Pacifism

[Paul Denison]

I know all opposed to this war are not pacifists, but it seems that some on the board will not fight for their country no matter the circumstances. Each stance taken, fighter or pacifist, has it rewards and penalties. Twelve years of waiting for Saddam to disarm are long enough. Here are a few quotes.

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt

If the Nazis have really been guilty of the unspeakable crimes circumstantially imputed to them, then— let us make no mistake— pacifism is faced with a situation with which it cannot cope. The conventional pacifist conception of a reasonable or generous peace is irrelevant to this reality.
John Middleton Murry (1889–1957), British critic, editor. Peace News (, Murry was a prominent pacifist and radical Christian.#)

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion.
W. R. Inge (1860–1954), Dean of St. Paul’s, London

[LeeG]

Paul,you don't have to build a straw man right now. We're on the same side.

[Rocky]

Once again the rhetoric is becoming distorted. Opposing the invasion of another country because it may have unforeseen consequences is not exactly the same as refusing to defend your own soil. No doubt the German troops crossing the Belgian frontier believed they were defending Germany. They also found that taking a position was much easier than holding it.

Looks like the Iraqis are gonna roll over and die anyway, so we can all wave our flags and be great patriots without ever leaving our La-Z-Boys. Bush might get lucky, but it bodes ill for the future when we are so eager to resort to war when there are other options available.

[ 03-19-2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Rocky ]

[On Vacation]

Other options, Yea. Find a new rhetoric. What option was left? LAST CHANCE, LAST CHANCE, LAST CHANCE, 17 TIMES OVER, 14 MONTHS OF TALKS, MULTI-NATION TALKS, 48 hours warning. How many wars have been fought with the precise warning of I am coming if you don't blink? And funny how the oponents now wish to get on board, either on the rebuild or lets talk about joining forces.

[PatCox]

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God"

"You have heard that it is said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil"

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

When soldiers arrested Jesus, he admonished a friend who drew a sword in his defense, saying, "All who take the sword shall perish by the sword."

I suppose you can take your moral guidance where you see fit, Theodore Roosevelt or Jesus Christ. Is that what they call moral relativism?

[High C]

And some are willing to give up their innocence and purity for the sake of others. I may be condemned to hell for taking up the sword in defense of my family and neighbors, but I will make that sacrifice, for them. God save us from pacifists.

[Wayne Jeffers]

Teddy Roosevelt also said, "unjust war is a crime against humanity."
(The Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910.)

Wayne

[Rocky]

Well, let's see, we could have let the inspectors go in and finish the job, or

Embargoed the borders, or

Put out a hit on Saddam, or

Blown the hell out of his palaces, or

Cultivated some real spies who knew how to do the job, or

Given him a list of suspect facilities and tell him each one was gonna be hit unless he could prove it wasn't being used for war production, or

Gone to the Iranians to see if they wanted to do something to him, but

What the hell, we've got all this stuff, we've got all these troops, and we've got all these good old boys just dying to have a war, so let's go have one. I just hope it works out, and I REALLY hope that if it doesn't all the yahoos who wanted it will at least have enough class to say "Gee, I never thought THAT would happen" instead of trying to blame somebody else. Fat chance.

[ 03-19-2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Rocky ]

[Mr. Know It All]

Well I'm an old hippy who used to say "Hell no, I won't go"(I was too young anyway) and now it's "Hell no,they won't take me I'm too old" so it's easy for me to be an anti-war pacifist now. :D I don't think I could fight for any country,I'd probably be fighting for my family,friends and trying to stay alive long enough to go back home to them. Hopefully I'll never really know.
Peace---> Kevin in Ohio

[ishmael]

Putting out a hit on Saddam is apparently what we just did, according to MSNBC on the web. Let us hope the bastard's luck finally ran out, and that we had some good, inside intelligence, and this will be over soon.

