how those monks are killed yet they did not resist with violence. How many of them were killed? This is because they believe violence will not solve violence ( I bet many of you are sick reading these line), but it is relevant.
Second, I understand most muslims are living peacefully. I cant rebut you with many as I don’t have the statistic to argue. However, you must also note that many muslims live under the line of poverty. People with great agony in life tend to be more radicals. One of the factors is because they are paid and fed (including their families) when the decided to join jihad camps. The other factor is social pressure. You are viewed as the betrayer of its community if he doesn’t have the same view. Imagine life in Afganistan and you are a muslim male. Would dare to say to the radical jihadists that they interpret the Quran in a wrong, say improper, way? Would you dare to resist the peer pressure to support morally, if not physically of the jihadist movement? This is why I dare to use the word “many... ” and not “most”.
Third, I understand the oppression on Muslim side and I put a lot of angers in our world inherent unfair structure. I also understand the term muslim terrorist is offensive for most people. But that word technically refers only to muslims who are terrorist. In another word I can also say catholics terrorist, because they were once terrorists.
personally find the text problematic in both Holy Bible and Al-Quran. I am aware that in Al-Quran there is part of the letter (surat) which reinforces the idea of jihad and martyr. This is consistent with the term used in Holy Bible. I can cite to you the Arabic and Hebrew language if I have time to research. My point is this language allows wars, killings and the use of force to defend the dignity of the religion if threatened. God (not capitalized because it loses my respect) in both text is described as vengeful and destructive. Holy Bible describes god’s anger when he swept out the whole mankind except Noah. This is not justifiable for whatever grave sins human has committed (it is said that god is forgiveful BIG JOKE). Another example is Sodom and GOmora incineration (can be found in Quran text as well). I find this god’s character, if not followed, interpreted extensively by both religions. No wonder, it incites so much vengeful character in both congregations
I note your point on power imbalances, and how one side started the war. I also note your point on how most not “all” muslims are living peacefully, yet severe oppression caused them to start speaking up. I have great appreciation to those people.
First, i remember what islamic scholars say about this text in Quran concerning the application of Jihad as an effort of defending Islam.
ReplyDeleteWhat i can conclude from the acceptable interpretation is that:
Jihad has been defined as a significant effort to defend the existence of muslims in living with their beliefs, Islam.The Jihad may be applied in consistence with these conditions.
1.Muslim is under attack by a particular group/state who has an evil intention to eliminate muslim community from existence&recognition.(the attack is not in measures as preemptive attack)
2.As the consequences or punishment for the humiliation and the insult to Islam (not the multi interpretative principles) in hostile or war situations.Not in peaceful situations like we have now.
in adaptation to the new civilization whence law has been evolving to protect human rights and prohibit war at all cost.the interpretation of verses in Quran regarding Jihad is also developed by 2 methods.
We, muslim, have 2 methods to adapt the verses in this new civilization are named as Qiyas (analogical reasoning) and Ijtihad (consensus).:just ask me details are needed:
in most islamic and moslem states where such methods are generally applied.these states have never justify illegal action (by religion&norms) what the terrorists do as
Jihad to be in accordance with the generally acceptable interpretation of the verses of Quran.
Second, the social pressure and economic condition you said to follow in Afganistan..imagine that you are a man who has been taught to learn religion (like your parents tell you about the truth of Holy Bible and you believe for ages) about the concept for years for a belief along with justifying the terrorism attack.let say, they are brainwashed (like building logical reason) to hold peaceful&terrorism concept in one package which is actually wrong as noted by most intelligent islamic scholars.
in brief, i am NOT agree that the text in Quran contains a mere allowance for INITIATING war.but get involved in war for defending existence from threats is correct.
even positive law has been recognising
self-defence and never defined as terrorism.
Islam is Peaceful Religion.Those terrorists are criminals.
rhan.law@gmail.com
First, see? you even concede that Quran allows war. Anyway, i said that god in Holy Bible and Quran is god of war unlike the teaching of buddhism (compassion).
ReplyDeleteSecond there is a critical distinction between pre-emptive strike and self-defense. im glad you understand the difference. The positive dictates that Self defense in international law is regulated in Chapter VII of UN Charter. The criteria of self sefense are laid down clearly. two of the criteria is the authorization of UN Security Council and when there is a threat to international peace and security. In the next chapter, it is regulated that Security Council has the authority to define whether certain condition constitutes threat to international peace and security.
