Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[Arsalan]

International Law has many alternatives to violence and war, Islam does not.

Yes it does. Unfortunately you have completely missed SAMs post on it

Then, why were Muslims violent?

I dont know. I only saw violence in some countries where a couple of 100 people were doing stuff. I saw the rest just protesting and holding signs and recording their disagreements.

That is exactly the problem, the fox in control of the hen house. It is the Muslims use of the word 'persecution' that is also the problem.

Its unfortunate you still dont understand what is meant with persecution. So let me make it clear here: the persecution the Quran is talking aobut is where one is forced to change ones religion or one is persecuted just because one is of a certain religion. Which means that the persecution mentioned in the Quran is persecution as defined by the west as well. Also, check out this This ploy of yours that Muslims feel persecuted and resorted to violence about cartoons is total bull. Someone drawing a cartoon is not persecution because that cartoon does not stop Muslims from being Muslim and it does not force Muslims to change their religion or whatnot.

What I did was to extract that which Islam authorizes violence and war and that it is the only alternative.

Once again, you have missed out SAMs post. You seem to be missing the point that fighting is allowed only when the other party starts a fight against you. So instead of saying to the people who are defending themselves in the heat of the moment, when they are being attacked, to stop fighting their aggressors is a bit dumb. But that doesnt mean Islam doesnt allow for peace negotiations. Whenever the enemy wants peace negotations, Muslims are to accept them, thereby allowing for an alternative.

Ah, then you freely admit that Islam promotes violence and war rather than trying to put an end to it.

So allowing for selfdefense is promoting violence and war? It seems you are not interested in the tonnes of verses talking about promoting peace and harmony and education and welfare, yet when you see verses that allow for selfdefense, as does international law, you instantly try to manipulate them into Islam promoting violence and war.

 

[Arsalan]

I agree there are alternatives to violence and war, Islam does not, and Muslims will dictate whatever the want to deem as being "attacked or persecuted."

Unfortunately, history and the Quran totally debunk your point

 

[iceaura]

The first refers to sermons, lectures, exhorting one another to good. The second includes scholarly work, jurisprudence, articles, inspirational poetry. The third is working for good with your wealth and your time -- charity and volunteerism. The last refers to military struggle.

Or as the Old Man might have put it: eventually, those who lose the Way promote goodness, when that fails they market righteousness, when that fails they roll up their sleeves and enforce obedience.

 

[Arsalan]

Or as the Old Man might have put it: eventually, those who lose the Way promote goodness, when that fails they market righteousness, when that fails they roll up their sleeves and enforce obedience.

Nice try But that is not what SAM was referring to But it is a good summary of the actions of some Western governments

 

[(Q)]

Yes it does. Unfortunately you have completely missed SAMs post on it

Sam, like you, spews out propaganda by the boatload. Neither of you seem to have a clue. Are you Sam's little brother or something?

I dont know. I only saw violence in some countries where a couple of 100 people were doing stuff. I saw the rest just protesting and holding signs and recording their disagreements.

You need to get out more and keep up on current events.

Its unfortunate you still dont understand what is meant with persecution.

Interestingly enough, I do understand the definition of persecution. What I don't understand is how Muslims use that word to justify anything they want. And, I don't understand why violence and war are Muslims answer to everything.

So let me make it clear here: the persecution the Quran is talking aobut is where one is forced to change ones religion or one is persecuted just because one is of a certain religion.

Yes, totally hypocritical as that's exactly what Muslims have done to other people.

This ploy of yours that Muslims feel persecuted and resorted to violence about cartoons is total bull. Someone drawing a cartoon is not persecution because that cartoon does not stop Muslims from being Muslim and it does not force Muslims to change their religion or whatnot.

And yet, the violence was evident. So, your response is complete BS.

You seem to be missing the point that fighting is allowed only when the other party starts a fight against you. So instead of saying to the people who are defending themselves in the heat of the moment, when they are being attacked, to stop fighting their aggressors is a bit dumb. But that doesnt mean Islam doesnt allow for peace negotiations. Whenever the enemy wants peace negotations, Muslims are to accept them, thereby allowing for an alternative.

Yes, we know Muslims turn to violence and war because that is the alternative they choose. They can't understand there are other alternatives to violence and war.

So allowing for selfdefense is promoting violence and war? It seems you are not interested in the tonnes of verses talking about promoting peace and harmony and education and welfare, yet when you see verses that allow for selfdefense, as does international law, you instantly try to manipulate them into Islam promoting violence and war.

The Quran promotes violence and war, that is a fact. You can see above in the quotes YOU provided.

 

[(Q)]

Unfortunately, history and the Quran totally debunk your point

What have you been smoking? :bugeye:

 

[Arsalan]

Sam, like you, spews out propaganda by the boatload. Neither of you seem to have a clue. Are you Sam's little brother or something?

