Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 09:40 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
February 22, 2025, 09:50 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 22, 2025, 02:56 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 21, 2025, 10:31 AM

New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?

 (Read 10082 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     OP - April 28, 2009, 06:47 AM

    I've heard Islamic scholars mention that the word Jihad isn't used for a holy war, the correct word is "qital".

    One scholar says that qital is the apex of jihad.

    From my understanding, jihad can be used for reasons other than actual warfare too, like the so called spiritual jihad, although there are 199 references to jihad in Bukhari hadiths, & all speak of armed warfare, while qital is used exclusively for holy war.

    Can someone more knowledgable weigh in?

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #1 - April 28, 2009, 07:23 AM

    Well, any replies? Huh?

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #2 - April 28, 2009, 08:14 AM

    That word simply comes from the root word Qaf Ta Lam which means to massacre or kill in a severe manner. It has been subsumed as an Urdu word (Qatal) and means 'murder'. So it has nothing to do with holy war as such, because it simply means to kill in an extreme way.

    Of course, it IS used in Arabic to mean things like 'the act of fighting', but you can also use it in the phrase 'Qatal nafsah' to mean 'suicide'.

    I can't say I know the official Islamic view on this, I'm afraid.

    "At 8:47 I do a grenade jump off a ladder."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #3 - April 28, 2009, 09:07 AM

    Well no scholar of arabic here but to my understanding (since the words are exactly the same in morocco) qatal means kill as in murder whereas jihad means holy war.

    like the difference linguistically between a crusade and murder.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #4 - April 28, 2009, 10:20 AM

     thnkyu Pazuzu & BerberElla!

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #5 - April 28, 2009, 11:10 AM

    I found the following about jihad & qital from an Islamic site:
     
    Quote
    As we have already seen, jihad is a lot more than fighting in the way of Allah. The latter is referred to in the Quran with the Arabic term "qital," which literally means "fighting."Confusing the terms "jihad"and "qital" has been influential in the prevalent misreading of all occurrences of jihad in the Madinite verses as references to armed jihad. "Jihad" and "qital" have significantly different meanings and uses in the Quran.
     
    As explained in 3.2, qital is only one, though the most prominent, aspect of armed jihad. The latter is a wider concept that includes every effort involved in both the preparation and execution of war, such as funding it. Armed jihad, in turn, is one form of the broader concept of jihad which involves peaceful jihad also. While it is always true to describe "fighting in the way of Allah" as"jihad" the opposite is not necessarily true as jihad can also refer to other aspects of armed jihad or to peaceful jihad. This is why the references to "jihad" in the Quran cannot be equated with qital.
     
    Particularly helpful in dispelling the widespread confusion of jihad and fighting are the following verses:

    Fighting has been ordained for you [O you who believe!], and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you like a thing while it is evil for you; and Allah knows whereas you do not know (2.216).
    Have you not seen [O Muhammad!] those to whom it was said: "Withhold your hands [from fighting], keep up prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, when fighting was ordained for them, a party of them feared people as they ought to fear Allah, or [even] with a greater fear, and said: "Our Lord! Why have You ordained fighting for us? If You have only granted us a delay to a near date?" Say [O Muhammad!]: "The provision of this world is short, and the hereafter is better for he who acts dutifully toward Allah; and you shall not be wronged in the very least" (4.77).


    These verses make it absolutely clear that fighting in the way of Allah is started only when it is "kutiba (ordained)". In other words, fighting in the way of Allah is not a practice that comes by default with religion. This description equally applies to fighting in the way of Allah that previous Prophets and their followers were involved in, as shown in the following verse:

    Have you not considered [O Muhammad!] how the chiefs of the Children of Israel who came after Moses said to a Prophet of theirs: "Set up for us a king and we will fight in the way of Allah?? He said: ?May it be that you would not fight if fighting was ordained for you?" They said: "And why would we not fight in the way of Allah having been driven out of our homes, and for the sake of our children?" But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned away except a few of them, and Allah knows the wrongdoers (2.246).

