Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Hmmm... "condemn the whole theology of jihad" ... an interesting concept.
Rahma, correct where I'm in error on the following:
According to Islam, the "greater jihad" is the "internal jihad" -- to combat the tendency to sin within self, whatever prevents one from being a "servant of God" as He calls one to be.
The "lesser jihad" is the task to defend: to defend the poor and oppressed from being oppressed by others, to defend believers from oppression from idolaters, to defend the People of the Book (i.e., Moslems, Christians, and Jews, and in some interpretations Zoroastrians) from domination by infidels, and to defend Moslems from oppression by others.
The third element is where we run into problems: to expand the rule of those whom God has called to rule over others, being successors (kaliphim) of the Prophet, so that as many as possible will live under a rule which is carried out by one who follows God Himself and His holy Laws.
I cannot see a Christian objecting to the effort to fight sin within oneself, and the idea of defending those oppressed for their faith is almost equally proper within a Christian mindset. The third element, the spread of the rule of the caliph, makes sense from a theocratic mindset, though of course it presumes that such a rule is according to what God really wants -- but doesn't fit with Christian views on proper political power, in general, and of course the idea of exactly who is entitled to hold that power has been a real mess since at least 1922, and a Shi'ite would view it as having been a mess since (the original) Hussein was killed in something like 700 AD.
Anyway, I don't believe in Islam, so I am not arguing in favor of this stuff -- but honesty provokes me to look at what jihad is supposed to mean to a Moslem person.
Rahma, correct where I'm in error on the following:
According to Islam, the "greater jihad" is the "internal jihad" -- to combat the tendency to sin within self, whatever prevents one from being a "servant of God" as He calls one to be.
The "lesser jihad" is the task to defend: to defend the poor and oppressed from being oppressed by others, to defend believers from oppression from idolaters, to defend the People of the Book (i.e., Moslems, Christians, and Jews, and in some interpretations Zoroastrians) from domination by infidels, and to defend Moslems from oppression by others.
The third element is where we run into problems: to expand the rule of those whom God has called to rule over others, being successors (kaliphim) of the Prophet, so that as many as possible will live under a rule which is carried out by one who follows God Himself and His holy Laws.
I cannot see a Christian objecting to the effort to fight sin within oneself, and the idea of defending those oppressed for their faith is almost equally proper within a Christian mindset. The third element, the spread of the rule of the caliph, makes sense from a theocratic mindset, though of course it presumes that such a rule is according to what God really wants -- but doesn't fit with Christian views on proper political power, in general, and of course the idea of exactly who is entitled to hold that power has been a real mess since at least 1922, and a Shi'ite would view it as having been a mess since (the original) Hussein was killed in something like 700 AD.
Anyway, I don't believe in Islam, so I am not arguing in favor of this stuff -- but honesty provokes me to look at what jihad is supposed to mean to a Moslem person.
Upvote
0