Nope.

You need to get out more and keep up on current events.

I am up to date on current events. I also know about the town of bi'lin. Do you? Unlike you i sample my news from various sources, check the historical and political background of the area where a news article is about a conflict before reaching my conclusion.

Interestingly enough, I do understand the definition of persecution. What I don't understand is how Muslims use that word to justify anything they want. And, I don't understand why violence and war are Muslims answer to everything.

have they now? Where have they claimed persecution when it wasnt persecution?

Yes, totally hypocritical as that's exactly what Muslims have done to other people.

Unfortunately yes, some Muslims have resorted to pre-Islamic ignorance.

And yet, the violence was evident. So, your response is complete BS.

Nope. Only a couple of "violent" protests, the rest were peaceful, with people holding signs and writing letters and debunking the cartoons. Maybe you need to read the news more often and from various sources?

Yes, we know Muslims turn to violence and war because that is the alternative they choose. They can't understand there are other alternatives to violence and war.

Once again, i have to say how unfortunate it is that you still dont understand what self-defense means. Self-defense, as allowed in the Quran, is when you are attacked, you are given the permission to retaliate to protect yourself from harm or your property. It is the height of stupidty to suggest that instead of first protecting yourself from someone who wishes to kill you or cause you harm, you stand there and try to talk to him with the result that youll be dead. Let me put it this way: the next time your in a car accident, dont cover your face or any other body part with your arms to protect yourself, just try to reason with the pole thats headed for you who doesnt care what you have to say.

The Quran promotes violence and war, that is a fact. You can see above in the quotes YOU provided.

Where and how? You have failed to point that out. And I want you to compare that then with international law. The fact of the matter is that the verses you misquoted, do not promote violence and war. They permit people to defend themselves when attacked and they always, every single time, tell the Muslims to stop fighting whenever possible and to work things out with negotiations. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed those points.

So i ask you to compare the selfdefense as allowed in the Quran and as allowed in international law and the various ways to end violence. Then ill show you that international law contains loads of things which the Quran prescribes in times of war.

 

[Arsalan]

What have you been smoking? :bugeye:

I dont smoke nor do I drink.

 

[(Q)]

Once again, i have to say how unfortunate it is that you still dont understand what self-defense means. Self-defense, as allowed in the Quran, is when you are attacked, you are given the permission to retaliate to protect yourself from harm or your property.

No religion should give permission to use violence or take up arms and war, which is exactly what you're claiming. It is antithetic to the very thing a religion would promote; peace.

to suggest that instead of first protecting yourself from someone who wishes to kill you or cause you harm, you stand there and try to talk to him with the result that youll be dead.

That is completely irrelevant from the fact that a religion cannot be the Ubermeister for those kinds of decisions, and it most certainly should not condone nor permit it. It is so bloody obvious that kind of freedom to war is sure to be abused. And guess what? It does get abused.

Let me put it this way: the next time your in a car accident, dont cover your face or any other body part with your arms to protect yourself, just try to reason with the pole thats headed for you who doesnt care what you have to say.

A religion should not have any say as to how something entirely out of my control should be treated.

So i ask you to compare the selfdefense as allowed in the Quran and as allowed in international law and the various ways to end violence. Then ill show you that international law contains loads of things which the Quran prescribes in times of war.

I don't give a flying f*** what international law has to say, that is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

NO religion should EVER "prescribe in times of war"

You should really think about that.

 

[Arsalan]

No religion should give permission to use violence or take up arms and war, which is exactly what you're claiming. It is antithetic to the very thing a religion would promote; peace.

Promoting and establishing peace is another teaching of Islam. So to accuse Islam of promoting violence instead of peace, when the "violence" you refer to is selfdefense, it is unfair.

That is completely irrelevant from the fact that a religion cannot be the Ubermeister for those kinds of decisions, and it most certainly should not condone nor permit it. It is so bloody obvious that kind of freedom to war is sure to be abused. And guess what? It does get abused.

It does? Where? Im still waiting for your proof.

A religion should not have any say as to how something entirely out of my control should be treated.

A religion which claims to be perfect and deals with every aspect of life does not shy away from those aspects of life which are negative and bad. People need to deal with bad things in life. And Islam prescribes the methods which are universally accepted.

I don't give a flying f*** what international law has to say, that is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Ofcourse you dont a flying f because international law is the same as the Quran in regards of this.

NO religion should EVER "prescribe in times of war"

People will attack other people. People will cause wars of aggression with other people. And those other people will need to defend themselves. A universal right, almost universally (you excepted ofcourse) accepted.

You should really think about that.

