The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Ads]

There is some historical naivety going on there I am afraid Omariqy. Islam was spread via violent conquest and in warfare that has always meant that civilians have suffered, especially those non-Muslims who were persecuted thereafter under the new administration. The aftermath of sieges always saw a break down in discipline with spikes in looting and rapes.

 

You also have to appreciate that there was no real concept of childhood as we know it today. Mohammed himself supposdily bedded his 9 year old bride after marrying her 3 years previously, presumably because she'd had her period and was therefore considered a woman.

 

*Edit for my dippy spelling.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Ads

[omariqy]

I'm not denying that there was not warfare or violence. However, the following rules were set out by the Prophet (pbuh) which all had to adhere to. Now obviously leaders down the line may have strayed away from this but the ideals and principles were set to conduct war in a certain manner. A certain manner that was alien to the world at the time because it was in the dark ages. The aftermath would surely result in Shariah law being applied no? I.e. Raping and pillaging is completely forbidden.

Agree on your point on childhood. There was no concept of childhood as we know it today. Not just in Muslim lands but across the world.

Now the following, albeit focused on the Israel/Gaza conflict explains a bit more on the rules of war.

As the volatility between Israel and Gaza continues to transform, one constant remains: rising “collateral damage.” Unrest in Israel traces back six decades but the concept of collateral damage stretches back several millennia. And while in modern times we are allegedly “more civilized,” 11-month-old Omar Masharawi’s funeral, three dead Israelis, and a horrifying 120 killed Palestinians, tell a different story.

Prophet Muhammad is history’s first major figure to condemn collateral damage in word and deed. His advanced rules of war established 1,400 years ago a yet unmatched humanitarian standard. And herein lies the solution to modern conflict. The Quran first describes when fighting is permitted:

Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged… Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God’ — And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down temples and churches and synagogues and mosques… (22:40-41).

Thus, the permission — not commandment — to fight is defensive. And that fighting protects temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques — which is to say, universal religious freedom.

While critics and extremist groups both love to cite Quranic excerpts like “kill them where ye find them,” they ignore that such verses clearly refer to treatment of those who would violently persecute Christians, Jews, or any person because of his faith. Indeed, Muhammad commanded the following uncompromising rules of war:

O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well… for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

Thus, Muhammad’s rules of war permit defensive fighting against active combatants while forbidding harm to anyone or anything else — human, animal, or property. Contrast this with Hamas rocket attacks and PIJ terrorist attacks — the distinction is clear. Likewise, as Gaza’s death count rises, Israel also has blood on its hands. According to Muhammad’s rules of war, no justification exists for either side to attack civilians, property, animals, or anyone who is not an active combatant.

And even against combatants, Muhammad put Muslims on notice. Once, Usama bin Zaid overcame an enemy soldier in hand-to-hand combat. The soldier implored Usama for amnesty just as Usama prepared to deliver the deathblow. Usama heard but ignored the plea and killed him anyway. Learning of this, Muhammad vociferously condemned Usama’s act as repulsive to Islamic rules of war.

Mind you, this combatant persecuted Muslims, helped exile them from Mecca, pursued them to murder them, and even then Muhammad required Usama to accept his amnesty plea — knowing full well the plea could be a lie.

Muhammad assumed this risk because he refused to forsake any opportunity for peace. After Muhammad, the Khalifa Umar, and centuries later, the legendary Muslim General Salahuddin, again demonstrated these principles. Both insisted Jews return to Jerusalem — as equals — whereas they suffered immense persecution under Christian rule.

Even ardent critics of Islam such as Sir William Muir admit that Muslims treated POWs with immense dignity. Captives were well fed and ransoms were according to their means. Indigent captives, meanwhile, “were allotted ten boys to be taught the art of writing” as a ransom.

A ransom of education — an example Hamas and PIJ have forgotten, and one Israel doesn’t know.

History demonstrates that Muhammad’s rules of war — when applied with justice — lead to peace. If applied today, Muhammad’s rules can end not only collateral damage, but war itself.

http://myjihad.org/prophet-muhammads-rules-of-war/

The following lists the 10 rules of war set out by the Prophet (pbuh)

Before engaging in battle, the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) instructed his soldiers:

1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)

2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)

3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)

4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)

5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)

6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)

7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)

8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)

9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).

10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

Verse in the Holy Quraan

4:75 (Y. Ali) And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!”

http://1000gooddeeds.com/2012/11/20/10-islamic-rules-of-war/

My point is please do not compare what IS are doing to what the Prophet pbuh did back in the 7th century.

[Eames]

There is some historical naivety going on there I am afraid Omariqy. Islam was spread via violent conquest and in warfare that has always meant that civilians have suffered, especially those non-Muslims who were persecuted thereafter under the new administration. The aftermath of sieges always saw a break down in discipline with spikes in looting and rapes.

 

You also have to appreciate that there was no real concept of childhood as we know it today. Mohammed himself supposdily bedded his 9 year old bride after marrying her 3 years previously, presumably because she'd had her period and was therefore considered a woman.

