yes, history.

Submitted by bayezid (Bangladesh), Dec 31, 2008 at 07:29

>>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."

you dont remember my point, that is. if you remember, i sent you this comment as a reply to what youve had to say about islamic laws of war in a post to someone else. when the other person rightly mentioned that islam introduced laws of war never before seen or heard, you propmtly used romes example.

i suspect you could not understand what it means when laws of war is mentioned. it means the dos and donts in battle. it also means policy towards the captives.

few examples. fire is not to be used to kill or punish the enemy, (the romans actually utilized incendiary weapons to scatter enemies)all captives are to be untouched, unharmed.(romes generals not just killed captives, but degraded them in other ways) but as long as they are captives. no killing of civilians or non combatants at any cost.(rome cared nothing for non combatants, they killed civilians and soldiers when engaged with the enemy)dead bodies of the enemy are not to be mutilated or disrespected.(like almost every other nation, romes soldiers used dead bodies ofr target practice, and even dismembered them to inspire fear in the enemy, a tactic they learned from some conquered nation)

>>

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.
But luckilly for us - there were many territories they did not conquer at all or conquered only partially because of stiff resistance such as Germany, Poland and most of eastern Europe, all of the Scandinavian countries, Ireland etc . Also some areas they did not take because they could not support their armies in the territory - such as the Balkans. went on to develop their own unique cultures and beliefs. Russia was out of the question.

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.
But luckilly for us - there were many territories they did not conquer at all or conquered only partially because of stiff resistance such as Germany, Poland and most of eastern Europe, all of the Scandinavian countries, Ireland etc . Also some areas they did not take because they could not support their armies in the territory - such as the Balkans. went on to develop their own unique cultures and beliefs. Russia was out of the question."

thanks for the historical insight there, although it really wasnt necessary. i am aware of the fact that rome went to war for materilistic reasons. islam went to war as retaliation and for spreading the word of ALLAH. a far nobler cause, easy to see.

>>so , these incidents in Mumbai, London, Spain, bali, Thailand, New York, Scotland.... etc etc?
The laws don't seem to be working very well then .

the laws of the muslims clearly state that muslims cannot take part in such horrendous activities. our upholding of GOD's laws gives us the islamic identity. not for any other reason. if these are indeed muslims then they have nothing to do with islam. just like the priests in the churches of christendom have nothing to do with the revelation of jesus when they abused little boys. common sense, mate.

>>So if they feel provoked they can start a war?

threat to religion, life, property and home constitutes provocation. under these circumstances not going to war would be a crime !!

>>

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.

ever heard of arnold toynbee ? the guy that wrote tomes of historical reports? that fellow was very much included in the 'our', which you find to be suspicious in giving truthful accounts.

again, what you are stating about rome is common knowledge. every other nation included the above mentioned things in their policies more or less. but one thing that needs be cleared is, they were concerned only with the burial of their dead. and not their enemies fallen.

>>

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..

thats what you would like to hear wouldnt you? muslims did not steal. they took over. difference. im sure your history books are filled with the accounts of christianities losing wars with islam. islam spread by means of envoys and ambassaos to foreign countries, and one the first few nations to accept islam by and large were the countires around jerusalem. the ones that islam went to war with were the ones that harmed islamic interests, either by killing muslim minorities or preventing islam fom being spread.

>>

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?"

oh there were decisive battles alright. heh. muslim decisive battles. the franks and germans and the spaniards or whoever joined the crusades masacred women children and old men and even cats and dogs by the thousands. then they went to the temple of the holy sepulchre to celebrate. reports from that time show that the crusaders waded in blood upto their knees and ankles. the blood of the defenseless.

ater that there are the happy accounts of one muslim victory after the other of course as we all know. christendom went home with broken bodie and broken pride. ever since that time, the crusades turned on its founders and witnessed the penetration of islam almost to the heart of europe.

---

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".