Not really. Maybe you should think about self-defense and what would happend if people did not defend themselves the moment they were attacked. Islam does prescribe negotiations but at the time of fighting, when you are being attacked, you will fight back.

 

[iceaura]

Nice try But that is not what SAM was referring to

It was exactly what SAM was referring to, given a perspective borrowed from a less parochial tradition.

The hierarchy of resources for enforcing political will. A similar Western synopsis (typically shallower) is the three boxes: ballot, jury, and ammo - use in that order.

Islam does not somehow escape its nature as a monotheistic religion with a prophet and a holy book. There have been others, there will be others, certain observations about how they operate are not set aside for this one special case.

Nope. Only a couple of "violent" protests, the rest were peaceful, with people holding signs and writing letters and debunking the cartoons.

Several people were killed by mobs, much destruction of property, etc. No need for the quotes around "violent" - there were many violent acts, death threats, riots, from people whose only connection to the cartoons was their self-perceived affront as Muslims.

And we note that Muslim clerics who went many hundreds of miles to inform some of the more violent protesters-to-be of their status as insulted and defamed believers, told lies about the cartoons. They included pictures not among the published cartoons, pictures from other sources entirely.

What is "our attitude" to that ?

 

[S.A.M.]

And we note that Muslim clerics who went many hundreds of miles to inform some of the more violent protesters-to-be of their status as insulted and defamed believers, told lies about the cartoons. They included pictures not among the published cartoons, pictures from other sources entirely.

What is "our attitude" to that ?

Pretty much what it should be to people who invaded Iraq based on the War on Terror. That some people can use their power to mislead some people. Does this mean people from all the countries who sent troops to Iraq are violent savages? After all. they killed far more people with far less reasons.

 

[(Q)]

People will attack other people. People will cause wars of aggression with other people. And those other people will need to defend themselves. A universal right, almost universally (you excepted ofcourse) accepted.

And Islam goes right on promoting it. Is it any wonder wars don't stop?

Not really. Maybe you should think about self-defense and what would happend if people did not defend themselves the moment they were attacked. Islam does prescribe negotiations but at the time of fighting, when you are being attacked, you will fight back.

It's clear to me now that you're never going to understand that your religion does not have the right to prescribe war in any way, shape or form. It puts Muslims firmly in a position of intolerance.

 

[Arsalan]

It was exactly what SAM was referring to, given a perspective borrowed from a less parochial tradition.

The hierarchy of resources for enforcing political will. A similar Western synopsis (typically shallower) is the three boxes: ballot, jury, and ammo - use in that order.

Nope, you are implying it somehow enforces something on people and that that is one of the core teachings of Islamic doctrine. Which it isnt. That is why you were wrong.

Several people were killed by mobs, much destruction of property, etc. No need for the quotes around "violent" - there were many violent acts, death threats, riots, from people whose only connection to the cartoons was their self-perceived affront as Muslims.

And we note that Muslim clerics who went many hundreds of miles to inform some of the more violent protesters-to-be of their status as insulted and defamed believers, told lies about the cartoons. They included pictures not among the published cartoons, pictures from other sources entirely.

And they have been denounced already. No need to throw them in the same bucket as me I say.

In the end, war in Islam is only defensive, you have not shown me Muslims using persecution as a lame excuse for war, and hence your argument fails. Ill just leave with these words:

According to Islam, every human individual is free to believe or not to believe. He is free to follow reason. Islam also teaches:

'And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.' (Al-Baqarah, 191)

Here the law of religious wars is laid down clearly. A religious war is to be waged against those who make war on Muslims because of religion; who seek by force to convert Muslims. Even in such a war Islam forbids the transgression of limits. If non-Muslims seeking to convert Muslims by force withdraw from such an attempt, then Muslims must stop fighting. In the face of such a teaching, nobody can say that Islam teaches the waging of war for its expansion. If Islam sanctions war, it is not in order to destroy or harm any religion. It is to promote religious freedom, to protect places of religious worship. It is clearly laid down in the Holy Quran:

'Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged. And Allah indeed has power to help those who have been driven out of their homes unjustly only for saying "Our Lord is Allah." And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques would have been pulled down wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered. And Allah will surely help him who helps Allah. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.' (Al-Hajj 40-1)

This passage from the Holy Quran leaves no doubt whatever that a religious war is not permitted by Islam unless it is against a people who force another people to abjure their religion; unless, for instance, Muslims are forced to abjure Islam. A religious war may be justified when there is interference in religion. But even when permitted, a religious war is not intended to force a people to give up their faith, nor is its purpose to desecrate or destroy places of worship, or to kill. The purpose of religious wars is to protect religion, to protect every religion, and to save from disgrace and destruction all places of worship, irrespective of the denomination to which they belong. Only such a religious war is permitted by Islam. Islam is a witness of other religions and their protector. Islam is no party to violence or cruelty or un freedom. In short, the Jehad sanctioned by Islam is to make war against a people who prevent others by force from accepting Islam, or who wish to force people to deny Islam. It may be made against a people who kill others because of Islam. Only against such a people is the making of war permissible in Islam. Against any other people, Jehad is wrong and contrary to Islam. War not sanctioned by these conditions may be a political war, a war between country and country or people and people. It may be a war between two Muslim peoples. But it will not be a religious war.

