http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3304253,00.html

Between Islamic terrorism, biblical genocide

The question is stark. Surely the Biblical commandment to kill the Amalekites equates with Nazism and Islamic fundamentalism?


We just commemorated the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre, Washington and the Pentagon. These barbaric acts shocked us all to the very core of our souls. I remember not being able to sleep for nights; I was traumatized by the sheer scale and cruelty of the attack.


How can such evil exist? I kept asking myself. After five years and many more attacks the world is still struggling to come to terms with this new evil.



There is however one nagging question: doesn't Judaism also command us to perpetrate acts of terror and murder against others?

Indeed, during the summer months we read the book of Deuteronomy. The last few verses of chapter 25 state: "Therefore, when G-d gives you peace from all the enemies around you, in the land that G-d your L-rd is giving you to occupy as a heritage, you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. You must not forget.

Jewish genocide?

Rashi - the great medieval commentator - says that the command to obliterate Amalek includes the killing of men, women and children; even animals belonging to Amalek must not be spared. This presents us with a moral dilemma. How can G-d command us to commit genocide? Does being true to our religion mean that we must believe that genocide is at times not only justified but obligatory?


The question is stark. Surely this commandment equates with Nazism, Bin Laden and Islamic fundamentalism! Some may reply that killing Amalek is akin to President Truman's use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 - ostensibly cruel but justified by the overall good it produced for humanity.


But this answer is only plausible if one sees it from the American point of view. The Russians, for example, did not see it this way: Soviet Marshal Georgii Zhukov wrote in his memoirs that from their vantage point, "Without any military need whatsoever, the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on the peaceful and densely-populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."


Whether or not World War II could have been terminated without reverting to such extreme measures is as much debated today as it was then. It is all a matter of perspective. The same applies to the mass murder carried out by religiously motivated Islamic extremists.



The meaning of jihad

Qur'anic scholars throughout the ages have held differing views on the meaning of jihad. The idea of jihad is derived from the Arabic root meaning "to strive" or "to make an effort." This word has been interpreted to mean an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith or an outward material struggle to promote justice and the Islamic social system.


During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca, jihad meant an internal struggle and non-violent struggle to spread Islam. Following his move from Mecca to Medina, and the establishment of an Islamic state, fighting in self-defence was sanctioned by the Qur'an (22:39).


It was at this stage that the Qur'an increasingly referred to qital (fighting or warfare) as one form of jihad. Two of the last verses on this topic (9:5, 29) suggest waging a war of conquest or conversion against all non-believers.


In the middle ages Islamic legal scholars divided the world into two spheres: Dar al-Islam (land of Islam), where Islamic law applied, and Dar al-Harb (land of war) where it did not. Islamic state's duty was to extend the Dar al-Islam - through peaceful means if possible but if not, through war.


These medieval Islamic legal scholars held that the Qur'anic verses suggesting peaceful accommodation or coexistence with non-believers (especially 2:193, 8:61) were cancelled out by the later, more belligerent ones. In medieval legal sources, jihad generally referred to a divinely sanctioned struggle to establish Muslim rule over non-Muslims as a prelude to the propagation of the Islamic faith.


However, this belligerent interpretation of jihad has not been accepted by all Qur'anic scholars. Many Islamic scholars argued and continue to argue that the Qur'an and Islamic Prophetic traditions allow war only for self-defence against persecution and aggression.


According to this view those that defined jihad as an expansionist war were misguided and distorting Qur'anic ethics. They point out that the division of the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb does not exist in the Qur'an or Prophetic traditions.


The duel interpretation of jihad - peaceful and warmongering - by Islamic scholars indicates that its usage to sanction the slaughter of innocent people tells more about the people who are interpreting the Qur'an then the Qur'an itself. In light of this the Biblical commandment to obliterate Amalek is fundamentally different from any other ethically, religiously or idealistically motivated killing that the world has seen.



Back to Amalek

Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) - one of the leading philosophers of our age - in an essay entitled "The Pursuit of the Ideal" asked the following question: If one really believed that Hitler's "final solution" would make mankind righteous, happy, creative and harmonious for ever, would any cost be too high to pay to achieve this?