Is that the case with the war by Muslems you mentioned? Are SC authorization or definition of threat of int peace ans security present there? (i dont which act of self defense you are referring to? WTC? suicide bombing in Iraq killing civilians?)
I do have sympathy to those marginalized, humiliated and oppressed Muslems.
Can people leave in peace when their god mandates a war? (u said in times of conditions constituting threat to Islam dignity or when islam is humiliated)
You laid down 2 conditions for war according to Quran (be it because of Qiyas, Ijtihad or Hadits
First, eliminate muslems existence? which case? when? i am not aware of any.. eliminate the existence of muslem is a very high standard. It s like killing the whole jews during holocaust.
Second, insult and humiliation give the right to kill? Even in criminal court proceedings, insult is a very difficult basis for arguing self defence or temporary insanity in murder case (1st, 2nd or 3rd degree). You now want to use it for a war, the killing of hundreds or thousands and catastrophe caused?
First, Mr.Harjo. You misled my argument. I didn’t say that mere insults or humiliation can be a reason to kill in Peaceful situations (just like what the terrorist have done.). Islamic principles are in consistence with ICC provisions. I am just telling that the HOSTILE situations are psychologically even more complicated than the peaceful situation, we cannot simply say right or wrong. Are you well informed about Radovan Karadzic case in 1993? He (government official) instructed mass assassination to thousands Moslems (yes, just Moslems) in Bosnia. He is finally punished by International Criminal Court (ICC), apprehended in 2008..Those Moslems who were striking back the evil armed forces for surviving their lives and their beliefs, Islam ( since some of them are also forced to take off their religion to become non Moslem).Those Moslems can be called as Jihadist. Not even one Moslem who killed and survived from some armed forces by means of self-defense is blamed (whether due to humiliation or insults or murder done by the armed forces).Well, generally, the Moslems were not well—armed to prevail. if they prevailed. Do you think that some people may still think, the Moslems were terrorists in such HOSTILE situation? I don’t think so. No wonder, it is very complicated to define Jihad. Even Moslems community itself has different opinion but, the most acceptable definition is taken from experts: do not allow initiating war and terror.
ReplyDeleteRegarding to Buddha vs Junta Military in Myanmar, well yes, they didn’t fight back but, remember the conflict was Not occur neither due to the humiliation of Buddha and Buddhist nor as the intention of Buddhists assasination..How if their Buddha (religion) and Buddhist are attacked as what happened in Bosnia in 1993?? we do not know yet. But, Buddhists who learn Martial Arts are very famous, right? Self defence?? Yes. Peaceful religion? Definitely..Are Martial Arts applicable to defend the existence of Buddha in war of genocide? Who knows? But, Why not?
Second, the long-term conflicts between Palestine and Israel, If you see the article released in November 2008 about the true data and hidden facts around the conflicts plus the historical background. The conflicts have included humiliation and insults to Islam and the Moslems along with other gross violations of human rights done by the Israeli armed forces during HOSTILE situation not peaceful situation).Palestine people (esp.Moslems) have never initiated the attacks. but, they and their territory would not have existed till today without doing self-defense (for Moslems they might have emphasized it as Jihad in HOSTILE situations)..do you believe that WTC incident was done by terrorist? Even some American experts themselves hesitate that it is done by Terrorist. i once saw what the scientific short movie made by American experts, told about the impossible correlation of WTC and Pentagon incident with the Government observation results. in brief, it wasn’t make sense that it is done by terrorits..Possibility of Conspiracy? Many people have argued about it.
Further, I ask you, when states posses Nuclear weapon, F/A-22 air fighters, M4A1-MP5A5-AK 47 manufacturers, great armed forces. Does that mean they want to be recognized as a STATE OF WAR??? Such states will absolutely enraged…they would not agree with such statement. in fact, some of the states still live in peace. So do Islam. Islam promotes peace with the code of self-defense. I ask you again, how many Islamic states do exist throughout the world? There are 57 (fifty seven) Islamic states. There are only few criminal groups in a few Islamic states who act improperly on behalf of religion. You can count it yourself with your own fingers. Mark this words, not even one of the states justifies their actions. Meaning? Islam is not a religion of war and expects not to be recognized as such.