[martin schulz]

All those rethoric speeches either from Hussein or Bush (by the way, is there any reason SH is only called Saddam in US Papers?) sound so very much emotional. This mixture of national pride, religion and sable-rattling which oozes out of every word spoken is too unobjective to me.

My ideas of pacifism? Nothing emotional about it.

Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

Act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims.

Act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

[Meerkat]

Martin; most American news is directed towards exciting an emotional response, not an intellectual one. Demonizing and denigrating the enemy du jour is normal fare. Most Americans don't deal with issues, they deal with headlines and the other bold print meant to catch their eye. Like most rulers, ours don't like us to think too much for ourselves. Kind of like this thread: long on emotion and short on issues. :D

[Chris Coose]

Was one then, am now. Especially on this occasion.
My son and daughter are as well.
Don't know about the 5 year old.
I'll have to ask my wife but I suspect she it too.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

What we are actually seeing is a great deal of whistling in the dark by people who know that this is not a "conflict" but an invasion, of a state that has not done us much harm.

Some people are trying to whip themselves up into a fervour of patriotic indignation because, in fact, they are a little uneasy about the sight of a very big nation invading a small one, and they don't want to admit this. Because it is honourable to fight in defence of one's country, they are trying to call this war of aggression a defence against attack, and a lot of effort has gone into finding the attack we are meant to be defending ourselves against. Not wholly sucessfully.

There is no parallel with 1939, still less with 1941. 1896 might be a starter, for the USA, and 1899 for the UK.

[LeeG]

Andrew, pardon my ignorance, what is the parallel with 1896 and 1899?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Lee, I was thinking of the MAINE and of the Jameson Raid, which, as it were, kick started the Spanish American and Boer Wars. In both, our two nations had thought about "regime change" for quite a while; in both, Germany and France disapproved. Both were really wars of colonial aggression, dressed up with fine phrases.

[LeeG]

Thanks,,I have to admit this board is one of the best places for digestible dialog. ok the button pushing aspect is pervasive but the chance to hear from folks across the water is valuable.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I absolutely agree. I hope that our German, Dutch and French friends do not feel discouraged.

[Sam F]

Pacifism is of course slightly crazed at the best of times. It is not however a cowardly point of view. Real pacifism takes more guts than I can manage.

Below is a different view from England. It's a view of the American character and behavior rooted not in US aggression, but the failure of international law to handle problems like Iraq.
It's food for thought anyway and some of you may find it interesting...

The Resentments of Old Europe

By William Hague

A few years ago, as I waited for a plane in Phoenix airport, I fell into conversation with a woman from Tucson. She greeted my statement that I had just flown on a plane from Britain with a level of astonishment that would not have been out of place if I had said it was a spaceship from Pluto. ‘And what is the weather like there?’ she asked, wide-eyed with curiosity. ‘Oh,’ I said, ‘it’s pretty wet, but that’s what comes of living on an island at the edge of the ocean.’

‘Britain is an island!’ she exclaimed. ‘Hey, John,’ she shouted to her husband, ‘did you know the Brits all live on an island?’

Such encounters feed all our prejudices about America. They stand accused of being insular, unsophisticated and ignorant of the rest of the world. In many European eyes, these grave deficiencies make it all the more annoying that they have nevertheless become by far the richest and most powerful nation on our planet. To be seen as stupid invites contempt, and to be powerful produces respect, but to be known as both at the same time creates a particularly intense form of jealousy and resentment.

Such are the feelings of many on this side of the Atlantic towards America’s assertion of its power. Bush is more dangerous than Saddam, they chant. Americans have killed more people than the Iraqis. The US seeks world domination and an oil monopoly. If none of these things is true, then the Americans just don’t understand us in the rest of the world. And allied to the heated chants of demonstrators is the cold power-play of the Elysée Palace, freely confessed to by French ministers in private, determined to take the opportunity to scotch Anglo-American leadership in world affairs.

