Muslims, please tell me if this is unislamic

[neploho]

Will …
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor [the neighboring country oppressing Christians in the given hypothetical] on the nation or community of nations be lasting, grave, and certain?

Have …
– all other means of putting an end to it been shown to be impractical or ineffective?

Is there …
– serious prospects of success?

Does the …
– use of arms produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated?

Is there …
– a legitimate reason?

Note that all conditions must be met at the same time.

So you just reintroduced the criteria for just war.

What specific information can I give that is you want? I don’t know if the damage is “lasting” “grave” or whatever, it depends on what your Church considers lasting and grave.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t know if the damage is “lasting” “grave” or whatever, it depends on what your Church considers lasting and grave.

That’s why, “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good,” IOW the legitimate government, and not unknowledgeable individuals such as entertainers.

 

[Verisimilitude]

So you just reintroduced the criteria for just war.

What specific information can I give that is you want? I don’t know if the damage is “lasting” “grave” or whatever, it depends on what your Church considers lasting and grave.

That’s why, “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good,” IOW the legitimate government, and not unknowledgeable individuals such as entertainers.

I have always understood the Just War criteria in a personal way, not justly applied to others. In neploho’s example the oppressed Christians have the right to defend themselves from the non-Christian agressors much in the manner that Christ said to buy swords.

The fact He said two swords were enough indicates to me there is a legitimate line to self defense whether it is to protect oneself from wild animals or an unjust attacker while doing Gods work, but not permission to use those swords to bring justice to others. The many examples of offering the other cheek when struck unjustly, giving your cloak in addition the shirt you are being sued for, or paying to the non-religious government in authority (legitimate or non-legitimate) over you the (unjust/just) dues/taxes set against them.

Nothing in the Gospels suggests we can or should transfer that ‘right of protection’ to others, or exceed the limits of the two greatest Commandments. The homeowner is warned to stay alert inside his home in case the theif should try and rob him, not urged to leave the safety of his home to search the neighborhood for the thief to exact justice before the crime is committed. Nothing suggests to me a stronger Christian neighbor should do the search and destroy of the non-Christian agressor for the weaker Christian neighbor either.

This: “legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment” is worthy of further debate. For a Christian (Catholic specifically) I think we should apply a theological legitimacy to the authority when determining if going to war for others meets the Just War criteria. America was not directly threatened by North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis invading Kuwait 1991, or the conflict in Bosnia as examples yet we went to war to protect the oppressed. Noble, sure but is it Just, I think no.

I am not suggetsing we sit by and do nothing when one group tries to wipe out another group be they Christain or non-Christian for the many reasons they do it, but if we as a nation do decide to go to war using the Christian Just War criteria it is dangerous and hypocritical to not impliment a Christian ethic once we complete that war unlike what we have done in the last two wars leaving in place the un-Christian ideology that is the root behind the agression to begin with. Then again, going to war to instill the Christian ethic (or secular democracy) does not seem to agree with the ideology which seems best represented by Luke 9:54-56 .

 

[algebra]

What natural law? I havn’t seen any logical or scientific evidence for some transcendent natural law.
.

The laws are not transcendent - simply because they can be ascertained by common experience.

We assume that this experience is universal, since all of us live within this world, where we have to compete for limited resources.

When I say all, I mean every living entity. Not just humans

As such.

I should not do bad to you, that I do not want you to do to me.

This can be assumed to be a universal truth, because I endanger myself by doing bad to you.

In other words, If I attempt to kill you, I open myself up to attack from you.

This truth is so universal that it applies as much to the animal world as it does to humans.

If I am not interested in endangering myself, I will not attack you. Which is why animals only attack for food or when protecting young.

 

[sedonaman]

What natural law? I havn’t seen any logical or scientific evidence for some transcendent natural law.

I should not do bad to you, that I do not want you to do to me.

This can be assumed to be a universal truth, because I endanger myself by doing bad to you.

…

Here is an article that argues that there is a natural law:
“What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?”
By Phillip Ellis Jackson
intellectualconservative.com/2006/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/#comments

 

[algebra]

It is on the basis of natural law that we can completely disregard islam as a true religion.

islam does attempt to implement natural law, however it does it in the context of 7th century arabia.

This means that it was probably a good implementation of natural law in the 7th century, however, it is atrocious by todays standards.

This is true for every religion.

However islam digs a hole for itself, when it states that man cannot change the laws, since they are created by God.

Not understanding that natural law is created by God, sharia is just a 7th century implementation of natural law.

And an atrocious implementation by todays standards.

 

[planten]

It is on the basis of natural law that we can completely disregard islam as a true religion.

islam does attempt to implement natural law, however it does it in the context of 7th century arabia.

This means that it was probably a good implementation of natural law in the 7th century, however, it is atrocious by todays standards.

This is true for every religion.

