How Taqiyya Alters Islams Rules of War

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Jan 7, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Very interesting insight into the way some Muslims justify terrorism etc.

     
  2. Standard Orientalist neo-con bs? Your aim in writing this post was what?

    Basically to say that all Muslims are shifty fcukers?

    This essay is so flawed it's ridiculous. Yasser Arafat a radical Islamist? All he cared about was himself.
     
  3. My point was merely to post it and thereby generate such intelligent discourse as the other ARRSERs may be led to put forward. I neither endorse nor refute the article. I take it your comments are your intelligent contribution to the thread and if you have further details to add to flesh out your somewhat broad brush treatment I am confident I and others will be edified.
     
  4. I historic reality the muslims have always been a bunch of lieing murdering cnuts, so whats new
     
  5. I don't think the author said that:
    The technique is described and that does not constitute a characterization of the man. The point is that even more moderate leaders can have recourse to this technique - as Arafat did again when proclaiming his 'Saladin status' upon return from Camp David.
    So, the 'Hudna' by Hamas might be a better example, I agree.

    ps I disagree that Arafat only cared for himself but that is not the point of discussion here.
     
  6. In a nut shell, from an Islamic point of view the end justifies the means, al long as that end is the supremacy of Islam. Sounds very underhand until you consider that Western politicians practice such tactics frequently.
     
  7. Is Raymond Ibrahim trying to convince us that deceit is only common to Muslims? That only Muslims lie in their pursuit of political goals?

    It's a human trait that envelopes the whole globe. His attempt to demonise a single religion with this common trait is nothing more than blatant bigotry which he has wrapped up academically to sound clever.

    Raymond Ibrahim and his message is part of the problem not the solution.
     
  8. I do pick up the message that some see Islam as an aquivalent religion to Christianity and have rather plugged over the differences to find Islam "acceptable".

    Having said that, what sensible politician in any country now believes the word of another in his/her country anymore, never mind the politicians overseas to them?

    One thing this does demonstrate to me is the possible justification, previously totally lost to me, in the appointment of Bliar for any peace-keeping mission. He would be one of few, blinded as he is by his own ambitions, to be able to accept simple words and promises from others, and I could see him getting support from even extreme Islam, along the basic of what you have recorded above. He could even be seen to achieve majopr and totally meaningless agreement between diverse partys!

    I would, to be fair, believe that Islam could throw at Christianity similar shortcomings, if not in the theory of the religion, certainly in its practice! You only have to go back to very recent history to find massive sins of commission and more serious sins of omission in the RC Church. The CoE is far from squeaky-clean; for one of the richest landowners in our country to consolidate and grow its wealth, rather than use it to Christian ends is no great advertisement for their laimed belief.
     
  9. I do not read this article as suggesting only Muslims lie or anything even close to such a proposition. How is discussing these matters a problem? It seems, whether you disagree with his conclusions or not, that he is merely putting forth a perspective--in a fairly reasonable manner in comparison to other posts on such subjects that have appeared on ARRSE-- on this that many of us are still puzzling over so I am baffled as to how this is a problem. Of course other views are welcome on here as well.
     
  10. Well, it's a well known phenomenon that identifying your current enemy as 'The Other' changes the way you conduct war. Brits used to manufacture special expanding ammo for use against nig-nogs, even thought its use'd been banned in European wars by treaty. Why was it acceptable to use on one bunch of humans but not another?
     
  11. You will just love this article then: Are Judaism and Christianity as violent as Islam? :D
     
  12. FFS these people are re-cycling the same crap that caused the crusades in the first place,one would have thought that education would have sorted this religious rubbish out by now,Ah well I live in hope
     
  13. Thanks for that, very interesting.
     
  14. No. At no point in this article does he make the statement 'Only Muslims lie' hes saying here are the specific circumstances and techniques of lying that a fundamentlist Muslim might use in pursuit of his goals, in common with how other human groupings might use their own lying techniques to acheive their goals. But of course, if its anyone saying some muslims might possibly sometimes use less-than-noble methods to acheive their goals, then clearly its an ad hominem attack on Muslims as a whole, yeah...
     
  15. This text makes no comparison to other religions, other societal systems or even tries to posit it into a real world context. It simply catalogues a list of the writer's interpretations that Islam not just condones, but encourages deceit, in the pursuit or political goals.

    I see this missive as biased bigotry with sordid intent. I am not fooled by the appearance of academic camouflage.

    In my opinion, it was not written to provide greater understanding of Islam, it was written deliberately to polarise communities by giving further ammunition to Islam-haters. He is quite blunt in putting across the point that it is a case of them and us and it is their intent to destroy us ...
    And this conclusion is based around the sole notion that Muslims tell lies for political gain.