Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Princess Mujahada

Legitimate Demands Which Must Be Met

Recommended Posts

Peace

 

How so?

 

He was the pioneer of Satyagraha — the resistance of tyranny through mass civil disobedience, firmly founded upon ahimsa or total non-violence — which led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. (source: Wikipedia)

 

Salaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
He was the pioneer of Satyagraha — the resistance of tyranny through mass civil disobedience, firmly founded upon ahimsa or total non-violence — which led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. (source: Wikipedia)

Most colonized Asian and African nations gained their independence around 1950es (Indonesia was even much earlier, 1945), and they had no Gandhis in their respective countries with that Satyagraha thingy. How do you explain this?

 

Isn't there a limit of total non-violence? I don't believe that such a total non-violence exist and it is the right thing to do when your family is literally being raped and killed before your eyes.

 

If a Westerner said they would fight tooth and nail for their country's honor and dignity, it would be seen as a courageous, heroic and patriotic thing, whether or not they win as believed by a peaceful American in this forum who used to promote Gandhi's total non-violence.

 

And of course, it would be different when it is the Muslims who fight tooth and nail for their country. It would be seen merely as a violence.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

Whilst 'Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori' is still somewhat influential, don't forget the influence of Christian thought in the West. Turning the other cheek (yes, often not practiced etc) is still held as the best form of action a lot of time so absolute passivism is still held up as the best action. It may sound simplistic but it doesn't just say if hit on one cheek do not retaliate, it says then turn and offer the other cheek as well. It's almost active passifism.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was Gandhi's method effective?

 

 

He was the pioneer of Satyagraha — the resistance of tyranny through mass civil disobedience, firmly founded upon ahimsa or total non-violence — which led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.

 

A lot of credit is given to Gandhi, lot of more than he's due. The freedom struggle against the British was started by sepoys.. by the gun not by words. Many freedom fighters gave up their lives fighting for sub-continents freedom. To give a few examples... Mangal Pandey, Sardar Valla Bhai patel, Bhagat Singh, Rani Lalshmi Bai, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Tipu Sultan, Subhash Chandra Bose.

 

The British left not coz of Gandhi or anyone else but it was no longer cost effective... after WWII, the Bristish no longer had the same resources it once had to manage an occupation.

 

And Gandhi was not the pioneer of Satyagraha, it was Sardar Ram Singh Namdhari. Gandhi is the media darling of the Indian freedom fight... and like all media darlings, his role hugely exaggerated. Pls do not insult the sacrifices of thousands by giving one man the credit.

Edited by Mansoor Ansari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

Isn't there a limit of total non-violence? I don't believe that such a total non-violence exist and it is the right thing to do when your family is literally being raped and killed before your eyes.

 

If you read more about ghandhi, you will realize that he said that total non-violence cannot be achieved by everyone. Some people cant suffer immensely and still remain non-violent. Ghandhi admited that violence is sometimes necessary.

 

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Yasnov,

 

Well, at least people should stop the double standard and hipocrisy. How could they say that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are justified but the Palestinian case is not?

 

The West Says: "We're going to introduce a new speed limit outside schools of 20 mph."

Yasnov Says: "WESTERN HYPOCRITES! You allow people on motorways to drive at 70 mph!!!!"

The West Says: You cannot drive at 70mph past schools because it is dangerous, that is not hypocrisy."

Yasnov Says: "It is a double standard! You have one set of rules for one place and then change them in a different place."

The West Says: "You have to change your standards depending on the circumstances, to call somebody a hypocrite for that is idiotic. You cannot cite "double standards" because rules vary from place to place."

Yasnov: Says: "Look it's really simple, in place A you have one set of rules and in place B you set different rules. The Western hypocrisy stinks!"

The West Says: "I bloody well know the rules are different, that doesn't automatically equal hypocrisy. Motorways and roads outside schools are inherently different!"

Yasnov Says: "It does equal hypocrisy, it does it does it does!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats quite an answer isambard - any chance you can shorten it? :sl:

 

Its actually a very general summery. Its why I didnt want to get into it, too many variables.

 

The basis is making a clear cut 'right-wrong' presumption becomes sticky because of all the different factors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghandhi admited that violence is sometimes necessary. peace

Sure ... otherwise there is something wrong with his philosophy. This goes to show that when someone promotos non-violence, it doesn't mean that he has to act like a helpless fool, but a decent human being.

 

Peace Yasnov,

The West Says: You cannot drive at 70mph past schools because it is dangerous, that is not hypocrisy.

Salam, sorry Eoin, this does not work. Comparing two different things .... one surely only find a good moral excuse in introducing a new speed limit outside schools since no one ever get harmed in doing this.

 

True you may also find a good "moral" excuse in dropping bombs on the cities where millions of innocents were living, but another good moral reason would also say that you have no right to take their lives, you have no right to harm them, you can't do that because your good "moral" excuse would result in sufferings of the people on the other side.

 

So, it's just a matter of it's my people or your people that should die, the rest are lame excuses ....

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam,

 

Erm, effectiveness? If USA had bombed Hiroshima and then the war had continued then it would have been an even greater tragedy.

Salam,

First, it is just like gambling with millions of lives of innocents, and secondly(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_arabnews(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/?page=7&section=0&article=97346&d=11&m=6&y=2007"] the Japanese surrendered not because of Hiroshima[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would a Caliphate do with nuclear weapons?

 

 

Turn israel into a Glass parking lot, probably. Or try to "settle" conflicts within their borders and end up nuking themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would a Caliphate do with nuclear weapons?

Surely it is not to be dropped in the middle of cities where innocents live. They might not be using nuclear weapons after all knowing that it would also kill the innocents, which is not the purpose and prohibited in Islam.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×