    The word "jihad" is never used in a similar way in the Quran. There is no verse indicating that jihad is "ordained" at some point before which there would have been no jihad. This confirms my observation that it is qital, not jihad, which refers to fighting in the way of Allah and which was ordained as a duty on the Muslims only in the second year of the immigration to al-Madina.
     
    Note that verse 9.86 which was cited earlier in the chapter is not an exception to the above conclusion: 

    And when a chapter is revealed, stating: "Believe in Allah and jahidu (do jihad) with His Messenger, the wealthy ones among them (the Muslims) ask permission of you [O Muhammad!] and say: "Let us be with those who stay home" (9.86).

    Obviously, this verse does not mean that "belief in Allah" and "jihad" would have been first imposed as a duty in the particular chapter that the verse mentions. In fact, the verse does not refer to one particular chapter, but to every chapter that urges the Muslims to do jihad with the Prophet. The aim of this verse is to contrast this repeated emphasis with the failing of some Muslims to obey the given command.
     
    If "qital," not " jihad," is the term that specifically refers to fighting in the way of Allah, and ?jihad? in fact refers to something more general, then one would expect "qital" to be mentioned more than "jihad"in Madinite chapters. This is indeed the case, with "qital" occurring manyfold more than "jihad" in those chapters.
     
    Source: Jihad in the Qur'an: The Truth from the Source (Second Edition)
     
    Copyright : 2004 Louay Fatoohi

     

    Masha Allah!  mysmilie_977

    As it happens, "jihad" is mentioned 199 times in the Bukhari hadiths & its always used in the sense of armed action, now we have to deal with a qital too!  Over react

    IMo, two things stand out in Islam, which is not so in Christianity or any other faith.
    One is the unsavoury character of its founder Muhammad, the second is these multiple marching orders against "unbelievers". Biblical passages do have their fair share of violence, but the violence is contextualized to Hittite, Amorite, Perrizite, Canaanite etc, & not applicable to all unbelievers. Jesus of course, couldn't or didn't participate in any war against "all infidels".

    Islam however, insists on an open ended war against all "infidels"-often specifically naming them as polytheists, Jews, Christians etc who have to be conquered, converted or subjugated.

     Cat fight

    So the following verses(among many others) are specifically "qital" but can generally be called "jihad" as well.

    "Be good to each other, but ruthless to the unbelievers!" Quran 48:29

    "Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting  in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting  with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers those who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward."Qur'an:4:95   

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #6 - April 28, 2009, 11:14 AM

    This is how it makes sense to me, you go to jihad to qatal the enemy, if kill the enemy, you cant have a jihad with out some good ol kaffir qatal'ing.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #7 - April 28, 2009, 11:15 AM

    Damn phone dictionary. I mean qital'ing.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #8 - April 28, 2009, 11:56 AM

    This is how it makes sense to me, you go to jihad to qatal the enemy, if kill the enemy, you cant have a jihad with out some good ol kaffir qatal'ing.


     Lmao thats' how it makes sense to me too!

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #9 - April 28, 2009, 12:53 PM

    Literally Jihad means "struggle" and Qitaal means "fighting/war".

    But regardless of what you've been told, Jihad is used to mean physical fighting/war as well as struggle in a wider sense.



  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #10 - April 28, 2009, 02:40 PM

    Literally Jihad means "struggle" and Qitaal means "fighting/war".

    But regardless of what you've been told, Jihad is used to mean physical fighting/war as well as struggle in a wider sense.






     thnkyu Hass!

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #11 - April 28, 2009, 03:18 PM

    IMo, two things stand out in Islam, which is not so in Christianity or any other faith.
    One is the unsavoury character of its founder Muhammad, the second is these multiple marching orders against "unbelievers". Biblical passages do have their fair share of violence, but the violence is contextualized to Hittite, Amorite, Perrizite, Canaanite etc, & not applicable to all unbelievers. Jesus of course, couldn't or didn't participate in any war against "all infidels".


    Christianity does not really escape that easily from its violent OT record.

    It should also be noted that although on the occasions where specific tribes/nations eg. Hittites,  Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, etc. are mentioned the reason for sanctioning their destruction was because they worshipped idols and did not worship the lord who was a jealous god. Hence those just happened to be tribes of the time.

