Does the meaning of "jihad" determine whether or not he was hoping to set off a dirty bomb? From The Associated Press (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
MIAMI — Defense attorneys in the Jose Padilla terrorism support trial are going to great lengths to suggest to jurors that jihad is not necessarily Muslim holy war and that mujahedeen could just as easily be freedom fighters as terrorists.The meaning of words, especially Arabic words, is center stage as federal prosecutors play hours of FBI telephone intercepts involving Padilla and two other defendants charged with participating in an Islamic extremist support network....
The legal battle about definitions goes to the heart of the defense argument that what Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi were doing from 1994 to 2001 was not supporting terrorism, but providing humanitarian aid to oppressed and persecuted Muslims worldwide.
Prosecutors, however, must show the trio were involved in violence — that the “jihad” they were fighting involved killing and armed struggle.
A peaceful, internal struggle dirty bomb...
Sure!
Their is plenty of text to prove the meaning of jihad. Any form of it would be illegal in any sensible government system ,since to goal is to replace the legal system with Islam, which would be sedition at the least and terrorism at the best.
"The legal battle about definitions goes to the heart of the defense argument that ... Padilla ... was not supporting terrorism, but providing humanitarian aid to oppressed and persecuted Muslims worldwide."
And a dirty bomb is "humanitarian aid" under exactly WHAT circumstances ?
Why at this time in America, when an enemy combatant has chosen sides,why is this leagle system looking for loopholes to save one peice of pig squat from his chosen fate? This is stupidity at its finest, in our judical court system.
Robert Spencer's knowledge of the meaning of jihad in the Islamic texts could be of benefit to the prosecutors, who could use Spencer's knowledge of Islam to demonstrate that the "peaceful" form of jihad is attested in only one place in the Islamic texts, in a hadith considered unreliable by Muslims, while the militaristic meaning of jihad is present in several places in the hadiths Muslims consider reliable and canonical.
LMAO @ topic...
typical judicial system...same one who feels it's necessary to determine what the definition of "is" is.
Unbelievable.
There for traeh,jcom972 my question was answerded with your responces. This is America bowing to every two bit nation wanting appesement, but sealing our fate.
I think it's time for the prosecution to call an expert witness on Jihad.
A guy named Spencer. Robert Spencer.
Fitzgerald would do nicely, too...
what Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi were doing from 1994 to 2001 was not supporting terrorism, but providing humanitarian aid to oppressed and persecuted Muslims worldwide.
What muslim's are oppressed and persecuted worldwide? Why do they need humanitarian aid? Is Allah not watching over them? And just exactly what was the nature of this aid, and who exactly got it?
Why are not rich muslim's nation's not doing this work.
Now I get it...
Jihad is just another Arabic word meaning 'welfare'.
For a nation such as the U.S to worry so much about wording and language (as congress is so obsessed with)the evidence in the U.S.'s favor is undeniable.I just can't see them finding it and using it because it would be incorrect politicaly (per the congresses obsessions).The use of such undeniable evidence would lead to the outing of the truth about islam.
can anyone believe this tip toeing around the truth can go on much longer?It has already gone on how long? Mind you these people KNOW the truth and HAVE known the truth whether we think they have or not.I know the "leaders" of our nation are not so brilliant as of late but they also are not THAT ignorant.
They are fighting more for the MC-PC crap than they lift a finger to fight whats killing them.
Thats okay there are clocks ticking all over the place right imanutajoba? I guess when the clock reaches zero,it's wake up time.
Whose move is it anyway i forget?
Will anyone in the US legal system EVER read inside the Kuran to know what's going in?
Will anyone in the US legal system ever figure out that Islam teaches and practices first degree murder and that is what jihadist are up to (killing US)?
Or will these idiot liberal judges let us all get blown to smithereens by continuing to let Islam's jihadists off the hook en masse?
Stay tuned for the next episode of:
"AS THE JIHAD TURNS......."
Dr. Spencer, I suggest that as you complete your "Blogging of the Koran" project, you should specifically note each time the arabic word jihad is used, and discuss how influential Muslim scholars interpret the word, meaning a peaceful striving or holy war.
I hope that we are able to learn someday just how the prosecution deals with this issue. Will he/she be smart enough to call an expert on Islam and jihad as traeh and profitsbeard suggest? I believe the prosecutor's response will make A, or perhaps even THE, most important issue for the jury.
Several months ago JW posted an article about a very smart and savvy Florida federal prosecutor who convicted a jihadist in another Florida court where the prosecutor's preparation obviously required time spent in the study of Islam and jihad. Hopefully the current prosecutor is as studious.
Another old argument. Only Arabic speaking people can understand the Koran, and the words somehow change meaning, even after careful translation by Arab-speaking Muslims. It's funny, none of the other religions seem to have this problem.
