again, read what was written Mr. Bayezid.
Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Dec 26, 2008 at 21:59
Mr Bayezid writes:
Even if that were true - that is not relevant to the fact that Rome had rules of war and military law way before Islam was even dreamt up. Islam was NOT the first to employ rules of war. If you had bothered to read what I actually wrote - you would not be replying , trying to convince people how progressive and humane Islamists in war are.
We know already know progressive and enlightened Islamists are - remember 9/11 - 3,000 unarmed civilians in offcie towers plus the people on the planes; and the other flights .
.".. in fact, it introduced the code of cconduct in warfare which many un islamic nations today employ."
"....muslims arent allowed to kill non comabatants. for whatever reason."
"muslims cannot harm monks, priests, rabbis and cannot damage religious temples."
But they do and they have. And of course all these events :
were committed by people who were 'not really Muslims"
"muslims are suposed to treat the prisoners of war better than their own soldiers. they are to be provided with all their needs."
Maybe they are SUPPOSED to BUT.....
"muslims must consider releasing the enemy unharmed after receiving ransom."
...................money doesn't tak - it screams.
"before islam, this was a laughing matter. no one even imagined codifying these as rules for warfare. and the grand infidel could not have chosen a worse example than rome. he has forgotten that it was these romans who actually made gladiatorial sports official. rome was an empire raised in blood. and they certainly did not shy away from killing non combatants or turning prisoners of war into sex objects."
Again, read what was actually written. The Romans codified rules of war way before Islam was dreamt up
That was the point being made.
To their own citizens, the Roman state was extremely accomodating. In much the same way that Muslims today support other Muslims before 'Infidels', Rome supported its own citizens. Rome conquered huge territores - from North Africa to the British Isles, east to Hungary and north for a time into Germany beyond .. They were dealing with tribes and peoples totally foreign and unpredicatable to them whom they considered barbarians. So of course the wars were bloody.
We are talking about 2,000 years ago, remember???
OK, we'll bring up the post-Islam Crusades - where knights from all across Europe, north , south, east and west considered it their duty to re-take Jerusalem from the Islamic hordes, spreading from Arabia who had invaded and stolen it from its original inhabitants
- who could say that those wars weren't bloody?
Do you seriously consider both parties kept to such contrived niceties and etiquette in these conflicts?
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (888) on this item
Comment on this item
You can help support Daniel Pipes' work by making a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes