Let's say Mohammed or Muhmad, was a mere encyclopaedist. Then the Quran might be a catalogue of religious rules, say with a broad enough content that any different local peoples will find something they can relate to, but with a coherent enough central theme that it means everyone "follows" it, nonetheless? In fact, Islam is a philosophy, a Muslim is someone who attempts to follow it, by interpreting what it says to them, I suppose individually and collectively. The only individual religion is one of individuals, who practise in common. Persian influence is obvious, it had to allow for this and the need to have rules of engagement for the presumed wars up ahead. It's a lot like the Torah in places, in that regard. It's also multi-threaded because it weaves a lot of social themes together, it mentions the need to investigate God's nature, for instance, and these guys were the first to do some real astronomy, instead of just catalogue the stars.
Me personally? Gee, I thought I had. But dealing with people, I swear, is murder. Sometimes I want to wipe them all out again, rainbow be damned. Reconquer? They immigrated to a place that in all rights ought to have welcomed them, and actually did, until the religious sector got on the job. Good call, Husseinis. Then they were under constant attack and made the strategic mistake of fighting back.
If its the same god for all the Abrahamic religions then why did just the Muslims get a personal divine copy of the rules of war? Personally I think having the rules of war in a peace loving religion's bible exemplifies the absolute absurdity of religious belief. It's the ultimate hypocrisy. To think that the waging war is an example of peace is like saying good is evil. IMHO the whole religion falls apart with these rules of war. It is so obvious a blind man could see it, these rules were not written by a god.
Well, that's great, but I prefer the idea of an external, peaceful philosophy that everyone should be following whether they like it or bloody not. Obviously it hasn't always been, but at the very least it might excite more guilt than one laying out a set of rules for war flexible enough to allow one to do pretty much as they like, so long as it benefits the religion.
"Then they were under constant attack and made the strategic mistake of fighting back. " That's an old line, pal.
So is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Some people don't listen to that one either.
So you want "them" to destroy your industry and military, your universities and schools and so on, plus a few thou houses along with?
I wonder how many Muslims live in the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc... and how many of them find any irony in their ire against Jews in Israel. I wonder if a Native American or Aboriginal Australian or Maori dropped a bomb on a Muslim family for living on stolen land - what would they think? What if the Maori said, see here, its all written down in my religious book - detailed on how I can murder you as dictated by my God. Then what? Would the Muslim family realize then how having rules of war in ones religious book is asinine? No, they would not. They go get their religious book and start dropping bombs. And THAT my friends is the ME. God sanctioned war - could one be any more unenlightened? M
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that in practice. Who are "they"? What is it "they" want, really? Have I been fair in my dealings with "them" in the past? In the present? Am I likely to be in the future? What are my stated goals? And so forth. In all honesty, war really only requires one combative "side". The other just becomes the victim.
--http://www.holy-war.net/index it's all a game, with rules we made up some time ago. Is there really something evil about a book that tries to 'rationalise' this handed-down wisdom, God or no? That of course reflects the thinking of the time and place. Unfortunately, claiming it's the only book in the world, is getting a bit fervent. It doesn't claim to be that, but it does claim to be a complete book. What that might be, I think is open to debate.
I would say that, from the perspective of my own cultural position, that it isn't a good idea, this book, if that's what it says, and I think it does. Humans are - optimally - meant to be co-operating. Laying out rules for war doesn't help that.
It would appear Allah is powerless to do anything, other than teach his followers military strategic thought.
It's a good idea to lay out the rules for war, in any practical guide for human conduct. It's not a good idea to assume anyone who claims to be following those rules will be acting accordingly, whenever you meet them. The US, for example, is actually signatory to the Geneva Conventions regarding the conduct of war - not just claiming, but formally committed, with explicit procedures and penalties. And we know how that's been going recently. Nothing unique about the Quran, in being cheated by its followers.
