There is no Peace without violence

[Oxy2Hydr0]

Its rare that I ever start threads, but this one was binding due to vast amount of perpectives of people on the concept of peace.

You need violence to counteract against violence to establish peace.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity

 

[seed757]

Well, it all depends I think.

Our beloved Prophet(pbuh) was first and foremost a statesman and diplomat before being a general and warrior.

He was always engaged in negotiations and establishing covenants first in order to avoid conflict. But, if the situation was so extreme that engagement was unavoidable, then yes certain measures must have been taken.

So I think it is wise to follow his example in matters of confrontation. By all means attempt non-violent tactics until completely exhausted to bring about a peaceful accord.

I'd hate to think that the Muslim attitude is virtually the same as the President's foreign policy. I don't think we as belivers should use force as one of the first and most effective means to bring about change in others. IMO.

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

Our beloved Prophet(pbuh) was first and foremost a statesman and diplomat before being a general and warrior.

He was always engaged in negotiations and establishing covenants first in order to avoid conflict. But, if the situation was so extreme that engagement was unavoidable, then yes certain measures must have been taken.

assalaamu alaikum,

You are more speaking of the case of diplomacy brother when their is no initiative violence on the behalf of an enemy or criminal.

Our Prophet indeed sought diplomacy first to avoid conflicts. In cases when diplomacy was void or to a lvl beyond reaching the situation was delt with to counteract the opposition.

However Islam was not the focus of this thread, just to make things clear, but a general aspect of the nature of peace, and how it is established.

Initiated violence cannot be confronted with diplomacy, violence ie force must be used to counteract violence, to make it possible to establish peace and diplomacy.

 

[Arthra]

I believe some amount of coercion is needed to enforce peace and order... that's why there are police and unfortunately nowadays nations require a modicum of military to defend themselves...

Someday when we have a representative world government there will also be a need to have a military force to enforce laws and maintain order but it will not need to be I think on the scale of today's military that requires vast armaments.

- Art

 

[français]

I do not think one needs to fight, in order to bring peace. I mean look at the early christians.. While it is true that after the 300's, the christians got more violent and such, the first 300 years were very peaceful. And, I think the benefits outweighed the negative sides.

then again though, there are other times when it is different.. Like WW2 with japan.. If america did not bomb those two cities in japan, then there would have been even a longer lasting war, with more casualties. in this case, although terrorist america once again killed innocent people, it would have been worse if they continued with a war that would have been much more devastating.


So, it all depends on the situation and such, imo.

 

[ShadowAndLight]

You need violence to counteract against violence to establish peace.

No.

 

[Pogue]

No, I don't think we do. We all have a concept of what war and violence are, whether we have experienced them or not. I think that the wars which have taken place generally only lead to further wars and violence, and the only way to acheive peace is to break the cycle.

 

[R3quiem]

I don't think violence is necessary for peace except for possibly in the most extreme cases. For the most part, it just creates future violence.

 

[Adeeb]

I think the term peace is relative. Theres a famous old saying that goes "if you seek peace, prepare for war". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum

 

[Secundulus]

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

I do not think one needs to fight, in order to bring peace. I mean look at the early christians.. While it is true that after the 300's, the christians got more violent and such, the first 300 years were very peaceful. And, I think the benefits outweighed the negative sides.

After a period of time they had to fight back so they could live in a land of their own in peace without persecution and to protect their state.

If you call persecution, opression, and slaughter upon a people for 300 years to be living in peace something is seriously wrong with you. Therefore the rumor that Christians are not living in peace in Muslim countries is a blunt lie.

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

No.

How did the land that you live in come to what it is today that you can live in peace ?

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

No, I don't think we do. We all have a concept of what war and violence are, whether we have experienced them or not. I think that the wars which have taken place generally only lead to further wars and violence, and the only way to acheive peace is to break the cycle.

So how do you resolve an initiated violence where diplomacy is not an issue so that you may live in peace ?

 

[Secundulus]

Therefore the rumor that Christians are not living in peace in Muslim countries is a blunt lie.

Is it? Then how do you explain the Baptist that was Martyred in Gaza last week by your brothers simply because he was a Christian?

You cannot hide the reprobate nature of your faith.

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[Pogue]

So how do you resolve an initiated violence where diplomacy is not an issue so that you may live in peace ?

To be absolutely honest, I don't know. It depends very much on the situation and what the alternative options would be. I do believe, however, that violence and war are objectively wrong and cannot ever be fully justified. They may on occasion be the lesser of the two evils, but they're still evils.

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

Is it? Then how do you explain the Baptist that was Martyred in Gaza last week by your brothers simply because he was a Christian?

You cannot hide the reprobate nature of your faith.

DO you have wax in your ears ? Does it sound like I am objecting to the situations of CHristians in Muslims countries.

If you agree that CHristians are not living in peace in Muslims countries then that just puts français statement that CHristians lived in peace during the first 300 years.

 

[Abdurrahim]

If violent people know ,that you are powerful and can fight if necessary , you are less likely to enter a fight.

This is what I can express with my words

Salaam

 

[sur]

Its rare that I ever start threads, but this one was binding due to vast amount of perpectives of people on the concept of peace.

You need violence to counteract against violence to establish peace.

for some mischievers no violence needed BUT for other stubborn ones, force is required..... i won't use the term violence.

Also depends on degree of mischief. Sometime we should start without force & later resort to force. Othertimes we need to use force right from start.


overall yes, force should be used if needed to stop tumult causing factors.