However islam digs a hole for itself, when it states that man cannot change the laws, since they are created by God.

Not understanding that natural law is created by God, sharia is just a 7th century implementation of natural law.

And an atrocious implementation by todays standards.

**algebra, are you suggesting that Islam is outdated because it was revealed in 700 A.D.?? By that formula, the bibleNT which is 2000 years old would be in a bad condition, quite outdated . And the law of Moses will be in a worse state being 3500 years old. So none of those could be useful to mankind now.

So good bye to quran and bibleNT and bibleOT (Torah) etc. Good riddence. Still there will be some hope for the Quran being only 1400 years old.

Please remember that Truth does not change with times. The Universal truths of the very old times and the latest times are to be found in the Quran only. algebra and all others may please note. They may show any good thing from the bibleOt or bibleNT, any good thing. The same (or even better) will be shown to you from the Quran. Please think over**.

 

[jakasaki]

Islamists fight Yemen law banning child marriage

etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=922448&lang=eng_news

She was 2 years old when her father promised her in marriage to a man in his 30s. It was a swap, so the father could marry the man’s sister without paying the obligatory bride-price.

At age 9, the girl was put on a sack of rice to appear taller next to the bridegroom in the wedding picture. At 11, she was taken to her husband’s house to live. Despite promising not to consummate the marriage before she reached puberty, he tied her to a bed, stuffed a rag in her mouth and raped her, she says.

"One day he tied me up and attacked me," the girl, who is now 13 and has fled her husband, told The Associated Press on Wednesday, choking with tears during an interview at an orphanage that has given her shelter. Her name and her husband’s aren’t being used to protect her identity.

- continue reading by clicking on the link above - but I will post a very interesting statement from the news article…

**Al-Hazmi said Islam permits the practice because nothing in the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad bans it. **“Everything that is not forbidden is permitted,” he said.

 

[sedonaman]

**algebra, are you suggesting that Islam is outdated because it was revealed in 700 A.D.?? By that formula, the bibleNT which is 2000 years old would be in a bad condition, quite outdated . And the law of Moses will be in a worse state being 3500 years old. So none of those could be useful to mankind now.

…**.

The Law of Moses was almost 2,000 years old when Mohammed used Moses to “verify” his [Mohammed’s] prophethood. So if a 2,000 year age nullifies a scripture, you have nullified Mohammed.

 

[tomarin]

It is on the basis of natural law that we can completely disregard islam as a true religion.

islam does attempt to implement natural law, however it does it in the context of 7th century arabia.

This sounds a bit confused, Algebra. Natural law by definition is universal and immutable, isn’t it? So there’s not one natural law for 7th century Arabs and one for 21st century Americans. Or am I wrong?

 

[sedonaman]

This sounds a bit confused, Algebra. Natural law by definition is universal and immutable, isn’t it? So there’s not one natural law for 7th century Arabs and one for 21st century Americans. Or am I wrong?

Can’t Allah change his will at any time? If so, how do we know what natural law will be tomorrow?

 

[tomarin]

Can’t Allah change his will at any time? If so, how do we know what natural law will be tomorrow?

If you believe that God is everything good, then God cannot break promises or act capriciously; he would be going against his own nature. (Since you’re using the Arabic word for God I think you’re making some other point, though.)

 

[sedonaman]

(Since you’re using the Arabic word for God I think you’re making some other point, though.)

God [of the Bible] is Love … That is the nature of God in as concrete human terms as we can understand. Whereas Allah “can be merficul or spiteful [or hateful], but only if he wills, God cannot do anything that is contrary to his nature, while Allah’s nature is whatever he wants it to be at a particular moment. It sounds like Allah’s nature is brought around to conform to whatever his will is, contrary to God’s will conforming to his nature. Meanwhile, saying that, “God can do anything, therefore God can hate” is an imperfection in reasoning. [Another example of an imperfection in reason is if I say, “Americans never tell the truth.” If I am an American, can the statement be true?]

God’s will follows his nature; Allah’s nature follows his will. Therefore, Allah and God cannot be the same entity – as I thought so.

 

[tomarin]

God’s will follows his nature; Allah’s nature follows his will. Therefore, Allah and God cannot be the same entity – as I thought so.

There is only one God.

 

[sedonaman]

There is only one God.

I didn’t say there was more than one.

 

[neploho]

I have always understood the Just War criteria in a personal way, not justly applied to others. In neploho’s example the oppressed Christians have the right to defend themselves from the non-Christian agressors much in the manner that Christ said to buy swords.

The fact He said two swords were enough indicates to me there is a legitimate line to self defense whether it is to protect oneself from wild animals or an unjust attacker while doing Gods work, but not permission to use those swords to bring justice to others. The many examples of offering the other cheek when struck unjustly, giving your cloak in addition the shirt you are being sued for, or paying to the non-religious government in authority (legitimate or non-legitimate) over you the (unjust/just) dues/taxes set against them.

