. FFI | Document | Artikel | Forum | Wiki | Glossary | Prophet Muhammad Illustrated

BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Muslim moderat, radikal, bgm pemikiran mereka & bgm hubungan mereka dgn NON-Muslim, sejarah perlakuan Muslim terhdp NON-Muslim, Dhimmi & Jizyah

BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Postby ali5196 » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:18 pm

Hukum perang KAFIR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Con ... _war_(1929)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Con ... ield_(1929)
1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Postby ali5196 » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:23 pm

Menanggapi TAQQIYA Muslim tetang 'Kemuliaan Abu Bakar dalam Perang' dalam Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

In the early 7th century, the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, whilst instructing his Muslim army, laid down the following rules concerning warfare:
[Di abad 7, kalif pertama, Abu Bakr, sementara mengomando tetnara Muslimnya, meletakkan hukum perang sbb:]

Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.[4][5]

[Hentikan kalian, agar saya bisa meberikan kalian 10 perintah di medan perang. Jangan melakukan fitnah atau melanggar dari jalan mutaqeem. Kau tidak boleh memutilasi mayat2, jangan bunuh seorang anak atau seorang wanita atau lelaki tua renta. Jangan merusak pohon2 atau bakar pohon dengan api, apalagi pohon yang berbuah. Jangan bunuh ternah musuh, khususnya yang bisa digunakan sebagai bahan pangan bagimu. Kalian akan menemukan orang2 yang membaktikan diri pada biara; biarkan mereka.]


These rules were put into practice during the early Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries.[citation needed] After the expansion of the Caliphate, Islamic legal treatises on international law from the 9th century onwards covered the application of Islamic military jurisprudence to international law,[6][verification needed] including the law of treaties; the treatment of diplomats, hostages, refugees and prisoners of war in Islam; the right of asylum; conduct on the battlefield; protection of women, children and non-combatant civilians; contracts across the lines of battle; the use of poisonous weapons; and devastation of enemy territory. These laws were put into practice by Muslim armies during the Crusades, most notably by Saladin and Sultan al-Kamil. For example, after al-Kamil defeated the Franks, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food:[7]

Perintah2 ini dipraktekkan selama serangan2 penjajahan Muslim di abad2 7 & 8. [diperlukan sumber] Setelah ekspansi kalifat, traktat2 hukum Islam tetnang hukum internasional dari abad 9 kemudian mengcover aplikasi yurisprudens militer Islam kepada hukum internasional [diperlukan sumber], termausk hukum tetnang traktat; perlakuan terhadap diplomat, sandera, pengungsi dan tahanan perang adlam Islam; hak suaka; kelakuan di medan perang; perlindungan terhadap wanita, anak2 dan penduduk sipil non-kombatan; kontrak2 tentang garis2 pertempuran; penggunaan senjata racun dan penghancuran teritori musuh. Hukum2 ini dipraktekkan tentara2 Muslim selama Perang Salib, khususnya oleh Saladin dan Sultan al-Kamil. Contoh, saat al-Kamil mengalahkan kaum Frank, Oliverus Sholasticus memuji hukum perang Islam dengan berkomentar bgm al-Kamil mensuplai tentara Frank yang kalah dengan makanan.[7]

Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power.[8][verification needed]
[Siapa masih meragukan bahwa kebaikan, persahatan dan kemurahan hati datang dari Tuhan? Lelaki2 yang orang tua, putera dan puteri, kakak dan adik, tewas di tangan kami, yang tanahnya kita rebut, yang kita usir telanjang dari rumah2 mereka, menghidupi kami dengan makanan mereka saat kami mati karena kelaparan dan membanjiri kami dengan kebaikian bahkan saat kami berkuasa. [8][diperlukan sumber]

-------------
Referensi
4.^ Al-Muwatta; Book 21, Number 21.3.10.
5.^ Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa, Islamic Rulings on Warfare, p. 22, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane Publishing Co., Darby PA, ISBN 1-4289-1039-5
6.^ Kelsay, J. (March 2003), "Al-Shaybani and the Islamic Law of War", Journal of Military Ethics (Routledge) 2 (1): 63–75, doi:10.1080/15027570310000027
7.^ Judge Weeramantry, Christopher G. (1997), Justice Without Frontiers, Brill Publishers, pp. 136, ISBN 9041102418
8.^ Judge Weeramantry, Christopher G. (1997), Justice Without Frontiers, Brill Publishers, pp. 136–7, ISBN 9041102418
------------------
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Postby ali5196 » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:38 pm

Dan masih banyak milis2 taqiya Muslim yang mengulangi hukum Abu Bakr diatas:

INi misalnya: http://www.islamfortoday.com/war.htm

http://www.hweb.org.uk/content/view/18/2/
What can justify Jihad? There are a number of reasons, but the Quran is clear that self-defence :---) is always the underlying cause.

Permissible reasons for military Jihad:
◦Self-defence/Bela diri alasan sah bagi jihad militer?

Ini sudah jelas taqiya! Jihad militer tidak demi bela diri tapi demi menguatkan Islam dengan cara perang:
Image
meluruskan-makna-jihad-t2922/page100.html

◦Strengthening Islam (memperkuat Islam)[!!]
BETUL!

◦Protecting the freedom of Muslims to practise their faith [!!]
◦Protecting Muslims against oppression, which could include overthrowing a tyrannical ruler [!!]
◦Punishing an enemy who breaks an oath
◦Putting right a wrong [!!]

