Wow. Can we say "fucked"?

GeorgeJung Wrote: fedegita Wrote: Japanese kept fighting america, america dropped an A-bomb on Japan. Dropping the A-bomb was nessicary. I rather have Japanese die then Americans. Thats how i feel.

Hyuga Wrote: After this thread, it's quite obvious that many of the thread's "contributors" know nothing about true Islam or the Iraqi people (i.e. Quirk). Typical Americans getting their knowledge of the war from typical news sources.

Then point me to a source that contradicts everything I've learned of thier religion. I've done some research myself on it, and I'd go more into detail but I'm sure I have twice as many skulls than dragon points right now and I'd like to keep posting here.

Jahirocornboy22 Wrote: Wow. Can we say "fucked"? GeorgeJung Wrote: fedegita Wrote: Japanese kept fighting america, america dropped an A-bomb on Japan. Dropping the A-bomb was nessicary. I rather have Japanese die then Americans. Thats how i feel.

Why cus id rather have my country men live? Thats like saying etheir these 2 guys you dont know anything about die or your one of your family members?

I really can't compare them to "family", as I don't know them. People are people, regardless of what country they're from, and as long as we segregate each other like this, we'll never have any peace.

Regardless of what country you live in, there are good and bad among us.

Hyuga Wrote: After this thread, it's quite obvious that many of the thread's "contributors" know nothing about true Islam or the Iraqi people (i.e. Quirk). Typical Americans getting their knowledge of the war from typical news sources.

So what are you saying, that YOU know about true Islam and the Iraqi people? Yeah, sure. Unless you're a muslim and live in Iraq don't say that you know more about them than we do, because you probably don't.

I'd concur with Hyuga. The people on here show a lack of intellect that is infantile, and actually pretty depressing.

In Islam, everything comes from two sources, the Qur'an, and the Hadith(sayings of the prophet) and the Sunnah(actions of the prophet). I challenge some of the people on here to provide any ayat(verses) or Hadith proving it is Islamically acceptable to harm a Prisoner of war.

You won't be able to. Specific rules of war were outlined by the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of God Upon Him). One of those is not harming a prisoner of war.

GeorgeJung Wrote: fedegita Wrote: Japanese kept fighting america, america dropped an A-bomb on Japan. Dropping the A-bomb was nessicary. I rather have Japanese die then Americans. Thats how i feel. Plus if that war went on any longer i might not be around.

No, it was not neccessary. America had a whole other plan they could have gone with instead of dropping the A-Bomb.

Actually, I read the entire Koran last year. Plus, my best friend in my 3rd hour class just came here from Iraq. So, yes, I know more about Islam and the Iraqi people than you, you stupid douche.

DeuceMoney Wrote: Hyuga Wrote: After this thread, it's quite obvious that many of the thread's "contributors" know nothing about true Islam or the Iraqi people (i.e. Quirk). Typical Americans getting their knowledge of the war from typical news sources. So what are you saying, that YOU know about true Islam and the Iraqi people? Yeah, sure. Unless you're a muslim and live in Iraq don't say that you know more about them than we do, because you probably don't.

About the Japanese and the A-Bomb, i do not think it was neccessary. Japan was on the verge of losing anyway. The sole purpose of dropping it was to frighten the Russians, no doubt in my mind about it. Anyway..

About Prisoners of war in Islam. I think I might as well post the daleel(Islamic evidence) regarding, as I am sure I will be challenged on it.

For those of you not familiar with Hadith, they are related(told) by a companion of the Prophet(the one below is narrarated by Jabir), and they come in different collections by scholars. The most trusted by far is Sahih Bukhari. There is also Sahih Muslim, and Abu Dawud.

"1.Jâbir relates: "After the Battle of Badr, prisoners of war were brought. Among them was al-`Abbâs. He did not have a shirt on, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) looked for a shirt for him. It turned out that a shirt of `Abd Allah b. `Ubayy was the right size, so the Prophet gave it to al-`Abbâs to wear and compensated `Abdullah with his own shirt." [Al-Bukhârî (3008)]

From this, we can see how Islam guarantees prisoners of war the right to decent clothes.

2. Once the Prophet (peace be upon him) brought a prisoner of war to his own home and left that prisoner under the supervision of `Â'ishah. There were women with her who distracted her attention and the prisoner got up and left. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) returned home and asked her where the prisoner was, she replied that the women who were with her kept her distracted. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: "May Allah smite your hand!" and left to dispatch someone to pursue the prisoner.