    But the precedent is set based on the reasoning behind their destruction. So it can be easily justified against any peoples who meet those criteria. No where does it say limit this to these peoples. It says destroys those who worship other gods.

    Exodus 23:24  Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

    Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.


    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #12 - April 28, 2009, 03:34 PM

    Lookup Avoda Zara, and Maimonides stance on Goyim

    I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #13 - April 28, 2009, 03:41 PM

    Christianity does not really escape that easily from its violent OT record.

    It should also be noted that although on the occasions where specific tribes/nations eg. Hittites,  Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, etc. are mentioned the reason for sanctioning their destruction was because they worshipped idols and did not worship the lord who was a jealous god. Hence those just happened to be tribes of the time.

    But the precedent is set based on the reasoning behind their destruction. So it can be easily justified against any peoples who meet those criteria. No where does it say limit this to these peoples. It says destroys those who worship other gods.

    Exodus 23:24  Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

    Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.




    I didn't say it escapes its violent doctrines, but I just said its less of an open ended command.

    For one thing, those commands are more OT than Jesus based, Jesus is like the new deal, the amended constitution, so to speak. Of course, that doesn't excuse those stuff in my eyes, but for a believing Christian, the NT is the last word, & in case of conflict, the NT takes precedence over the OT.

    In Islam, on the other hand, its the other way round regarding violent & non violent verses-the verses preaching no compulsion come earlier, those preaching violence come later, & the doctrine of abrogation set forth in the Quran itself gives precedence to the latter.

    Secondly, these verses apply exclusively only to the Jews, a non proselytizing faith. Jews didn't march far & wide destroying "idolators" globally, in fact they lived in perfect harmony with idolators be they pre Islamic Meccans or Indian Hindu\Buddhist idolators, where they faced no anti Semitism nor did they attack their polytheistic neighbours.

    The OT laws applied to Jews who apostasise, not to all unbelievers globally, infact the Jews also have universal salvation, they say, "The righteous of all nations have a place in the world that is to come," but Islamic laws divide the world into believers & kafirs who all have to be subjugated, converted or made to pay poll tax.

    I know these verses are tremendously intolerant & can be stretched to all unbelievers in general, but that requires a bit of a stretch & Christ's example is an obstacle to that.

    In Islam, there is no such peaceful obstacle to applying these to all unbelievers, its a faith which is all fringe & no centre.


    Lookup Avoda Zara, and Maimonides stance on Goyim


    Maimondes isn't exactly the faith's founder, why don't you look up Jewish history in India for the past 2000+ years & I'm sure you know all about Jewish history in Pre Islamic Arabia, even if that history is written by the victorious Arab Muslims, it clearly shows Jews & pagan idolators living in absolute harmony, a harmony ruptured only when Arabs became Muslims.

    Did the Meccan Jews smash the 360 idols of the Meccan pagans? grin12

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #14 - April 28, 2009, 03:45 PM

    Maimondes isn't exactly the faith's founder,

    "From Moses to Moses, there was none like Moses!"

    I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #15 - April 28, 2009, 03:49 PM

    Maimondes isn't exactly the faith's founder,

    "From Moses to Moses, there was none like Moses!"


    What am I asking you awais?

    Didn't the Jews live in absolute harmony with the Arab pagans?

    Didn't the Jews live in absolute peace in India with the polytheistic population for 2000+ years?

    The laws which apply to tiny Israel isn't at all applicable to a faith which has the explicit aim of fighting, converting or subjugating unbelievers in the four corners of the world.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #16 - April 28, 2009, 03:59 PM

    Christianity does not really escape that easily from its violent OT record.

    It should also be noted that although on the occasions where specific tribes/nations eg. Hittites,  Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, etc. are mentioned the reason for sanctioning their destruction was because they worshipped idols and did not worship the lord who was a jealous god. Hence those just happened to be tribes of the time.

    But the precedent is set based on the reasoning behind their destruction. So it can be easily justified against any peoples who meet those criteria. No where does it say limit this to these peoples. It says destroys those who worship other gods.