What a Jihad is not
A war is not a Jihad if the intention is to:

◦Force people to convert to Islam [ini taqiya telak! Jihad adalah untuk memaksa orang masuk Islam, bayar jizyah atau kalau dia menolak, perangi dia. Seperti dikatakan sendiri oleh ulama Mesir: mesir-masuk-islam-bayar-jizyah-atau-perangi-kafir-t44793/ )
◦Conquer other nations to colonise them [taqiya telak! Kalau gitu, untuk apa dong tentara Muslim dia menyerang Persia, Irak, Jerusalem, Syria, Konstantinopel dsb kalau bukan untuk menjajah negeri2 itu??]
◦Take territory for economic gain [ini sudah so pasti taqiya telak ! INgat! Nafkah saya didapatkan dari bayang2 tombak! Mana tuh artikel?]
◦Settle disputes [Islam tidak interes utk membereskan perselisihan. Ini menandakan persamaan derajad Muslim dengan non-Muslim kalau Muslim sampai duduk semeja da berjabatan tangan dengan non-Muslim. Contoh: perselisihan dengan Yahudi tentang wilayah. Setiap perjanjian degnan Yahudi dilanggar, termasuk perjanjian perbatasan dengan Syria dan Mesir baru2 ini dilanggar oleh Syria dan Mesir]
◦Demonstrate a leader's power [so pasti!]


The rules of Jihad
A military Jihad has to be obey very strict rules in order to be legitimate.

◦It must not be fought to gain territory. (Taqiya! Jadi tentara Muslim mulai dari abad 7 menyerang Konstantinopel, Yerusalem, Iran, Irak sampai ke Eropa segala, ngapain kalau bukan untuk merebut wilayah??? Atau cuma untuk piknik doang??)◦It must be launched by a religious leader.
◦It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of. (baca: kebaikan menurut Allahnya Islam hanya jika seluruh dunai masuk Islam)
◦Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war. (Cara Islam solve problem: undang orang masuk Islam, kalau menolak, serbu!!)
◦Innocent people should not be killed. (taqiya. Muhammad sendiri mengkoordinasikan pembunuhan 600-900 lelaki dan bocah2 lelaki Yahudi Khaybar yang tidak bersenjata)
◦Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt. (wanita dan anak2 jangan dilukai, dikawini saja! Yang tuek2 gak berguna sbg budak seks atau budak kerja, tinggal saja)
◦Women must not be raped. (Muhamad sendiri memperkosa dua tawanan perang: Juwariyah dan Safiyah)
◦Enemies must be treated with justice. (Justice ala Islam adalah penggal musuh kalau menolak Islam atau jizyah)◦Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers. (Muhammad SAW tidak pernah peduli dgn perlakuan muslim pada tentara musuh yang luka2)
◦The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace. (taqiya!) Islam mewajibkan Muslim untuk berperang sampai tidak ada 'fitnah' (alias kekafiran), bukan berperang sampai musuh minta damai.
◦Property must not be damaged. (taqiya!) Harta benda orang akan selamat kalau orang itu masuk Islam.
◦Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare. (Muhammad sendiri meracuni sumur Khaybar)

:axe:
Last edited by ali5196 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:37 am, edited 7 times in total.
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Postby ali5196 » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:41 pm

Pertama2, kita mulai dengan pembahasan bahwa senjata yang paling utama dalam perang islam adalah : TAQQIYA (membohong).

Deceit in Muhammad's Military Exploits (akan diterjemahkan)
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

Muhammad—whose example as the "most perfect human" is to be followed in every detail—took an expedient view on lying. It is well known, for instance, that he permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to placate one's wife, and in war.[11] According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of law, "The ulema agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war."[12] Moreover, according to Mukaram, this deception is classified as taqiyya: "Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible."[13]

Several ulema believe deceit is integral to the waging of war: Ibn al-'Arabi declares that "in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than the need for courage." Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, "War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter's inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself]." And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims "to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels."[14]

This Muslim notion that war is deceit goes back to the Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the Ahzab, Na'im ibn Mas'ud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of their co-tribalist's conversion, he counseled Mas'ud to return and try to get the pagan forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably declared, "For war is deceit." Mas'ud returned to the Ahzab without their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifted the siege from the Muslims, and saved Islam from destruction in an embryonic period.[15] Most recently, 9/11 accomplices, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, rationalized their conspiratorial role in their defendant response by evoking their prophet's assertion that "war is deceit."

A more compelling expression of the legitimacy of deceiving infidels is the following anecdote. A poet, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, offended Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, "Who will kill this man who has hurt God and his prophet?" A young Muslim named Muhammad ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that in order to get close enough to Ka'b to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka'b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad. He carried on in this way till his disaffection became so convincing that Ka'b took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka'b's guard was down, killed him.[16]

Muhammad said other things that cast deception in a positive light, such as "God has commanded me to equivocate among the people just as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr."[17]

In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare. Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.[18] During wars with Christians, whenever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral. Mukaram states, "Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others."[19]
War Is Eternal
That Islam legitimizes deceit during war is, of course, not all that astonishing; after all, as the Elizabethan writer John Lyly put it, "All's fair in love and war."[24] Other non-Muslim philosophers and strategists—such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes—justified deceit in warfare. Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense. The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur'an, "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states: "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily."[26]

Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, Muslim scholars such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) agree that Qur'an 9:5, known as ayat as-sayf or the sword verse, has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses, including "every other verse in the Qur'an, which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the nonbelievers."[27] In fact, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence agree that "jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse."[28]

Obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomized worldview that pits the realm of Islam against the realm of war. The first, dar al-Islam, is the "realm of submission," the world where Shari'a governs; the second, dar al-Harb (the realm of war), is the non-Islamic world. A struggle continues until the realm of Islam subsumes the non-Islamic world—a perpetual affair that continues to the present day. The renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) clearly articulates this division:

In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[29]

Finally and all evidence aside, lest it still appear unreasonable for a faith with over one billion adherents to obligate unprovoked warfare in its name, it is worth noting that the expansionist jihad is seen as an altruistic endeavor, not unlike the nineteenth century ideology of "the white man's burden." The logic is that the world, whether under democracy, socialism, communism, or any other system of governance, is inevitably living in bondage—a great sin, since the good of all humanity is found in living in accordance to God's law. In this context, Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to a glorious end—Islamic hegemony under Shari'a rule, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

This view has an ancient pedigree: Soon after the death of Muhammad (634), as the jihad fighters burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They memorably replied as follows:

God has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of God, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of God.[30]

Fourteen hundred years later— in March 2009—Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:

As a member of the true religion, I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Shari'a], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.[31]

And it should go without saying that taqiyya in the service of altruism is permissible. For example, only recently, after publicly recounting a story where a Muslim tricked a Jew into converting to Islam—warning him that if he tried to abandon Islam, Muslims would kill him as an apostate—Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri called it a "beautiful trick."[32] After all, from an Islamic point of view, it was the Jew who, in the end, benefitted from the deception, which brought him to Islam.

Treaties and Truces
The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised. Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years (by claiming a Quraysh infraction), the sole function of the truce is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before renewing the offensive:[33] "By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory, the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike."[34] Hence "the fuqaha [jurists] are agreed that open-ended truces are illegitimate if Muslims have the strength to renew the war against them [non-Muslims]."[35]

Even though Shari'a mandates Muslims to abide by treaties, they have a way out, one open to abuse: If Muslims believe—even without solid evidence—that their opponents are about to break the treaty, they can preempt by breaking it first. Moreover, some Islamic schools of law, such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.[36] This is reminiscent of the following canonical hadith: "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."[37] And what is better, what is more altruistic, than to make God's word supreme by launching the jihad anew whenever possible? Traditionally, Muslim rulers held to a commitment to launch a jihad at least once every year. This ritual is most noted with the Ottoman sultans, who spent half their lives in the field.[38] So important was the duty of jihad that the sultans were not permitted to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, an individual duty for each Muslim. Their leadership of the jihad allowed this communal duty to continue; without them, it would have fallen into desuetude.[39]

In short, the prerequisite for peace or reconciliation is Muslim advantage. This is made clear in an authoritative Sunni legal text, Umdat as-Salik, written by a fourteenth-century Egyptian scholar, Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri: "There must be some benefit [maslaha] served in making a truce other than the status quo: 'So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are uppermost [Qur'an 47:35].'"[40]

More recently, and of great significance for Western leaders advocating cooperation with Islamists, Yasser Arafat, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, addressed an assembly of Muslims in a mosque in Johannesburg where he justified his actions: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca."[41] In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once "something better" came along—that is, once the Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive and continue on the road to Jerusalem. Elsewhere, Hudaybiya has appeared as a keyword for radical Islamists. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front had three training camps within the Camp Abu Bakar complex in the Philippines, one of which was named Camp Hudaybiya.[42]

Hostility Disguised As Grievance
In their statements directed at European or American audiences, Islamists maintain that the terrorism they direct against the West is merely reciprocal treatment for decades of Western and Israeli oppression. Yet in writings directed to their fellow Muslims, this animus is presented, not as a reaction to military or political provocation but as a product of religious obligation.

For instance, when addressing Western audiences, Osama bin Laden lists any number of grievances as motivating his war on the West—from the oppression of the Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women, and even U.S. failure to sign the environmental Kyoto protocol—all things intelligible from a Western perspective. Never once, however, does he justify Al-Qaeda's attacks on Western targets simply because non-Muslim countries are infidel entities that must be subjugated. Indeed, he often initiates his messages to the West by saying, "Reciprocal treatment is part of justice" or "Peace to whoever follows guidance"[43]—though he means something entirely different than what his Western listeners understand by words such as "peace," "justice," or "guidance."

It is when bin Laden speaks to fellow Muslims that the truth comes out. When a group of prominent Muslims wrote an open letter to the American people soon after the strikes of 9/11, saying that Islam seeks to peacefully coexist,[44] bin Laden wrote to castigate them:

As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in God alone" [Qur'an 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi, or protected minority], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! ... Such then is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.[45]

Mainstream Islam's four schools of jurisprudence lend their support to this hostile Weltanschauung by speaking of the infidel in similar terms. Bin Laden's addresses to the West with his talk of justice and peace are clear instances of taqiyya. He is not only waging a physical jihad but a propaganda war, that is, a war of deceit. If he can convince the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault, he garners greater sympathy for his cause. At the same time, he knows that if Americans were to realize that nothing short of their submission can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be quickly compromised. Hence the constant need to dissemble and to cite grievances, for, as bin Laden's prophet asserted, "War is deceit."