I should reiterate here that it doesn't need to say that, or that it is the only way it can be interpreted, rather. But the problem is that people - being people - will interpret it that way. There may be hope yet.
the word thaqif mean : Thaqif = Find out = Come to know. Hence, fight them regardless of your knowledge of their sociogeographic origins. Haith = Wherever = Whenever. real xplaination of the verse,wich cant be translated word by word. Subdue them regardless of their tribal affiliations, and drive them out of where they drove you out. For persecution, (terror, torture, oppression) is a crime even more grievous than killing. Do not fight against them near the Masjid of Security (a haven of amnesty) unless they attack you therein. But if they attack you there, then you shall fight against them. Such has to be the rebuttal of those who reject (the Standard of Peace). in other words When circumstances are such that you are forced to fight then confront your enemies wherever you find them, and expel them from the places from which they expelled you. You should do this because tyranny and mischief cause more damage to humanity than war. However, bear in mind that We have declared the K’aba to be a sanctuary (2/125). Therefore, do not fight in its vicinity, but if the enemy does not desist from fighting even in that area then fight back because those who do not honour accepted rules and regulations, must be resisted.
Who decides the "Standard" of peace? Allah? Why would a god give such rules to all mankind unless that god already knows people will cause tyranny and mischief? If Allah created everything and is all powerful, he can change things to be whatever he wants and do away with such ridiculous rules. Clearly, it was Muhammad who decided to put those rules in the Quran, not Allah.
peace is peace,when NOBODY attack you because you are muslim... its quite easy to understand. "But if they attack you there, then you shall fight against them. Such has to be the rebuttal of those who reject (the Standard of Peace). it mean BEFORE they attack you,there was peace. so you can fight them when they attack you and reject the standard of peace,wich as you can see,when they dont ATTACK you. God knew people can cause trouble,that is shown clearly in the qoran where the malaik iblees pointed at it. But God gave the human being a mind,free will,and its control/check to the human being. guidiance is for those who want to learn how to use your mind and how to develope your mind .your only responsible for your own action and intention. "Life is Life,its under my control ,and its not stronger than my "self",my life respect my "self" coz self is under construction & reachin new heights" "Whoever accepts guidance, it is only for his own self, and whoever goes astray, does so to his own loss. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another." (17:15) "Whoever commits wrong, commits it only against himself." (4:111) "Every soul draws the consequences of its acts on none but itself. No bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another." (6:164) "Then guard yourselves against a day when no self shall avail another, nor shall intercession be accepted for it, nor shall compensation be taken for it, nor shall anyone be helped." (2:48) im not goin to discuss who wrote the quran or who put those rules in the quran,because i assume you are presenting your opinion wich is based on guessin,rather than a study on the qoran and creation. Life is like unto a shell and the self is the pearl drop (concretion) therein ; What is the shell worth if it cannot transform the pearl drop into a pearl?
Unfortunately, even the standard presented above promotes a slippery slope of violence. Who decides what the "oppression" is? The "oppression" of mutual conflict? The "oppression" of islamic missionary work in non-muslim countries? Is the missionary work of non-muslims in dar-al-islam then permissable under threat of war? It would be easy to use the above to construct an absolutist, intolerant stance towards other religions, and this has been done.
it have never been a war without violence.even before the quran came.none ever solved a conflict like that over a cup of tea. other religions can practice their religion ,it have never been said they must be forced to embrace islam. "Whoever accepts guidance, it is only for his own self, and whoever goes astray, does so to his own loss. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another." (17:15) "Whoever commits wrong, commits it only against himself." (4:111) "Every soul draws the consequences of its acts on none but itself. No bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another." (6:164) "Then guard yourselves against a day when no self shall avail another, nor shall intercession be accepted for it, nor shall compensation be taken for it, nor shall anyone be helped." (2:48)
It's interesting how every single Muslim states the same thing when they point out the barbaric and intolerant actions of Muslims. It's as if they'll do whatever the fuck they want and no one can question their motives, especially if they decide to use the Quran as their justification.
