No transgression in Islam
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
<CA7p0...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mm...@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Mazen Mokhtar) writes:
> Islam, by the grace of God, is just and enjoins justice. It does not accept
>transgression. It rejects the expulsion of people from their homes.
Islamic armies marched into the Middle East, Africa,
and Europe to expand the domain of Islam. What was that
if not transgression?
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
mohamed.s.sadek
Liberation.
Actually, (I have no refrence on this) but there are some spanish historians
who say that looking at the number of muslim ships and the size of the
muslim army that "opened" spain, they had to have been supported by the
spanish people themselves (spaniards), any documents on this is appreciated.
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed
Khaled El-Sayed
Here is the definition of transgress from Webster:
trans.gress \tran(t)s-'gres, tranz-\ \-'gres-iv\ \-'gres-*r\ vb [F
transgresser, fr. L transgressus, pp. of transgredi to ste]p beyond or
across, fr. trans- + gradi to step - more at GRADE 1: to go beyond limits
set or prescribed by : VIOLATE {~ the divine law} 2: to pass beyond or go
over (a limit or boundary) 1: to violate a command or law : SIN 2: to go
beyond a boundary or limit - trans.gres.sive aj
The question now is, did the Islam armies made any of the above actions?
The answer is no! Did the islamic armies kicked the conquered people out
of their land? No! Did the islamic armies force the people to change
their religion to islam on the point of the sword? No! If that happened
then why do we find Copts in a place like Egypt, they were there before
Islam, and still are there, and there are many of the very old churches
(predating Islam) still in existence to this moment. The essence of the
islamic wars was to spread the message of Islam among the people of the
earth though not forcing anyone to accept the religion (I know I will be
flamed for this last sentence). Let me give you two examples on how the early
muslims treated the people in the conquered land, both are from the time of
Omar:
. When Islam armies conqured Jerusalem, Omar travelled to visit the holy
city. He was invited to visit one of the churches (which is still in
existence to this moment but I forgot the name). The time for prayer gets
in, the church bishop invites Omar to pray there. Now, Omar declined the
offer, why? The fair man said that if he were to pray there then it
might occur one day that muslims will claim the church and make a
mosque out of it. Omar stepped out of the church and performed his
prayer in a nearby place, where the mosque of Omar is still in
existence just next to the church mentioned.
here is the second example which happened in Egypt:
. A competition in running was being held (sort of). The son of the muslim
ruler of Egypt (Amr Ibn Al'aas) is one of the participants. A copt wins the
race and the Amr's son gets angry and he slammed him on the face
saying `How dare you top the son of the honored people?`.
The copt writes to Omar (or maybe the story was transfered to him). Omar
gets very upset and he writes to Amr asking for the two guys to be sent
to Al-madiena (the capital of the islamic state). When they arrived, Omar
said to the copt 'hit the back of the son of the honored people'. In
another version, Omar writes Amr asking him to perform this same task.
These are just two examples which might let you reconsider what you are
claiming, that is if you really want to understand and seek a fair
judgement. My advice to you is to seek knowledge about Islam from a
non-biased source.
Khaled
--
Khaled M. F. El-Sayed | e-mail: kha...@science.ncsu.edu
Department of Computer Science | khaled_...@ncsu.edu
North Carolina State University | Voice : 919-515-7533 (Office)
Raleigh, NC 27695-8207, U.S.A. | 919-515-7346 (CCSP Lab)
Tim Clock
>>
>>> Islam, by the grace of God, is just and enjoins justice. It does
>>> not accept transgression.
>>
>> and Europe to expand the domain of Islam. What was that
>> if not transgression?
>
> Liberation.
>
Once again, I see the attempt at argument through discussion of a religion's
"ideal", while another comes in to criticize the *reality* of how humans
applied it. Consideration of the "ideal" *has no place* in a discussion of
*reality* except insofar as that practice supposedly achieved/neared the ideal.