Implications
Taqiyya presents a range of ethical dilemmas. Anyone who truly believes that God justifies and, through his prophet's example, even encourages deception will not experience any ethical qualms over lying. Consider the case of 'Ali Mohammad, bin Laden's first "trainer" and long-time Al-Qaeda operative. An Egyptian, he was initially a member of Islamic Jihad and had served in the Egyptian army's military intelligence unit. After 1984, he worked for a time with the CIA in Germany. Though considered untrustworthy, he managed to get to California where he enlisted in the U.S. Army. It seems likely that he continued to work in some capacity for the CIA. He later trained jihadists in the United States and Afghanistan and was behind several terror attacks in Africa. People who knew him regarded him with "fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism."[46] Indeed, this sentence sums it all up: For a zealous belief in Islam's tenets, which legitimize deception in order to make God's word supreme, will certainly go a long way in creating "incredible self-confidence" when lying.[47]

Yet most Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Naively or arrogantly, today's multiculturalist leaders project their own worldview onto Islamists, thinking a handshake and smiles across a cup of coffee, as well as numerous concessions, are enough to dismantle the power of God's word and centuries of unchanging tradition. The fact remains: Right and wrong in Islam have little to do with universal standards but only with what Islam itself teaches—much of which is antithetical to Western norms.

It must, therefore, be accepted that, contrary to long-held academic assumptions, the doctrine of taqiyya goes far beyond Muslims engaging in religious dissimulation in the interest of self-preservation and encompasses deception of the infidel enemy in general. This phenomenon should provide a context for Shi'i Iran's zeal—taqiyya being especially second nature to Shi'ism—to acquire nuclear power while insisting that its motives are entirely peaceful.

Nor is taqiyya confined to overseas affairs. Walid Phares of the National Defense University has lamented that homegrown Islamists are operating unfettered on American soil due to their use of taqiyya: "Does our government know what this doctrine is all about and, more importantly, are authorities educating the body of our defense apparatus regarding this stealthy threat dormant among us?"[48] After the Fort Hood massacre, when Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-Muslim who exhibited numerous Islamist signs which were ignored, killed thirteen fellow servicemen and women, one is compelled to respond in the negative.

This, then, is the dilemma: Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God's will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam "until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[49] Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end. Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light, evoking the practical observations of philosopher James Lorimer, uttered over a century ago: "So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem."[50]

In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of "war and peace" as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of "war and deceit." For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum.
Last edited by ali5196 on Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Postby ali5196 » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:43 pm

ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Postby Adadeh » Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:08 am

Tentunya perlu dijelaskan bahwa Muhammad mewajibkan agar Muslim harus terus mengobarkan perang terhadap kafir.

Paksaan untuk Memeluk Islam:

Hadis Sahih Muslim, Buku 19, Nomer 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children.
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action.
If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm.
(1) Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers).
(2) If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands.
(3) If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.


terjemahan:
Dilaporkan oleh Sulaiman b. Buraid melalui ayahnya bahwa saat Rasul Allâh SAW menunjuk seseorang untuk jadi pemimpin tentara Islam, dia menasehatinya agar dia takut akan Allâh dan bersikap baik terhadap sesama Muslim yang ada bersamanya. Dia akan berkata: Peranglah dalam nama Allâh dan di jalan Allâh. Perangi mereka yang tidak beriman pada Allâh. Lakukan Jihad, jangan mencuri jarahan perang; (→ karena jatah 20% harus diberikan terlebih dahulu pada Muhammad, dan Muhammad memilih dulu segala barang atau cewek terbaik sebelum sisanya dibagi-bagi untuk para Jihadis)
jangan langgar sumpahmu (→ perjanjian² dengan kafir dilanggar berkali-kali oleh Muhammad, sebab baginya taqiyya itu halal dalam memerangi kafir);
dan jangan potong² mayat; (→ ini pun dilanggarnya pula dengan sikapnya yang senang menerima kepala Umm Qirfa (wanita kafir uzur yang dibelah tubuhnya pake 2 onta) dan malah mengarak kepala itu di Medinah)
jangan bunuh anak² (→ ini pun dilanggarnya dengan membunuh ratusan anak kafir Yahudi Qurayza; perintah jangan bunuh anak kafir ini adalah karena anak² ini nantinya dijual sebagai budak dan uangnya digunakan untuk nafkah Muslim. Jika semua anak² kafir dibunuhi, maka berkurang pula sumber pendapatan Muslim. Muhammad benci kafir, termasuk anak² kafir).
Ketika kau bertemu dengan musuh yang menyembah berhala, beri mereka tiga pilihan.

(1) Ajak mereka untuk menerima Islam; jika mereka bersedia, maka terimalah mereka dan jangan perangi mereka. Lalu ajak mereka pindah dari tanah mereka ke tanah Muhair dan katakan pada mereka bahwa jika mereka bersedia melakukan itu, maka mereka akan menikmati keuntungan dan kewajiban para Muhajir. Tapi jika mereka menolak, maka katakan pada mereka bahwa mereka akan punya status sebagai Muslim Baduy dan harus tunduk di bawah Perintah Allâh sama seperti Muslim² lainnya, tapi mereka tidak akan dapat jatah rampasan perang atau Fai' kecuali jika mereka ikut berperang bersama Muslim untuk melawan kafir.
(2) Jika mereka menolak untuk memeluk Islam, maka tuntutlah Jizya dari mereka.
(→ ingat kata² Hillman: BOLEH KAFIR ASAL BAYAR!!) Jika mereka setuju untuk bayar, terimalah bayaran itu dari mereka dan jangan perangi mereka.
(3) Jika mereka menolak bayar Jizya, mintalah pertolongan dari Allâh dan perangi mereka. Jika kau mengepung benteng mereka, dan mereka lalu perlindungan dalam nama Allâh dan RasulNya, jangan beri mereka jaminan dari Allâh dan RasulNya, tapi jaminan darimu dan tentaramu, karena dosanya lebih sedikit jika jaminan darimu dilanggar daripada jika jaminan dari Allâh dan RasulNya dilanggar. Jika kau mengepung sebuah benteng, dan mereka yang dikepung ingin keluar benteng sesuai dengan perintah Allâh, jangan biarkan mereka keluar dengan perintah Allâh, tapi dengan perintahmu, karena kau tidak tahu apakah kau sanggup melakukan perintah Allâh akan nasib mereka.