In answer Sir Isaiah Berlin maintains that history teaches us that the consequences of drastic measures are seldom what is anticipated. There is no guarantee - not even a high probability - that such acts will lead to improvements.


Hitler and his ilk could therefore never be certain that the killing of the Jews or of others would lead to the positive consequences they claim to desire for humanity. Thus, Sir Isaiah Berlin concludes that a precarious equilibrium must be maintained to prevent the occurrence of desperate situations and of intolerable choices.


It is clear, however, that both philosophically and ethically, if one could be one hundred percent certain that the killing of a group of people would lead to the indefinite betterment of humankind then such killing would not only be justifiable but obligatory.


Unlike the Islamic jihad, the Biblical commandment to obliterate Amalek is unequivocal. It is not a decision that came about through human interpretation: it is the word of G-d Himself.


When the all knowing G-d says that killing a group of people will lead to the betterment of humankind one is ethically obliged - however difficult and heart wrenching it may be - to carry out the command. Thankfully since today we cannot conclusively identify any single nation as being Amalek the rabbis freed us from this unsavory obligation.


It is nonetheless clear that the now obsolete commandment to obliterate Amalek and the voluntary killing of innocents by Islamic extremists are not morally equivalent. These extremists are cold blooded murderers who hide behind interpretations of a holy book whilst committing barbaric crimes against humanity and they should be acknowledged as such.

Rabbi Levi Brackman is executive director of Judaism in the Foothills and the author of numerous articles on a whole range of topics and issues, many of which can be found on his website .

The issue of Amalek i have repeatedly taken up on these boards. that somehow people continuously bring it up as an excuse for their own bloodthirsty idol is beyond me. It is simply a sign that most people are not interested in the truth.

what should one expect from davidylan, who says this over this?

thou spawn of satan . . . we already discussed the issue at length on one of the religious boards and even the atheists had to eventually agree that the passage you reference in Leviticus was NOT sanctioning rape. It simply gave the jews the choice to marry the virgin women they took during war BUT they had to let the woman alone to mourn her parents for 1 solid month.

If rape was sanctioned there why were they expressly forbidden to go into the woman until she was through with her mourning?

Deuteronomy 21:11-13: “And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and has a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to they wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”

coming from a guy who considers it not rape if you allow a woman to mourn her family you killed before you take her by force. . .


not everyone has a need to lie to themselves about the 'truth'

there are christians on nairaland who have come outright and said they cannot understand stuff in the OT

the good rabbi is much more honest some hypocrites can ever aspire to be

oyb:

what should one expect from davidylan, who says this over this?

coming from a guy who considers it not rape if you allow a woman to mourn her family you killed before you take her by force. . .


not everyone has a need to lie to themselves about the 'truth'

there are christians on nairaland who have come outright and said they cannot understand stuff in the OT

the good rabbi is much more honest some hypocrites can ever aspire to be

and i understand those are the category of "christians" you all love and claim to be "honest" and non-hypocrites. Those confused set of "christians" who have no foundation to stand on. A rabbi is a rabbi . . . not a regenerated child of God. He reads the bible NOT as a manual for salvation but as a history book to the jews, that's why he can make such sickening moral equivalence. Amalek to Jihad?

As is ur usual MO, you go dig up stuff that is NOT PERTINENT to the thread because your thread is NOT meant to engender meaningful discourse but to disparage the personality of those who dare to expose your tomfoolery.

We've been through the Amalek case before . . . if you wish to discuss it state your case and i would be prepared to walk you thru the truth. I wont hold my breath . . . the truth isnt what you're after.

davidylan:

and i understand those are the category of "christians" you all love and claim to be "honest" and non-hypocrites. Those confused set of "christians" who have no foundation to stand on. A rabbi is a rabbi . . . not a regenerated child of God. He reads the bible NOT as a manual for salvation but as a history book to the jews, that's why he can make such sickening moral equivalence. Amalek to Jihad?

As is ur usual MO, you go dig up stuff that is NOT PERTINENT to the thread because your thread is NOT meant to engender meaningful discourse but to disparage the personality of those who dare to expose your tomfoolery.

We've been through the Amalek case before . . . if you wish to discuss it state your case and i would be prepared to walk you thru the truth. I wont hold my breath . . . the truth isnt what you're after.

