My efforts to understand

I tackle a topic tonight which I understand is complex.

I won't be able to comprehend all that I'm reading, I won't be able to understand the ramifications of all that I say... but I do want to start somewhere.

Today the largest trial in Australia's history on "Terrorism" was concluded. According to the Sydney Melbourne Herald:

Benbrika and five of his followers were found guilty in Australia's biggest terrorism trial. Four more men were acquitted and a decision on the final two accused is expected in the Melbourne court today.

Over seven months the jury heard evidence on 27 charges from more than 50 witnesses. The Crown's case included 482 covertly recorded conversations.

They heard allegations that Benbrika had plotted to carry out terrorist attacks on the 2005 AFL grand final and the 2006 NAB Cup, and on Melbourne's Crown Casino on the Grand Prix weekend in 2006.

I can't comprehend why people would be willing to do this. According to CNN:

He [Benbrika] allegedly told them [his followers] that at an attack needed to kill at least 1,000 people to achieve this aim, and that it was permissible to kill women, children and the elderly.

Yet, according to the "Rules of Jihad" listed on the BBC, a jihad (where defined as a Muslim Holy War) must follow very strict rules in order to be legitimate, many of which were not planned to be followed:

• The opponent must always have started the fighting.
• It must not be fought to gain territory.
• It must be launched by a religious leader.
• It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of.
• Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war.
• Innocent people should not be killed.
• Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
• Women must not be raped.
• Enemies must be treated with justice.
• Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers.
• The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
• Property must not be damaged.
• Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare.

So - what we have here is not some Holy War... it's people using a term for their own means, to justify, to gain support, to condone.

What kind of world do we live in where people can twist the very essence of what something is to turn it to their own means? How have we become so complacent that we do this to ourselves?

Yet, we do it all the time. I do it.

marriage - where "until death do we part" becomes "until it's just not working for me"
purchase by credit - where we buy something with money we don't have
church - I'm not even going to start on this one

I could go on... and on... and on... not even covering words that we take for granted and use without thought - like, love, gay, awesome, fantastic

I'm horrified (defined as "stricken with horror") about what is happening in terms of people calling "Jihad" and doing so against their own religion (especially considering the devastation that their actions could cause to so many). But what about our own hypocrisies? I want to use words for what they are - to mean what they should - to define what they are intended to define.

Where does it all end? I'm not sure I want to think about that tonight - i do believe in our own lives that God's ends justify his means... but we're not God - our means should never be justified by what we foresee to be the conclusion - we have no idea what those might be.