    This is what I am getting at Rashna. These words are used to justify violence against the Palestinians and any Ay-rabs  who get in the way. Tongue Goyim! wacko

    I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #17 - April 28, 2009, 04:04 PM

    Didn't the Jews live in absolute harmony with the Arab pagans?

    Dhu Nuwas.

    I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #18 - April 28, 2009, 04:22 PM

    This is what I am getting at Rashna. These words are used to justify violence against the Palestinians and any Ay-rabs  who get in the way. Tongue Goyim! wacko


    Persecution of those getting in their way? The Hamas want to wipe them off, it would be suicide to behave otherwise. Anyway, had the Palestinians been like the non Muslims driven out of Pak & Bangladesh, things would've been vastly different today, their Islamic faith exacerbates the issue.

    url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhu_Nuwas]Dhu Nuwas[/url].


    The wiki p article gives this link from the Jewish Encyclopaedia, which casts huge doubts on the veracity of the Muslim account of the issue.

    Quote from: Jewish Encyclopaedia.com
    If the contradictory and sometimes legendary accounts of the personality of Dhu Nuwas given by the Arabian writers can be trusted, he was not a Jew by birth, but embraced Judaism after ascending the throne, taking the name of "Joseph." Having killed the debauched usurper Khani'ah Yanuf Dhu Shanatir, who endeavored to maltreat him, Dhu Nuwas successfully propagated Judaism in Yemen.

    His zeal for Judaism brought about his fall. Having heard of the persecutions of the Jews by the Byzantine emperors, he retaliated by putting to death some Byzantine merchants who were traveling on business through Himyara. This destroyed the trade of Yemen with Europe and involved Dhu Nuwas in a war with the heathen king Aidug, whose commercial interests were injured thereby. Dhu Nuwas was defeated (521), but succeeded in reestablishing his kingdom. Soon, however, he entangled himself in a new difficulty. He made war against the Christian city Najran, in Yemen, which was a dependency of his kingdom; and on its capitulation, in spite, it is said, of his promise of immunity from punishment, he offered the citizens the alternative of embracing Judaism or being put to death. As they refused to renounce their faith, he executed their chief, Ḥarith (Aretas) ibn Kaleb, and three hundred and forty chosen men.

    Attacked from Abyssinia.

    This event caused a great stir among the Christians; and the Roman emperor Justin I. requested the Negus Eleṭbaa of Ethiopia to march against the Jewish king. Accordingly an Ethiopian army crossed the Red Sea to Yemen. Dhu Nuwas endeavored unsuccessfully to prevent its landing. The ensuing engagement terminated disastrously for Dhu Nuwas. His city of Zafora (Thafar), together with his queen and the treasure, fell into the hands of the enemy. Preferring death to capture, Dhu Nuwas rode into the sea and was drowned.

    The chief authority for these facts is the Syriac letter of Simeon of Bet-Arsham, which is found in the histories of John of Asia, Pseudo-Denys of Telmaḥre, and Zacharias, the best edition of which is that of Guidi ("Reale Acad. dei Lincei," 1881). Gr?tz, Pretorius (1870), George (1883), Hal?vy, and Pereira have thrown doubts upon the authenticity of the narrative, which has also found its way into the "Martyrium Areth?." Hal?vy, especially, has tried to prove the apocryphal character of this letter, because of certain contradictions which it contains, and has endeavored to show that it was written at the time of Justinian and not of Justin. The consolatory epistle written in 519 to the Himyaritic Christians by Jacob of Serug ("Z. D. M. G." xxxi. 402 et seq.) merely speaks of their persecution, and says nothing about the conversion of the king. John Psaltes, Abbot of Beth Afthonius (d. 538), wrote a Greek hymn, which was afterward translated into Syriac, in which he speaks of the persecutions, but does not in any way mention the Jews. Neither Cosmas Indicopleustes, who was at Adulis when the Christian King of Aksum, Eleẓbaa, was preparing his expedition against the Himyarites, nor Procopius, the historian of Justinian's wars (d. 565), mentions the events at all. L. Duchesne, while accepting Hal?vy's criticism of the letter of Simeon, still holds to the historicity of the general facts, as do also N?ldeke and Dillmann. Glaser ("Skizze," p. 534) suspects that the stories told in regard to Dhu Nuwas' cruelties are pure fictions. Mohammed knew the story (sura 85); it is mentioned in the celebrated South Arabian "Ḳaṣidah" (see the ed. of Von Kremer, p. 20, Leipsic, 1865), and by the Himyarite Nashwan ibn Sa'id in his "Shams al-'Ulum" (D. H. M?ller, "S?d-Arab. Studien," p. 8, Vienna, 1877). The unanimity of Arabian tradition, and the presence of Jews in Yemen as attested by the Jewish inscriptions found there by Glaser, lead to the belief that the account of the Jewish king may be in the main historical, though the particulars regarding his cruelty toward the Christians are probably largely exaggerated.



