Forums → WEPR → [necro] Ask a Muslim
| 558 | 128009 |
- 558 Replies
being in a front line, in a full scale war...
Lets say that being on the front line in a war has a 99% fatality rate. The fidayeen still has a 100% fatality rate.
maybe a nation will surrender, but a group of soldiers dont surrender. It would be considered cowardly.
Unless your talking about the Japanese during WWII, groups surrendered all the time. It was much preferable to death. Do you know anything about warfare? How do you think battles end? Do you just think that it is like a vido game, where it only ends once everyone dies?
In a war, two sides fight. In most wars, when one side is losing majorly, the soldiers will surrender and be brought to a POW camp. They are not cowards, really not surrendering ever is often considered military weakness.
and a soldier doesnt? at least a fidayeen attacker havent devoted hes life to war.
Devote his life to war? You really don't know anything about warfare. In most major conflicts, armies where conscripted men. They where regular people that the government made into soldiers, and when they where done they went back to being regular people. Modern All-Volunteer forces are also somewhat the same, except for people wanting to join. And most troops have a limited amount of time to serve, they are not going to be spending their whole lives as soldier. No one has devoted their lives to warfare since the middle ages, and back them you where basically made a lord for it and was still mostly conscripted men.
In a fidayeen attack, the attacker literally gives his life for war, with no hope for survival. Basically they commit suicide for the task.
Lets say that being on the front line in a war has a 99% fatality rate. The fidayeen still has a 100% fatality rate.
And where do you get those numbers from? who said it couldnt be the other way around?
groups surrendered all the time.
and groups dies all the times to(not surrendering)
Do you know anything about warfare? How do you think battles end? Do you just think that it is like a vido game, where it only ends once everyone dies?
no, I think they surrender and live happily after...
where it only ends once everyone dies?
You avoiding your own argument
I am not discussing about how it ends, but whats actually happening.
I am referring to:
There is a difference of "Possibility of dieing" and "Expecting to die".
. In most wars, when one side is losing majorly, the soldiers will surrender
you said it yourself, if they are losing majorly.
Lets say that being on the front line in a war has a 99% fatality rate. The fidayeen still has a 100% fatality rate.
he will have a 70% or less fatality rate as opposed to a suicide bomber who have 100%.
You are mixing them up.
No, the people who blow themselves up for your god are crazy.
you know nothing about them so you should stop insulting them.
You really don't know anything about warfare.
and you know everything about it. let end the discussion, since you know everything, there is no need for a discussion...
except for people wanting to join.
this says it all, dont want to discuss this further. You will still miss the point.
In a fidayeen attack, the attacker literally gives his life for war, with no hope for survival.
they dont comit suicide. They have target. Basically it the same as a soldier given a mission for a specific target.
The reason they often die, is not because of the attack it selves, but because the enemy are a big military power.
fidayeen attacker is often a normal guy, with no military training, who have lost family/friend or something else precious to him. ofcouse he gonna die against a big military power.
And where do you get those numbers from? who said it couldnt be the other way around?
I made up the number for the front line war, since any real war with that kind of casualties could not be sustained. The fidayeen attack is just a suicide attack, so by definition it has 100% fatality.
and groups dies all the times to(not surrendering)
Yep they do. But not nearly as much as surrenders. Really, it is only the really dedicated and slightly unhinged who never surrender, the Japanese during WWII, the French Foreign Legion is known not to surrender often, and many others often die. But a majority of troops surrender before they die, or at the very least retreat.
no, I think they surrender and live happily after...
They surrender and then are brought to a POW camp, where conditions are often horrible. At least they are still alive, which is why they surrendered in the first place.
You avoiding your own argument
I am not discussing about how it ends, but whats actually happening.
I am referring to:
you said it yourself, if they are losing majorly.
25% casualties is losing majorly, 50% casualties is a slaughter, 75% casualties and you should have surrendered a long time ago, 100% casualties and it was a suicide attack. Depending, of course, on the casualties of the enemy, which depending on the front can be anything from fairly even to a slaughter. Really, when you lose half your men and your enemy has lost only a few, you surrender. Or retreat, depending on the front. Or would you have the people continue fighting a losing battle until they die?
he will have a 70% or less fatality rate as opposed to a suicide bomber who have 100%.
You are mixing them up.