But what is the true nature of America? Is the US really more dangerous to world peace than a mass-murdering, genocidal dictator who has invaded his neighbours, used chemical weapons, stowed away hundreds of tons of anthrax and tortured tens of thousands to death? Is it now an imperialist nation?

I have been lucky enough to travel across most of the states of America. I have sat with old men on their porches in Tennessee, and ridden with young wranglers in Montana in the mountains of the Great Divide. As a politician, I have visited schools in New York, retirement homes in Florida and technology firms in San Diego. And I have to say that it would be hard to come across a nation of people less imperialist by culture, temperament and inclination. America was forged in the first place by the families of Protestant settlers who had a work ethic, a strong sense of right and wrong, and a hostility to governmental power and royal authority. They went to a new land in order to be away from wars, taxes and kings. Their attitudes, reinforced by the waves of dispossessed people who have joined them in succeeding centuries, remain the central characteristics of America today. Americans are still by nature disrespectful of authority, deeply democratic by instinct, very conscious of their freedom, and particularly happy to live in a vast and beautiful land which is free from external threats.

Such people are difficult to rouse to war. If Americans are insular — and many of them are — they cannot be imperialist at the same time. In British and French eyes, their sin over much of the last century has been isolationism: ‘too proud to fight’, as Woodrow Wilson said. Americans have always hated joining in other people’s conflicts. Only unrestricted submarine attacks off their west coast brought them into the first world war, and only a direct attack on American soil in Pearl Harbor brought them into the second, even Churchill’s brilliant eloquence having made little progress with them until then. Once roused, however, they have responded with a mixture of determination, loyalty and generosity that no other nation has ever matched. Without America, France would have lived in a dark age of dictatorship for decades. Without America, Germans could not have rescued themselves from a racist ideology. And without America, Europe’s only alternative to Nazi tyranny would have been communist tyranny. American troops left behind them an independent and democratic Japan, and brought Europe the Marshall Plan — both supreme acts of enlightenment in foreign policy. They share with Britain, but not with other European powers, the distinction of leaving democracy and freedom in their wake wherever they can.

That very freedom now gives millions the right to protest. South Koreans now resent the US troops without whom their society could not have survived. The French, it seems, have never got over the indignity of having to be rescued. And as the responsibilities of being a superpower in a Cold War required Americans to intervene in a wider range of conflicts, such resentment can be found anywhere on earth.

But now Americans are roused once again. They suffered on 11 September an attack on their own soil more devastating to human life than Pearl Harbor itself. Europeans sympathised, but they did so in the manner of sympathising with a friend who has suffered a bereavement. Americans actually experienced the bereavement. Pre-emptive warfare is their response, and if it had been Canary Wharf or the Eiffel Tower that had been reduced to dust, such a policy would be cheered to the echo. Those Europeans, including British people, who attack American policy have not seen thousands of their own citizens killed before their eyes in a single act. And they are not prepared to do anything about it themselves.

This surely is the crucial point. Americans are not warlike people, but they will now go after rogue states and terrorists because, if they don’t, no one else will. All over the world, America takes on responsibilities because others shirk them. They got involved in Kosovo because Europeans had neither the means nor the ability to sort it out. They pursue a ‘one-sided’ policy on Israel because without it the Jews would be driven into the sea. They need a huge increase in military spending partly because France, Germany and others are not prepared to spend a penny more themselves.

What the present crisis underlines is that Western Europe is losing its influence. In the coming decades, the greatest growth of manufacturing will be in China, the fastest growth of population in the Middle East and India, and the strongest enterprise culture and greatest military power will remain in America. The sound we can hear from Paris and Berlin is not the march of ever closer union, but the rage of ever closer impotence. Once again, when the world gets dangerous, it is the Americans, British and Australians who respond. The vacuum left by others leaves us no choice. And if America leads us yet again in destroying another murdering despot, I will join the woman in Tucson who has no knowledge of where I live, in saying, ‘God Bless America.’

