Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So what was the trigger event for radical islam?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    G David Bock I understand the problems you may have but in order for you to understand really those things you need to get in muslim shoes for a moment.
    Some stuff you mentioned have general context and some historical. For example ayat 9:29 when fight against Ghassanides was ordered. They were arabs who were in Bysantine empire.

    Now, i would say in last 70 years only , whole world took little bit pacifist approach, till 1960 it was pretty expansionist , lets be real.

    So maybe from your side, you see Islam as violent ( maybe you see only violent side) but for me , as a muslim, i see it perfectly logical. From earliest days, if that community didnt fight they would be eaten, from pagans, bysantines or persians. It was simple as that. Expand or die.
    I cant really find you refference now because im working, but in hadith collection you can find reasons and preparation for expedition Tabuk.
    Literally , they knocked at others doors calling to arms and person that was in house thought bysantines came at the door.

    See what happened to islamic world when they were not strong enough and protective. They were colonised and plundered.

    And at least those who give 650 billion $ in a year for a military should understand it. I just cant find that some islamic land killed its own people to invoke a war with someone.

    ---------------------

    ideological difference

    Yes, there is some violence in Islam, its not pacifist religion like Jehovahs preaching but its not opposite too. And from the philosophical side it doesnt make him truth or false.

    Islam claim for itself that its truth, challanges everyone to think and reason, to find a problem or contradiction in Quran.

    So if a prophet "fights" till his death, he doesnt fight against people, against nation, but for people.
    I ll give you super example:

    In 1920s you had prohibition period. Alcohol was fully forbidden in few states becauese many problems came. Women lobbied for such law because men were too violent inside and outside house, corruption and disaster was in society.

    See:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proh..._United_States

    Muhammad fought till alcohol was fully rejected in society. Sometimes with his words but sometimes he couldnt without violence. He won, at the end he will be victorious.
    If someone allows alcohol, prophet see it as a corruption and would fight.


    even Medias and propaganda machinery fight, its just not armed conflict. Violence is just part of conflict.

    His "war" is for order in this life and for human souls, not against mankind. I challenge everyone to show if Muhammad was against humans or some people.
    He wasnt interested in someones gold or land. That man died with scars on his back, having no proper bed, but was "president" of his people.

    فَبِمَا رَحۡمَةٖ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ لِنتَ لَهُمۡۖ وَلَوۡ كُنتَ فَظًّا غَلِيظَ ٱلۡقَلۡبِ لَٱنفَضُّواْ مِنۡ حَوۡلِكَۖ فَٱعۡفُ عَنۡهُمۡ وَٱسۡتَغۡفِرۡ لَهُمۡ وَشَاوِرۡهُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَمۡرِۖ فَإِذَا عَزَمۡتَ فَتَوَكَّلۡ عَلَى ٱللَّهِۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُتَوَكِّلِينَ


    So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah . Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him].

    -Sure Āl ʿImrān, Vers 159

    this is why he won at the end

    On the other side, i ll use neo liberalism as an example. Liberalism never claimed that its was only and pure truth, and never claimed that there isnt a room for some improvements. Never claim that some religion is false or true and accept pretty everything.
    ----------------------


    Two very important points


    transgression is forbidden:

    وَقَٰتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقَٰتِلُونَكُمۡ وَلَا تَعۡتَدُوٓاْۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُعۡتَدِينَ


    Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
    //////

    .And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors.

    -Sure Al-Baqarah, Vers 190


    We shouldnt be aggressors ! If someone threaten us, we can act pre emptive if threaten.


    إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَىٰ قَوۡمِۭ بَيۡنَكُمۡ وَبَيۡنَهُم مِّيثَٰقٌ أَوۡ جَآءُوكُمۡ حَصِرَتۡ صُدُورُهُمۡ أَن يُقَٰتِلُوكُمۡ أَوۡ يُقَٰتِلُواْ قَوۡمَهُمۡۚ وَلَوۡ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمۡ عَلَيۡكُمۡ فَلَقَٰتَلُوكُمۡۚ فَإِنِ ٱعۡتَزَلُوكُمۡ فَلَمۡ يُقَٰتِلُوكُمۡ وَأَلۡقَوۡاْ إِلَيۡكُمُ ٱلسَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمۡ عَلَيۡهِمۡ سَبِيلٗا


    Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

    -Sure An-Nisāʾ, Vers 90


    peace treaty must be respected:

    (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. - 9:4


    There is many more references, my time is limited to find more.

    Today we have UN conventions and peace treaties and they should be respected.



    "Jihad" today is too corrupt and too much involved in worldly power and interest and thats why there isnt any progress in it. Just chaos made by insane people
    Last edited by Daud; 22 Feb 19, 00:43.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Daud View Post
      Nope. Just seen some funny text on net about hemorrhoid threatment with potatos , so i guess those people sticking pommes frites in anus in order to heal themselves.

      i just said its better to have drugs instead.
      I see, learn something new every day I guess
      High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
      Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Daud View Post


        Nope. Just seen some funny text on net about hemorrhoid threatment with potatos , so i guess those people sticking pommes frites in anus in order to heal themselves.

        i just said its better to have drugs instead.
        Bits of RAW potato have been used in folk remedies for centuries. They are supposed to draw the evil humours out or some such twaddle. There may be a placebo effect.
        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Daud View Post
          -----------------


          Capitalism and free market was in middle east long before it was implemented in wewtern world, and its really easy to give some references.

          Ive found some adjustments to it in Islam, something like counter-inflation i would say. Upper class people would give (special-tax) 2.5% of money they stored ( not invested) for a longer time and give it to lowest class in order to improve their buying power and boost economy. And of course, interest rates would be eradicated and all bigger capital entities would have risk for every investment just like everyone does. They would not be able to earn money risk-free like eith usury.

          ---------------------
          Capitalism is simply the freedom to exchange goods in a marketplace at a mutually agreeable rate, when you get down to basics.
          What is strangling the world today is a corrupt bureaucracy that has a compulsion to control everything.

          Without risk, there can be no progress. But as far as usury goes, there is only one sort of lender that can survive lending money without taking some form of fees; the Government.
          I know it is weird of me to say so, but perhaps there is one industry that should be nationalized; the Banks.

          The Govt has the courts, the police, all tax records, so for them the risk is minimal. And it would be preforming an essential service. Sure, it might be concentrating too much power in the hands of the rulers, but considering all the abuses that Bankers have always been famous for, this could be the key to something that really works.

          Maybe this is what Khaddafi was thinking about.
          Maybe that's why they butchered him.

          it would be a dangerous experiment, but so was Democracy.
          VERY dangerous.... as they say "Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a Bank, and he can rob the world."

          But, if you want interest-free loans, I don't see any other way.
          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post

            Capitalism is simply the freedom to exchange goods in a marketplace at a mutually agreeable rate, when you get down to basics.
            .
            No it isn't it's not that simple. What you describe is simple market economics such as existed in pre industrial societies like stone age New Guinea and still exists everywhere. . Capitalism is all about ownership and it's complex and difficult to get ones mind around. It's complex and takes many forms and some, like state capitalism, are even practised by 'socialist' and communist regimes.
            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by MarkV View Post
              ....
              It's complex and takes many forms and some, like state capitalism, are even practised by 'socialist' and communist regimes.
              Only if you want to make it that way in order to confuse the issue.... a European specialty these days.

              What is so hard about respecting other people's property rights?
              Why support a system of Government that views the people under it's power as a source of wealth that has to be exploited?
              What does this have to do with the thread?

              I was just finishing my reply to specific questions from one poster here. An A-B conversation, in other words, why must you butt in like that?
              "Why is the Rum gone?"

