The definition of Jihad...

So what have I learned today about the Future Jihad from Walid Phares? In his opinion the word Jihad has been mis-diagnosed in the west....as has the term Democracy in the Middle East (Madrassa teaching). The term Jihad forms a sixth, unofficial pillar of Islam. This unofficial pillar came about in the early days of Islam when the government needed to mobilize their people in defense of the state. Whether that defense was military in nature or otherwise is open, Jihad means "effort" and is not constrained to military applications.

Bottom line is that the thought that Jihad is an "inner struggle" is a western line of thinking not in line with that of Islam. According to the author, this definition came about from apologists in the west, as well as poor translators. Jihad is only a pilar of Islam when the circumstances are correct and a person in legitimate authority has declared Jihad to be.

One more thing, religon and politics are one in the same in the world of Islam. So, essentially every time we ask for Saudi Arabia to do something like give women rights, we are pretty much asking them to change their religon. Now I do believe in rights for women, I will support Condi for President any time. But, how we carry our foreign policy in the Mid-East...I am hoping...is done in light of this...Right? My question is...is it more beneficial to send someone like Condi to Saudi and Iraq for negotiations, or should we have a head Islamic ambassador? Unfortunately that would cross the lines of state sponsored religon probably, but could some permutation be reached to help make more headway in the middle-east? Another question, since Madrassas have been teaching that Democracy is not right and sinful, why did President Bush and others believe that Iraqis would celebrate our invasion? While I had hoped this would be the case, looking back, I think I was blinded and hoping that someone in government had the inside scoop.

We Don't Wear the Poppy!

It looks like the DNC has attempted to emulate Reuters. A photo has surfaced on their website of a supposed US Army soldier. In reality, looking at the uniform gives away the fact that this is not in any way a US Soldier. The US military does not wear the Poppy (red flower on the lapel). That is a tradition of the British and Canadian armies relating back to Flanders Field in World War I. I have some Canadian buddies at work, I wonder how they would feel about this:)

Here is the story from Michelle Malkin
Here is some history on the Poppy
Trackback