[stan v]

SamF, nothing like the sound of a baseball leaving the park!!!

[Scott Rosen]

Originally posted by Sam F:
Pacifism is of course slightly crazed at the best of times. It is not however a cowardly point of view. Real pacifism takes more guts than I can manage.Wow! Amen to that. I am not a pacifist. However, I recognize that the logical conclusion to pacifism is the death and destruction of everything the pacifist holds dear, except his principles. In a world where all good people were pacifists, there would soon be nought but evil. It takes remarkable courage to sacrifice your life and the lives of all you hold dear for the belief that killing is wrong under any circumstances.

[Donn]

Great piece, Sam...where's it published?

Scott...you're dripping. :D

[Sam F]

Spectator UK (http://www.spectator.co.uk/frontpage.php3)

[Scott Rosen]

Is dripping good or bad? redface.gif

Great piece, Sam. It was well worth the cut and paste.

[Donn]

It's good...I've always admired thinly veiled sarcasm. :D

[stan v]

Sam F, are you capable of keeping your pipes from freezing? :D

[ccmanuals]

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Sir Edmund Burke

[Sam F]

Originally posted by stan v:
Sam F, are you capable of keeping your pipes from freezing? :D Why? Am I that cold? :confused:

[Sam F]

Scott, You make find this article of value. It's from the same source.
The New Anti-Semitism (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-03-22&id=2908)

[stan v]

NO! You missed the humor, the indirect slam towards another forumite that thinks those that cut and paste have no original thoughts, yet he himself can't keep his pipes from freezing! I thought it was funny. :D

[Don Olney]

Alvin York, one of our greatest military heroes struggled with pacifism for some time. In many ways, he typifies American attitudes toward war and conquest.

http://www.oars.utk.edu/volweb/Schools/York/birdie.html

"Sir, I am doing wrong. Practicing to kill people is against my religion."

--York, speaking of target practice at human silhouettes.

"What you did was the greatest thing accomplished by any private soldier of all the armies of Europe."

--Marshall Ferdinand Foch, on York's feat in the Argonne.

"This uniform ain't for sale."
--York, on demands for his endorsement.

"It's over; let's just forget about it."
--York's modesty about the the event that brought him the Medal of Honor.

[Paul Denison]

A little balance for Pat.

If you don't like this kind of posting don't read it.

Exo 15:3 Jehovah is a Man of war; Jehovah is His name.

Exo 17:16 And he said, A hand is on the throne of Jehovah; war is to Jehovah with Amalek from generation to generation.

Psa 18:34 He teaches my hands to war, so that a bow of bronze is bent by my arms.

Psa 144:1 A Psalm of David. Blessed is Jehovah my Rock, who teaches My hands for war, my fingers for battle.

For those who seperate the old and new testaments.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and forever.

Mat 24:35 The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away.

Mat 5:18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.

Rev 19:11 And I saw Heaven opened. And behold, a white horse! And He sitting on him was called Faithful and True. And in righteousness He judges and makes war.

Pat, you’ll get your wish in the end.

Isa 2:4 And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

[Scott Rosen]

Thanks for the link Sam. The phenomenon described in the article has been developing for quite some time. We've seen it in abundance right here on the Forum. Did anyone else think it strange that the only thing Allen Foote and Meerkat ever agreed on was the claim that the "Jewish" lobby has sinister and excessive influence over American government?

I will continue to expose it when I see fit, even if I am accused of "playing the race card."

[Adam C]

Don't hold it against Pat. He doesn't even believe the biblical quotes he posts, he just trots them out when they are convenient to him.

It is so typical to paint Jesus as a loving, non-violent person (which he was) and forget his views on judgement, righteousness, and the law of God.

[km gresham]

Tom, darn it - I had that quote in my signature and somebody said it was trite. Maybe he meant to say "true" smile.gif

[Chris Coose]

In the past, Contientious Objector status was granted to those who applied with strong (and backed-up) religious conviction.
Those who applied by way of the induction notice blues were usually turned away.