              -Captain Jack

              Comment


              • #97
                . From earliest days, if that community didnt fight they would be eaten, from pagans, bysantines or persians. It was simple as that. Expand or die.
                I cant really find you refference now because im working, but in hadith collection you can find reasons and preparation for expedition Tabuk.
                you are oversimplyfying this and mixing historical evidence with pious anecdotes

                Literally , they knocked at others doors calling to arms and person that was in house thought bysantines came at the door.

                See what happened to islamic world when they were not strong enough and protective. They were colonised and plundered.
                arabs storming into persia syria levant egypt was not defensive by any means , maybe you can justify the campaigns against the meccan pagans as defensive but nothing beyond that

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by nastle View Post

                  you are oversimplyfying this and mixing historical evidence with pious anecdotes


                  arabs storming into persia syria levant egypt was not defensive by any means , maybe you can justify the campaigns against the meccan pagans as defensive but nothing beyond that

                  ->

                  These preemptive attack resulted in the creation of a buffer zone or no man's land in south-eastern Anatolia and Armenia, which would eventually evolve into the al-'Awasim. It was exactly what Umar wanted,[3] as he is quoted saying
                  I wish there was a wall of fire between us and the Romans, so that nor we can cross into their land neither they could in ours "

                  "I wish"

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Daud View Post


                    ->

                    These preemptive attack resulted in the creation of a buffer zone or no man's land in south-eastern Anatolia and Armenia, which would eventually evolve into the al-'Awasim. It was exactly what Umar wanted,[3] as he is quoted saying
                    I wish there was a wall of fire between us and the Romans, so that nor we can cross into their land neither they could in ours "

                    "I wish"
                    Armenia and anatolia are far beyond the traditional heartlands of arabs , by similar logic russia expanded in the 19th century to the Pamirs , caucasus and mongolia so they can create a buffer zone between them and their traditional enemies.Guess they were being defensive too ?
                    Plus look at the geography of this land the Mountains of armenia and Taurus of anatolia are an impassible barrier for armies of those age
                    And if that was the case why was egypt attacked ? and why was ahnaf ibn qays sent all the way into khorasan ? You need to look at the bigger picture
                    try al bidaya or kamil fi tarikh for more details

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by nastle View Post

                      Armenia and anatolia are far beyond the traditional heartlands of arabs , by similar logic russia expanded in the 19th century to the Pamirs , caucasus and mongolia so they can create a buffer zone between them and their traditional enemies.Guess they were being defensive too ?
                      Plus look at the geography of this land the Mountains of armenia and Taurus of anatolia are an impassible barrier for armies of those age
                      And if that was the case why was egypt attacked ? and why was ahnaf ibn qays sent all the way into khorasan ? You need to look at the bigger picture
                      try al bidaya or kamil fi tarikh for more details
                      Liberation of people of course, spreading the truth to all and to have upper hand. If there was an obstacle, they would fight.

                      I see that you pushing me to analyse that events in the spirit of international law we have today.

                      its 7th century dont forget - everyone expand or dies

                      Nope. We are very proud of companions of the prophet, they were very successful #alhamdulillah.

                      It wasnt spreading democracy for oil and lithium like today some empires do.

                      I know that you have some viking plundering islands scenario in head or history of north america but i would be first to leave Islam is that eas thr case. They build on all places and didnt use power more then needed. Everyone remained, from yazidis in iraq to christians in egypt and Palestine






                      If a poor uneducated man without shoes who lived in the outskirts of civilisation, like Saad ibn Waqqas , in few years after accepting Islam -enters Ctesiphon, persian capital, as a conqueror, enters the palace of Yazdegerd and king , it is mind boggling thing.

                      you see some things or you dont

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        For more recent agitation how about the failure of the Americans to support the British and French at Suez. Up until then Britain and France had kept a lid on things but the US supported Nasser and Britain and France withdrew things gradually feel apart.
                        I disagree.
                        "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                        validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                        "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X