Well the question is are all people peaceful??? Have they ever been throug time? We are given limited free will are we not?

If so then bad things happen to good people. And therefor we are given guidelines to help guide us. Take for instance, if your family was murdered by a seriel killer, what woud you do? Whati s "peace" in this instance? Do we just forgive? What happens with this person?  War is a larger scale of, often wrongful actions. Not all war is wrong? Was the efforts by many countries to stop Hitler a wrong action? Were those countries not justified in going to defend themselves?

I became a Moslem and am a very peaceful person. And what are the guidelines to be used if someone attacks me, attacks my home? What should I do. What I like about Islam is that it is clear you have the right to defend yourself, against oppression, against injustice.

I grew up in one of those "turn the other cheek" households. And you know what, then they hit the othe cheek and they keep on hitting. There are bad people out there. And they don't have the same rights as if they abuse mine or anyone elses.

Rules, in my mind, are there to help everyone and to make it clear. 

Perhaps its just practical.  Men wage war.  War is sometimes necessary.  The Bible says, "There is a time for peace, a time for war."

The Quran states that war is against oppressors and to free the oppressed.  Thus, it also stipulates how war is to be conducted.

Its easy to say preach peace, but where has that gotten the Tibetans.  Or the Buddhists of Myanmar. 

To fight against oppressors is a divine cause, to fight for freedom and security of the weak. However, if there is no rules, then there is only slaughter and the just side can easily begin taking revenge and become unjust in their dealings.

Ghandi was a rarity... and I wish all would be as successful as him.  However, the Ghandi's of the world are charismatic saints.  The Dalai Lama is working towards this same kind of peaceful change.  But, what is it about Ghandi that made him succeed where the Dalai Lama fails. 

The Dalai Lama has the political backing, he has the internet and satellite TV to reach his followers around the world.  Yet, he's not been able to affect that great change.

I have seen many people point less to Ghandi and more to the over-extended British Empire.  The difference between Ghandi and the Dalai Lama is the focus given by the occupiers.  The British were thousands of miles from home and unable to hold a colony.  The Chinese are right on top of the Tibetans and able to put more troops and resources into the oppression.  The Chinese government is able to move troops faster than the British.  The success of the Indian independence movement comes AFTER the Second World War and after the British had been pounded on by the Germans, not once but twice.  They were no longer able to keep up their Empire.  And a country who just freed so many other countries from occupying forces was having a hard time justifying its own conquests.

So, did pacifism work?  Or was it a combination of social and political pressure coupled with the depleted resources of the oppressive empire.  People like to simplify the successful non-violent bid to gain independence, however, its not that simple.  A number of factors converged to make it a possibility. 

As for your claim that the Crusades had no religious motives.  You obviously have not read very much about the Crusades.  When the Pope ordered the Holy Land reclaimed from the Infidels, his objective was to secure the place of the Savior's birth from unbelievers.

There were waves of Crusades each with their own purposes.  I will give you that not all the Crusades were given a religious objective, but many of them were called on by the Church for religious reasons.  The want to secure the Holy sites. 

Now, as for the Dar el Harb.  I have done a search on this book of yours.  It seems I can only find it referred to on anti-Islamic websites.  I could not find any references supporting it on Islamic websites.  I wonder why that is. 

Of course, if you want to know about Mormons, ask an anti-Mormon.  If you want to know about the Jews, ask a Nazi.  If you want to know about the Muslims...trust the millions of websites dedicated to unveiling it.

The Quran states very specific rules for when someone can go to war.  Self-defense and to throw off an oppressor.  It really doesn't matter what any other reference says.  In Islam, the Quran is the only perfect law.  They believe that war is wrong, but sometimes necessary.

If any one slew a person - unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people - Quran 5:32

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. - Quran 2:190

And in a hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As, God Told Mohammed :

You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive. - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362

Oh and on the Ottoman thing... if you are giving the Crusades a pass on the religious thing by arguing that justifications were only excuses.  Then you must understand that the Ottoman Turks too were not necessarily attacking Constantinople for religious reasons, but using religion as ....yep that's right...a flimsy excuse.