This status was grated to those of many faiths. Certainly the bible was not the only text used by applicants.

All CO's are pasifists but not all pasifist are Co's.

Had I been born in 1921 instead of 1951 things might have been a lot different. Had I been born to different parents things would have been different. The what-if's are endless.

What is it that Popeye says? "I ams what I ams".
I've even switched religions and I'm even more so.

[htom]

The Doctrine of the Sword (Young India, 11-8-'20)

...Such being the hold that the doctrine of the sword has on the majority of mankind, and as the success of non-co-operation depends principally on absence of violence during its pendency, and as my views in this matter affect the conduct of a large number of people, I am anxious to state them as clearly as possible.

I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless treasure. A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her. I therefore appreciate the sentiment of those who cry out for the punishment of General Dyer and his ilk. They would tear him to pieces if thy could. But I do not believe Indian to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India's and my strength for a better purpose.

Let me no be misunderstood. Strength does no come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. An average Zulu is any way more than a match for an average Englishman in bodily capacity. But he flees from an English boy, because he fears death and is nerveless in spite of his burly figure. We in India may in a moment realize that one hundred thousand Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings. A definite forgiveness would therefore, mean a definite recognition of our strength. With enlightened forgiveness must come a mighty wave of strength in us which would make it impossible for a Dyer and a Frank Johnson to heap affront on India's devoted head. It matters little to me that for the moment I do not drive my point home. We feel too downtrodden not to be angry and revengeful. But I must not refrain from saying that India can gain more by waiving the right of punishment. We have better work to do, a better mission to deliver to the world.

I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the risbis holy people and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute, and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law-to the strength of the spirit.

I have therefore ventured to place before Indian the ancient law of self-sacrifice. For satyagraha and its off shoots, non-cooperation and civil resistance are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. The risbis who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence, were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness, and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.

Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his religion, his soul, and lay the foundation for that empire's fall or its regeneration.

...

Gandhi.

To be a pascifist -- at least a Gandhian pascifist -- is hard, very hard. These are the folk who throw themselves on the advancing bayonets. I don't know if I have that in me.

"It is a law of Satyagraha that when a man has no weapon in his hands and when he cannot think of a way out, he should take the final step of giving up his body."

Most -- not all -- of the pacifists that I've met are actually cowards, trying to convert others to cowardice. Running away from the foe is not part of pacifism, and not part of non-violence.

Or at least it's not part of pacifism that I can respect.

[Scott Rosen]

Gahndian non-violence can succeed only when used against a principled and humane enemy. It worked against the British. It would not have worked against the Nazis.

[Wayne Jeffers]

htom,

Ghandi was not a pacifist. He advocated and practiced non-violent civil disobedience.

Christian pacifism, such as is typically practiced by those of the Amish and Mennonite faiths, means that there is nothing for which the pacifist will kill, but they have beliefs for which they are willing to die.

Their attitude is, "If the result is death at the hands of the attacker, so be it; death is not threatening to us as Christians. Hopefully the attacker will have at least had a glimpse of the love of Christ in our nonviolent response. The Christian does not choose a nonviolent approach to conflict because of assurance it will always work; rather the Christian chooses this approach because of his/her commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord."

Their pacifist belief is based upon scripture, such as Matthew 5:38-48, John 18:36, and Romans 12:18-21.

Wayne

[Ken Hall]

The other thing about forgiveness is that repentance is a precondition; otherwise, you're just saying "ThankyousirmayIhaveanother?"

[Adam C]

Wayne,

Regardless, the Lord has ordained a place for war. The same bible you quote for pacifism is replete with references of war.

I find the thought of taking a human life repulsive. I also believe there are times when it is justified.