JeSoul:

  You miss my point Chris. I get where you're going with the above scenario but the bottomline for a christian is this God is not bound to or limited by the laws of nature, physics, chemistry or biology. He can choose to break them whenever He wants as is narrated so many times in the OT - the crossing of the Red Sea, the plagues on Egypt, Daniel in the Lions den, the 3 Hebrew boys thrown into the furnace but didn't suffer a scratch etc . . .

   I'm saying faced with a scenario that is physically, chemically & naturally impossible, I believe and know to be true that God can do this apparent impossiblity. Which is why I say even if science proves this or that cannot or did not happen - it will remain irrelevant to me and my fellow christians - because God does the impossible all the time!

  You're mixing so many issues here I'm not even sure where to begin.
Doubt in the God what we never entertain, doubt in the world around us is welcome at all times . And no doubt is not what caused the terrorists to fly into those buildings - it was baseless religious fanaticism, one which was void of love and compassion. A good yardstick to measure ones religion is to see how your religion teaches you to treat your friends and enemies.

Now as for the OT, I'm wary of going into 'discussion' with you on it cos I've noticed it hits an intense emotional cord in you. But let me say this, every christian, has struggled immensely with many events God allowed and even commanded in the OT. And I will tell you now that several of them I have no good answer for. But what I've seen is that until we understand the complex nature of God, the [b]fireceness of His love and wrath, we won't understand the things He did.[/b]
  I think 'differently' was a severely inadequate word for me to have used . . . as far as the east is from the west, and as high as the heavens are above the earth - that's the difference btw how you & a christian will think. Its more than just different experiences and backgrounds, so much more than that. I mean the evidence is right here on NL, see how much you disagree with the other christians on the board - the way both sides think so differently?

nice to see how you dismiss others as hypocrites because they are far more honest than you can ever claim to be 

oyb:

nice to see how you dismiss others as hypocrites because they are far more honest than you can ever claim to be 

Again more silly accusations that add nothing to the topic you purport to be interested in. I am not of the category that simply waves their hands in the sky and says oh well God did it, i wont even try to understand.

The issue of Amalek is VERY straightforward if only christians and hypocrites like you would only pick up a bible and read.

Has anyone even stopped to ask . . . if God was so wicked and genocidal why didnt He order the destruction of the Syrians, Babylonians, Midianites, Assyrians? what was it about the amalekites alone? The Egyptians enslaved Israel for 400 yrs . . . why didnt God command Joshua to go wipe them off the face of the earth later?

Many of us are either too lazy or too dishonest to bother to find out.

er. . .is this not the same god of the flood, or is it a different one? 

and the god who killed every first son of egypt

i highlighted the issue of rape because YOU found that straightforward.

if you can find that straightforward, a little genocide should ceratinly go down nicely

oyb:

er. . .is this not the same god of the flood, or is it a different one? 

and the god who killed every first son of egypt

i highlighted the issue of rape because YOU found that straightforward.

if you can find that straightforward, a little genocide should ceratinly go down nicely

this again is more irrelevant rubbish.

- the issue of rape is simply a red herring you pull out when you get yourself boxed into your corner of deciet. You know full well that i have addressed that issue with you before so no need pretending its a new issue.

- you brought up the issue of AMALEK, infact that was the original topic . . . moral equivalence of jihad to genocide against the amalekites.

I asked an important question - if God was simply a genocidal tyrant . . . what was it about the Amalekites that He particularly disliked? why didnt He order that the Egyptians (who enslaved Israel for 430 yrs) be wiped off or the Babylonians (who sacked Jerusalem) or Assyrians or Medo-persian empire or Philistines or Midianites?

Stay on topic pls . . . i'm fed up with these delusional slaves of allah just running like headless chickens when they are confronted with facts and truth.

how did you address the issue? i seem to remember that you er. . .ran away

the onus is on you to defend the genocide ordered by your god once again, bearing in mind that your god is a loving , merciful, forgiving god. . .

so instead of all your silly petty insults, argue the topic you claim to have argued several times before. . .

lets see how you 'interpret' the scripture - as you said - Each man interpretes as he sees fit - which really explains everything that you will come up with .

oyb:

how did you address the issue? i seem to remember that you er. . .ran away

the onus is on you to defend the genocide ordered by your god once again, bearing in mind that your god is a loving , merciful, forgiving god. . .

so instead of all your silly petty insults, argue the topic you claim to have argued several times before. . .

lets see how you 'interpret' the scripture - as you said - Each man interpretes as he sees fit - which really explains everything that you will come up with .

the onus is not on me to do anything, let alone tackling this question for the 20th time. I've had to tackle it once with both you and huxley on separate occassions . . . i'm tired of dishonest slaves of allah just recycling the same old rubbish as if they just dreamt of it that very minute instead of the same old stuff they've been posting from place to place.