When the prisoner was apprehended, the Prophet (peace be upon him) returned home with him and saw `Â'ishah sitting with her hands out. He asked her why she was doing that, and she said: "You invoked Allah to smite my hands, so I am waiting for it to happen."

The Prophet said: "Have you gone mad?" Then he raised his hand and prayed to Allah, saying: "Turn my invocation against this one into a form of expiation for her and a purification." [Sunan al-Bayhaqî: 9/89; al-Dhahabî declared its chain of transmission to be good.]

We can discern from this above Hadith that Prisoners of war have the right to decent lodgings, as the Prophet(pbuh) himself took this prisoner of war into his own home. By the way, A'isha was a wife of the Prophet(pbuh).

Also, Ibn Kathir, in his historical work al-Bidâyah wa al-Nihâyah, mentions that the Prophet (peace be upon him) distributed the prisoners from the Battle of Badr between his Companions (5/191).

The Prophet (peace be upon him) would free the prisoners of war who knew how to read and write in exchange for their teaching the children of Madinah how to do so. Such a prisoner would obviously have to be free to move about and not tied up. The only reason for restraining a prisoner is to keep him from running away. If preventing him from fleeing can be achieved without tying him up, then there is no need to bind him.

(Madinah is a city in Arabia, and the second holiest city to Islam, which was at that time, the only city under the rule of Islam)

3.When families are taken together as prisoners of war, they have a right not to be separated. A mother should not be separated from her child, nor should that child be separated from its father. Brothers should not be separated either. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said regarding captives: "Whoever separates a mother from her child will be separated from his own loved ones on the Day of Judgment." [Ahmad (23499), al-Tirmidhî (1283), Ibn Mâjah (2250) and Abû Dâwûd (2696). Al-Tirmidhî declares it good but unusual.] For this reason, the Companions and the people of knowledge who came after them loathed separating parents from children among the war captives.

Al-Dârimî relates that Abû Ayyûb al-Ansârî was in an army and inadvertently separated a mother from her two children. When he saw them crying, he quickly returned them to their mother, declaring: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Whoever separates a mother from her child will be separated from his own loved ones on the Day of Judgment.'" Look at how much mercy, compassion, and justice was employed by the Muslims during war in keeping family members together whom they taken captive.

4.Prisoners of war have a right not to be subjected to any abuse or torture. They cannot be abused on account of the fact that they were fighting against us. Islamic Law does not command us to punish them for this reason. Prisoners of war were never subjected to punishments by the Muslims during the early generations of Muslims when Islam was strong and put into practice.

This follows logically from the fact that Muslims are commanded to treat prisoners of war kindly and hospitably. They must feed them, clothe them, and keep their family members together. Abuse is diametrically opposed to what is demanded of us.

An exception is made where it is known that a prisoner is hiding something. Then it is permissible to punish him in a restrained matter to extract information from him. Such punishment, however, should never reach the level of outright torture and must not have any affect on his health.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) fought against the people of Khaybar until they were forced to retreat to their castle. The Muslims had total control of their land and their farms, and their plantations. The Muslims arrived at a settlement with the people of Khaybar that they would be allowed to depart from their land taking with them whatever they could carry but leaving behind all their gold and silver for Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him). A condition was placed upon them that they could not hide anything or try to smuggle out any gold or silver. If they did so, then their covenant would be broken.

They concealed a purse containing wealth and jewelry belonging to Hayy b. Akhtab which he had brought to Khaybar when the tribe of al-Nadîr was driven out. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked Hayy's uncle what happened to Hayy's purse that he brought with him from al-Nadîr. His uncle replied that all the wealth was used up in personal expenses and the war effort. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The time was too short and the money was much more than that."

The Prophet then handed him over to al-Zubayr who began to inflict punishment upon him in a non-serious manner until he said: "I saw Hayy going about in the ruins." They searched through the ruins and found the purse. [Sunan al-Bayhaqî (9/137). Ibn Hajar, in Fath al-Bârî, says that its narrators are reliable.]

The only prisoners of war who were ever executed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) were people who already had a sentence of death passed upon them for crimes they had previously committed against the Muslims.

When the great jurist, Mâlik, was asked whether it was permissible to torture a prisoner of war to extract from him information about the enemy's weaknesses, he said that he had never heard of such a thing.

