Brief reflection about the theme of war

Discussion in 'Misconceptions About Islam' started by عبد الواحد الصقلي, Apr 8, 2014.

  1. عبد الواحد الصقلي

    عبد الواحد الصقلي Guest

    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0
    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

    The fundamental problem, in our view, is not about peaceful religions and violent religions; in the East as in the West, the main religious doctrines have always emphasized the use of force and violence to justify the war as "armed struggle , collective, organized and bloody among groups ideologically and politically opposed. " Rather, the problem is to understand why the war has now become the absolute disvalue, the supreme evil, whereas in the past it was considered "an old crudele party" (as said the Italian polemologist Franco Cardini).

    The traditional sources have talked about swords and spears, not about chemical and nuclear weapons.

    It is the hyper-sophistication of armaments that has dehumanized and delegitimized the war, canceling its functions, motives and impulses, by making it the taboo of taboos in the modern times.

    The mistake today consists in consider any military action or reaction as a logical action, since the meanings by which we fight are inherently wrong and inhuman.

    Luis Pasteur, more than a century ago wrote lucidly: «A day will come when the war will kill the war due to the the scientific progress that will allow devastations so greats that any conflict will become impossible.»

    The word "irhâb 'does not mean' terrorism '. The western word is not the equivalent of the Arabic word in its original sense. Islàm has nothing to do with intolerance, suicide, crime, and fanaticism.

    As for the word «jihâd», which in the western linguistic register often becomes "holy war", has nothing to do with the war, which in Arabic is called ‘ḥarb’ or ‘waghâ’, but it can mean, depending on the context: 'effort in the path of God', 'inner struggle', 'battle of ideas', 'religious propaganda', 'refutation of heresies ", etc..

    But the problem here is contextual and not scriptural: the scriptural sources have nothing to do with this speech. In our religion, the purpose does not justify the meanings. The meanings by which take place the current conflicts are not only destructives for human beings (just think about the impact of nuclear weapons on the environment).

    Technological progress has permitted disasters in all areas, first in the war front, as confirmed by the numbers of the massacres and the genocide of non-combatants around the world after the Second World War, which was possible only due to the existence of very sophisticated means which act at a distance (the war "zero death" is the result of this power projection).

    We say to the terrorists: make your revolution with your damned weapons, giving the enemy a pretext to continue to destroy the planet. We prefer to take up the hoe and sow the seeds to revive the desert that you are leaving behind, using your body as a fertilizer for new life forms.

    We are superior to the enemy because we have a higher conception of life.

    «So do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them with it (the Quran), in a great striving.»

Share This Page