[Rocky]

Ben Franklin had to deal with the Quakers during the Revolution, and found intriguing ways for them to avoid violating their pacifist beliefs. On one occasion he obtained financing for fire engines and used it to buy artillery, pointing out with a wink that a cannon was indeed a fire engine.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by stan v:
NO! You missed the humor, the indirect slam towards another forumite that thinks those that cut and paste have no original thoughts, yet he himself can't keep his pipes from freezing! I thought it was funny. :D Of course it has original thought stan - just not YOURS :D

[shamus]

Originally posted by Scott Rosen:
Gahndian non-violence can succeed only when used against a principled and humane enemy. It worked against the British. It would not have worked against the Nazis.Nor Israeli bulldozers.

[Sam F]

Originally posted by shamus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott Rosen:
Gahndian non-violence can succeed only when used against a principled and humane enemy. It worked against the British. It would not have worked against the Nazis.Nor Israeli bulldozers.</font>[/QUOTE]Rather than languish at the bottom of the list, Shamus' point deserves consideration. Would non-violence work against Israeli bulldozers?
I don't know, but then again the Palestinians haven't tried either. I am of the opinion (not knowledge, just opinion) that if the Palestinians had adopted Gandhi’s & ML King's highly developed non-violence tactics they would have had a state a decade ago.

Frankly, I wonder if the Palestinian's leaders aren't the stupidest people of recent times.
The US is the only country that can midwife the creation of a Palestinian state so any strategy must address both the US and Israel. Non-violence has a proven track record of success in the US. One would think that it would have been tried. Instead what have the Palestinians done?

Set aside for the moment, the PLO's engaging in and later the Palestinian Authority’s tacit approval of and support for terrorism. They have committed other strategic errors:
For years the Palestinians have played the "Race Card" against Israel accusing them of racism. This only works for the home crowd. Even the most rudimentary knowledge of Israel shows this to be untrue. You could make a good case for religious intolerance, but not racism in the country that rescued Ethiopian Jews.

Remember the first Gulf War? Who did the Palestinians loudly support? Iraq. Remember 9-11? Who, responding to a generation of hate propaganda, danced in the streets and gave out candy to kids in celebration? The Palestinians... at least until someone with sense quieted them down a bit. Well, like DUH, that sure endeared Palestinians with the US.

Something tells me that anyone who would say: “as Allah has said: 'Go forth to war, with your light and heavy weapons, and wage Jihad in the cause of Allah, with your property and with your souls. This is good for you...'" has non-violence pretty low on his list of priorities.

The rest is below and was ( from http://memri.info/index.html) printed a few days before the war started.

“The Palestinian Clerics Association, which is close to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, issued a communiqué demanding that all Arabs and Muslims worldwide, particularly those in the Islamist movements, stand up to "the American Crusader Zionist aggression against Iraq, because the religious, pan-Arab, and humane imperative demands it; as Allah said: 'All believers are brothers.'"

The communiqué called on Arabs and Muslims "to dissociate themselves from political, economic, and military ties with America and her hostile allies, and to boycott its goods and remove [their] capital from its banks." The Islamic Jihad movements were called on "to wage Jihad, to [conduct] a general mobilization, and to [strike] at America's interests and those of its allies in the world, in response to the anticipated aggression against Iraq and against the Arab and Islamic nation, as Allah has said: 'Go forth to war, with your light and heavy weapons, and wage Jihad in the cause of Allah, with your property and with your souls. This is good for you...'"

The communiqué also stated, "The U.S. and its allies, particularly Britain and the Zionist entity, are beating the drums of war [by] massing their many armies in order to cruelly attack Iraq, with the aim of taking over the region and the oil of Iraq and other [countries], and of implementing Israel's interests..."