The KKK uses perversions of the Bible to excuse their racism.  The Terrorists pervert religion (including the IRA) for their own purposes.

 Anatolian is wrong. That is about history. The Muslims were very few and very weak. The Persians were powerful and had beaten the Romans initially in that time. King of persia took Shirin (christian lady) as a prize of victory.

The initial verses of chapter 30 (Sura Rum) were revealed. The Pagans of Arabia had friendly feelings with the persian pagans (fire worshippers). These Arabian Pagans were celebrating the victory of the Persians over the Romans (christians). Allah revealed to the prophet s.a.w.s. that even though the Romans have been subdued in the land, they will soon (within 1 to 9 years) regain their power and will be victorius over the Persians. Any one can see this prophesy in the Quran. It is also written in that prophesy that at time the Muslims will celebrate that victory with another victory. (i.e.  the gaining control over Makkah). Both these events will coincide.

So the Muslim believers will have double happiness.

It happened like that. The Romans and Persians had a fight (war) and the Persians were badly beaten by the Romans. So, please understand that the Romans were more powerful than the Persians and the persians were the weaker party... Continued... in next post.

 Part2. When the prophet s.a.w.s. (as described by Islampeace) wrote letters to the various kings in the area inviting them to peace i.e. Islam, they replied differently. That was before Makkah was liberated. Some kings replied in good manner, even they sent back gifts for the prophet. Some replied harshly (specially the king of Persia tore the letter of the prophet). I have to mention this important thing because it is another prophesy. The prophet s.a.w.s. said that the kingdom of Persia will be torn into pieces the way the persian king has torn my letter.

 That is exactly what happened after about 15 years during the time of Khalifah Umar r.a. It is the special honor and duty of the prophets to prophesise. If what he foretold come true then he is a true prophet of God. If it does not come true then he is a false prophet (See  OT Bible Deut. 18:20).

When the Muslims had some victories, the nearby powers became careful and even tried to attack the newly formed state of Islam at Madinah. Anatolian should bear in mind that this newly formed state was very weak and had just had a little rest from the pagan wars etc. They were in no position to go and attack any one. They had no means to do that. But they had the spirit and new message of peace from God with them. They were told to convey that message of peace very peacefully to other nations of the world.

 Even before they could do that, one of the christian lords gathered a large force to attack the Muslims. For that, the prophet himself had to lead a force of Muslims to repel the expected aggression, in a very hot weather, at a far away border. The Muslim army went there and was ready to fight the enemy but the enemy did not advance or attack. So the prophet had to come back to Madinah without a war.

Anatolian should take notes please, of the aggressive behaviour of the neighboring chrisrian power. The war was being imposed upon the Muslims. Anatolian should leave the interpretation of the verses of the Quran to the Muslims please. WE see those verses applicable in that time and that situation only.

 Later, it was peaceful and there were inter-trade missions. Unarmed Muslims were preaching the message of peace in the christian country and the people there killed the preachers.  Why?? Was it because the church was the owner of the minds of the people there?? It is proved that there was no liberty and no freedom of thought. The christian high ups there were the enemy of mankind. 

 That made the Caliph attack that country. That is how the wars started. Now here is another point, a miracle. Just see the Muslims without any war material and trained organised experienced army. They had to fight the stronger of the two enemies, i.e. the Romans on the western front, not the weaker of the two on the eastern side.

 So when the Muslim army routed the organised Roman army, the Persians must have been surprised and could have seen their own fate in jeopardy in the near future.

It is a false blame on the Muslims that they picked a fight first. That is wrong. Of course there is no harm in peaceful preaching and that is what they did. But the  Romans and persians did not like it. All these matters had been fortold in the bible OT too. The prophesies of the victory of the Arabs are mentioned in the OT.

Peace. Salaam.

If you want to discuss why Islam is or is not you need to go to the Quran and Hadiths.

The actions of various people are not Islam. Going on about this and that of people who did this or that throughout history. Humans are imperfect, God is not.

You asked why Islam discusses captives etc. People told you why. Cause there are bad people and they do bad things and people have a right to self-defense and an obligation to defend the poor.

