Shouldn't we have definitions, of those terms ?
'Atrocities', and 'human rights' ?
Because, what is to one group of men,
an awful atrocity, is to another group of men,
a lawful action, in merely seeking to protect the status quo [of their own group].
.
SCENARIO;If someone [anyone!] tried to murder me, would i kill ['murder'] him, especially to prevent him from killing me ?
Yes, i would kill him.And i would be justified [
imo].
BELOW;We have two examples of lawful justifications for 'murder'.
Which example of reasoning for a 'just killing' of another, would you support ?
Neither ?
.
ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said,
"I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06
.
Natural Law....
Quote:
"16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
17. And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom- i.e. make me a slave..."
Of the State of War
John Locke (1632-1704).
Men will always be in conflict,
because every man holds [recognises] different 'justifications' for the murder of another person, to be valid [for his particular conscience].
e.g.
By moslem law [Sharia] and cultural tenets, every infidel [who rejects ISLAM]
is committing a serious crime [which is worthy of death].
But by Western notions of justice and truth, it is ISLAM and those who follow its teachings, and who seek to spread it,
who are guilty of the intent to commit serious crimes, against their fellow man [because he rejects ISLAM].
The moslem notion of right and wrong;ISLAM and ISLAMIC law is correct, and all Western [manmade] laws are corrupt.
The Western citizens notion [perhaps] of right and wrong;All men ought to be treated equally under/before the laws of the land [and those who break our laws need to be censured and punished].
Result;
There will always be conflict, between differing groups of men, because they have each chosen to follow/embrace a differing philosophy [concerning what the laws of men ought to be, and what those laws ought to require].Is it an atrocity, to destroy those [a society of men and women, and children] who are seeking your destruction ?
Forum
Pages: 1 
Can you support atrocities and human rights? (Read 42601 times)
