War ethics in Islam

[shawn]

War ethics

Seems to be an oxymoron.
Particularly when religion is used so extensively to inspire the troops and the civilians at home, to rally support ...............for the righteous cause, and all that.
All I see is control of minds and manipulation.
None of it is right.

 

[c0de]

edited,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Muslimwoman]

Seems to be an oxymoron.
Particularly when religion is used so extensively to inspire the troops and the civilians at home, to rally support ...............for the righteous cause, and all that.
All I see is control of minds and manipulation.
None of it is right.

and yet everyone sets out war ethics, whether they are religious groups or not. We have international laws covering war and throughout history there have been very varied rules and morals applied to wars.

Must say I was quite astonished to see on the bbc ethics pages of their website, under War Ethics, Just Causes, Self Defence ... they include

• • attack on national honour: (eg burning the flag, attacking an embassy)

Amazing considering the reactions to Muslim protests about "perceived insults". Isn't burning a flag just a way of insulting someone?

 

[shawn]

and yet everyone sets out war ethics, whether they are religious groups or not. We have international laws covering war and throughout history there have been very varied rules and morals applied to wars.

Just cuz everyone jumps off the cliff does not mean we should follow, nor does it make it right.

The reality of war in our history is organized insanity.
Killing for profit and for control is not self-defense, it is aggression and thuggery.
Oh, for sure, it is cloaked up in all manner of garb to make it appear righteous and honorable, but it is rotten to its core.
It is piracy.
Doesn't matter which religion promotes it.

In particular, there has been in the last century a blurring of who is a combatant.
Previously it was the soldiers on the field, now it can include civilians.....Hiroshima, Dresden, etc.
Where is the ethics in that?
War for profit and control is evil and there is no justification for it.

 

[Muslimwoman]

War for profit and control is evil and there is no justification for it.

Couldn't agree with you more but war will continue.

It's disgraceful really when you think about it, we have now developed sophisticated weapons that can turn corners and yet more civilians than every before are killed in wars.

 

[Snoopy]

Seems to be an oxymoron.

What, like "military intelligence"

I have no respect for any supposed "teaching" that includes a defence of violence. But as we know, a religious basis is not essential to lead people to war.

s.

 

[Dogbrain]

Hi Glory to God

Is it possible that non-Muslims are masquerading .. yes and even probable,

Probable? That sounds a lot like "JFK was never assassinated, he was replaced by a double and still runs the country from a secret room in the White House" conspiracy theory.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Probable? That sounds a lot like "JFK was never assassinated, he was replaced by a double and still runs the country from a secret room in the White House" conspiracy theory.

I think if you read this forum you will see that posters from Pakistan have provided evidence of this in their country.

 

[Dogbrain]

I think if you read this forum you will see that posters from Pakistan have provided evidence of this in their country.

All of the nature of hearsay and unsubstantiable claims. It's lunatic conspiracy theory.

 

[Muslimwoman]

All of the nature of hearsay and unsubstantiable claims. It's lunatic conspiracy theory.

I'm surprised the Israeli's aren't saying that about the forgery of passports to go into a foreign country and assassinate an enemy .... sounds like something out of a James Bond movie or indeed a lunatic conspiracy theory.

 

[Dogbrain]

I'm surprised the Israeli's aren't saying that about the forgery of passports to go into a foreign country and assassinate an enemy .... sounds like something out of a James Bond movie or indeed a lunatic conspiracy theory.

Ah, yes, when backed into a wall, pull out yet another logical fallacy. Misdirect by accusing someone else. "Watch the monkey dance!" and hope everybody looks away.

Any country where a significant number of people still believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is too lunatic to have any of its accusations taken seriously.

 

[c0de]

I think if you read this forum you will see that posters from Pakistan have provided evidence of this in their country.

Most people in Pakistan want to believe someone else is responsible. Just like most of the Indians who want to believe their problems are caused by our ISI.

It's easier then accepting the fact that foreign governments can only exploit weaknesses that are already present within the structure of one's society. Because that forces you to look at yourself in the morning light, like when you step out of a club after a night of partying.

 

[farhan]

Most people in Pakistan want to believe someone else is responsible. Just like most of the Indians who want to believe their problems are caused by our ISI.

It's easier then accepting the fact that foreign governments can only exploit weaknesses that are already present within the structure of one's society. Because that forces you to look at yourself in the morning light, like when you step out of a club after a night of partying.