Can you please give me an example of a fidyeen attack with a 70% fatality rate? I have only seen one example, and it had a 100% fatality rate.
you know nothing about them so you should stop insulting them.
I know that they are blowing themselves up, which is crazy, to harm civilian and military targets, which is crazy. I know enough to call them crazy. Sane people don't strap bombs to themselves.
and you know everything about it. let end the discussion, since you know everything, there is no need for a discussion...
But then how are you to learn?
they dont comit suicide. They have target. Basically it the same as a soldier given a mission for a specific target.
The reason they often die, is not because of the attack it selves, but because the enemy are a big military power.
Except the soldiers expect to win the fight, while the fidyeen attack just expects to go down shooting. They are hardly the same thing, when soldiers are running out of ammo and getting slaughtered the surrender or run. In this case, they keep shooting until they run out of ammo then die.
fidayeen attacker is often a normal guy, with no military training, who have lost family/friend or something else precious to him. ofcouse he gonna die against a big military power.
The reason he is probably going to die is because he expects to. In every example I can find of a fidayeen attack, they usually blow themselves up after they run out of bullets. Which gives them 100% fatality rate, far higher than any war could hope for.
You make a argument, I make a argument, then you decide you are right. All your numbers are made up, and decided to be right. So I don't see any reason to discuss this any further, since you already made your mind, and made your arguments to be fact, and mine to be meaningless, by somebody who know nothing.
And since the discussing is clearly of-topic, and I find it pointless, I will stop it here.
If you want to discuss about soldiers/militia/fidayeen attacker or generally about war, then make a new topic, and I would gladly discuss it further.
You make a argument, I make a argument, then you decide you are right
The exact same thing you are doing?
All your numbers are made up, and decided to be right
What numbers would that be, exactly?
So I don't see any reason to discuss this any further, since you already made your mind, and made your arguments to be fact, and mine to be meaningless, by somebody who know nothing.
And since the discussing is clearly of-topic, and I find it pointless, I will stop it here.
So exactly the same thing you are doing?
Ok, just wanted to throw this out there, even though this has nothing probably to do with the current conversation.
Ahem. A few months ago, Muslims hacked our church's website and messed up a bunch of things. And then they said they were peaceful. This is kind of contradicting. I think muslims are way too reckless and impulsive. At least, the ones I've met.
Ok, just wanted to throw this out there, even though this has nothing probably to do with the current conversation.
Ahem. A few months ago, Muslims hacked our church's website and messed up a bunch of things. And then they said they were peaceful. This is kind of contradicting. I think muslims are way too reckless and impulsive. At least, the ones I've met.
did you see any muslims do it, or did someone else do it, and blame muslims to get away with it? unless you saw any muslims actually hacking the computers, then you are just making a baseless statement.
now ignore what Jake and I just posted, and continue on.
-Blade
I just wanted to know what you thought of the 'burqa', the full veil that some Muslim women wear? Should Islam drop this in order to promote equality between men and women? From a western point of view it just seems disrespectful to women and makes social interaction difficult.
Just like to add that every Muslim I've ever met has been lovely and as with everything it's the minority that cause problems.
No, every person who kills innocents on purpose and not by a mistake and is killing them not because he is in immediate danger from them is a terrorist and is not muslim for sure no matter if he calls himself so.
Oh? And what do you base that off of? No true Scotsman would ever do that, would they?
As stated in 5:32, it's forbidden to kill. Taking a life is Shirk(blasphemy). And you'll become a non-muslim if you commit Shirk.
"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.(Qur'an 5:32)"
The terrorists literally send people on suicide missions. What was it that Punisher called it? They had a word for it. They literally expect them to die, making them fire until they run out of ammo, which is a death sentence.
Fidaeen attack. That is what he called it.
First of all, you've used Punishers phrase, which he used in another topic for another reason, whereby I cannot see what it has to do with the topic. Thereof, a Fidayeen attack is exactly the same as a suicide attack, and has nothing to do with Islam. Istishhad is the Arabic word for martyrdom, and not Fidayeen, and has nothing to do with Islam.