Many of the scholars of the past loathed the idea of killing prisoners of war. Throughout all of the wars and battles that the Prophet (peace be upon him) waged, he killed very few prisoners of war. These were all among the worst criminals among the enemy who had previously engaged in atrocities against the Muslims. Many of them would today be called war criminals.

When word of the advance of Abû Sufyân's forces reached Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him), his Companions captured a slave belonging to the enemy. They asked him the whereabouts of Abû Sufyân and his forces. The slave replied: "I know nothing about Abu Sufyân, but Abu Jahl, `Utbah, Shayibah, and Umayyah b. Khalaf are there." When he said this, they beat him until he said: " I will tell you about Abu Sufyan." However, when they stopped beating him, he again said: " I know nothing about Abu Sufyân, but Abu Jahl, `Utbah, Shayibah, and Umayyah b. Khalaf are there." When he said this, they beat to beat him again. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had been praying. When he saw what they were doing, he stopped praying and said: "I swear by Allah in whose hand is my soul! You beat him when he tells you the truth and let him go when he lies to you!"

This is clear proof that it is wrong to aggress against prisoners of war. They should not be punished except for crimes that they commit.

In consideration of the rights that we have mentioned, it follows that they should have appropriate medical care and have all their needs taken care of that falls under the idea of good treatment. None of them should ever be treated unjustly with respect to his person, his family, or his wealth. "


Do you need anything else(while we're on the subject of what Islam says on this and that)?

I know this forum generally prohibits discussion of religion, however in this context its important to the subject(which is political). I apologize to the mods beforehand if they feel I've offended the rules of the forum.

Hyuga Wrote: Actually, I read the entire Koran last year. Plus, my best friend in my 3rd hour class just came here from Iraq. So, yes, I know more about Islam and the Iraqi people than you, you stupid douche.

Oh, so you have a friend from Iraq, does that mean you know more than everyone here? No.

Considering some of the 6th grade level responses on here, I'd say yes.

SuperMarioBro Wrote: Hyuga Wrote: Actually, I read the entire Koran last year. Plus, my best friend in my 3rd hour class just came here from Iraq. So, yes, I know more about Islam and the Iraqi people than you, you stupid douche. Oh, so you have a friend from Iraq, does that mean you know more than everyone here? No.

Yes, he does.

SuperMarioBro Wrote: Hyuga Wrote: Actually, I read the entire Koran last year. Plus, my best friend in my 3rd hour class just came here from Iraq. So, yes, I know more about Islam and the Iraqi people than you, you stupid douche. Oh, so you have a friend from Iraq, does that mean you know more than everyone here? No.

MK_Leon Wrote: About the Japanese and the A-Bomb, i do not think it was neccessary. Japan was on the verge of losing anyway. The sole purpose of dropping it was to frighten the Russians, no doubt in my mind about it.

That is exactly what I was thinking as well. Oh and incase anyone is wondering about that other plan I mentioned, America, Britain and the Soviet Union had a plan to invade the Japanaese Isle of Honshu incase Japan didn't surrender, or the A-bomb was never dropped.

ok for some reason my post is all getting screwed up, so im going to post it in sections, # 1 a bomb and japan --- for all thsoe who think what the extreme left wants you to think, listen up. according to real historians, as in the ppl who are non politically motivated, and care about the preservation of real history will tell you this, which is what all the experts during ww2 would also tell you. invasion of japan would result in the death of 250,000 americans, with even higher losses on the side of japan. so, this puts the figer at 500,000 to 750,000 dead, but closer to 700,000. bomb attakc,s 150,000 total deaths maybe? i wonder which number is smaller? also, to scare the russians, what type of liberal commy talk is that? here is the real history of the bomb. in the 930's german researchers started to figure the atom stuff out, and then started there bomb project, albert einstein, an german jew, left germany to avoid hitler. einstain approached the presidant and told him about the german bomb preoject, and pleaded to create it befor ethe nazi's, the goal was to beat the germans and get the bomb first. now lets think, germany had the b-2 or was it v-2 rockets hitting london, germany had a project to build a atomic bomb, i wonder what would of happened if the two where finally combined, which is what any intelegant person would think, and was what would of happened. now, lets think further, there was no way of telling just how far the germans where in the bomb project, so what is the most likely response? if london where hit, and germanys jet fighets where finished, or used on a long range bomber, which the nazis where developing, and prototypes captured after ww2, they would of hit new york, DC, norfulk, and other large east cost targets, hmmm, the russians. if germany could hit london with a rocket, and the east coast with one of there new bombers being devloped, then i wonder what moscow, much loser to germany that the US, and st. petterburg would look like? now let that soak in your mind

I never said I knew more than everybody else here. In fact, I never said I knew more than ANYBODY. I stated that there are a lot of ignorant people in this thread.

