Commentary Battles
This is the latest of the comment battle I have been having with Talha, a Mohammedan person who has taken exception to my penchant to reveal the politically incorrect truth about Mohammedanism. The original post was The West Needs to Understand Islamist Paradigm of War.
Talha said:
if u have problem with the very point of people engaging in fighting at all, then WWII, japan, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan and iraq again, r gross violations of christianity. then u'll have to abolish the death penalty. then, saddam hussein should have lived, along with the entire hamas leadership. hitler should have lived, too.
Christians have developed a concept of what is a Just War. The theme is self-defense. Contrarily Mohammedans war to convert people to their cult, enslaved to an inferior social and civil right position or death. The death penalty is a point of argument between Christians in America for the very reasons you imply. In Europe, most nations have abolished the death penalty as punishment for heinous murderous crimes.
Yet in Middle Eastern nations and in Western Nations (if a Mohammedan can get away with it) War is still practiced according to the Mohammedan holy writings, also to mention frivolous death penalty executions for honor (whatever a Mohammedan perceives that to be) being violated, adultery, homosexuality and such are death penalty crimes. Most mysteriously to the Westerner who believes in Free Speech and Liberty, Mohammedans will execute individuals who might insult their psycho-prophet Mohammed or insult Islam in general.
To Bible believing Christians (there are actually Christians on the Left that cherry pick Biblical Scripture and morality), practices such as homosexuality and adultery are sins accepted in secularized society. Bible believing Christians believes these sins are something to be repented of or the lifestyle will face judgment in the next life.
Talha said:
but us see, sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to keep / restore peace. islam does not deal in doctrines that r unviable. u cant always turn the other cheek.
so having established the necessity for war, islam seeks to rein it in with proper standing procedures that ensure that cruelty and vengeful measures dont become the norm in war.
So you are saying Mohammedanism has something comparable to a Just War concept. That is good.
On the other hand the Islamist who says they follow the letter of the Mohammedan holy writings is NOT utilizing procedures to prevent cruelty and vengeful acts. Now days Islamists even attack their co-religionists if they fail their interpretation of Mohammedan holy writings.
Talha said:
in simplest terms, as soon as war is necessitated for a christian nation, religions has to be chucked out the window, cuz ur religion doesnt tell u wat to do in such a situation. islam, on the other hand, gives u procedures regarding war and ensures that excesses r not committed even in war.
Again Christians have the Just War concept and again Mohammedan war is brutal and savage even today in the modern world.
Talha said:
as per ur allegation of rape being allowed in islam, let me categorically state that rape is not allowed in Islam, in any circumstance. whether women be in a veil or they walk around threadbare, u cant rape them according to any islamic injunction.
back in the 600s, when women werent considered full citizens in any nation of the world (the US only gave them voting rights in the 1920s).
does rape occur in muslim nations, yes.
is there any country in the world which is completely free of rape? no.
does rape occur in america? yes.
does christianity allow rape? no.
so u see violations occur all around, which is not to say this is right. it is very, very wrong!!! but u also need to see, it is a violation, both of christianity and of islam.
In FACT the rape of fakir women is a part of the practice of humiliating fakir men. (The Fakir is the infidel or unbeliever in Mohammedanism.)
In Western Europe rape is an occurrence perpetrated on fakir women by Mohammedan males are on a scale way beyond the statistics of the rape of women by European males on European women or Mohammedan women. The statistics are so high that (at least at one time) Sweden and Norway refused to publish the statistics of Mohammedans raping European women.
The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” [Emphasis Mine]
Anti-Jihad scholar Robert Spencer adds: “So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).” [Emphasis Mine]
More from Robert Spencer about words from the lips of Mohammed to the ears of fanatical Islamic soldiers: “After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.
Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.” [Emphasis Mine]
Now to some of us who are not up on their Latin, coitus interruptus is defined as: “Coitus interruptus is a Latin term meaning interrupted intercourse. It is the clinical term for the withdrawal method of contraception, which is when a male withdraws his penis from his female partner prior to ejaculating.” [Emphasis Mine]
Talha I have to highly disagree with you that rape is not part of the cultural practice of Mohammedans toward women who are not Mohammedans.
[Source on Mohammedan rape: Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?]
Comments
but lets get to the arguing:
nice to see the catholic concept of just war. although, how they reconcile "en eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek", i fail to understand. but no matter, lets analyze the just war concept; here r the stipulations for just war.
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; wat lasting, grave and certain damage did iraq inflict on america?
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;the UN was not exhausted in the iraq war.
there must be serious prospects of success; and my personal favorite: serious prospects of success. who in the world goes to war if there r no "serious" prospects of winning? so r all wars allowed?
btw, the very "serious" prospects of success in iraq, seem to have been substituted by the very "distant" prospects of success. is the war a non-Just war now that there r no longer serious prospects of war?