Istishhad has nothing to do with Islam. Suicide bombing is something that has begun like 60 years ago, and is just something new. Thereof, it's forbidden to commit suicide. What do I base that off? On the following verses:
"O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful.(Qur'an 4:29)"
"Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.(Qur'an 6:151)"
And if it's not enough, here some hadiths about suicide:
The Prophet(pbuh) said, "Whoever intentionally swears falsely by a religion other than Islam, then he is what he has said, (e.g. if he says, 'If such thing is not true then I am a Jew,' he is really a Jew). And whoever commits suicide with piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in the Hell Fire."
Narrated Jundab the Prophet(pbuh) said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My servant has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him."
I hope I answered you question throught his too, Danielo.
The whole crap about this Fidayeen attack is off-topic. People please stay on topic and don't start discussions in a "ask a ..." topic.
I just wanted to know what you thought of the 'burqa', the full veil that some Muslim women wear? Should Islam drop this in order to promote equality between men and women? From a western point of view it just seems disrespectful to women and makes social interaction difficult.
Let's think simple. 1. Burqa is not a must. 2. Burqa shows Islam wrong to non-believers, and makes it hard for muslims to show them that Islam is not bad(because the two groups have different cultures(main cultures, not taking the sub cultures). 3. Burqa is used for bad purposes by Munafiqs(religious hypocrites).
There is no need to drop the burqa. I believe that it is just better, if they won't wear it at this time(especially not in a non-muslim country).
I can see(and something I already knew would happen) that culture and different views begin to mix too much with the topic. That's why I will try to do something new. I will be answering your questions, and thereof tell you little parts about the life of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), so that you at last can understand Islam more. A new subject every day and a new theme every week. And I will begin today.
This weeks theme will be about: The Prophet who's been send to the Universe as a Mercy(by God). And todays subject will be called: The expected dawn.
Greetings
I didn't expect it to be this much, so I thought to post in parts. Part 1:
THE DARK PERIOD OF IGNORANCE
Every period of history characterized by associating partners with God, 'whether by worshipping idols, deifying individuals, or attributing creativity to nature and material causes, is wholly dark. When belief in God's Unity is removed from peopleâs hearts, their minds and souls darken, standards change, and things and the world are judged from false points of view. The Qur'an defines this moral, spiritual, social and even economic and scientific state as ignorance(jahiliyya):
"Or like darkness on a deep sea obscure, covered by a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layers of darkness one upon the other. When he holds out his hand, well-nigh he cannot see it. And he for whom God has assigned no light, for him there is no light. (Qur'an 24:40)"
I do not like describing falsehood. Besides, it is wrong to do so where truth may be described. In the words of God: "What is there, after truth, but misguidance? (Qur'an 10:32)". However, to clarify the subject, I will say a few words about the pre-Islamic era, known as the Age of Ignorance.
Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) appeared at a time when people had lost their knowledge of the true religion and had reverted to worshipping idols of stones, earth, bread, and even cheese. As stated in the Qur'an:
"They were serving, apart from God, what hurts them not, neither profits them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with God." (Qur'an 10:18)"
They were so degraded in thought and morals that, as reported by Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, they would cut their idols into pieces and eat them. The only excuse offered was that they were following in the steps of their forefathers:
"When it is said to them: "Follow what God has sent down," they say: "No. We follow that wherein we found our fathers." (Qur'an 2:170)"
Greetings
As stated in 5:32, it's forbidden to kill. Taking a life is Shirk(blasphemy). And you'll become a non-muslim if you commit Shirk.
Would it? Then what about all the killing that happens in the Qur'an? And the stoning and beheading they order? Do those not count?
First of all, you've used Punishers phrase, which he used in another topic for another reason, whereby I cannot see what it has to do with the topic. Thereof, a Fidayeen attack is exactly the same as a suicide attack, and has nothing to do with Islam. Istishhad is the Arabic word for martyrdom, and not Fidayeen, and has nothing to do with Islam.
Istishhad has nothing to do with Islam. Suicide bombing is something that has begun like 60 years ago, and is just something new. Thereof, it's forbidden to commit suicide. What do I base that off? On the following verses:
It was not about Islam. It was about their dedication to your religion. Why would they kill themselves in suicide attacks if they where not totally dedicated to the religion?
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
4:91 Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.
The Quran (Koran. How do you want us to spell it?) obviously says that killing is justified in some cases. Are you saying that terrorist are not following the verses I showed you? Or any of these?
Thread is locked!