I would suggest that the prosecution obtain copies of the cartoons shown on Arab TV for the instruction of children in how to conduct Jihadist suicide operations against the enemies of Islam.
That should give the jury a pretty good idea of how the Muslim world defines Jihad.
If, after viewing several of the cartoons, the jury doesn't storm out of the jury box and lynch Padilla, they're immune to being shocked.
These government prosecutors are going to have to work hard to undo the mis-information that our government has foisted upon its citizens. The government, having taught us all that Islam is the Religion of Peace, the Noble Religion, now has to unteach that falsehood and convince these 12 jurors that, actually, "slay" means "slay".
...the attempt to blowup a civilian airplane with many innocent people by Pretty Boy Padilla is a terror act, no matter what you call it...He is nothing more than another Islamic loser and should have been immediately prosecuted and executed...Use his association with Islam for political purposes and prosecute him for attempted murder...and if you can connect the dots...do so in a way that sends a message to others who think and act along the same lines...It is becoming easier and easier to connect the dots....Islam is for losers, we can see this by the people it attracts....
Dr. Spencer, I suggest that as you complete your "Blogging of the Koran" project, you should specifically note each time the arabic word jihad is used, and discuss how influential Muslim scholars interpret the word, meaning a peaceful striving or holy war.
The word jihad appears 0 times in the Koran.
I would hope that people who are ready to be so accusative of a religion could read its book first. Otherwise, you just look like ignorant haters.
...There are many "words" that do not appear in the Qur'an...Words may come and go, but the teachings in the Qur'an remain violent and the followers Of Islam follow the violent teachings of the Qur'an faithfully.....
...perhaps the word Jihad is not in the Qur'an, but Muhammad certainly used it...
"... the most reliable of all Hadith is that of Bukhari. The word, Jihad, is mentioned over 200 times in reference to the words of Muhammad and each one is a clear connotation to holy war. By contrast, Bukhari does not contain a single reference to Jihad within the context of “personal struggle.”
"Words may come and go"
come and go where ? What are you talking about ? And it's really funny that you put words between quotations as if it is something sensible, tricky. Yeah, you know the Muslims and their trickiness. Jihad is no where mentioned in the Koran but yet again it is everywhere.
You guys are no longer bordering Medieval paranoid hysteria. You have officially achieved it. Congratulations !
How did Islam's founder use the word jihad? As a peaceful inner struggle? No. In every instance of Mohammed's use of the word jihad it is in the martial, aggressive sense, as in waging war, attacking and wiping out one's enemies, which Mohammed did without compunction. All the prosecution should have to do is demonstrate from history how Islam has always viewed and defined jihad. It is war, plain and simple.
Yes but Bukhari is not a holy text. It is historico-traditional addenda to the one book which by many is considered complete : the koran. You should also know that the hadiths were written around 100 to 150 years after the death of the prophet so their historical reliability is also very shaky. It's kind of like the New Testament. Most of its books were written 200 years after Christ's death.
Defending the violent teachings of Islam certainly shows a Muslim true beliefs...
"The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no controversy about this among Islamic scholars.
Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission.
In truth, the Qur’an not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule. This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its success in conquering other cultures."
Islam is for losers...
Please explain yourself :
If Islam means submission, how can it mean rule too ? Don't Christians submit themselves to God ? How is that different from Muslims' worship ?
I smell another OJ style verdict coming soon.
The only way Padilla will be convicted is if he claims to be a US Border Patrol agent.
sublimer: If Islam means submission, how can it mean rule too ?
To Muslims, it means to make everybody submit to Islam, both themselves and everybody within reach of their weapons:
"The Muslim Game:
In early 2005, a well-known Muslim apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur’an contained the words, “Holy War.” Whether he actually had the money to put up is somewhat in question, but his intention was to make people believe that Jihad is not advocated in the Qur’an and that the terrorists are somehow tragically mistaken when they wage their campaigns of holy war in the cause of Islam.
So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as “Criminal Minds.” Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur’an, but that the word, “Jihad” must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean “Holy War” (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah).
The Truth:
In fact, not only is the word “Jihad” mentioned in several places within the Quran, such as the infamous Sura 9 (“Verse of the Sword”), there are over 150 calls to holy war scattered throughout the entire text.
So what’s the catch?
Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer. You see, he wasn’t talking about the concept of holy war. He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, “Holy War.”
And what about “Jihad?” Well, this doesn’t count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘holy war’ (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad’s time, nor in ours). "Jihad" is like the word “fight,” which can be used in a benign sense (as in, “I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack”).
If “Jihad” is holy without war, then “Qital” must be war without the holy. It is an Arabic term that literally means to wage military combat. But, like Jihad, it is most certainly used within the context of holy war, such as in Sura 2: “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and religion is only for Allah.” Mr. Badawi is even on record as admitting that Qital can be a form of Jihad… but even this doesn’t qualify according to the niceties of his offer.