    Anyway, these incidents of Jewish atrocities which you go into such trouble to unearth don't compare to Islamic history or Islamic present day atrocities even if they were multiplied by a million.Nor do Jews have a dream of a global Caliphate.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #19 - April 28, 2009, 04:36 PM

    Persecution of those getting in their way?

    Yes, such a pity when people get in the way. Roll Eyes

    Quote
    The Hamas want to wipe them off,

    I wonder why? All Palestinian civilians must be Hamas and must be "moved out of the way", yes?

    Quote
    Anyway, had the Palestinians been like the non Muslims driven out of Pak & Bangladesh,

    Two wrongs don't make a right. Palestinians didn't drive anyone out of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Are you into collective punishment?

    Quote
    Anyway, these incidents of Jewish atrocities which you go into such trouble to unearth don't compare to Islamic history or Islamic present day atrocities even if they were multiplied by a million.Nor do Jews have a dream of a global Caliphate.

    That's a good excuse for the Israelis to continue their behaviour then? They get a free pass, because they haven't done as much? Standards shouldn't drop for anyone, for any reason.

    I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
  • Re: Jihad & Qital. Whats' the Difference?
     Reply #20 - April 28, 2009, 04:45 PM

    Persecution of those getting in their way?

    Yes, such a pity when people get in the way. Roll Eyes

    Quote
    The Hamas want to wipe them off,

    I wonder why? All Palestinian civilians must be Hamas and must be "moved" out of the way, yes?

    Quote
    Anyway, had the Palestinians been like the non Muslims driven out of Pak & Bangladesh,

    Two wrongs don't make a right. Palestinians didn't drive anyone out of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Are you into collective punishment?

    Quote
    Anyway, these incidents of Jewish atrocities which you go into such trouble to unearth don't compare to Islamic history or Islamic present day atrocities even if they were multiplied by a million.Nor do Jews have a dream of a global Caliphate.

    That's a good excuse for the Israelis to continue their behaviour then? They get a free pass, because they haven't done as much? Standards shouldn't drop for anyone, for any reason.


    No one should get a free pass for any violence or atrocity, but different violences or crimes demand different reactions. The punishment for minor theft shouldn't be the same as murder right? Nor is self defence a crime, anyone can use force in case of self defence.

    If a region votes in a Government which wants to wipe a country off, then that country has a right & a duty to protect its citizens, if Canada had voted a Sovereign which wanted to wipe U.S.A. off the map, & you faced the risk of being hit by an amateur rocket made by Canadians every single day of your life, I'm sure you'd want U.S.A. to take neccessary steps to protect you.

    Had the people even voted a Government which wanted a two state solution, things would've been different.

    As for Islamic atrocities v. Jewish, they don't compare. As an American citizen, you have been largely untouched by Islamic violence except 9\11, people like Baal who've lived through it know its range & scale.

    I am not scared Jews will bomb me in a tube in London, flow a plane into a skyscraper(inless 9\11 was a Jewish plot  Roll Eyes), bomb a Madrid train, blow people into tiny bits in Bali etc.

    The worst I see them doing is some counter attacks on a people who want to wipe them off the map, sometimes they go into extremes undoubtedly, but again its not the same in range or nature & claiming its equal is a scurrilous form of moral equivalency.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »