Auggie wrote on Apr 28
th, 2019 at 6:01pm:
Setanta wrote on Apr 25
th, 2019 at 11:31pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 25
th, 2019 at 7:14pm:
Setanta wrote on Apr 25
th, 2019 at 6:31pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 25
th, 2019 at 6:08pm:
Yadda, do you support the concept of pre-emptive warfare?
In every case, in some? What does the question really mean? Do you?
I'm talking about in general.
The reason why I'm asking this question is because some have argued that the Prophet Muhammad's campaigns were examples of pre-emptive warfare.
Ugg. He spread his toxicity by the sword. Europe was not coming to get him, it had enough of it's own problems. He and his followers went forth. There was no defense involved when he moved out of Arabia. They were wars of conquest. Islam was the aggressor once they moved out of Mohland and even within.. Islam has never been a religion of peace. The peace of Islam is subjugation.
I do think preemptive war is justifiable under certain circumstances. Just as I have preemptively dealt with people that posed a threat where it was not going to go well if I didn't. Beating people up just because they might pose a threat in the future, nope. Imminent threat, maybe.
Muhammad was trying to establish a state in which Muslims would be safe and free to practise their religion according to their own principles. In order to achieve this, he had to develop unified political entity so this could happen. This required him to establish a degree of territory and resources, which involved 'going forth'.
Don't forget that in the final Surah (Surah 5), Muhammad had unified the Arabian peninsula and had stated that 'he had perfected their religion'. So, technically at the time of his death, the territorial extent of Islam was sufficient to protect the Islamic community. Further expansion of Islam was actually un-Islamic according to this logic. Expansion of Islam beyond Arabian borders is essentially stating that Islam wasn't perfect at the time of Muhammad's death.
What a pack of mealy-mouthed crap. If he seriously wanted to establish a safe haven for Islamic worship, where was there any need to continually seek to extend the domination of Islam? Because in 'seeking a safe haven for Islam' he was persecuting and converting by the sword other groups and continually seeking to extend his territory, and was thus generating for himself more and more 'muslims' in need of a safe place, even if they didn't want to be Muslims?
The men killed, the women enslaved as sex servants and child bearers... you call that establishing a 'safe haven'?
That's like a bully saying he was only seeking to defend himself by attacking others...
Something wrong with your head, boy....
Your argument shows the clear need to shrink Islam back into its original borders, due to its blatant persecution of countless other groups. If Islam left the rest of the world alone, it would have nothing to fear.... but by perpetuating its own offenses into other areas and groups, it is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course others are going to hit back.... it's inevitable.....
Forum
Pages: 