Meskipun telah memberi Muslim aturan 3 pilihan dalam memaksakan Islam terhadap kafir, Muhammad sendirit tak segan² melanggar peraturan bikinannya sendiri, tergantung dari berapa banyak duit kafir yang dibutuhkannya. Muhammad menyerang suku Yahudi Bani Al-Mustaliq tanpa memberi peringatan apapun terlebih dahulu, apalagi memberi tiga pilihan segala. Banu Al-Mustaliq tidak pernah menyerang Muhammad dan gerombolan Muslimnya terlebih dahulu.

Hadis Sahih Muslim, Buku 019, Nomer 4292:
Ibn 'Aun reported:
I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.


terjemahan:
Dilaporkan oleh Ibn 'Aun:
Aku menulis pada Nafi' untuk menanyakan padanya apakah perlu terlebih dahulu meminta kafir memeluk Islam sebelum memerangi mereka. Dia menjawab dengan menulis padaku bahwa hal itu dulu wajib di jaman awal Islam. Rasul Allâh SAW menyerang Banu Mustaliq ketika mereka sedang tidak siap dan ternak² mereka lagi minum air. Dia membunuhi siapapun yang melawannya dan menahan sisanya. Di hari yang sama, dia menangkap Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' mengatakan bahwa hadis ini dikatakan padanya oleh Abdullah b. Umar yang ikut dalam tentara Muslim yang melakukan penyerangan.


Agama tuhan kok malah menganjurkan umatnya cari nafkah melalui perbuatan kriminal merampok, menjarah, dan membunuh sesama manusia?
User avatar
Adadeh
Translator
 
Posts: 8460
Images: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:59 am

Re: BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Postby Kre-setan » Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:32 pm

ali5196 wrote:Hukum perang KAFIR :



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Con ... _war_(1929)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Con ... ield_(1929)

1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war

1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea

1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict


:rolling:
:rolling:

judul lu jelas dah ngawur tuh, konvensi jenewa itu bukan hukum buatan kapir, itu hukum PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL yang termasuk juga didalamnya ada negara negara Islam sbg anggotanya.

Lu baca dah disini :

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions

karna ini dah menyangkut hukum perjanjian antar manusia, maka dalilnya dalam Quran juga ada :

Al Baqarah : 224

Jangahlah kamu jadikan (nama) Allah dalam sumpahmu sebagai penghalang untuk berbuat kebajikan, bertakwa dan mengadakan ishlah di antara manusia. Dan Allah Maha Mendengar lagi Maha Mengetahui.


jadi hukumnya Wajib menjaga sumpah yg diucapkan atas nama Allah, apalagi sumpah itu menyangkut kebaikan (islah) antar sesama manusia
User avatar
Kre-setan
Lupa Diri
Lupa Diri
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Postby ali5196 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:12 am

Kre-setan wrote:judul lu jelas dah ngawur tuh, konvensi jenewa itu bukan hukum buatan kapir, itu hukum PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL yang termasuk juga didalamnya ada negara negara Islam sbg anggotanya.


Iya .. iyaaahhh .. tapi kita khan tahu semua bahwa Muslim menganggap hukum Allah lebih tinggi dari hukum kafir. Jadi Kafir mau bilang apa kek, gak boleh ngambil istri lawan sebagai budak sex misalnya, tetap aja elu cuekin slim. Liat aja kelakuan nabi Sex After Warmu itu! Jadi biar Muslim bubuhin tanda tangan pada perjanjian dengan kafir, ini khan setiap saat boleh dibatalkan khan slim? Ingat Hudabiyah! Ingat Safiyah & Juwariyah!

jadi hukumnya Wajib menjaga sumpah yg diucapkan atas nama Allah, apalagi sumpah itu menyangkut kebaikan (islah) antar sesama manusia

Allah udah bersumpah agar Muslim mengikuti contoh nabinya. Kapan nih, ane boleh kawin ama adik cewekmu yang berusia 6 thn itu?
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Postby Kre-setan » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:59 pm

Kre-setan wrote:
judul lu jelas dah ngawur tuh, konvensi jenewa itu bukan hukum buatan kapir, itu hukum PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL yang termasuk juga didalamnya ada negara negara Islam sbg anggotanya.

ali5196 wrote:

Iya .. iyaaahhh ..


jgn cuma manut manut aja, judulnya diedit tuh...Malu ntar kalo makin banyak yang baca.

ali5196 wrote:tapi kita khan tahu semua bahwa Muslim menganggap hukum Allah lebih tinggi dari hukum kafir. Jadi Kafir mau bilang apa kek, gak boleh ngambil istri lawan sebagai budak sex misalnya, tetap aja elu cuekin slim. Liat aja kelakuan nabi Sex After Warmu itu! Jadi biar Muslim bubuhin tanda tangan pada perjanjian dengan kafir, ini khan setiap saat boleh dibatalkan khan slim? Ingat Hudabiyah! Ingat Safiyah & Juwariyah!




gua kan dah bilang diatas, konvensi jenewa itu BUKAN hukum buatan kapir itu perjanjian international...Dan gua tegasin lagi sesuai ayat diatas Hukum Allah SWT MEMAYUNGI konvensi jenewa, karna perjanjian yang bersifat HUMANITER (islah sesama manusia) wajib dipatuhi muslim.