 

*Edit for my dippy spelling.

So was Christianity. 

 

The entire continents of America and Australasia say hi - you appear to be confusing medieval fuckwittery with religious fuckwittery.

 

Every single crime you have cited has been perpetrated by peoples of every creed/faith/culture/whatever because its not about religion. Its about social development and evolution. 

 

IS are not pissed off because they are muslims. IS are pissed off because the traditional mud hut power base is being eroded. Their kids have access to Western (not necessarily better) freer culture and they want a piece of it. The fundies don't want that because they lose control. If their kids are checking facebook wearing jeans and drinking coke they will start to question the relevance of the opinion of the bloke with the massive beard. They are the ultimate right wing reactionaries, they just happen to be brown and use religion as their excuse. 

[Eames]

Yeah but raping children and pillaging did not occur for the main in the 7th century when the Islamic/Arabic empire was growing as it was forbidden as per the rules of war that the Prophet (pbuh) set out.  IS are not behaving as the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did in the 7th century.  We are supposed to follow the ways of the Prophet (pbuh), i.e. the Sunnah.  They are not. 

I would imagine it did, but historical sources, particularly those written by the perpetrators/victors/those in power tend to be somewhat generous to same people. 

[snowychap]

...especially those non-Muslims who were persecuted thereafter under the new administration.

Was that persecution any greater than 'heretics' elsewhere?

[Ads]

 

There is some historical naivety going on there I am afraid Omariqy. Islam was spread via violent conquest and in warfare that has always meant that civilians have suffered, especially those non-Muslims who were persecuted thereafter under the new administration. The aftermath of sieges always saw a break down in discipline with spikes in looting and rapes.

 

You also have to appreciate that there was no real concept of childhood as we know it today. Mohammed himself supposdily bedded his 9 year old bride after marrying her 3 years previously, presumably because she'd had her period and was therefore considered a woman.

 

*Edit for my dippy spelling.

So was Christianity. 

 

The entire continents of America and Australasia say hi - you appear to be confusing medieval fuckwittery with religious fuckwittery.

 

Every single crime you have cited has been perpetrated by peoples of every creed/faith/culture/whatever because its not about religion. Its about social development and evolution. 

 

IS are not pissed off because they are muslims. IS are pissed off because the traditional mud hut power base is being eroded. Their kids have access to Western (not necessarily better) freer culture and they want a piece of it. The fundies don't want that because they lose control. If their kids are checking facebook wearing jeans and drinking coke they will start to question the relevance of the opinion of the bloke with the massive beard. They are the ultimate right wing reactionaries, they just happen to be brown and use religion as their excuse. 

 

 

I am not confusing anything. I am well aware that violent conquest isn't a narrow issue of Islam and haven't suggested otherwise, so I am not sure where you are coming from? I make the general point that civilians suffer in warfare; Corinth to Badajoz, separated by almost 2000 years and the results tend to be the same.

 

I was addressing the contradiction between the theological means of executing warfare and the actual historical reality. Its fairly apparent that isn’t an attack on Islam given I have generalised it to a level of “all warfare” executed, by anybody, so I am not sure why you have misrepresented what I have said.  

 

Snowy; that's monotheism for you. The Zoroastrians in Sassanid Persia would have had a rough time of it under Islamic rule, just as they would have under Eastern Empire. That can work in all three directions as well.

 

To go back to IS, you again cannot generalise as to the motivations of individuals. For the command, it’s certainly ideological and their 7^th century wet dream is currently in play with slave markets mixed with all the trappings of soft government.

 

But on the ground some of it is circumstance, but a lot of it comes down to money, as they pay their troops better than most.

 

It worked in Anbar with the Sahwa forces for example, paying off people who had spent several years fighting US forces who subsequently once in receipt of the dollar, turned on AQI. Ultimately it’s a matter of necessity. Groups in Syria on IS sh*tlist will gravitate towards the central government, whether they’re Alawite or not because they’re in the sights of IS, so their future existence become intertwined.

 

On the reverse of that, people want to get paid and people want to eat. To quote old Ned, winter is coming and most of the 1500 rebel groups are rag tag outfits barely capable of feeding themselves. The makeup of IS in Syria is distinctly Syrian, which suggests that as long as they don’t tick any of the reasons to be butchered by IS, they will gravitate to who can feed them and pay them, especially as JaN won't take any old Jihadi.

 

.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Ads

[donnie]

There is some historical naivety going on there I am afraid Omariqy. Islam was spread via violent conquest and in warfare that has always meant that civilians have suffered, especially those non-Muslims who were persecuted thereafter under the new administration. The aftermath of sieges always saw a break down in discipline with spikes in looting and rapes.

You also have to appreciate that there was no real concept of childhood as we know it today. Mohammed himself supposdily bedded his 9 year old bride after marrying her 3 years previously, presumably because she'd had her period and was therefore considered a woman.

*Edit for my dippy spelling.

So was Christianity.

The entire continents of America and Australasia say hi - you appear to be confusing medieval fuckwittery with religious fuckwittery.

