I do recognise the differences and that is why I mention violent jihad - if you read my earlier notes you will see I note the different forms of struggle.
Is it EVER right to blow up innocent children in a school intentionally? (I actually think what Israel is doing is also wrong) Because that is what is being justified by legitmate islamic Scholars as defence. That is not defence. It is sick. I know that there are sometimes mistakes and innocents killed in any conflict but what is normally happening is INTENTIONAL. Are you justifying things like Sept 11 as defence? Because that is what guys like mundine have said, as have Hilaly and even the new Mufti just denies Osama had any involvement.
The whole defensive Jihad argument is mainly based on one verse Sura 4:90 (also read just earlier interesting verses) when Islam was relatively weak and needed compromise to survive unlike later verses such as 9:5 where they had conquered Mecca totally. They were the conquerers not in a defensive position and we get that interesting verse. Jihad is about establishing islam as the ruling force personally, politically and religiously. (which can also be seen in Sura 9) To stop this happening unbelievers had to pay a tax a and become subject to islamic rule even if they did not convert. Does not seem that defensive to me.
I think I have far more idea than you would like to acknowledge, we just happen to disagree.
You probably still need to answer the question I asked originally. Are you a better scholar than Hilaly who justified things like Sept 11 as defensive, encouraged boys to go out and become a martyr in Lebanon?
I think it is better that this discussion goes PM or even into Four Corners as this is not about football. I think all have the right to freedom of religion or non at all. We can agree to disagree that is the great thing about australia.