Jihad

According to John Stuart Mill, a philosopher, the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. An example of this would be using force to prevent a murder. If you think about or subscribe to the theory it makes sense. Within government it points to a laissez-faire system. With religion, most would argue that a person’s beliefs should be left alone unless it harms another or others.

What I do not understand is how some justify mass killings by using suicide bombers as a jihad. The victims, dubbed infidels, are killed. This enrages families of the victims and draws them against the institution that attempts to make a change in peoples’ beliefs in the favor of the institution. To the world, the act creates bitterness against those who are trying to make a change. Instead of gaining new members or believers by being noble or righteous, it comes off as an infamous dastardly attack.

Attempting to change a person’s belief by force and aggressive means is not a lasting way of going about it. Also, suppressing one by force without justification, to prevent them from harming others, is generally frowned upon. This is true if done with the sword by the tongue. Instead of mocking, verbally attacking or beating people with clubs in the name of religion - people should lead by example. Perhaps this is my western mindset, but it seems history has proven it works.