 

[Arsalan]

And Islam goes right on promoting it. Is it any wonder wars don't stop?

It permits selfdefense, that is not promoting violence. It is promoting life, honour and property. Because if, after all, selfdefense was not allowed, the world would be Muslim right

It's clear to me now that you're never going to understand that your religion does not have the right to prescribe war in any way, shape or form. It puts Muslims firmly in a position of intolerance.

Youre right. It does not prescribe aggressive wars. What exactly is your problem with defensive wars? What exactly is your problem with Islam prescribing peace negotiations? What exactly is your problem with Islam not allowing transgressions even in times of defensive war? Why does selfdefense promote violence? Do you not see how stupid that sounds? is the USA promoting violence when they go after the terrorists that planned 9/11? Is Israel promoting violence and war when fighting Hamas and Hizbollah? And so there are tonnes of example which you might see as selfdefense and not promoting of violence. How self-defense puts Muslims into a position of intolerance is beyond me, and probably many others on this board. You are saying that people who are being attacked and who defend themselves are promoting violence and intolerance. Excuse me, but thats just plain stupid.

In the end you said that Islam does not allow for anything but violence and war when talking about self-defense, you clearly missed the teachings about peace negotations and treaties.

 

[(Q)]

It permits selfdefense, that is not promoting violence. It is promoting life, honour and property. Because if, after all, selfdefense was not allowed, the world would be Muslim right

You can spin it anyway you want if it makes you feel better to justify, it still boils down to promoting violence. That is a fact.

Youre right. It does not prescribe aggressive wars. What exactly is your problem with defensive wars?

Uh, wars, prescribed by religions. :crazy:

What exactly is your problem with Islam not allowing transgressions even in times of defensive war?

Because it's a religion, dumbass. Religions don't promote wars, dumbass. Wow, you are dense.

is the USA promoting violence when they go after the terrorists that planned 9/11? Is Israel promoting violence and war when fighting Hamas and Hizbollah? And so there are tonnes of example which you might see as selfdefense and not promoting of violence. How self-defense puts Muslims into a position of intolerance is beyond me, and probably many others on this board. You are saying that people who are being attacked and who defend themselves are promoting violence and intolerance. Excuse me, but thats just plain stupid.

Strawmen arguments. Religions don't promote or prescribe, or whatever the hell you want to call it, wars.

Get that through your thick skull.

 

[Arsalan]

Uh, wars, prescribed by religions. :crazy:

Because it's a religion, dumbass. Religions don't promote wars, dumbass. Wow, you are dense.

Then dont see it as war, see it as selfdefense. The Quran only says permission to fight is given to those who are foguth against. Hardly war is it :shrug:

Strawmen arguments. Religions don't promote or prescribe, or whatever the hell you want to call it, wars.

Get that through your thick skull.

Maybe you should get it through your thick skull that selfdefense is not prescribing war. And you have onec again failed to give me examples of Muslims using persecution as an excuse to wage aggressive wars. But dont worry. Im not going to call you stupid if youre not able to backup your arguments

 

[iceaura]

Nope, you are implying it somehow enforces something on people and that that is one of the core teachings of Islamic doctrine. Which it isnt. That is why you were wrong.

The Old Guy was probably not wrong - he didn't miss much, in this line of thought. From the Tao Te Ching, #38 in the standard order, paraphrased and simplified to fit.

Islam behaves, in certain ways, as other such religions behave. The "core teachings" I leave to you; its behavior is observed in the world.

In the end, war in Islam is only defensive,

I believe that, no problem. All modern war is only defensive. Indonesia's invasion of East Timor was defensive. Pakistan's operations against Bangladesh were defensive. That isn't the issue.

 

[(Q)]

The Quran only says permission to fight is given

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. No religion has the right to promote violence. Get that through your thick head, dumbass.

 

[Arsalan]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. No religion has the right to promote violence. Get that through your thick head, dumbass.

Giving permission for self-defense and then giving strict teachings about negotiations is not the same as promoting violence. And no, not going to stop to your level here and if youre interested in why self-defense is not promoting violence, there are many discussions and essays you can find via google. Have fun.

And im still waiting on your proof that MUslims have used persecution as an excuse for agrressive wars.