So, although the Qur’an tells believers to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” and “smite their necks and fingertips,” showing “ruthlessness to unbelievers,” and 150 other violent admonitions to fight explicitly in the cause of Allah… the Arabic words “holy” and “war” don’t literally appear side-by-side. (Neither do the German words, “concentration” and “camp,” appear consecutively in Nazi documents, by the way).
My, what a hollow victory this is. One has to wonder whether Mr. Badawi sincerely believes that he has a point or if he recognizes this for the shameful word game that it is.
At the very least, people should know that “Jihad” is used within the context of religious warfare time and time again throughout the Qur’an and Hadith, and that, regardless of the exact terminology, Islam’s most sacred texts clearly advocate the sort of holy war that propels modern-day terrorism."
...Thanks to the RELIGION OF PEACE.COM.....
Paranoid? Hysterical"? Nah... We just don't want to be Muslims.
Please explain yourself :
If Islam means submission, how can it mean rule too ? Don't Christians submit themselves to God ? How is that different from Muslims' worship ?
Posted by: sublimer "
...Sorry, Christians do not submit themeselves to God. Christians follow Gods worldly instructions to lead their lives...the Bible is a collection of stories and contains Gods advise on how to live their lives...whereas the Qur'an is a military manual instructing its followers to either convert the nonmuslims, make them pay protection money aka jizyah, or just kill them...
Muslims today seem content to just kill the non believers or the infidels...it is easier than converting them...
The quotation marks at the back end of "hysterical" are a typo. I'm on my first cup.
Sublimer,
The directive for "warfare" is found in the Qur'an, verses 4:75-76.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.075
The word jihad is conspicuously absent from the Qur'an itself. Neither the term "greater jihad" (inner struggle), nor "lesser jihad" (external struggle through warfare) appear specifically in the Qur'an. Semantics.
The word jihad does appear often in the Bukhari Hadith, the "shaky" text you refer to:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html
Your semantical argument treads on very thin ice. There are examples too numerous to mention that support and correlate the concept of mandated warfare found in the Qur'an and jihad in Bukhari. This correlation is also substantiated by the multitude of actions by your Islamic brethren, and quite frankly, that is all that really matters.
The claim that those who commit jihad in the name of Allah are not practicing true Islam provides no solace for the infidel, and no infidel should subscribe to the decree that the two are separate, with no relation at all, for it is disingenuine.
While we are at it, let us talk about your reference to the New Testament. First, both the Old and the New Testaments are just that, "testaments" by men as witness to the historical events of the times. In contrast, the belief by Muslims that the Qur'an is the direct immutable word of Allah disallows a reasonable comparison of the two texts on those grounds.
Your attempt to de-magnify focus and validation on what is believed to be the most reliable of all Hadiths, Bukhari, by mention that it was written after Muhammad's life, similarly like the New Testament, is preposterous, for no Christian shares that view.
You offer a "bill of goods", but will find no buyers here.
even though the word jihad is not specifically mentioned in the quran, there is no such thing as the internal moral struggle either!
any muzlim who attempts to mention jihad as a moral struggle or defensive measure militarily isn't interested in acknowledging the truth: that the word is meant for all harbi by conversion or force, and that all land is destined for muzlims. the verses are called the sword verses in the quran for a reason.
all these verses on 'jihad' give proof despite what we're always told:
9.5-6
4.76
8.12
8.39-42
4.95
8.15,16
9.39
4.74
2.193
2.216
9.41
9.123
66.9
9.73
8.65
47.4-15
25.52
8.67
enjoy...
"You offer a "bill of goods", but will find no buyers here."
It's too bad because you do seem to buy the "bill of evils" that some Jihadis sell you. Their words are the only thing you want to believe in and I believe it's a recipe of disaster. But I see where you're coming from. In Muslim lands we also have people who only want to buy one version of the west, that of Paris Hiltons, the Iraq War, the profiteering corporation, the Military Industrial complex, the Porno industry, etc. No matter how much you tell them that most people in the West do not support those things and that they are indeed nice and ethical people, they refuse to buy it. But what can you do they are idiots. Don't you think ? We even tell them that their country has been hijacked by corporations only looking for profit and that their religion has also been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists who actually believe in war !! We tell them but you must be going crazy. Christ was so peaceful. He was totally against war. They refuse to buy that too and end up citing passages from the Old Testament. But what can we do. Their vision is so narrow and it gives them a sort of comfort to believe that their ideology is the best.
I hope you see where I am going with this....
