Rules of War in the Quran

S.A.M. said:
Why would you want to eliminate the right to self defense or the right to fight oppression?
Click to expand...

A religion of "peace" would never support "war." Simple, really.

The problem with the Quran and it's support for murdering people is most likely in the term "fight" which can be defined in any number of ways, including "a strenuous or labored effort" and "an aggressive willingness to compete" or "an intense verbal dispute." The latter would find us all beheaded if Sam had her way.

Muslims can take whatever definition of "fight" they deem necessary or convenient to murder anyone they so chose. And they do so with all the righteousness they can muster.

We wonder which definition of "fight" Muslims use to murder filmmakers in Denmark?
 
S.A.M. said:
Ignoring a problem or pretending it does not exist does not make it go away. Having a system of laws or rules can help control it.
Click to expand...

When the problem is imagined for convenience sake, having a system of laws that condone murder is just short of anarchy.
 
(Q) said:
When the problem is imagined for convenience sake, having a system of laws that condone murder is just short of anarchy.
Click to expand...

So if someone attacks you and in defending yourself, you kill him (or her) and you're let off on self defence, it condones murder?
 
(Q) said:
A religion of "peace" would never support "war." Simple, really.

The problem with the Quran and it's support for murdering people is most likely in the term "fight" which can be defined in any number of ways, including "a strenuous or labored effort" and "an aggressive willingness to compete" or "an intense verbal dispute." The latter would find us all beheaded if Sam had her way.

Muslims can take whatever definition of "fight" they deem necessary or convenient to murder anyone they so chose. And they do so with all the righteousness they can muster.

We wonder which definition of "fight" Muslims use to murder filmmakers in Denmark?
Click to expand...

No one is above the law, which is the consensus for what is deemed right. Peace requires law, without law there is anarchy. Defining the boundaries of acceptability is what rules are about. It's why we have a legal system. If you think arbitrary concepts of right and wrong can lead to peace, try moving to a state without these established rules of conduct
 
S.A.M. said:
So if someone attacks you and in defending yourself, you kill him (or her) and you're let off on self defence, it condones murder?

No one is above the law, which is the consensus for what is deemed right. Peace requires law, without law there is anarchy. Defining the boundaries of acceptability is what rules are about. It's why we have a legal system. If you think arbitrary concepts of right and wrong can lead to peace, try moving to a state without these established rules of conduct
Click to expand...

Once again, Sam's puny intellect in retreat turns to dishonesty to make her point. :rolleyes:
 
Puny intellect? I suppose ad homs are the intellectual alternative of the day
 
S.A.M. said:
Puny intellect? I suppose ad homs are the intellectual alternative of the day
Click to expand...

If the shoe fits, Sam.

Everyone knows why there are legal systems governing societies, and no one can state they are perfect systems, but they are a far cry better than your obscure and multi-interpreted holy book.

"Rules of War" in a holy book purporting to be a religion of peace is so utterly contradictory, one would have to indoctrinated into the cult to believe it, or simply insane.
 
Only fundamentalists will prefer rigid laws. The Quran makes it clear that agression is only permitted against aggressors and to fight oppression. It doesn't lay down laws that's what society is for. And it says only that equivalence and charity should be followed. These are simple basic rules that underlies honorable conflict resolution in every single society. They are timeless.
 
(Q) said:
If the shoe fits, Sam.

Everyone knows why there are legal systems governing societies, and no one can state they are perfect systems, but they are a far cry better than your obscure and multi-interpreted holy book.

"Rules of War" in a holy book purporting to be a religion of peace is so utterly contradictory, one would have to indoctrinated into the cult to believe it, or simply insane.
Click to expand...

So utterly true.;):m:;)
 
S.A.M. said:
Only fundamentalists will prefer rigid laws. The Quran makes it clear that agression is only permitted against aggressors and to fight oppression. It doesn't lay down laws that's what society is for. And it says only that equivalence and charity should be followed. These are simple basic rules that underlies honorable conflict resolution in every single society. They are timeless.
Click to expand...

You're soooooo full of it, Sam. Evidence of Muslim riots over cartoons would refute your nonsense.
 
Are they legal?

It's silly to conflate an organized riot with rules of conflict. Just because someone is a Muslim doesn't mean they are incapable of having poor judgement
 
I think part of the issue is that the Quran doesn't represent the totality of Islamic thought. Hadith are also very significant, what do they say about warfare?
 
spidergoat said:
I think part of the issue is that the Quran doesn't represent the totality of Islamic thought. Hadith are also very significant, what do they say about warfare?
Click to expand...

I don't consider the Hadith significant: moreover the only ones I've read are those that non-Muslims on this site jerk off to. You'll have to ask someone who considers them relevant.
 
These clowns appear to be figuring out the authenticity of hadith and doing it quite well too. It's good that people educating themselves on it rather than copy pasting bits and pieces from islamwatch or evilmuslims etc.

After all the Quran is required reading for Muslims but the Hadith are not, so most Muslims know very little about them
 
Here's a good quote from that site:

"But you have to also respect the right of others to wage war on those who are without decency; who do not value life as you do. What I'm trying to say is that, war is sometimes a necessity when your honour,religion,family, etc is at stake. Do not look down on others because they deem war to be a necessary tool to achieve peace. And do not be naive to think that war is a game where sportsmanship plays an important role."
 
Wonderful, as someone who supports war on terrorz, you should be feeling all warm and liquidy inside
 
S.A.M. said:
Wonderful, as someone who supports war on terrorz, you should be feeling all warm and liquidy inside
Click to expand...

Yes, right before I vomited.

Here's some more shades of Muslim contradiction from that site:

"Each of us have good reasons to believe what we believe. I think about the christians in this light all the time. I think: how can grown adults really believe that crap?"
 
Not surprising at all. I know someone who reportedly flails when children are abused and yet maintains complete and utter silence when they are starved, maimed and massacred by "his people". Human beings are full of contradictions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top