The Palestinian Clerics Association also noted that "any religious authority and every high-ranking official in an Arab or Muslim country who forms an alliance and conspires with America in its anticipated aggression against Iraq, or who provides it with material or spiritual aid, or who enables the armies of the invaders to pass through these countries' territory – such aid will be considered the gravest of crimes and betrayal of Allah, his Messenger, and the believers." The Association supported its declaration with a Koranic verse: "Oh ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians as your helpers, for they are helpers of one another. Who so from among you takes them as helpers will indeed be one of them. Verily, Allah guides not the unjust people." The Association also demanded that the Arab and Muslim people and armies "rise up against the rulers who conspire with America [against Iraq]."

[Paul Denison]

Sam F posted:" The Association supported its declaration with a Koranic verse: "Oh ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians as your helpers, for they are helpers of one another. Who so from among you takes them as helpers will indeed be one of them. Verily, Allah guides not the unjust people."

Sam, this verse surprised me as I thought they considered Jews and Christian’s believers of the book. Will you provide a reference for it? What are your thoughts on the consistency of this verse with the rest of the Koran?

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Paul Denison:

Sam, this verse surprised me as I thought they considered Jews and Christian’s believers of the book. Will you provide a reference for it? What are your thoughts on the consistency of this verse with the rest of the Koran? It’s in the surah Ma'idah. (Surahs are roughly equivalent to verses by the way.)

At best Islam is ambivalent towards the "people of the book". They are entitled to a certain respect as pioneers in God's word but also subject to contempt as infidels who refuse to see the fullness of Mohammad's truth.
The enmity is worse for it being "in the family".

Most westerners are completely ignorant of the astounding variety of hate language promulgated in the Islamic world. It is possible to come to the conclusion that Islam, by the nature of its scripture and organization, is prone to violence. Understand, I do not suggest that violence is required, just that Islam has a predisposition to it. Humanity has such a disposition as well!
In a way Islam is the inversion of Christianity, which while composed of violent humans has a predisposition toward mercy. Christians usually fall far short of that ideal but it nevertheless remains as a guiding principle. The life of Mohammad is not exactly what anyone would call merciful and modeling one’s life on his would result in exactly the behavior one sees throughout the Islamic world.

I recommend that you find a copy of the Haddith, the sacred tales of Mohammad's life. It is considered on a par with the Koran and there are incidents in it that would make any civilized person uneasy. Example: A woman caught in adultery was brought to Mohammad. His command? After she delivers she was to be wrapped in her garments and stoned to death.
What a guy! If you see Muslims wearing armbands that say: “WWMD” be afraid. :eek:

In the meantime here's an Islamic commentary you can access. There is tons of this stuff out there btw. This is just the first one I happened to come upon and is fairly mild as such things go.

The Caliphate (http://www.wponline.org/vil/Books/Quduri_Mukhtasar/caliphate.htm)

Here's an excerpt concerning this very verse:

"The fundamental guidelines on how to deal with the non-muslims are mentioned in Surah Mariah verses 51-59.

What is special about Surah Ma'idah is that it is the last revealed surah of the Qur'an . Imam Qurtubee in his tafseer reported that Hazrat Umm- Almu'mineen A'eshah said: "Surah Ma'idah is the last surah of Quran. For that reason, what is described as Halaal in it is Halaal, and what is described as Haraam is Haraam". Which means that the verdicts in it are not superseded by any other Ayah or Hadeeth. Hence, if an event in the Seerah seems to contradict the implications of these verses we go by these verses and we assume that this seerah event has been superseded by Surah Ma'idah. This is a fundamental rule that should be kept in mind while reading the Seerah.

The verses in surah Ma'idah say: (meaning translated)

-Oh ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.[51]
(Comment): The verses speak for themselves. "

AND

"-Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that has come to us, and that which came before and that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"[59]
(Comment): When we are dealing with the US "system", we are actually dealing with the people who RUN the system. Being from the people of the Book, most of those in charge of the system are rebellious and disobedient. On the other hand if there are good people in the "system", they will always be a minority.

