The war with Iraq, its justification and religion cannot be taken apart. Something interesting to note is that the ‘fundamentalists’ who are always pointing finger at Islam & Holy Prophet (saw) for taking part in wars, namely the Southern Baptists, are all in favor of this war. Unlike some other Christians denominations here in the US, their support for this war is very vocal and their justification is very religious. A report by NPR & an interview on C-Span, it was only the representative of the Baptist convention that openly stated not only his religious affiliation but also his strong support for Bush and the war. There were also mention of some other ‘pastors’ who didn’t want to be named, voicing support for the ‘born again Christian’ President & his war agenda. Their reasoning for hiding behind the curtain was because they didn’t want their congregation, whom they believed to be very diverse in nature, to look at them as war mongers. Then there are few denominations like the Catholics & Methodists who have openly apposed the war, based on the Christian teachings.
I asked one of my Baptist friends what would have Jesus done if he was the President, his answer was pretty much the same as the Baptist pastor on C-Span, “if you ask God for guidance, then your actions are always right”
The flip side to note is that those ‘sects’ of Islam who believe in a very offensive nature of war as being part of Jihad & in a way believe that the wars waged especially by some of the Caliphs were indeed on the doctrine of preemptive war, criticize the Bush administration for doing just that. I find it very amusing when they & their followers rally for ‘peace’ on one side while asking people to go for Jihad against the ‘great Satan’ on the other.
you have an interesting view point ahmedjee. I have not read all the history of Islamic "invasions". the last one I remember was the one Hazrat Abu Bakr RA sent the mission which was prepared during Prophet Mohammed PBUH's time when there were news of Romans preparing to attack Muslims. If you have read after that one you may highlight them with the conditions attached.
anyway, today in supposedly 21st century, we have something called UN which every country in the world is made to obey with few exceptions. when exceptions show up anywhere there are resentments/hate/differences etc.
you have to follow Iraq's association with US from very early, say like 60s or 70s, not just 1990 invasion of Iraq. see how Saddam was placed into power against Shiite majority and how he "evolved" into a dictator. how he got so much arsenal, wmd etc. even if you ignore all that history for time being, US invasion of a sovereign country for not following UN is nothing but hypocricy. on one hand she funds a country who keeps ingoring any UN resolution, and on the other hand she picks up her stick to beat the country who is struggling because of UN sanctions, also disarming as per UN (read Hans Blix's statements). that speaks volumes of the reasons of this invasion.
besides all this, one big Christian part in US does really want the war, because it sets up the stage for the "re-coming" of Christ (I think). the other part of Christian opposes war, perhaps not because of "Christian" being, but because of the legal/moral issues regarding this war.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
besides all this, one big Christian part in US does really want the war, because it sets up the stage for the "re-coming" of Christ (I think). the other part of Christian opposes war, perhaps not because of "Christian" being, but because of the legal/moral issues regarding this war.
[/QUOTE]
Often issues get blurry due to external factors. In South Africa, for instance, many Christians thought Apartheid were correct. Now that it is dismanteled, most of these people admit that it wasn't a good system after all.
I'm sure that in time, and with less emotion and propaganda, most Christians in the USA will join their counterparts in other countries to also condemn the war.
There is a proverb: You can't see the trees because of the jungle...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
........... one big Christian part in US does really want the war, because it sets up the stage for the "re-coming" of Christ (I think)........
[/QUOTE]
I think you are somehow on the right track here. Read the following verse from the Bible.
Mark 13
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"
5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8*Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom*. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains...."
Sounds a lot like our present day doesn’t it? However it is ludicrous for any human to attempt to deliberately create the stage for this event, in order to quicken God's plan. We are asked to ** Be prepared, ... not prepare for war**, for it is also said...
Mark 13
32", No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come...."
Blitz, thank you for showing me these verses from Mark. Now I do believe that many of ahadith were carried over from Christianity, Judaism, especially the ones regarding "Prophecies about The END" etc.
Interesting Ahmadjee. Very interesting. But this is just a one-dimensional view of religions and conflicts. Never in the history of the world has there been any war based upon Religion (or over it). ((((If you get over the religious part, it is always something else the wars are fought)))) This is the only reason for the pathetic state of Muslims (and others who think like that), because they try to explain every conflict into a religious light.