Kalau lu mau lihat poin of viewnya dari term agama itu bisa dibilang perjanjian islam dgn non islam (red:kafir)

lu bilang hukum Allah SWT lebih tinggi dari hukum kapir, itu benar !! Hukum perang Islam melarang membunuh wanita dan anak2 sedangkan kafir ga punya tata hukum perang yang baku makanya ntuh sah sah saja suku aborigin dibantai habis cuma disisain beberapa ekor.



jadi hukumnya Wajib menjaga sumpah yg diucapkan atas nama Allah, apalagi sumpah itu menyangkut kebaikan (islah) antar sesama manusia
ali5196 wrote:
Allah udah bersumpah agar Muslim mengikuti contoh nabinya. Kapan nih, ane boleh kawin ama adik cewekmu yang berusia 6 thn itu?


komentar dan pertanyaan lu dah ngawur, OOT lari dari pokok masalah

tebakan gua emang bener...Lu ini sebenarnya ga punya kapasitas berdebat, kapasitas lu emang cuma sebatas nerjemahin artikel doank, jadi menurut hemat gua bagusnya sìh lu stay di jalur lu ajah...Kalau kerjanya translator ya translator jangan menambah nambahi terjemahan yang bahkan ga ada tertulis di artikel dengen persepsi pribadi lu.

Jadinya ya seperti ini, hukum perjanjian internasional (humaniter) lu bilang hukum buatan kapir...

:rolling:
:rolling:
User avatar
Kre-setan
Lupa Diri
Lupa Diri
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Postby Orang » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:00 pm

Lah itu memang buatan kafir... soalnya tdk Islami.. kalau ada negara islam yg ikut dan tunduk terhadap aturan international itu semata-2 karna terpaksa harus nrima.. (wong negara-2 super power kafir)

yg islami itu adalah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7RLCXNdKF4&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hCewyaok4kl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i5jkyLOva0

Atau yg ini:

Hadis Abu Dawud (2150):
(halal juga berhubungan sex dgn tawanan - tanpa pernikahan)

“The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him)
sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain.
They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them
captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon
him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the
presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent
down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden)
unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.’”

terjemahan:

Rasul allah mengutus ekspedisi militer ke Awtas
pada saat perang Hunain. Mereka bertemu dengan musuh dan bertempur dengan
mereka. Mereka mengalahkan musuh dan mengambil mereka sebagai tawanan. Beberapa
teman rasul allah enggan berhubungan seks dengan wanita tawanan di depan suami
mereka yang kafir. Maka allah mengirimkan ayat quran sura 4:24. “Dan
(diharamkan) bagimu kecuali mereka (tawanan) yang kamu miliki.”

SukaBalas |
Orang
Pandangan Pertama
Pandangan Pertama
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Postby ali5196 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:47 am

Kre-setan wrote:tebakan gua emang bener...Lu ini sebenarnya ga punya kapasitas berdebat, kapasitas lu emang cuma sebatas nerjemahin artikel doank, jadi menurut hemat gua bagusnya sìh lu stay di jalur lu ajah...Kalau kerjanya translator ya translator jangan menambah nambahi terjemahan yang bahkan ga ada tertulis di artikel dengen persepsi pribadi lu.

Jadinya ya seperti ini, hukum perjanjian internasional (humaniter) lu bilang hukum buatan kapir...

:rolling:
:rolling:


Udah deh, elu terjemahan aja kagak mampu terus mau berdebat disini. Belajar spelling dulu yah nak? Cari artikel2 ttg Juwariyah dan Safiyah pakai Advanced Search disini. Kalau gak ngerti arti Advanced Search, pake google translator. Oke man? :butthead: :butthead:
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Postby ali5196 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:56 am

Kre-setan menulis:
gua kan dah bilang diatas, konvensi jenewa itu BUKAN hukum buatan kapir itu perjanjian international...Dan gua tegasin lagi sesuai ayat diatas Hukum Allah SWT MEMAYUNGI konvensi jenewa, karna perjanjian yang bersifat HUMANITER (islah sesama manusia) wajib dipatuhi muslim.

Kalau lu mau lihat poin of viewnya dari term agama itu bisa dibilang perjanjian islam dgn non islam (red:kafir)

lu bilang hukum Allah SWT lebih tinggi dari hukum kapir, itu benar !! Hukum perang Islam melarang membunuh wanita dan anak2 sedangkan kafir
ga punya tata hukum perang yang baku makanya ntuh sah sah saja suku aborigin dibantai habis cuma disisain beberapa ekor.


MAKANYA elu belajar bahasa INggris dulu biar ngerti apa isinya Konvensi Jenewa! Hukum Allah yang mana yang MEMAYUNGI Konvensi Jenewa?

Konvensi Jenewa:
Wanita dan anak2 tidak boleh dilukai.

Hukum Islam:
Wanita dan anak2 tidak boleh dilukai tapi boleh diperbudak jadi kuli atau budak sex. Malah di Serangan Khaybar, Mamad Sex After War (nabi elu itu) membiarkan tentaranya melukai wanita dan anak2 karena ''mereka adalah bagian dari musuh.''

Konvensi Jenewa:
Wanita tidak boleh diperkosa

Hukum Islam:
Muhamad sendiri memperkosa dua tawanan perang: Juwariyah dan Safiyah. AYO .. udah elu google belon pake Advanced Search? Kenava elu tiba2 buta hurup??

Konvensi Jenewa:
Musuh harus dibawa ke depan pengadilan hukum

Hukum Islam:
Justice ala Islam adalah penggal musuh kalau menolak Islam atau jizyah

Konvensi Jenewa:
tidak boleh merusak/menjarah harta benda

Hukum Islam:
tidak boleh merusak/menjarah harta benda MUSLIM atau orang yang menerima Islam.