I asked a simple question AT LEAST THREE TIMES now that you have pretended not to see . . . i repeat it here again - [size=14pt]if God was simply a genocidal tyrant . . . what was it about the Amalekites that He particularly disliked? why didnt He order that the Egyptians (who enslaved Israel for 430 yrs) be wiped off or the Babylonians (who sacked Jerusalem) or Assyrians or Medo-persian empire or Philistines or Midianites? [/size]

You can ignore it, i'll just ignore your own questions too.

^^^^^^^

The issue of Amalek i have repeatedly taken up on these boards. that somehow people continuously bring it up as an excuse for their own bloodthirsty idol is beyond me. It is simply a sign that most people are not interested in the truth.

so the above constitutes the argument you have been making? i'm truly disappointed in you

oyb:

^^^^^^^
so the above constitutes the argument you have been making? i'm truly disappointed in you

yawn. Can someone explain what this dude is rambling about pls?

see how davidylan feigns stupidity

oyb:

see how davidylan feigns stupidity

i see you've been avoiding the other threads . . . pls help us there as much as you love to come here to laugh.

There's no need to feign anything . . . i'm just bored having to repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Its futile to attempt to fetch water with a basket. Have you dealt with my question? Of course not . . . you pretend AGAIN to have not seen it.

yeah, it must be hard having to lie to yourself over and over again. . .


so what was the deal with the cananittes?

Numbers 21:2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the lord, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.

Numbers 21:3 And the lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

or jericho

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 8:25 And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

Joshua 8:26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

Joshua 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the lord God of Israel commanded.

Joshua 11:11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.

Judges 21:10 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.

if your god isn't genocidal, i don't know what is

being a christian must be sort of like being sani abacha's 12 year old kid, he's a great dad to his kids, but in real life, he's something else. but the kids will never believe it if you tell them that

keep in mind that the god of the OT is much older than the god of the NT , who is just 2 millenia old 

as davidylan would say -

i see you've been avoiding the other threads . . . pls help us there as much as you love to come here to laugh.

oyb it seems like my Mo pedophlic and thighing threads wounded you a great deal.
Una don cry sotay the thread don disappear

me cry - i was as vexed as you when the thread was deleted. i put so much of my time into it. 

abi didn't you read all the hadiths i posted on jabir etal. i know you can only read hadith's on your websites

also, did you miss my challeneneg to produce an actual hadith endorsing 'thighing'

you even shot yourself in the foot with ishaq 311, on the one hand, you brought a forgery - the tahirvoseh which says we can shag new born babies, on the other hand you produce a hadith where prophet muhammed says, when she grows up, i will marry her

you were simply making a fool of yourself

i posted at least four hadiths referncing the same thing , old matron 

and i asked if you would be happy if  your son did an usher and married  an 'old matron ' rather than a 'young girl' 


i even challengede you to produce a complete excerpt from your book on 'thighing' abi you missed my link to the REAL book?

confusionists   

today they refrenec the hadith, tomorrow the tahir

this spirit thing na wa 

meanwhile you need to go matron on davidylan and give him a spanking . he has been denouncing so many of you as 'christians'

oyb:

me cry - i was as vexed as you when the thread was deleted. i put so much of my time into it.

abi didn't you read all the hadiths i posted on jabir etal. i know you can only read hadith's on your websites

also, did you miss my challeneneg to produce an actual hadith endorsing 'thighing'

you even shot yourself in the foot with ishaq 311, on the one hand, you brought a forgery - the tahirvoseh which says we can shag new born babies, on the other hand you produce a hadith where prophet muhammed says, when she grows up, i will marry her

you were simply making a fool of yourself

i posted at least four hadiths referncing the same thing , old matron

and i asked if you would be happy if your son did an usher and married an 'old matron ' rather than a 'young girl'


i even challengede you to produce a complete excerpt from your book on 'thighing' abi you missed my link to the REAL book?