Wars and conflicts are always over economics. They are about resources and territories. So is the current conflict. It would be stupid to go to war over a stick of Chewing Gum, but we are talking about pretty exhaustive supply of natural resources here, which should not be in the hands of extremists. In your example of the Baptists' views, they would support any and all Wars, and that has to do with their conservative and deeply held nationalistic views as much as their Religion (in fact, the 19th century American Religions were all based on conservatism, and retrogression). Similarly, Catholics will not always disapprove of taking lives (look at Ireland for example). My point is that that's the way people are, and it has nothing to do with their beliefs. If the Baptist Priest (the one you watched on C-Span) were a Hindu, he would still think along the same lines.
Wars are fought either to free the oppressed, or to gain material gains. Any other explanation is poppycock, and it does not change the reality.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
....
Wars are fought either to free the oppressed, or to gain material gains. Any other explanation is poppycock, and it does not change the reality.
[/QUOTE]
So you are suggesting that pagans mounted war on Prophet Mohammed PBUH in Medina because he and his followers had more wealth than Meccan pagans?
I think whta NYAhmedi's has said is resonable. In my view it comes down to gains versus losses unless of course for whatever reason one sees their cause as being "just" and this isn't just a religious thing. IMO jihad isn't a religious thing its a view in which ppl think they are being opressed and so fight against whatever they see to be opression or the opressing power.
Changez-like the pagans had no concept of belief versus disbelief so their offensive wars could not be because of religious reasons. The Meccans and especially its leading tribespeople were mighty miffed at Muhammad (pbuh) because he and his ideology challenged their authority and autonomy and being the great traders they were - there were established and well known trades route through that area - it certainly would have been in their (economic) interest to try and put a stop to the ideas and message of Muhammad (pbuh) which was very fast becoming very influential. Thats what I think for an explannation anyway.
No Changez, they mounted the war on Prophet Mohammad because they wanted to free the oppressed. Hope that clarifies it.
When folks see (perceive) someone as a threat, that's a good enough reason to enter into a conflict. How many wars in the world have been over religion alone (like let's say for example, that Hindus are killing Muslims over Ayodhiya Mosque to build a Ram Temple). You can view it as a religious conflict, but you can also view it as a war over a territory. That's all I am saying. Deep down, there's something that people enter into conflict for, and religion appears to be only the obvious factor in such conflicts. It ain't about that. I would like to think that, in my opinion.
Irish want land, Palestinians want land, Chechnyans want land, Bosnians wanted land, Kashmiris want land. Germans wanted greater control over their economy. All colonies were set up to control the resources. I don’t know what Pagan's problem was. Stupid pagans.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
No Changez, they mounted the war on Prophet Mohammad because they wanted to free the oppressed. Hope that clarifies it.
[/quote]
Have you been freed yet (from Islam)?
I do agree that lots of war were for control of land and resources, but not all. Most of wars between pagans and Prophet Mohammed PBUH's followers were because of faith. Do you think that Muslims would be a financial/economical threat to pagans of Mecca? No. They could have established a trade relationship, but they didn't like "new faith" so they fought it out. They even tried economical war (sanctions against Prophet Mohammed PBUH and his followers in Mecca).
I think the crucial question is why didn't they like the new "faith"? There were others of different faith who lived in the area before Islam but who didn't threaten or challenge the Quraysh's leadership.
I agree Changez. But what I am saying is that even if Prophet Mohammad and his followers were of any other faith, the Pagans would still have fought with them. They viewed the new God as a threat to their ways of life, and as a "future" perceived threat to their economic and social position. So It was not about Prophet Mohammad and his followers being Muslim. Just as if Iraqis were Chinese Taoists, Bush and company would still go to war with that regime. That's all. What I am saying is that we cannot get to the bottom of it, until we dig it deeper and not just float on the surface. For all we know, it could be because of Religions, but to me it does not make any sense. Why would US go and kidnap Noriega and not Castro or Qaddaffi? You tell me.
In fact, the inquisitions, colonizations, invasions and the crusades were all about wealth accumulation and influence. If some Muslim group goes on a crusade, we shouldn’t judge it as a religious flaw, but as a human nature, and "man just doing his thing". Fighting.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
I think the crucial question is why didn't they like the new "faith"? There were others of different faith who lived in the area before Islam but who didn't threaten or challenge the Quraysh's leadership.
[/QUOTE]
Old religions were already "settled" among them. New faith became a challenge because it was stopping them from praying to idols, their religion looked wrong against new faith.
NY Ahmadi, you are right about US actions, that last few centuries have seen religions go down and industrialisation/commercialisation have become more and more dominant in making a country's strength, power, structure etc. And now most of the wars are for control of area, resources, wealth. US war against Iraq (Gulf War part I) was for wealth, and this one too (Gulf War part II) is also about wealth. I agree with you on that.
Also, these inquisitions and invasions did use religion as their tool/excuse to attack and invade to take over that country and its resources. Similarly most of the "Muslim" rulers when attacked other nations, it was for the purpose of "wealth" and "land" not necessarily for "Islam". I also agree with you on that. But the difference with you is that NOT all were fought for the same reason.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
I think the crucial question is why didn't they like the new "faith"? There were others of different faith who lived in the area before Islam but who didn't threaten or challenge the Quraysh's leadership.
[/QUOTE]
I think Rhia's point is worth understanding. You need to understand the motives of the invader/conqueror before a judgement is made. Also you need to study the statements made by the government officials and thier actions. Once you understand these factors then your judgement is based upon reality and not just blind and shallow judgements.
In the case of the USA, in the war against Iraq, i think there are many factors driving this war. The main factors are oil and controlling its flow, stability in the gulf, remove british influence and prevent a state which implements the Islamic ideology and unifies the muslims.
All these factors were understood by looking at the long term and short term policies of the USA.
I think the issue of oil is well known and does not need any elaboration.
The USA does not want to see the destabalisation of the gulf as it effects its own economy at home as they rely upon oil from the gulf and we saw how when their was a crisis in the UK due to the intifada in Palestine, the country was bent on its knees and oil prices shot up and there was a shortage. So its in the US interest to stabalise the gulf and middle east. There is alot more that can be said but maybe i'l mention it after i get any responses.
As day by day, the US is colonising the globe, it needs to remove any influenece of other competing countries such as Europe and obviously britain. Britain nurtured the bath party of Iraq and was responsible for the military cue which bought Sadam into power. As always britain and America may at surface seem like allies, but thier interests clash and the differences cause competition. Also as the Us is running out of oil supplies it needs to economically enslave an oil rich country to achieve this as it cannot directly ie militarily occupy iraq (like in the old days).
Not too long ago, one of the bush administration officials said that they fear that a terrorist will gain control of land and thier interests will be at stake. Again it is thier intersts at stake because the arrival of the Islamic state will cause trouble for the US as thier hegemony will be threatened and thier capitalistic way of life will be undermined. It is like when the soviet union implemented communism and the US exhausted efforts to get rid of this communist state. The US fears a revival from this noble ummah and they fear that once again the muslims will unify and apply Islam in the form of a state. So when they say a terrorist will gain control they really mean muslims who want to implement the shariah and have an international presence.
I would like to hear the opinions of other muslims
I think Rhia's point is worth understanding. You need to understand the motives of the invader/conqueror before a judgement is made. Also you need to study the statements made by the government officials and thier actions. Once you understand these factors then your judgement is based upon reality and not just blind and shallow judgements.
In the case of the USA, in the war against Iraq, i think there are many factors driving this war. The main factors are oil and controlling its flow, stability in the gulf, remove british influence and prevent a state which implements the Islamic ideology and unifies the muslims.
All these factors were understood by looking at the long term and short term policies of the USA.
I think the issue of oil is well known and does not need any elaboration.
The USA does not want to see the destabalisation of the gulf as it effects its own economy at home as they rely upon oil from the gulf and we saw how when their was a crisis in the UK due to the intifada in Palestine, the country was bent on its knees and oil prices shot up and there was a shortage. So its in the US interest to stabalise the gulf and middle east. There is alot more that can be said but maybe i'l mention it after i get any responses.
As day by day, the US is colonising the globe, it needs to remove any influenece of other competing countries such as Europe and obviously britain. Britain nurtured the bath party of Iraq and was responsible for the military cue which bought Sadam into power. As always britain and America may at surface seem like allies, but thier interests clash and the differences cause competition. Also as the Us is running out of oil supplies it needs to economically enslave an oil rich country to achieve this as it cannot directly ie militarily occupy iraq (like in the old days).
Not too long ago, one of the bush administration officials said that they fear that a terrorist will gain control of land and thier interests will be at stake. Again it is thier intersts at stake because the arrival of the Islamic state will cause trouble for the US as thier hegemony will be threatened and thier capitalistic way of life will be undermined. It is like when the soviet union implemented communism and the US exhausted efforts to get rid of this communist state. The US fears a revival from this noble ummah and they fear that once again the muslims will unify and apply Islam in the form of a state. So when they say a terrorist will gain control they really mean muslims who want to implement the shariah and have an international presence.
I would like to hear the opinions of other muslims