(funnily enough, when u read the fine print from ur source, this whole concept is discarded altogether with the very clearcut and eloquent directive "all that is required is a substantial possibility of success")
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.hmm... another good one. was the iraqi economy in such shambles before america took over. was there ever rampant looting in the streets of baghdad before the US invasion, or terrorist bombings, or political instability?
general snaps from the page:
1. "Unlike many countries, America has a strong commitment to this principle. The U.S. is famous for its humane treatment of non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war. Indeed, America is renowned for turning former wartime enemies -- such as Germany, Japan, and Italy -- into friends."
Wonderful! now lets look at the naked, sexually harrassed POWs from Abu Gharaib, the water-boarded POWs from Gitmo and the countless others who r in captivity without trial in admitted CIA "black cells" around the globe.
( " US President George W Bush did acknowledge the existence of black sites in 2006." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7292974.stm)
( "ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou...acknowledged that water-boarding, used in that case, does amount to torture."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7138144.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6093298.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7144075.stm)
2. "Governments are privy to information gathered by intelligence services and other means that the general public does not possess. Because the public is not in possession of this information, the public is not in as advantaged a position to determine whether the conditions are met. As a result, the public must in significant measure be prepared to trust its leaders to make the right decision."
so much for democracy. lets just trust the govt to do the "right thing" whether it be leading us into war or hell.
3. "...the law of double-effect. According to this law it is permissible to undertake an action which has two effects, one good and one evil, provided that certain conditions are met."
so, if v percieve good to come out of public beheading of warmongerers, it is ok? hey, i am not for the violence, apparently the Catholic church is.
4. "...the cases of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. In these situations though the act (dropping bombs) was not intrinsically evil"
WOW! the act of dropping bombs is not evil. wow!
funny, also, how the death penalty (which equals the death of one human) is an issue for christians, even when it comes to convicted criminals; but the act of war (which equals the death of hundreds) is not an issue and might actually be just.
i said: rape is not allowed in Islamic scripture.
u reply: but it is happening in scandinavia
check out rape statistics in america:
" Rape is a serious problem in the United States today. The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan."
(http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php)
(http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm)
(http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault)
(http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims)
All women: 17.6%White women: 17.7%Black women: 18.8%Asian Pacific Islander women: 6.8%American Indian/Alaskan women: 34.1% <----
Mixed race women: 24.4% <----
Notice the high rate for ppl of color
(http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims)
i say: if its abt mudslinging regarding wat happens in real life, then both of us have enough evil in our communities to fill blogs with. here's a taster:
"Why are the 'Bible Belt' regions of the US so much higher in murder, poverty, unmarried mothers and welfare?"http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061024203457AAz4pxe
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/adaptation/222/4.html
as for the sex with the slaves, u should notice that no where is it permitted to rape or have forced sex with one's slave girl. slavery was very common in arabia in the 600s (in fact, it was common in the US in the 1800s.) so, this ruling of allowing a person to have sex with a slave is basically allowing one to have sexual relations with a slave, with the basic principle of rape not coming into play at all. in those times, if one had a slave girl willing to engage in physical intimacy with her master, they were allowed to do so. however, before u start quoting me, understand the concept of a slave in those times:
a highly regarded act of piety amongst muslims was to free slaves. so, islam in spirit, is for the emancipation of slaves.
one was supposed to cloth ones slave, as one clothed one's self. feed her/him as she/he fed himself, provide her/him with living quarters similar to one's own. so basically a slave was like hired help, but with equal rights and complete support from u. if there is such a woman living with one's self that she is clothed, fed, housed, and completely taken care by u, is this not similar to the position of a wife? also, u cannot demean a slave, or berate her/him. so much so that the slave should be substituted with "hired help" at a much more inclusive level. thereby, in my view, sexual relations r allowed with a helper.
also see that slavery was an institution in arabia on the wane since the advent of islam. muslims emanciated a lot of slaves and gave the slaves so many rights that it became a much more demanding task to ensure a slave all of his/her rights and priviledges. so, islam changed the nature of slavedom.
however, u have brought forth an important question, and one that requires further elucidation. i will search more into the issue and add further details to the issue.
the same goes for the banu quariza incident. i have links that provide justifications on the issue and links that crtiticize it. however, their authencity, as it pertains to historical veracity, is doubtful. once again, after consulting more recognized sources (which i will ofcourse share with u), i'll answer the issue in more detail.
meanwhile, kudos from my side on initiating a constructive debate based on issues and not mere hearsay. good job. u'll hear from me soon.
salam and peace