Al-Bukhari is certainly the most reliable of hadiths but theologically that does not mean it is a sacred book. Part of the problem in Islam today is that some scholars (Muslim and Non-Muslim) have decided to give the hadiths and sunna an exaggerated importance. The problem lies in the fact that these hadiths revolve around the life of the prophet Muhammad. Well it is very clear in the Koran that any divinization or idolization of Muhammad (or any human being for that matter) is strictly forbidden. When the prophet died, people who lived around him could not believe it. They started crying inconsolably. One of the prophets companions took a stand and declared to the masses : If you worshiped Muhammad, let it be known that Muhammad is dead. If you worship God, God is alive and eternal. In Islam, Muhammad is just a man. People are encouraged to follow his message but are not expected to imitate him... for that is a sort of idolatry. The Muslims who believe that they need a beard and a short mustache or dress (as they believe) just like the prophet did are misguided in their beliefs for they care more about the messenger than about God.
The question of idolatry and imitation leads to a completely subservient and will-less kind of life. People who don't know what to do about their own life find solace in imitating the life of others. This however always leads to problems. No one can be anyone else but himself. Priests who decide to imitate Christ become celibate but often still have to face their uncontrollable and too human desires. But idolatry and imitation also exists beyond the theological realm. How many teenage girls imitate Lohan, Hilton or Spears because they don't know how to assume their own being. Whether in religion or beyond, idolization is a form of submission. I don't know what to do with my myself and my will so I will just follow someone else's opinions and dictates. That's why in Islam, submission is done not to man but to God, which is essentially an empty signifier since no one can know what he (or she, or it) is. It allows you the possibility to guard against the tentation of bowing to fellow mortals.
sublimer wrote:
"It's too bad because you do seem to buy the "bill of evils" that some Jihadis sell you. Their words are the only thing you want to believe in and I believe it's a recipe of disaster."
Yes, sublimer, I and many others do buy the "bill of evils" that the jihadists sell us. Islamists invoking Allah's name, while slamming planes into civilian office towers tends to get one's attention.
"Their words" as you aptly put it, are not at all what I WANT to believe in. I'd rather Islamists practiced their religion in peace and left me and all non-Muslims out of it, but unfortunately that is not the case. It's not WANT to believe, it's NEED to believe, with NEED being the operative word, for that is reality. In all truthfulness, sublimer, I could find plenty of things to do instead of having to worry about the next "Fort Dix" or "JFK" Islamic scheme that occurs with frightening regularity in the world today.
The "recipe for disaster" that you baselessly allude to, is exactly that of the pre-9/11 mindset, and we both know the outcome there.
sublimer also wrote:
"We even tell them that their country has been hijacked by corporations only looking for profit and that their religion has also been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists who actually believe in war !!"
Hell, sublimer, I even agree with you to a point there. These are valid concerns and there are plenty of places to express your concern and displeasure about that. Jihad Watch, however, is not one of them.
sublimer again:
"We tell them but you must be going crazy. Christ was so peaceful. He was totally against war. They refuse to buy that too and end up citing passages from the Old Testament. But what can we do."
First, you can stop with that farce about violent passages in the Old Testament, a point refuted so many times that I am surprised the Islamists have not abandoned it and removed it from their playbook by now.
Second, cease attempting to apply a moral equivalence to violent Qur'anic passages, or Hadith if you like, and the Old Testament. There is no unilateral mandate in the Old Testament for war against all other faiths. The very few passages that do exist, existed specifically in a historical nature and most importantly, is NOT used to justify violence today. Try being honest a second, sublimer. Give me the most recent example of a person or peoples using the Old Testament as justification for violence against other faiths. you will not be able to produce a single example.
And by the way, sublimer, Christ was peaceful and totally against war, but what you failed to grasp is that Old Testament passages cannot be attributable to Him, for they preceded him historically. That what the NEW Testament was. Do you care to quote any similar passages in the New Testament equivalent in violent nature to those found in the Qur'an? You cannot. It is an excellent point however. It signifies the difference between Christ and Muhammad. They are diametric opposites, with one being "totally against war", as you put it, with the other being, well, a "warlord" for lack of a better term.
sublimer:
"I hope you see where I am going with this.... "
Absolutely, sublimer, it is crystal clear to me. Basically you affirm that jihad is bad, and western decadence is bad, as well as Christian fundamentalism. Your proposal however, is what is absolutely ludicrous. Your position is that even though Islamic jihadists are bad, we should not scrutinize them or their obvious impetus, Islam, because the West is bad as well???
Laughable.
This is not a new angle sublimer, I hope you are aware of that, because we here are. It is no different than my 6-year old son trying to lie to me. He never gets away with it, but continues to try anyway. With him it will pass in time, with the Islamists I maintain, it probably will not.
A "bill of goods", indeed.
Is the word "Jihad" used in the following Koranic verse?
25:52 So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour.
I don't know, does anyone else here know?
If I'm not mistaken, Iran has an "Agricultural Jihad Mininster" on the payroll. Would that make him an "inner-struggle" minister of agriculture? BTW, there is talk of Iran trying to increase it's agri/exports,keep an eye out!