In fact, you are an idiot. See what I am forced to do to get through to you people? I have to turn to name calling. It's probably the only thing people like you understand.

SuperMarioBro Wrote: Hyuga Wrote: Actually, I read the entire Koran last year. Plus, my best friend in my 3rd hour class just came here from Iraq. So, yes, I know more about Islam and the Iraqi people than you, you stupid douche. Oh, so you have a friend from Iraq, does that mean you know more than everyone here? No.

islam- preach what the ilsamic bible says all you want, it does not matter what it says, it matters who interpits it.

you see the islamic community does not seem to do anything about what the clerics, rulers, and so forth are preaching, as in there preaching of intolerance of other religans, opression of minorities, and woman, torture, murder, suicide bombings / attacks.

so your pointing out texts is irrelavint, becuase it does not matter, if its so peacefull then point it out to the islamic schools that preach hatred of other cultures, the clerics who use muslim churches as basses and shoot from them at ppl and murder from them, to hide weopons in them, and so forth.


so dont tell us wht there religion means, tell them it so they stopd giving themselvs the reputation of evil that they have.


as for iraq, ask a kurd

Edit: What I said was complete BS. I did not read your post entirely, Mrinsulto.

The 'Islamic Bible', no I am sorry, it is called the Quran.

And Islamic 'Churches'? Lol, thats called a Mosque. If you don't even know those things I seriously doubt you have enough knowledge of the subject to seriously dicuss it.

'The clerics'? Oooh, who are these mysterious mad men? Lol The fact is these 'clerics' you speak of are in the minority. And technically, they don't exist. In Islam, there is no such thing as a clergy. We have SCHOLARS, who are called the 'Ulama, a scholar(Alim in the singular), however, does not have a 'cleric like' authority. They simply study and interpret Islam(and only scholars who've studied a certain amount and atain the level of learning when they are called a 'Mufti', its kinda like bachelors, masters etc. can issue 'fatwas', a religious ruling).

However, a Muslim as an individual is not obligated to follow these rulings, it is his/her decision(unless in the case of Saudi Arabia where the law is under their control). In the case of Saudi Arabia however, only clerics who follow the As-Salafiyyah(called Wahhabiism in the Western Media) interpretation, are allowed any power. The Salafi interpretation on Islam is very harsh, and its not traditional. This movement was founded by Ibn Abdul Wahhab in the 18th century(1700's), it is puritanical, not Orthodox. Saudi Arabia's promoted version of Islam is not traditional, although they will claim that up and down.

Traditionally, orthodox interpretations of Islam were not extremist. In Orthodox Islamic thought, there are four schools of thought(called 'Maddhabs'), Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali. Hanafi is generally the most liberal, while Hanbali is the most conserative. For the purposes of passing themselves off as 'Orthodox'(or Sunni), the Saudi's say they are Hanbali, but their views are a bit strict to even be called Hanbali.

As for the actions of certain 'clerics' in Iraq, for the most part, I cannot comment on that, because they are Shia(yes I'm talking about Moqtada al-Sadr), and I am, of course, Sunni. I do know that the Shia's main madhab is called Jafari, but I don't know much about it.

You seem to label Islam as the cause of all evils in Islamic countries, which simply is not the case. For one thing, when you refer to the Islamic schools(madrassahs) that teach hate, most of these are funded by Saudi Arabia, which like I stated, follows an un-Orthodox strain of Islam.

Why do you think the outgrowth of extremism coincided with the oil embargo of 1973 and the Saudi's sharp upturn in wealth? It is not a coincedince. Petro-dollars from Saudi Arabia give hundreds of millions of dollars in funding annually to these madrassahs that preach extremist teachings, as well as to build mosques, which is why many mosques are 'radicalized'.

Due to the corruption of many governments in Muslim lands, lots of people are poor and uneducated.