Every single crime you have cited has been perpetrated by peoples of every creed/faith/culture/whatever because its not about religion. Its about social development and evolution.

IS are not pissed off because they are muslims. IS are pissed off because the traditional mud hut power base is being eroded. Their kids have access to Western (not necessarily better) freer culture and they want a piece of it. The fundies don't want that because they lose control. If their kids are checking facebook wearing jeans and drinking coke they will start to question the relevance of the opinion of the bloke with the massive beard. They are the ultimate right wing reactionaries, they just happen to be brown and use religion as their excuse.

Then why are Muslims killing none believers i.e Christians in places like Kenya if it is nothing to do with religion?? Why are IS killing non believers (not muslims) and even killing Muslims of a different sects if it's nothing to do with religion??

[donnie]

AWOL is my new favourite VT poster. Owning this thread.

[Xann]

AWOL is my new favourite VT poster. Owning this thread.

 

Bwahahahahahaha, perhaps if he shoots his detractors.

[Genie]

Should probably add the USA to the list in the title

 

 

(and remove 'Arab' of course).

Edited November 26, 2014 by Genie

[omariqy]

Christians are killing Muslims in CAR.  Police officers are shooting black people in the US.  Israelis are killing Palestinians.  The US are killing Pakistanis.  Syrians are killing Syrians. My point is there is a lot of killing going on and yes some may use justify it by using religion but it's more to do with their makeup as people rather than religion.  IMO.  I.e. You have 2 billions Muslims, 2 billion Christians all reading the same scriptures yet only 0.1% actually use it to commit horrific acts.

 

Also, Christians are technically believers according to Islam.  Likewise Jews.

[Awol]

AWOL is my new favourite VT poster. Owning this thread.

Bwahahahahahaha, perhaps if he shoots his detractors.

No 5467: Xann.

I'm going to need more ammo.

[TrentVilla]

Yes and no Omariqy.

 

Yes only a tiny percentage of followers of the various religions engage in these acts but I still think it is fair to say that for most that do their religion plays a significant part in their actions. In terms of the motivation, organisation, recruitment, funding and jusification (to others and themselves) for their actions.

Sure other things come into play and without question some of those involved are simply either paid guns or bad eggs that would find another vehicle for their actions and desires in the absence of religion.

But, religion (all not just the Muslim faith) remains a central element in the actions of many of the people involved with these sort of actions especially those at the head of the snake.

 

What is wrong is the assertion from some that its the Muslim faith, or Muslim's in general (or other ethnic or religious groups) that are the problem rather than the people who make up their number.

 

At the head of the IS organisation, there is clearly a desire to return to 7th century practices or at least what they believe them to have been but as you argue the reality may have been very different but was certainly more complex.

[omariqy]

I think all fair points.  I certainly don't disagree that Religion has some part to play in it all.   I still believe it's more to do with flaws or traits in individuals and how they perceive their particular religion. Further, politics, especially for Muslim countries has a lot to do with it. 

[snowychap]

Snowy; that's monotheism for you. The Zoroastrians in Sassanid Persia would have had a rough time of it under Islamic rule, just as they would have under Eastern Empire. That can work in all three directions as well.

In essence, that's a no then?

[Ads]

 

Snowy; that's monotheism for you. The Zoroastrians in Sassanid Persia would have had a rough time of it under Islamic rule, just as they would have under Eastern Empire. That can work in all three directions as well.

In essence, that's a no then?

 

 

If we're being precise, then it cannot be a no, as Zoroastrians cannot be persecuted for heresey following the Islamic conquest of Sassanid lands because its a seperate religion. Those Twelvers who make up the baulk of Iran now though on the other hand....  (But I know what you're getting at).

Edited November 26, 2014 by Ads

[Ads]

I think all fair points.  I certainly don't disagree that Religion has some part to play in it all.   I still believe it's more to do with flaws or traits in individuals and how they perceive their particular religion. Further, politics, especially for Muslim countries has a lot to do with it. 

 

 

Yes and no. Wahhabism placed the puritanical veil of legitimacy on marauding desert raiders of the House of Saud to go and pillage the next village along, only this time they were cutting your head off in the name of Islam, you decedent Ottoman, rather than removing you bonce out of pure economics.

 

That creed of Wahhabism, where the Saudi’s now see themselves as the defender of the one faith (and as a consequence the one king, one authority, the one mosque and so on) is very much the issue that is at the root for the problems in the ME, because it is reflected from the opposite side by Tehran. That sectarian schism between Sunnis and the Twelvers is by definition a religious issue, even if it is executed by men for varying motivations.

 

There are exacerbating factors though of course; the billions of hydrocarbons the Saudi’s sit on for one.

[TrentVilla]

Two British brothers have been jailed for travelling to fight in Syria, the first of many you'd expect.

[maqroll]

Two British brothers have been jailed for travelling to fight in Syria, the first of many you'd expect.

So when are the executions?

[Awol]

Two British brothers have been jailed for travelling to fight in Syria, the first of many you'd expect.

So when are the executions?

Too late for that, it's not America you know.