Pakistan's problems started with the political map & elites British left Pakistan with (all colonialists do that). Then comes usual Pakistani stupidity for being played by everybody (esp. the western bloc). And now the war on terror is a continuation of that. Pakistani stupidity is always at the base of it. Like Ayub Khan thought Kashmir will be freed by US, & lost a crucial opportunity given by China. Like before helping US in Afghanistan (post911) Musharraf had asked them 6 things. He should have known that Americans arnt very good at keeping promises.

 

[c0de]

Pakistan's problems started with the political map & elites British left Pakistan with (all colonialists do that).

speaking of partition... you mite wanna check this out:

This House believes Muslims aren't getting a fair deal in India | The Doha Debates

One point, that the Muslim side was defeated on (and this was an Indian-Muslim side) was that the Muslims in India today are still better off then Muslims in most Muslim countries. I am not too familiar with the Indian Muslim situation, but looking at the Pakistani Muslim situation, they might have a point. But still, I think there was a strong bias overall.

I have always supported the case for separation, but , i have been reconsidering my position on this issue... especially considering all the negative consequences of 1947 separation in hindsight.

 

[farhan]

speaking of partition... you mite wanna check this out:

This House believes Muslims aren't getting a fair deal in India | The Doha Debates

One point, that the Muslim side was defeated on (and this was an Indian-Muslim side) was that the Muslims in India today are still better off then Muslims in most Muslim countries. I am not too familiar with the Indian Muslim situation, but looking at the Pakistani Muslim situation, they might have a point. But still, I think there was a strong bias overall.

I have always supported the case for separation, but , i have been reconsidering my position on this issue... especially considering all the negative consequences of 1947 separation in hindsight.

Well I cant watch 47 minutes of the debate right now, so I'll go with your inference. India has got some huge issues outside their cosmopolitan cities. Even in the cosmopolitan cities there is so much poverty that you wont find in Pakistan (although the way things are going, Pakistan is going to hit the same poverty very fast). I am not talking about the muslim condition only. Naxals rule more than 40 percent of India & spreading. There must be some reason for that. Some where around half billion live on less than a dollor a day, while the govt is trying to have a duell with China.

There was a Sachar report some years ago, take a look at that. You might have heard that Javed Akhtar/Shabana Azmy didnt get a house in Mumbai because they were muslim.... imagine. How many hindus are being burnt in Pakistan every year, compare that to Indian condition.

Separation happened because Hindu leaders' racism forced it. It wasent the first option for muslims. Do some research on what Congress did after they won elections I guess in 30s. That made muslims work for a country. While considering the negative consequence of separation, you should also think of the consequences of a united india. I mean, after all that happened, why didnt Bangladesh became a part of India?...think .

 

[farhan]

hey the debate looks interesting, ill take a look at it later

 

[c0de]

India has got some huge issues outside their cosmopolitan cities. Even in the cosmopolitan cities there is so much poverty that you wont find in Pakistan (although the way things are going, Pakistan is going to hit the same poverty very fast). I am not talking about the muslim condition only. Naxals rule more than 40 percent of India & spreading. There must be some reason for that. Some where around half billion live on less than a dollor a day, while the govt is trying to have a duell with China.

There was a Sachar report some years ago, take a look at that. You might have heard that Javed Akhtar/Shabana Azmy didnt get a house in Mumbai because they were muslim.... imagine. How many hindus are being burnt in Pakistan every year, compare that to Indian condition.

Separation happened because Hindu leaders' racism forced it. It wasent the first option for muslims. Do some research on what Congress did after they won elections I guess in 30s. That made muslims work for a country. While considering the negative consequence of separation, you should also think of the consequences of a united india. I mean, after all that happened, why didnt Bangladesh became a part of India?...think .

I dont want to start arguing against this position because I am not anti-separation (as of yet)... just on the fence and observing the match.

But you will have to make a better case for your side, because you have avoided dealing with the elephant in the room: the muslims of India and (for the most part) their contentment with being Indians.

The Muslim Indian in the debate for example already talked about all the problems that you are talking about, but even she would not agree with the idea that Muslims in Pakistan have it better then Muslims in India *(this issue came up afai-remember)

Also by the way, Hindus in Pakistan actually have it pretty bad dude. As for why we aren't lynching them, its probably cuz there aint that many of them there to fuel any tensions. Besides, the muslims in Pakistan are too busy killing each other.

hey the debate looks interesting, ill take a look at it later

definitely check it out. also watch the other ones, the last one was about Obama and the middle east. Before that it was representatives of Hamas vs the PA. Really informative stuff.

 

[farhan]

the muslims of India and (for the most part) their contentment with being Indians.

