'Iraqi Gandhi' Preaches Slightly Less Violence

[SilentScope001]

Onion Article: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46031

(Do not discuss this Onion article, for fear this will apperantly lock the topic.)

 

Real-Life Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120640588050061101.html

 

There are problems associated with Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, including reports that he may very well be a Egyptain puppet. But Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif is promoting an very radical ideology that resonants: Wage war on military troops, not on civilians. Don't commit crimes when waging war. Get your parents' premission before you go on jihad.

 

It's impratical to follow this sort of moral code of conduct, meaning it's rather unlikely that Al-Sharif is going to win the ideological war.

 

However, I'm frankly horrified about the implications if Al-Sharif somehow prevails. What if Sayyed Imam Al-Shairf's ideology spreads, and most Jihadists begin adopting this viewpoint? If you don't target civilians, are you committing terrorism? Would Jihadism gain more sympathy if civilians are spared? Etc., etc.

[Arcesious]

There's always going to be problems as long as Islam teaches even a little bit of violence...

[Web Rider]

well....I don't approve of the whole "kill people" thing, but I do agree that if you're gonna kill people, go after military targets, not funerals, busses, or shopping markets.

[John Galt]

Those tactics we refer to as "Terrorist" are simply the tactics of the weak, those who can't afford conventional weapons and armies to do battle with nation-states. I think the entire issue of terrorism(especially suicide terrorism) needs to be re-evaluated by Western analysts. For more on the subject, I'd suggest Robert Pape's Dying to Win.

 

On topic: hopefully this man's ideology prevails, as it may lead to a more "legitimate" resistance that could be more easily brought to the negotiating table.

[mur'phon]

There's always going to be problems as long as Islam teaches even a little bit of violence...

 

Indeed, though this aplies to just about every religion.

 

On-Topic: One look at the number of groups tels me that even if he prevails for a while, the groups he inspires won't stick to their principles for long.

[Jvstice]

Well it's not a great ideology within Islam, but it does seem a better view than what it seeks to replace.

[Rev7]

Those tactics we refer to as "Terrorist" are simply the tactics of the weak, those who can't afford conventional weapons and armies to do battle with nation-states.

Exactly.

 

More on topic-- Preaching about less violence, IMO, really isn't going to solve the problem. Obviously. That is really all that I can think of saying right now...

[Arcesious]

Here's soemthing to think about: The Muslims who are loyal to their beliefs hear about this guy preaching about less violence. Somebody is going to step in and say that Islam originally taught violence, and changing the teachings to have less violence is 'falsifying the true teachings of islam'... And then they'll all be back at square one... Purifying a religion's teachings to make it more acceptable by takign out violence in it doesn't neccessarily make it more 'truthful'.

 

If we started teaching in schools that different wars didn't have any violence, we'd by falsifying the truth.

[SilentScope001]

Must clarify something...

 

I am a Sunni Muslim, and I can tell you that the vast majority of Muslims, Westernized or not, are against the Jihadist ideology, and is against violence, and is against any sort of resistance against America. They still have some concerns, for instance, about the situation in the Israeli/Palestian conflict, but believe that the way to solve it is via the two-state solution, and that the way to do so is via peaceful means, like writing letters. (I personally don't have an opinon about the I/P War, but I am just defending the honor of fellow muslims).

 

When I use Jihadism, I use it to mean "the concept of waging a holy Jihad against Western Civilization". The term 'jihad', in and of itself, means 'struggle', and means either the Lesser Jihad: 'a struggle for self-defense' (like, um, er, self-defense is easily a catch-phrase that can justify anything, but, you can see that there are good intentions here and that every nation do want to defend themselves)...or the Stronger Jihad which is basically fighting against your own selfish desires in order to do the right thing and follow religion correctly (think of it as the superego suppressing the id). The Stronger Jihad is far better than that of the Weaker Jihad, in that what's the point of matyrdom if you matyred youreslf for your own desires that you mistaken as 'religion'?

 

My own belief is that the Jihadists are wrong, since I don't see America as the one who started the conflict, and that it is far, far better to not wage this war and instead try to purify your own 'self' instead. (Islam means 'peace'.) Killing civilians just add to the misery. But that's all.

 

That's exactly the reason why I am afraid of Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif. Take the negative connations out of Jihadism, and you got...well, just a regular old insurgency, similar to that of the American Revolution. Pretty hard to get yourself motivated into a frothing rage when no civilians are killed.

[Tommycat]

Technically, I cannot fault Al-Sharif. Telling them not to attack civilians is a good thing. Next they need to start telling them not to hide behind civilians. This will legitimize them a bit, and allow for their concerns to actually be addressed, and MAYBE we can start working toward a way to love together.

 

Yes Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace. Until the Imams actually start to point out how wrong it is to kill anyone, it is hard to call it that.

[Jae Onasi]

Saying it's 'slightly less violent' is like saying someone is 'slightly less pregnant' at 30 weeks vs. 31 weeks. It's either violent or it's not.