Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Dec 29, 2008 at 20:52
Mr. Bayezid writes:
Rome had laws of war never employed in its past either so saying Islam had different laws is not really proving your point. BTW, I shouldn't have to point out it is not 'my' Rome as you state. There was no mention about these laws requirement to be 'altruistic' either.
why assume I had forgotten.? It goes without saying they were imperialistic. That is why it was called the 'Roman Empire'.
They were seeking territory, a source of cheap labour and tributes from all regions of their far-flung empire - with the aim of being the supreme world power - which they partially achieved for several hundred years.
" muslims are bound by law not to conduct aggressive warfare."
"which prisoners benefitted from roman laws hmmm ? to our knowledge till date, the romans always mistreted their prisoners. "
Whoever you refer to 'our' - their knowledge is poor.
Rome was responsible for the development of practices such as the conclusion of alliances, the sending and immunity of ambassadors, naturalization, extradition, the right of asylum, treatment of prisoners and enemy property, exchange of prisoners, burial of the dead after battle, truces, armistices , ransoms etc.
"and for your info, the christians waged war on muslims because of territory in jerusalem during crusades"
yes, we know that Christians went to war against the Muslims to retake the lands stolen from the jews and early Christains by Muslim invaders from Arabia. Why bring that up though? It has nothing to do with you saying that Islam was the first to invent rules of war..
". salah uddin al ayubi released hundreds and hundreds of christian soldiers simply because they surrendered. that way many christians stayed behind embracing islam. you did not know that? oh thats one of my favourite chapters. if you want to open that can of worms, just let me know".
What has that got to do with you - other than your ancestors adopted the religion of the arabs? I don't think there were many Bangladeshis involved in the Crusades were there?
In any case there was not one big, decisive battle - the Crusades continued over hundreds of years. Cristians lost battles here and there but that was exactly the case with Muslim armies. It is strange that you find a victory over non-Muslms gets your rocks off.
Let's rely on history shall we and not what may be baised beliefs?
"islam is based on quran and sunnah. if some muslims are acting out of these sources, their deeds can hardly be deemed as islamic. you are expected to have this simple understanding."
You've added the preposition 'of' (underlined). Yes, I do understand some Muslims are acting out these sources. Very dangerous mimickry though in these times.
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 (891) 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