If you are a poverty-stricken, uneducated, illiterate, young man living in Afghanistan, and know nothing of proper Islamic teachings, all you know is what your tribal culture says(which you assume is Islamically correct, because afterall, we are Muslims), and some rich Arab man comes to you, telling you their is a way out, hope, that you can fight for Islam and make things better for your country, and tells you Islam says to fight against non muslims, and tells you women have to wear the Burqa, don't you think you'd believe him? Remember, your badly educated, probably have never read the Qur'an, and your desperately poor. THIS is how the extremist game works. It exploits Islam for ulterior motives, and often well meaning but uneducated and backward young men become it's victims.

And by the way, in regards to the 'ask the kurds' comment, this discussion is on Islam, Kurds are Muslim. LOL. So I really have no clue as to what you mean, if you mean in reference to Saddam's massacre of them, your mistaken. You seem to be under the impression Islam is some sort of ethnic group, or that only Arabs are Muslim(only 15% of the World's Muslim population is Arabic by the way). His attack was fueled by racism, but even more then that, just a desire to keep his rule firmly intact.

Once again, Islam is NOT the cause of the Islamic world's ailments. The causes are more connected with corrupt rulers, poverty, colonialism, etc. You see the Muslim world has had an opposite experiance with religion in their civilization that Westerners had with Christianity. In the Western world, before Christianity, civilization flourished under the Romans, but it declined with the rise of religion, and then rose back up when it fell(the Reformation and subsequent Renaissance).

The Muslim world had the exact opposite experiance. Their civilizations were mostly low and uneducated before the advent of Islam, but after Islam swept out of Arabia, into Persia, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, grear Syria, North Africa, etc. They became powerful. Scholarship flourished, science flourished.

Algebra was invented by a Muslim in the 900's. Great works of art were produced, beautiful architecture, literature, music. etc. and the DECLINE of Islamic civilization came as Islam declined. A lot of Westerners don't understand the Muslim attitude to religion, and it's because Westerners and people in the Islamic world, historically, have very different experiances with religion.

I hope this hopelessly long post helps give you a better understanding of Islamic civilization.

And yes, I am a Muslim. And also, may I suggest, getting a higher proficiency in the English language.

mrinsulto Wrote: islam- preach what the ilsamic bible says all you want, it does not matter what it says, it matters who interpits it. you see the islamic community does not seem to do anything about what the clerics, rulers, and so forth are preaching, as in there preaching of intolerance of other religans, opression of minorities, and woman, torture, murder, suicide bombings / attacks. so your pointing out texts is irrelavint, becuase it does not matter, if its so peacefull then point it out to the islamic schools that preach hatred of other cultures, the clerics who use muslim churches as basses and shoot from them at ppl and murder from them, to hide weopons in them, and so forth. so dont tell us wht there religion means, tell them it so they stopd giving themselvs the reputation of evil that they have. as for iraq, ask a kurd

Holy Mother Barbara... you guys are all fucking insane.

First of all, cut the religious stuff. If you are a religious person, if you've found God, Hey-zus, Buddha, Jebidiah, Mohammad, Morrison, whoever, then that's great. But the bottomline is that religious talks aren't allowed, so it's best to leave that out.

Secondly, yes, this killing was brutal. I haven't seen the tape, nor do I want or feel the need to. I can guess how they chop off the dude's head. Shitty deal. But that's life. This might be a wake up call to a lot of you, but that kind of shit happens every day around the world for even more absurd reasons. The fact that you all are only hearing about it because some American got killed by Iraqis, shows how blind some people are.

Should America have even stuck it's nose in Iraq to try and "help" in the first place? I'm tempted to say no, but let's face it, no one can say for sure. Was it morally right? Who knows. But America did go in, did do some measure of good, and now we're witnessing the aftermath.

This world is already fucked up. There's no doubt about that. But you warmongering shitheads with some kind of vendetta against the whole middle east because of this one fucking incidence makes me sick. If you are so moved by this, make a promise to yourself to never contribute to such brutality, or disgusting acts. Don't follow the norm, don't be so narrowminded that you become bloodlusting and ignorant.

Or do. Whatever. It'll be the end of the world sooner because of it. Personally I don't care. But I'm sure there's a lot of people who don't want this planet to turn into a fucking wasteland. So get over yourselves for a minute.

Man I fucking hate people.

I asked for this religious discussion to end once, you cannot say I didn't warn you all about this. As interesting as I found topic to be, it's finished.

Thread closed.