confusionists

today they refrenec the hadith, tomorrow the tahir

this spirit thing na wa

meanwhile you need to go matron on davidylan and give him a spanking . he has been denouncing so many of you as 'christians'

Your hadiths did not cancel the others
I'm sure I've taught you enough hadiths these few years
The Ishaq hadith of Mo lusting after a crawling baby was the clencher
the guy was sick

anyway what is this one all about
I don't have patience for long copied and pasted posts

see as you are desperate to contradict yourself


if as you claim, he was lusting after the baby, why did thighing not immediately commence, abi you have already forgotten your quotes from the ayatollah, purportedly based on Prophet Muhammed's actions ?

I don't have patience for long copied and pasted posts

unless of course you're copying and pasting from prophet of doom -

this spirit thing get as e be

anyway what is this one all about

pm dawoda nackson or his padawan noetic

you should't ask me - shebi i'm a dishonest liar - isn't that what your boys call me

oyb:

see as you are desperate to contradict yourself


if[b] as you claim, he was lusting after the baby, why did thighing not immediately commence[/b], abi you have already forgotten your quotes from the ayatollah, purportedly based on Prophet Muhammed's actions ?

unless of course you're copying and pasting from prophet of doom -

this spirit thing get as e be

pm dawoda nackson or his padawan noetic

you should't ask me - shebi i'm a dishonest liar - isn't that what your boys call me

well it was a short hadith and he died before he had a chance to "marry the infant"
did you miss that part?

Honestly summarize the thing
I don't have patience on weekends to read more than 5 lines on an introductory post

I think $Osisi is so desperate to crusade that she is throwing all kinds of thing on the wall; muds, dungs, gum, lego dough, Pizza dough, sticks and stones, etc to see if any will stick! Unfortunately the person you are trying to destroy is long gone (AS). But is legacy is waxing stronger by the day. Even here in the United States that you have adopted as your new home.

Right there in Texas that you live. Before long, maybe in your lifetime, but definitely, lastest in the lifetime of your grandchildren, there will be masajid almost in every hamlet and village, town and city in this United States. While you are struggling in frutile desperation, the Igbo people are coming into Islam. I think there is an Igbo language "What it means" Quran, or soon it will be available in local CMS in Aba.

Those who have done more than what you are attempting now are no where today! their names and heritage has been long forgotten. Some of them had the means to derail Islam in its infancy, but it was them who were derailed by Allah. Quit getting worked up on lies so much. It is unbecoming and actually shameful. A person who has shame will not resort to naked lies just to win an unwinnable argument!

I epeat and you need to be resolved on that: No Muslim on Nairaland will convert. No way, no how, no convertion. The more you write, the more the whole world will have a chance to see the truth of the matter; Lying shows desperation. While you have your choice of putting up your view for consideration, desperation should not be tactics you employ. Dont be a desperate woman.

I am entitled to my opinion, too. Swallow it. I know its a bitter medivcine. You are a doctor, so dont throw up. Or shock on it.

the gospel of olabs

Funny. Oga must be on a journey for you to be hanging out, uncuddling, at this time. Doctor, Doctor. Biko. Go sleep. I am turning in soon. I need plenty of rest. Am still a baby.

olabowale:

I think $Osisi is so desperate to crusade that she is throwing all kinds of thing on the wall; muds, dungs, gum, lego dough, Pizza dough, sticks and stones, etc to see if any will stick! Unfortunately the person you are trying to destroy is long gone (AS). But is legacy is waxing stronger by the day. Even here in the United States that you have adopted as your new home.

Right there in Texas that you live. Before long, maybe in your lifetime, but definitely, lastest in the lifetime of your grandchildren, there will be masajid almost in every hamlet and village, town and city in this United States. While you are struggling in frutile desperation, the Igbo people are coming into Islam. I think there is an Igbo language "What it means" Quran, or soon it will be available in local CMS in Aba.

