Iraqi Shias protest against US troops

samcdkey said:
Hmm I disagree. Would I fight a group that killed female children? That treated women badly? That discriminated based on ethnicity or color? That kills people for petrodollars? What do you think?:bugeye:
Click to expand...

Well, which nation are we talking about? Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia?

On a serious note, I'm well aware that ridiculous old rub about the evil, evil Quraysh killing female children, but have never seen anything to prove it. It strikes me more as bigoted hogwash, spread by a bigoted philosophy. Or do the victors now not write the history, Sam? :)
 
samcdkey said:
Perhaps GeoffP, knowing so much more is better equipped to explain. Why don;t you two get together and enjoy your theories? Since they fit your notions so much better than the facts, you'll find them much more convincing.
Click to expand...

Well, leaving aside the old "argument from authority" thing which you seem to be favouring, you suddenly seem to have a vitriolic refutation of sourced articles. Mohammed is reputed to have said, I believe, "Bring your proofs if ye be truthful".

It is of very little import that Mohammed was originally of a subtribe of the Bani Quraysh - he had them all butchered, and so it matters not at all his particular affiliation. Which is to say: he was separate. Whether or not he liked it, he was separate from these people. Your argument is tantamount to opining that murder is acceptable, so long as it's domestic; which, ironically, is a problem of very old repute in dar-al-islam. Moreover, I note from your link:

The Banu Hashim accompanied the Meccan army when they moved to intercept the Muslim army, but they left the Meccan army and returned to Mecca before the Battle of Badr started.
Click to expand...

So the Bani Quaraysh turned back before the battle started. They decided against fighting. What, then, was Mohammed's beef with them? Why is it that the Christian faith - with its own problems - were able to get by on a pacifist platform during their early years? Did God or Allah or what have you suddenly get weaker between 33 AD and 640 AD?
 
GeoffP said:
Well, which nation are we talking about? Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia?

On a serious note, I'm well aware that ridiculous old rub about the evil, evil Quraysh killing female children, but have never seen anything to prove it. It strikes me more as bigoted hogwash, spread by a bigoted philosophy. Or do the victors now not write the history, Sam? :)
Click to expand...

Is it?
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/shdaut.htm
It was this very same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame that led the pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Quran severely condemned this heinous practice: "When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! what an evil they decide on?" (Quran 16:59).

It has to be mentioned that this sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice (Quran 16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9). The Quran, moreover, makes no distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, the same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the female birth first: " To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (Quran 42:49).
Click to expand...
 
GeoffP said:
Well, leaving aside the old "argument from authority" thing which you seem to be favouring, you suddenly seem to have a vitriolic refutation of sourced articles. Mohammed is reputed to have said, I believe, "Bring your proofs if ye be truthful".

It is of very little import that Mohammed was originally of a subtribe of the Bani Quraysh - he had them all butchered, and so it matters not at all his particular affiliation. Which is to say: he was separate. Whether or not he liked it, he was separate from these people. Your argument is tantamount to opining that murder is acceptable, so long as it's domestic; which, ironically, is a problem of very old repute in dar-al-islam. Moreover, I note from your link:



So the Bani Quaraysh turned back before the battle started. They decided against fighting. What, then, was Mohammed's beef with them? Why is it that the Christian faith - with its own problems - were able to get by on a pacifist platform during their early years? Did God or Allah or what have you suddenly get weaker between 33 AD and 640 AD?
Click to expand...

Since there is no recorded history of the Quraysh for a 100 years after Mohammed's death by which time they were all Muslims, I would be interested in knowing your sources. Or are you quoting the victors too?:rolleyes:
 
samcdkey said:
Is it?
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/shdaut.htm

In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, the same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the female birth first: " To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (Quran 42:49).
Click to expand...

Hehe. That must be why they require beating then. :rolleyes: Why does the mention of the female first translate into anything of a blessing? If you're going to post propaganda, you should precede with the acronym "POV".
 
samcdkey said:
Since there is no recorded history of the Quraysh for a 100 years after Mohammed's death by which time they were all Muslims, I would be interested in knowing your sources. Or are you quoting the victors too?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Like I said, Sam: the victors write the history.

Can't really blame me that they were too dumb to cover it up.
 
GeoffP said:
Like I said, Sam: the victors write the history.

Can't really blame me that they were too dumb to cover it up.
Click to expand...

Then the Arab Shias will be suprised to hear of it ( that the Quraish were wiped out), considering they trace their lineage to the Prophet and his tribe (not clan).
 
Did Mohammad wage war?
How many times?
With who?
Why?

Is it right to kill people for not thinking as you think or is it wrong to kill people?

Sam seems to think it is OK to kill people. I suppose you kill enough people and yeah, you'll remove the action with the people. Of course it seems rather like the comment I read on another thread "Why don't we just kill all the Iraqis?" Really, it'll solve the problem, but is rather sick minded.


Is anyone in favor of killing Chinese because some Chinese practice female infanticide or should we try to educate them on why this is wrong? Which is the better approach?


Michael


Anyway, so did Mohammed kill some people
 
Michael said:
Did Mohammad wage war?
How many times?
With who?
Why?

Is it right to kill people for not thinking as you think or is it wrong to kill people?

Sam seems to think it is OK to kill people. I suppose you kill enough people and yeah, you'll remove the action with the people. Of course it seems rather like the comment I read on another thread "Why don't we just kill all the Iraqis?" Really, it'll solve the problem, but is rather sick minded.


Is anyone in favor of killing Chinese because some Chinese practice female infanticide or should we try to educate them on why this is wrong? Which is the better approach?


Michael


Anyway, so did Mohammed kill some people
Click to expand...