My point, Moslems cannot accept the generalization by the sentence that you have just stated, that Islam is a religion of war .if you are referring this sentence to the “Fitna” short movie with evil provocative interpretation of QURAN verses; you should not believe this irresponsible person.many Islamic scholars and Moslems are enraged by such movie. Simply, We Do not Agree. The verses regarding the God’s statement in the “Fitna” movie, it is mostly the Prophet stories in old civilization before Quran was released. it doesn’t mean always applicable to the very present days. i mean please differentiate between the verses that describe about a story of war and the verses that describe about God’s mandates to defend Islam existence during an attack.
Hence, the notion that Islam is religion of war simply unacceptable and provocative. It’s like shrouding the whole idea that Islam is a Peaceful religion
At one point you slightly interpret my idea differently but at the other point your reading is significantly different with my true understanding.
Let me clarify.the acceptable concept Jihad are:
1. Jihad (physically) is done in WAR/HOSTILE situation and still as the last choice by means of protecting of Islam dignity and the lives of Moslems in the concept of self-defence..NOT in Peaceful situation as what the terrorist do.(war in some verses of Quran is mostly a story whence God gave statement to what the Moslems has done to defense themselves and their religion from gross human rights violation with possible extinction of Islam in the History Before Quran was released by God)..
2 Adapting to the recent development, Jihad (mentally) can be done by strong human weapon: intelligence and knowledge such as arguing against policy that is disturbing the interest of Moslems community. this is most acceptable Jihad way recognized by the most Moslems.
3 In a very basic concept of Jihad, We Moslems fight against ourselves from the inclination of bad attitude, negative thought and shallow understanding. Thus, we can coexist in diversity.
P.S: sorry if my English is not as good as yours. You are a good young thinker and observant. but you need to ponder Islamic law and principles deeper. This matter is very sensitive.. After all, It is just different opinions, we have a freedom to have one. It is NOT like I compel you to agree with me. Thanks for having responded my idea.
Berhan A.
rhan.law@gmail.com
What I find bizarre in the whole "just war" theory, regardless of creed, is this collection of ideas:
ReplyDeleteLet's define a "moral standard" by which we are allowed to conduct a limited war.
Let's ignore the fact that by its strictest limitations there is not a single war that has passed its test.
Let's however then say that the "principles" are valid and that the faults belong to humans, not the rules.
In particular, of course, some rules are sillier than others. To allow war for "insults" to one's particular belief is asinine, no matter how grave and painful the insult is. Religions (and other social movements like feminism, atheism) have had to put up with caricatures of their leaders and figures for a long time, with criticisms made on fundamental tenets on their faith. Indeed, the very meaning of having a faith (in the sense of trust held without evidence) compels one to acknowledge that other people might entirely not care about things one have faith about. If one's faith is supported with evidence, of course then the epistemological value of such evidence is a matter of debate and "respect" does not even count as an argument in it. Even if it is, being disrespected against is not enough of a justification for armed conflict.
However, that is not my main point, the main point is that we have seen as evident that every time we have a just war theory, it is a law honoured only in the breach. The reasoning that led up to wars are mostly awfully simple, in primitive times this is justified through "spreading God's influence on barbaric nations needing to be civilised". There are no reasoned analysis yet on how a cooptation of Islamic principles is shoehorned into Ottoman Turkey's wars of conquest, on how indeed it seems pretty strange that entirely without provocation post-Mohammad Arabia suddenly expanded to include lands as far apart as Granada and Nicaea. Indeed, I can't even fathom an argument saying that Arab Muslims at that time were "threatened" by ossifying Sassanian and Byzantinian empires, much less by the infant Frankish one. It was a war of naked aggression and not much else, while it was surely a convenient result (mightily convenient!) that Islam would also spread to the region. Nope, the jizya or the dhimmi status did not figure at all. If we see this as a "Golden Age" which conservatives want to return to, as an Age of "Glory" so to speak, why is this any different from modern day colonialism?
The very same had also been right in the "just wars" of the Christian Church at that time. Pope Urban II's call for the Crusades was excused by the idea that Caliph Al-Hakim had been at that time prosecuting Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem (this despite the fact that the Latin Church had been prosecuting Arians in the meantime!). The war was also seen as a "response" to the "insult" that the birthplace of Christ was occupied by infidels. The result was a rampaging movement of peoples committing ethnic cleansing of Jews in Trier and other places, thieving in Poland and Hungary, sacking beautiful cities like Antiochia and Jerusalem. Such was the "Army of God"...