Those who have done more than what you are attempting now are no where today! their names and heritage has been long forgotten. Some of them had the means to derail Islam in its infancy, but it was them who were derailed by Allah. Quit getting worked up on lies so much. It is unbecoming and actually shameful. A person who has shame will not resort to naked lies just to win an unwinnable argument!

I epeat and you need to be resolved on that: No Muslim on Nairaland will convert. No way, no how, no convertion. The more you write, the more the whole world will have a chance to see the truth of the matter; Lying shows desperation. While you have your choice of putting up your view for consideration, desperation should not be tactics you employ. Dont be a desperate woman.

I am entitled to my opinion, too. Swallow it. I know its a bitter medivcine. You are a doctor, so dont throw up. Or shock on it.

don't mind them. they have been maligning Prophet Muhammed since the beginning of time, and yet Islam has grown in spite of all their efforts

meanwhile, they keep shrinking

which is why osisi is always here looking for strays to fill with the er spirit 

between she and davidyan, they have over 30,000 posts dedicated to the denigration of Islam - but they have failed to convert or sway even one muslim

meanwhile their brethren keep throwing the spirit into the dustbin . talk about fiddling while rome burns

num 31

OMG!!!



Numbers 31

31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2  Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
31:7  And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 
"As the Lord commanded Moses, they slew all the males."
Did the Israelites kill every male in Midian?
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. They took the women and children captives, and burnt all their cities.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and[b] kill every woman that hath known man [/b]by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

for hes a loving loving god 

na wa o - 

as osisi would say, what are they keeping the women children alive for? 

na wa o!!!! what can i say - just say no to 'old matrons' stella desn't get her groove back - she gets skewered !!!

Is this your pathetic and weak attempt to justify islamic terrorism?. . ."oh the jews did it 4000 years ago so we're justified in doing it now" -
if that be the case then you and the terrorists are an embarrasment to humanity, worse than lowly animals and murderous beasts!

Murder is WRONG no matter who ordered it whether allah or oyb!

did you forget to add the christian god,

can't you read?

The meaning of jihad

Qur'anic scholars throughout the ages have held differing views on the meaning of jihad. The idea of jihad is derived from the Arabic root meaning "to strive" or "to make an effort." This word has been interpreted to mean an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith or an outward material struggle to promote justice and the Islamic social system.

During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca, jihad meant an internal struggle and non-violent struggle to spread Islam. Following his move from Mecca to Medina, and the establishment of an Islamic state, fighting in self-defence was sanctioned by the Qur'an (22:39).

It was at this stage that the Qur'an increasingly referred to qital (fighting or warfare) as one form of jihad. Two of the last verses on this topic (9:5, 29) suggest waging a war of conquest or conversion against all non-believers.

In the middle ages Islamic legal scholars divided the world into two spheres: Dar al-Islam (land of Islam), where Islamic law applied, and Dar al-Harb (land of war) where it did not. Islamic state's duty was to extend the Dar al-Islam - through peaceful means if possible but if not, through war.

These medieval Islamic legal scholars held that the Qur'anic verses suggesting peaceful accommodation or coexistence with non-believers (especially 2:193, 8:61) were cancelled out by the later, more belligerent ones. In medieval legal sources, jihad generally referred to a divinely sanctioned struggle to establish Muslim rule over non-Muslims as a prelude to the propagation of the Islamic faith.

However, this belligerent interpretation of jihad has not been accepted by all Qur'anic scholars. Many Islamic scholars argued and continue to argue that the Qur'an and Islamic Prophetic traditions allow war only for self-defence against persecution and aggression.

According to this view those that defined jihad as an expansionist war were misguided and distorting Qur'anic ethics. They point out that the division of the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb does not exist in the Qur'an or Prophetic traditions.

The duel interpretation of jihad - peaceful and warmongering - by Islamic scholars indicates that its usage to sanction the slaughter of innocent people tells more about the people who are interpreting the Qur'an then the Qur'an itself. In light of this the Biblical commandment to obliterate Amalek is fundamentally different from any other ethically, religiously or idealistically motivated killing that the world has seen

sort of like how the pope interpreted 'not to bring peace but a sword', not so

Who cares if it's the christian god or muslim allah? Any god or diety who orders murder and terrorism is a bastard of an entity!

thats better - i prefer equal opportunity insults