I think killing is justified for self defense and in a case of life and death. If my family was in danger, I would not hesitate or mull over moral choices.

Its very easy to ponder over hypotheticals in an armchair. I would dearly love to see Bush or Cheney at the forefront of the battle in Iraq.

And no, there is no evidence that he killed anyone.
 
To recap,
the debate as it stands is whether Mohammad waged war against other Arabs not of his tribe?
I was under the impression yes. If so then why? In another thread Sam said the reason was because the other people were "idolaters". Well, then, if this is the case is there a difference, at the most basic level, in Mohammad leading armies to kill people and change their system and GW Bush leading (from behind - way behind) armies and killing people to change their system?

Seems the same to me? Then again, maybe my head is up my arse?

To answer this would thus solve the riddle of the thread: Should the USA heed the Shias protest against US troops and get out or stay and keep killing until the Iraqis are either all gone or the ones alive change to do things the American way?
 
samcdkey said:
I think killing is justified for self defence and in a case of life and death. If my family was in danger, I would not hesitate or mull over moral choices.
Click to expand...
Yes, if someone breaks into your house and attacks you and you family.

Was all of Arabia a threat against Mohammad? Every tribe had to be wiped out or succumb to the new rulers for Mohammad to be safe? All of them? Don't you see how Americans in power are using this very same argument to attack and kill other people? It's the oldest trick in the book...
 
The Shias are the majority in Iraq, they believe in nepotism and divine rule of imams. Welcome to the Islamic revolution of Iraq.
 
Michael said:
Yes, if someone breaks into your house and attacks you and you family.

Was all of Arabia a threat against Mohammad? Every tribe had to be wiped out or succumb to the new rulers for Mohammad to be safe? All of them? Don't you see how Americans in power are using this very same argument to attack and kill other people? It's the oldest trick in the book...
Click to expand...

And you know this did not happen? Remember Mohammed's followers had to leave Mecca because they were persecuted. He chose to come back because he could not give up on his people. Should he have looked the other way because he could make a better life for himself elsewhere? He was married to a rich woman at 25 whom he loved, he was a well known and respected merchant there was no reason for him to live as a guerilla fighting for the rights of others.
 
Michael said:
I'm just curious:
Did Mohammad wage war?
How many times?
With who?
Why?
Click to expand...

He initially fought with the Qureish, his tribe, because they were against the practices that he advocated, regarding merit based or talent based election of men to posts, education of women, stopping female infanticide, usury, state sanctioned murder and poor social justice with ill treatment of the unfortunate segments of society. The first people who joined him were his friends and slaves, women, including his wife (they also fought alongside him, something unheard of in Arabia at the time). Once he managed to win Mecca, he was obviously interested in reducing the same ills in other nomadic tribes and clans all around Arabia. You should know that most Arabs are clannish and raids at the time did not necessarily involve killing since that constitutes a blood feud, paid for in blood.

Certainly, much of the history is written by victors, but there are also records by Jewish philosophers of the time written in Arabic in Hebrew letters, through which much of the story has been obtained. Of course, Arabs at the time of Mohammed were mostly illiterate and much of the history is through oral tradition so its only when there is more than one source can the story be given any credibility. There are a lot of histories by Western scholars who have done the research, or used research done before them.
 
samcdkey said:
Then the Arab Shias will be suprised to hear of it ( that the Quraish were wiped out), considering they trace their lineage to the Prophet and his tribe (not clan).
Click to expand...

And how is their uncited delusion proof of anything? You might as well tell me they trace their lineage back to Adam; it matters little in the historical sense. Moreover, if Mohammed and his group killed all the men of the Bani Quraysh, and then assumed their places - so to speak - then the Quraysh would still "continue", of course.

Mohammed played the same game as the US is apparently doing now. No difference, really. Why did he need to conquer Mecca in the first place?
 
samcdkey said:
The Shias are the majority in Iraq, they believe in nepotism and divine rule of imams. Welcome to the Islamic revolution of Iraq.
Click to expand...
And that's their choice. Who am I to tell them to think otherwise? Lead by good example.

I'm sure it seems a romantic notion and surely many loved Julius Caesar protector of the less fortunate and protector of Roma. Of course the near annihilation of the Gauls was the price that was paid. Cutting off both hands of thousands of men and sending them to beg, even to be fed, in the sounding towns seemed a reasonable price to pay for security. And you know, in the end Julius was worshiped as a God. His presence is even felt in the Qur'an - although you'd hardly know it.

Just something to think about anyway,

I'm sure you DO NOT not think it a good thing to begin the massacre of Chinese? So what is the solution to their female infanticide? What if Japan had won the war and used THAT as their pretense for the war in the first place? They are "Asians" after all. Would you accept it?


Michael
 
samcdkey said:
I think killing is justified for self defense and in a case of life and death. If my family was in danger, I would not hesitate or mull over moral choices.

Its very easy to ponder over hypotheticals in an armchair. I would dearly love to see Bush or Cheney at the forefront of the battle in Iraq.

And no, there is no evidence that he killed anyone.
Click to expand...

This doesn't explain why he had to conquer the Bani Quraysh at all. Conquest, I'm told, does not correspond to self defense. :D
 
GeoffP said:
And how is their uncited delusion proof of anything? You might as well tell me they trace their lineage back to Adam; it matters little in the historical sense. Moreover, if Mohammed and his group killed all the men of the Bani Quraysh, and then assumed their places - so to speak - then the Quraysh would still "continue", of course.

Mohammed played the same game as the US is apparently doing now. No difference, really. Why did he need to conquer Mecca in the first place?
Click to expand...

Since the Quraish were most of the people of Mecca numbering in thousands and Mohammed and his men were perhaps 300, that would have been logistically impossible. Maybe he had Saddam's WMDs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top