Contentment is a word thats difficult for me to digest, better substitute would be "living with it","trying to make the best of it" (Pakistanis are doing the same thing). Just because things are bad in India doesnt mean everybody would want to migrate to Pakistan. The basic ideology of Pakistan was that since we cant live according to our Islamic values in India, we'll have a separate state & run it according to those values". That hasent actually happened till now. SO why go with/to Pakistan.

There are somethings to be thought of here:

1, Do they have any other choice? Feasible choice, not petty sloganism. Take a look at India's map, then take a look at muslim population map of india. If for the sake of argument they get anything like Pakistan out of India, it will be ridiculusly "moth eaten". The regions that could have been a separate state are already a separate state. This separation will be followed by another grand-scale mass-murder. And eventually the state will collapse back to India. So better stick with India rather than go through this futile exercise.

The only place (other than Kashmir) where muslims are a huge minority is Assam. A few years ago there was a rally with people carrying Pakistani flags there. I dont know if these were really assamese people or ISI's nasty sense of humor, but things like this are happening in India.

2, There has already been a Pakistan, the situation although better than India, is still something to be ashamed of. So they dont have any inspiration either. As before, better stick with India rather than go through this futile exercise.

3, Two people cant represent 170 million muslim indians. there are almost two dozen different races in India. A UP muslim is different from gujrati, gujrati from keralaite, keralaite from assamese. Everybody has different circumstances. Brahmin muslim, shudar muslim, black muslim, white muslim, turkic/persian/arab muslim, local muslim, every body is differnt.

4, Most of the people who come on media are PC secular elites. No media can dare to go against the Weltanschauung. Like CNN cant say "well terrorists are good guys", since "the other" is an inherent part of American psyche, regardless of whether these others are reds, greens or yellows. A few months ago I was watching some dalit leader's interview, he was literally saying India is not our country, we just happen to live there. Can BBC show that?

You didnt touch upon my point either . Despite all Indian efforts, why didnt Banglaesh become India? Why did they kill Mujeeb? If living in India was so cool, it would have happened.

Also by the way, Hindus in Pakistan actually have it pretty bad dude. As for why we aren't lynching them, its probably cuz there aint that many of them there to fuel any tensions. Besides, the muslims in Pakistan are too busy killing each other.

I'll have to partly agree with you there. But hindus are busy killing, lootig & raping each other too (the biggest reason behind Naxal movement). Still there isnt any anti-hindu movement in Pakistan, or govt sponsored destruction of temples, compared to India. There are rich hindus, ther are poor hindus, poor people have it bad everywhere.

 

[farhan]

There are rich hindus, ther are poor hindus, poor people have it bad everywhere.

I guess thats the final point, there are rich muslims, there are poor muslims, poor muslims have it bad everywhere, whether in Pakistan or India. lol

 

[c0de]

.
.

The basic ideology of Pakistan was that since we cant live according to our Islamic values in India, we'll have a separate state & run it according to those values".

Nope. The reason for separation was political marginalization not a restriction of the Islamic way of life. Is there a single Muslim in all of India that is forbidden to face Makkah and pray?

What you should have said was that Muslims in India are still very much marginalized politically, for example in the civil service, just as the Muslims in pre-partition india were. This is the most effective point of the pro-partition side.

But that is still not enough, because the only ones who recieved the political benifits were Punjabis and some of the Pathans. Balochistan and Sindh would have received more autonomy under India then they have in Pakistan. Which is why everyone else now wants to separate from Pakistan. Again, nothing to do with "islamic values" but political marginalization, exploitation and oppression.

You didnt touch upon my point either - Despite all Indian efforts, why didnt Banglaesh become India?

I just wanted you to answer the main point of your opposition (which is not me). But if you really want me to play the part of the opposition, i will oblige:

If the Bengalis think they have so much better, then why are they moving to India in droves, especially to Calcutta (or "kolkata" whatever)? What happened to all their nationalism now?

Also, if you wanna talk history, then the Bengalis were the only ones who wanted to separate in the first place, because of marginalization. It is actually ironic that even after separation they were marginalized, this time by their Muslim brothers in the West Pakistan. Again proving it has nothing to do with islamic values.

1, Do they have any other choice?

I think most Indian Muslims would find this insulting, and some may even laugh out loud at the thought that the only reason they are in India is because they have no choice to go to Pakistan, especially considering the state Pakistan is in today.

Also, what about the Pakistani Muslims who go to India to boost their careers? Do they not have a choice to stay in Pakistan? Why do they go to India then?