If you see that this is true, and then we are given guidelines as to how to behave in this situation. Don't you think that it is good to help give guidelines?

If someone makes war on you, you can defend yourself. Otherwise you should live with them in peace. If you do not then you will answer to Allah on the Day of Judgement. If you create war, and hurt others without just cause well then.

I was reading a book on a seriel killer. He was a very good Church going guy. Went to Church, had family and tortured and murdered around a dozen people. And what is he said was that in Lutheran church, or his church particularly, they don't believe your actions mean anything, as long as you beleive in Jesus Christ as your savior. You are forgiven for your sins..

Of course in Islam that is not the case...so the rules for war, captives, etc are very helpful if you are held accountable for all of your actions. makes sense to me

Angela: I wanted to reply to your PM, but couldn't. It seems you have reached the maximum limit of inbox messages, so any further incoming message is being bounced.

Sorry... perhaps I just won't respond anywhere.  I've been here 2 years and over 2000 posts.

Driving isn't an ISLAMIC ONLY issue and neither is WAR. 

I hate seeing people ignore the history of my people (The Christians) and use history to bash your people.

And I'm not arguing one sided Anatolian, its you who refuses to see the secular forces at work in the middle east and the religious forces of mideval europe and the modern neo-conservative right.

Rami wrote: Jews and christians still exist today in arabia as they did in the time of the prophet, so 1400 years and still they all havnt been forcibly converted or killed.

If by "arabia" you mean Saudi Arabia, then you are (to the best of my knowledge) lying.  If you are not lying, then please provide us with the name and address of a non-muslim who has Saudi Arabian citizenship and who lives in Saudi Arabia.
 

Section I. Religious Demography

The country has a total area of 1,225,000 square miles, and its population is approximately 24 million, with an estimated foreign population of 6 to 7 million. The foreign population includes approximately 1.4 million Indians, 1 million Bangladeshis, nearly 900,000 Pakistanis, 800,000 Filipinos, 750,000 Egyptians, 250,000 Palestinians, 150,000 Lebanese, 130,000 Sri Lankans, 40,000 Eritreans, and 30,000 Americans. Comprehensive statistics for the religious denominations of foreigners are not available; however, they include Muslims from the various branches and schools of Islam, Christians, and Hindus. Approximately 90 percent of the Filipino community is Christian. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates there are considerably more than 500,000 Catholics in the country and perhaps as many as 1 million.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35507.htm - http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35507.htm

However, in Iraq, there is a population of about 800,000 Orthodox Christians that until recently have had wonderful freedoms.  There are Christians in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and many other countries.  They are minorities there as Muslims are Minorities here.

Can you think of the last time a major political figure here in the US said something discriminatory against Muslims in office?  I can.

Angela:

I was only trying to enforce that rule that came into effect after much thought and discussion almost a year ago. I also mentioned in my last post in this thread that your sincerity was not being doubted, but rules apply to everyone. At times, I have been pointing out that rule. That clarifies that one should be a Muslim and have proper knowledge on the subject to answer in this section. Even if one is Muslim but doesn�t have proper knowledge on the subject, he/she shouldn�t respond here in reply to questions asked by non-Muslims on Islam related matters. Let us see the rule:

"There is no limit on questions one may ask or repeatedly ask to clarify a point about Islamic faith as long as the purpose is to seek knowledge about Islam. This is the place where only those who believe in Islamic faith and have proper knowledge on the subject should take part to answer, and those who can not positively contribute here should not take part."

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7684&PN=1 - Having said that, there is a way out and I hope that it would be helpful, insha Allah. Seeing the positive contribution made by you at the forum, I will propose before the moderator group that this rule be amended that would allow people like you to take part in responding in this section. It may take some time; meantime please feel free to contribute here as you have been doing. Any inconvenience in this regard is highly regretted.

I was very hesitant to even mention that rule to you seeing your overall participation here, but I felt it was my moral responsibility to do so. I hope you would understand what I am talking about.

Seeing that the original question asked by topic starter has been addressed well, and the thread has gone completely off-topic, it wll be closed.

May Allah guide us all.

Peace