Nothing in the Gospels suggests we can or should transfer that ‘right of protection’ to others, or exceed the limits of the two greatest Commandments. The homeowner is warned to stay alert inside his home in case the theif should try and rob him, not urged to leave the safety of his home to search the neighborhood for the thief to exact justice before the crime is committed. Nothing suggests to me a stronger Christian neighbor should do the search and destroy of the non-Christian agressor for the weaker Christian neighbor either.

This: “legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment” is worthy of further debate. For a Christian (Catholic specifically) I think we should apply a theological legitimacy to the authority when determining if going to war for others meets the Just War criteria. America was not directly threatened by North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis invading Kuwait 1991, or the conflict in Bosnia as examples yet we went to war to protect the oppressed. Noble, sure but is it Just, I think no.

I am not suggetsing we sit by and do nothing when one group tries to wipe out another group be they Christain or non-Christian for the many reasons they do it, but if we as a nation do decide to go to war using the Christian Just War criteria it is dangerous and hypocritical to not impliment a Christian ethic once we complete that war unlike what we have done in the last two wars leaving in place the un-Christian ideology that is the root behind the agression to begin with. Then again, going to war to instill the Christian ethic (or secular democracy) does not seem to agree with the ideology which seems best represented by Luke 9:54-56 .

Thank you for that honest and thoughtful response. I may have a different point of view but I do respect the one you have presented.

 

[neploho]

The laws are not transcendent - simply because they can be ascertained by common experience.

We assume that this experience is universal, since all of us live within this world, where we have to compete for limited resources.

When I say all, I mean every living entity. Not just humans

As such.

I should not do bad to you, that I do not want you to do to me.

This can be assumed to be a universal truth, because I endanger myself by doing bad to you.

In other words, If I attempt to kill you, I open myself up to attack from you.

This truth is so universal that it applies as much to the animal world as it does to humans.

If I am not interested in endangering myself, I will not attack you. Which is why animals only attack for food or when protecting young.

Does this natural law enjoy some sort of ontological or metaphysical reality, of is it simply an ethical proposition you believe will lead to a better world?

 

[neploho]

God [of the Bible] is Love … That is the nature of God in as concrete human terms as we can understand.

What does that mean?

What do you mean by “love”? Are you saying God is a neurochemical reaction?

Whereas Allah “can be merficul or spiteful [or hateful], but only if he wills, God cannot do anything that is contrary to his nature, while Allah’s nature is whatever he wants it to be at a particular moment. It sounds like Allah’s nature is brought around to conform to whatever his will is, contrary to God’s will conforming to his nature.

Islam says nothing about the nature of God, it only talks of his attributes. The God of the Bible can absolutly be jealous, spiteful, hateful, etc.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

so the father could marry the man’s sister without paying the obligatory bride-price.

It’s a must to give wife Mahr. Just because a dad forced his daugther to marry someone , does not mean dad can marry son-in-law’s sister without giving Mahr.

“And give women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer”
(An-Nisaa’: 4);

related links:

Conditions of Valid Marriage

, he tied her to a bed, stuffed a rag in her mouth and raped her, she says.

And live with them (wives) in fairness. (An-Nisaa’ 4: 19)

O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and **you should not treat them with harshness, **that you may take away part of the Mahr you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #19)

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best people from among you are those who are best to their wives.”

 

[planten]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

It’s a must to give wife Mahr. Just because a dad forced his daugther to marry someone , does not mean dad can marry son-in-law’s sister without giving Mahr.

“And give women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer”
(An-Nisaa’: 4);

related links:

Conditions of Valid Marriage

And live with them (wives) in fairness. (An-Nisaa’ 4: 19)

O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and **you should not treat them with harshness, **that you may take away part of the Mahr you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #19)

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best people from among you are those who are best to their wives.”

**The proof of the best status of Woman in Islam is provided above direct from the verses of the Quran, by Muslim Woman. If any Muslim is acting against it then it is his fault, not the fault of the Islamic tecahings.

There is some discussion about the love or Mercy of allah. There is no doubt about the Mercy of God/ Allah. In the very first chapter (Opening) of the Quran, it is decribed that Allah is the Creator, nourisher of all creation. He is Merciful in two ways. i.e. Merciful to the living (all living animal, plant kind, mankind bethey believers or disbelievers, even atheists.

The othe rkind of Mercy is for the mankind only who believe, be they Hindu or Christian or Jew or Muslims. Atheists are not included in that Mercy. It is for those who believe in a God.

Then there is another higher stage of Mercy of Allah for the very high ranking persons, saints and messengers and Prophets. The God is Maalik (Master) of the day of judgement.

That Mercy is a proof of His Love. What more proof is needed !!**