Mau gua terusin Setan?

Kenapa? Krn elu gak mampu baca Konvensi Jenewa sendiri?
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Re:

Postby Kre-setan » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:22 pm

ali5196 wrote:MAKANYA elu belajar bahasa INggris dulu biar ngerti apa isinya Konvensi Jenewa! Hukum Allah yang mana yang MEMAYUNGI Konvensi Jenewa?


kayaknya lu gak faham gua bicara apa, gua nggak membicarakan apa aja isi dari konvensi jeneva itu, yang gua bilang selama ada perjanjian yang bersifat humaniter yang membawa kebaikan bagi seluruh umat manusia maka wajib hukumnya dipatuhi muslim. Karna itu udah diatur dalam quran makanya gua bilang perjanjian2 model humaniter seperti itu DIPAYUNGI :


Al Baqarah:224
Jangahlah kamu jadikan (nama) Allah dalam sumpahmu sebagai penghalang untuk berbuat kebajikan, bertakwa dan mengadakan ishlah di antara manusia. Dan Allah Maha Mendengar lagi Maha Mengetahui.



An Nisaa : 90
kecuali orang-orang yang
meminta perlindungan kepada
sesuatu kaum, yang antara
kamu dan kaum itu telah ada perjanjian (damai) atau orang- orang yang datang kepada kamu
sedang hati mereka merasa
keberatan untuk memerangi
kamu dan memerangi kaumnya.
Kalau Allah menghendaki, tentu
Dia memberi kekuasaan kepada mereka terhadap kamu, lalu
pastilah mereka memerangimu.
tetapi jika mereka membiarkan
kamu, dan tidak memerangi kamu
serta mengemukakan
perdamaian kepadamu maka Allah tidak memberi jalan bagimu
(untuk menawan dan membunuh)
mereka.




At Taubah : 4 kecuali orang-orang musyrikin
yang kamu telah mengadakan perjanjian (dengan mereka) dan mereka tidak mengurangi
sesuatu pun (dari isi perjanjian) mu dan tidak (pula) mereka
membantu seseorang yang
memusuhi kamu, maka terhadap
mereka itu penuhilah janjinya
sampai batas waktunya.
Sesungguhnya Allah menyukai orang-orang yang bertakwa


Jadi sangat konyol kalau lu membanding2kan apa yang dilakukan muslim dijaman nabi dgn konvensi jeneva, karna isi perjanjian antara muslim dan kapir di masa itu isinya kagak sama dgn konvensi jenewa.

Isi perjanjian jeneva itu sendiri dari masa ke masa kan terus mengalami revisi, selama perubahnya tetap mengarah kepada terciptanya hubungan yang kondusif antar sesama manusia selama itu pula muslim wajib hukumnya mematuhi perjanjianya.

Begeytow chingg !
User avatar
Kre-setan
Lupa Diri
Lupa Diri
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Postby ali5196 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:12 pm

Setan, daripada elu ngoceh gak karuan kenava kau tidak berdebat saja dengan sodara2 se-ukuwahmu dibawah ini yang mengatakan bahwa Islam menSAHkan tahanan perang dijadikan BUDAK SEX. Hal yang amat melanggar Konvensi Jenewa re Tahanan Perang.

Kalo elu gak suka terjemahan inggris gua disini, silahkan klik ke aslinya dan masukin ke google translator. You understand?


syeik-mesir-beli-budak-sex-sah-dlm-islam-t44964/

Begitu dibangunnya sebuah pasar budak, yaitu pasar yagn menjual budak dan budak sex, yang di Qur'an disebut milk al-yamin, "yagn dimiliki tangan kananmu" [Qur'an 4:24]. Ayat Qur'an ini masih berlaku dan tidak diabrogasi. Kaum milk al-yamin adalah para BUDAK SEX. Kau pergi ke pasar, melihat budak sex dan membelinya. Ia menjadi istrimu tapi ia tidak perlu kontrak nikah atau sebuah perceraian seperti seorang wanita bebas, iapun tidak perlu wali. SEMUA ahi setuju atas point ini -- tidak ada cekcok diantara mereka.


aktivis-kuwait-islam-sahkan-budak-sex-so-kuwait-juga-dong-t44971/

Sang mufti mengatakan, "Hukum tentang budak sex syaratnya ada dua: harus ada negara Kristen atau negara yang tidak beragama Islam yang berperang melawan suatu bangsa Muslim. Dan juga harus ada tahanan perang."

"Ini tidak dilarang Islam?," saya tanya.

"SAMA SEKALI TIDAK. Budak sex TIDAK dilarang Islam."
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Re:

Postby Kre-setan » Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:49 pm

ali5196 wrote:Setan, daripada elu ngoceh gak karuan kenava kau tidak berdebat saja dengan sodara2 se-ukuwahmu


bilang aja elu takut debat ama gue
User avatar
Kre-setan
Lupa Diri
Lupa Diri
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: BEDA hukum perang Kafir dgn Muslim

Postby Tuvong » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:10 pm

ali5196"
Setan, daripada elu ngoceh gak karuan kenava kau tidak berdebat saja dengan sodara2 se-ukuwahmu

"Kre-setan
bilang aja elu takut debat ama gue
[/quote]

:rolling: Islami banget......toh di atas... jawab dulu....bang ali196 udah sodorkan...
Tuvong
Mulai Suka
Mulai Suka
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Kota Kinabalu

Postby ali5196 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:34 am

:rofl:
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Postby ali5196 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:42 am

Kre-setan wrote:Jadi sangat konyol kalau lu membanding2kan apa yang dilakukan muslim dijaman nabi dgn konvensi jeneva, karna isi perjanjian antara muslim dan kapir di masa itu isinya kagak sama dgn konvensi jenewa.