The implications of these verses are very clear: Never hope that the Kuffar as a nation or a set of nations will ever help you. They only help each other against you. Depend only on Allah, follow his messenger, and seek the support and help from believers and declare Jihad. Only then your triumph will be certain. Those who don't abide by this policy and and are convinced that the Kuffar are truly the source of support and protection, have disease in their heart (i.e., Nifaq).

On the other hand, the verses do not address individuals. A certain jew or christian , as an individual, might help or support an islamic cause. But a nation of jews, or christians, or disbelievers in general, will never do so.

There is a verse in the Qur'an that seems to allow seeking friendship or protection in the case of weakness. It is the ayah of "taquiyyah" "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you to fear Himself; for the final goal is to Allah" ch3.v28.

However, Imam Ibn Jareer tabaree, shaykhul-mufassireen, explained this ayah as follows:"Oh believers, do not take the kuffar as your supporters, friends and protectors. Do not help them in spreading their religion (e.g., by having people believe in US as the SUPERPOWER) and in defeating the islamic cause (e.g., the Fard of Jihad). Whosoever does that is away from islam and is in Kufr. Unless you want to avoid their harm, when you are living under their control (like muslims in Makkah) so you fear they may harm you, then you can say to them nice words, while at same time HIDING THE HATRED to them and not supporting them in the Kufr they believe in, and not helping them against any muslim (by shaking the muslims' aqueedah that the help can only come from the followers of Jesus). (excerpt from Tafseer-u-ttabaree) Note the beautiful ending of the ayah: for the final goal(end) is ALLAH... "

Interesting isn't it?

[ 03-21-2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Sam F ]

[Paul Denison]

So it seems if they follow what you posted, here in the USA they are taught to lie to us and plot our downfall. Is it any wonder the Muslim community is not going out of their way to help in the war on terrorism?

[Keith Wilson]

Not against Nazis, yes. Not against Israeli Bulldozers??? HAH!

If the Palestinians had started a serious program of non-violent non-cooperation against Isreal in 1980, we'd be celebrating the 10th anniversary of independent Palestine about now. The Israelis are terribly vulnerable to that sort of thing. Not only that, they would be more than willing to negotiate something reasonable if they thought they could do it without ensuring their own destruction. Every yahoo who blows himself up at a bus stop or restaurant in Israel sets back the cause of the Palestinians by a year. Why they haven't figured this out yet is a more complex subject that I feel up to attempting this morning.

[Scott Rosen]

There are plenty of passages in the Koran which are directly counter to the ideology of radical Islam. Believe it or not, despite language that is hostile to Jews and Christians, the Koran acknowledges the right of the Jews to the land of Israel.

"Moses said unto his people [the Israelites]: “Remember the good deeds that Allah has done for you, who appointed and gave you prophets and rulers, something he has not given to any nation in the world; and now, my people [the Israelites], enter the Holy Land which Allah has destined for you. Do not turn back because otherwise, you might be doomed and come to ruin." (Sura 5:20-21)

"Then, we let the people [Israel], who were despised, inherit the eastern and western parts of the land which we had blessed. And the fair word of the Lord was fulfilled for the children of Israel because of their endurance. (Sura 7:137)

"Then we said to the children of Israel: “Dwell in the land, and when the promise of the hereafter will be fulfilled, we shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations." (Sura 17:104)

[Sam F]

Quite correct Scott. There are some very positive aspects of Islam. I just wish they had some way of mollifying the negative. As far as I can tell there is no way to do so.
At any rate, the passage quoted above solves the problem of inconsistency in at least some Islamic eyes, that of the last surahs superceding the earlier. Here it is again edited somewhat for clarity:

"What is special about Surah Ma'idah is that it is the last revealed surah of the Qur'an . ... Which means that the verdicts in it are not superseded by any other Ayah or Hadeeth. Hence, if an event in the Seerah seems to contradict the implications of these verses we go by these verses and we assume that this seerah event has been superseded by Surah Ma'idah. This is a fundamental rule that should be kept in mind while reading the Seerah.