What enrages me in much of the defenses is how ideas are gotten completely backwards. It is not the case that religious leaderships have these lofty principles whom as human beings they could almost be "forgiven" for failing to enact completely. If we see that the creation of the dar-al-Harb idea is simply a method of sanctifying Ottoman material greed, or that the first papal indulgences were given to Robert Guiscard, leading a papal army to gain land for the Papacy; we see a theology adapting to the needs of megalomaniacs with ambitions of world domination. Theology is used in the service of oppression, it is used as its "justifying principle".
Indeed, the most fundamental question of all is: if a "principle" is always violated and used only as an excuse, if the "principle" enables us to fight and then explain away our excesses, what is the worth of such principles? Not much. Religion needs to be better than this. Religion should not succumb to the idea that because other people want to fight we should fight too. Instead, it must condemn war, and the misery of war, as absolutely evil and entirely without justification. Anything less is opening a back door, which historically has always been exploited, into which terrorism can enter our world. War is not about honour or glory, it is about the total failure of the human spirit.
ahahah..,this is what i have been expecting for, Jo.i knew i got your main point from the very beginning.nevertheless, it does not mean,i agree with you.
ReplyDeletethe first thing pops up in most people when seeing and hearing this word : War.
War is not heroic,war is full of despair.it is dreadful.it is a thing of gloom and sorrow.that is why people fear war.that is why people choose to avoid it..and mine is the one that most closely adheres to this philosophy..
well sometimes,we acquire a profound understanding by arguing.
besides,it's getting even more exciting with different opinions.isn't it?
Ooh i feel this battle just like our reminiscence :
Solid Snake (me) VS Solidus Snake (you)..in MGS2 wakakakAkaKaka..
Oops, joking is allowed in your blog, right? i do not see any written restrictions here.lol
i do appreciate and respect your dedication into your way of thinking by this writting.
Cheers
Berhan A.
rhan.law@gmail.com
hahhaha i always know solidus snake is the better one than solid snake. If you read kenshin, sishio is the winner of the battle, both the physical engagement and the philosophy underlying their samurais.
ReplyDeleteI thank you for reading and participating in discussion in my blog. Most importantly for your compliment. I ll get back to your pointers above after i finish my 2 exams and 3 papers.
Stay tune, because many interesting issues are coming up, issues that i will discuss in KOMPAS and Jakarta Post
Hi, I'm just a random person who chanced upon your blog. I'm a christian but I'm won't be going into any arguments with you over doctrine whatsoever. I was drawn to your title which mentioned that you are Rhadamanthus: The truth seeker.
ReplyDeleteIn your quest for truth you'll certainly be exposed to many types of things from different perspectives. Of course, each believes that he is right so identifying the real truth can be tough.
The thing is, who determines truth? Something may be true to you but false to another, perhaps due to different beliefs or cultural differences.
But in any case, when you really find truth, what is your response? You seek for truth, but in reality, the truth is not always pleasant. It can even make you uncomfortable or even mess up your life by forcing you to rethink what you have always believed in. So my question posed to you is, will you be willing to accept truth when you really find it?
I do hope this comment reaches you, not very good with bahasa so don't understand most of the instructions during posting. Take care :)
Dear rach-cy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading and replying.
First point, on the question of who determines the truth? I personally believe that truth is an objective creature, it s measureable by logic, consistency and factual discovery (similar to the concept of evidentiary finding in CSI). When you said something may be true to me but false to others (i.e. due to cultural differences), I beg to differ on this point. Something sounds like true in my ears because it is nice and comforting. Logical consequence of personal belief (which comforts you) is that it is very likely not true.
Most of my personal beliefs are very troubling for me. For example, I used to believe (when I was 7 years old) that my friends are nice and loyal (they will not stab my back), however, my painful journey of life lets me discover the bitter and rancor truth. I hate the truth, but it is nevertheless the truth that most friends are cost-benefit creatures.
When I really find the truth, even if it hurts me like hell, I will accept it. My life principle is that Human must compromise with their values, even the value of god (I did and a lot). Most importantly I prefer the bitter truth than the sweet lies…
Peduli setan dengan ajaran agama jika itu mengajarkan perang yang menghilangkan nyawa. Inti dari agama seharusnya adalah untuk menciptakan damai. Jika tidak, ya ga usah diikuti yang bagian ajaran jeleknya (perang, dll). Ikut sebagian aja. Gitu aja kok repot? Hahaha ^^
ReplyDelete