Tadi elu bilang Quran memayungi Konvensi Jenewa. Sekarang elu bilang Konvensi jenewa kagak sama dengan isi perjanjian antara Muslim dan kapir dulu. YANG BENAR MANA CHINNNGGGG????



Isi perjanjian jeneva itu sendiri dari masa ke masa kan terus mengalami revisi, selama perubahnya tetap mengarah kepada terciptanya hubungan yang kondusif antar sesama manusia selama itu pula muslim wajib hukumnya mematuhi perjanjianya.
Begeytow chingg !


Jadi Muslim wajib mematuhi perjanjian Jenewa atau Quran??

Kalo nabi Sex After War bilang perkosa tahanan perang, hal mana dilarang Konvensi Jenewa, elu sbg Muslim matuhi perjanjian yang mana CIHIIIINNNGG??? :supz:

Onta, debat ajah di gurun pasir sono!!
ali5196
Translator
 
Posts: 17308
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: Re:

Postby angky » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:26 am

ali5196 wrote:Setan, daripada elu ngoceh gak karuan kenava kau tidak berdebat saja dengan sodara2 se-ukuwahmu


Kre-setan wrote:bilang aja elu takut debat ama gue


Debat sama kamu siapa sih yang ga takut jems??


Takut ketularan botol. :green:
angky
Kecanduan
Kecanduan
 
Posts: 3192
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:11 am

Re:

Postby Kre-setan » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:19 pm

Kre-setan wrote:Jadi sangat konyol kalau lu membanding2kan apa yang dilakukan muslim dijaman nabi dgn konvensi jeneva, karna isi perjanjian antara muslim dan kapir di masa itu isinya kagak sama dgn konvensi jenewa.

ali5196 wrote:
Tadi elu bilang Quran memayungi Konvensi Jenewa. Sekarang elu bilang Konvensi jenewa kagak sama dengan isi perjanjian antara Muslim dan kapir dulu. YANG BENAR MANA CHINNNGGGG????



dua duanya benar, karna konvensi di jaman Abu bakr/nabi ama konvensi jenewa isinya sama sama memuat aturan yang mengarah kepada kebaikan umat manusia...


Yang salah cara penilaian elu, konvensi jaman sekarang elu bandingin ama konvensi jaman dulu terus se enak perut lu bilang konvensi jenewa yang sekarang buatan kapir yang dulu buatan islam.
Isi perjanjian jeneva itu sendiri dari masa ke masa kan terus mengalami revisi, selama perubahnya tetap mengarah kepada terciptanya hubungan yang kondusif antar sesama manusia selama itu pula muslim wajib hukumnya mematuhi perjanjianya.
Begeytow chingg !

Kre-setan wrote:
Jadi Muslim wajib mematuhi perjanjian Jenewa atau Quran??



***OOT & Caci Maki di hapus*** - M

dengan mematuhi konvensi jenewa itu artinya muslim udah mematuhi quran, BEGETHOW CHING !!

Kre-setan wrote:Kalo nabi Sex After War bilang perkosa tahanan perang, hal mana dilarang Konvensi Jenewa, elu sbg Muslim matuhi perjanjian yang mana CIHIIIINNNGG??? :supz:

Onta, debat ajah di gurun pasir sono!!


nah, tulisan lu yg diatas yg bikin gua makin yakin kalo lu ini kagak ngarti apa yang dimaksud konvensi...

Konvensi internation di abad ke-6 belum ada yang memuat aturan pelarangan mengambil tawanan sebagai budak, jadi SESUAI DENGAN ISI QURAN tindakan seperti itu hanya boleh dilakukan pada abad ke-6, tidak boleh dijaman konvensi jenewa sekarang.,

begitcuwww,,

ah gak elu, gak aligator gak ali sina begok semua sih...rah kepada terciptanya hubungan yang kondusif antar sesama manusia selama itu pula muslim wajib hukumnya mematuhi perjanjianya.
Begeytow chingg ![/quote]
Kre-setan wrote:
Jadi Muslim wajib mematuhi perjanjian Jenewa atau Quran??



***OOT & Caci Maki di hapus*** - M

dengan mematuhi konvensi jenewa itu artinya muslim udah mematuhi quran, BEGETHOW CHING !!

Kre-setan wrote:Kalo nabi Sex After War bilang perkosa tahanan perang, hal mana dilarang Konvensi Jenewa, elu sbg Muslim matuhi perjanjian yang mana CIHIIIINNNGG??? :supz:

Onta, debat ajah di gurun pasir sono!!


nah, tulisan lu yg diatas yg bikin gua makin yakin kalo lu ini kagak ngarti apa yang dimaksud konvensi...

Konvensi internation di abad ke-6 belum ada yang memuat aturan pelarangan mengambil tawanan sebagai budak, jadi SESUAI DENGAN ISI QURAN tindakan seperti itu hanya boleh dilakukan pada abad ke-6, tidak boleh dijaman konvensi jenewa sekarang.,

begitcuwww,,

ah gak elu, gak aligator gak ali sina ***OOT & Caci Maki di hapus*** - M semua sih...
User avatar
Kre-setan
Lupa Diri
Lupa Diri
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Next

Return to Resource Centre MUSLIM & KAFIR



 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users