While I admire much of Islam, I do not (like its defenders) automatically
defend those who've historically implemented it by assuming they achieved
that ideal. The Islamic expansion was nothing more than an imperialistic
religious war of conquest, accomplished not through flower-power but
force. To assume, as is done here, that the invaded populations either
wanted or needed "liberation" (from what? their own culture, beliefs???)
by the "enlightened" Muslims is the height of "occidentalism".
--
Tim Clock Ph.D./Graduate student
UCI tel#: 714,8565361 Department of Politics and Society
fax#: 714,8568441 University of California - Irvine
Home tel#: 714,8563446 Irvine, CA 92717
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>Did the islamic armies kicked the conquered people out
>of their land? No! Did the islamic armies force the people to change
>their religion to islam on the point of the sword? No!
Did the Muslim armies kill lots of people who resisted
their invasion? Yes. If that is not transgression, I
don't know what is.
>Let me give you two examples on how the early
>muslims treated the people in the conquered land, both are from the time of
>Omar:
Let me tell you something about the Pact of Omar, under
which the conquered non-Muslims were forced to live.
Non-Muslims were forbidden to speak disrespectfully of
Muhammed and Islam. They were subject to extra, heavy
taxes. No new synagogues could be built. No synagogue
or church could tower higher than a neighboring mosque.
Non-Muslims could not ride on horses (only mules) and
could not carry swords. Non-Muslims generally had to
wear special dress to distinguish them from Muslims.
[In 850, Khalif Mutawakkil ordered that
non-Muslims be forced to wear a yellow patch on their
sleeves as well as a yellow head-covering!]
I wonder if these non-Muslims would agree that the
Muslim armies did not "transgress".
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Zafar T Minhas
>
> who say that looking at the number of muslim ships and the size of the
> muslim army that "opened" spain, they had to have been supported by the
> spanish people themselves (spaniards), any documents on this is appreciated.
this is true, in fact there were personal pleas from the spanish peasentry to
tariq-bin-ziyad for protection from the king and the feudal lords. this is
considered by islam to be a valid reason to engage in war. and yes the bechareh
poor people were the first to revert back to the natural state of islam.
zafar
Adam Shostack
Of course they were. They couldn't afford the taxes they were
asked to pay as dhimini.
And how is Islam the "natural state" for a Christian peasant?
Adam
--
Adam Shostack ad...@das.harvard.edu
Politics. From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small,
annoying bloodsucker.
Khaled El-Sayed
> Did the Muslim armies kill lots of people who resisted
> their invasion? Yes. If that is not transgression, I
> don't know what is.
Well, this is war, there in no war without people getting killed.
> Let me tell you something about the Pact of Omar, under
> which the conquered non-Muslims were forced to live.
Nothing of what you mentioned occured in the time of Omar, one of
the fairest rulers that ever was.
> Non-Muslims were forbidden to speak disrespectfully of
> Muhammed and Islam. They were subject to extra, heavy
So why they would need to speak disrepectuflly of Isalm? It is as if you
consider talking disrespectfully of Islam as a right for every
non-muslim that he should enjoy freely! How was that prevention (if it ever
happened) being taken into effect? I would not imagaine
that muslims would attend the church meetings and supervise what is being
said! And for the tax issue, they were exempt from other dues that are
obligatory on muslims, they were exempt from military service too, so
they had to pay their share to the society. Whether they were taxed
adequately or over-taxed depends on the source of your readings.
> taxes. No new synagogues could be built. No synagogue
> or church could tower higher than a neighboring mosque.
What? When did that happen? What the significance of height of a
building? There is not any part of Islam teachings that prescribes such
a rediculus issue.
> Non-Muslims could not ride on horses (only mules) and
> could not carry swords. Non-Muslims generally had to
> wear special dress to distinguish them from Muslims.
> [In 850, Khalif Mutawakkil ordered that
> non-Muslims be forced to wear a yellow patch on their
> sleeves as well as a yellow head-covering!]
While such things were heard of, I doubt if they ever persisted for a
long time. Non-muslims may have weared special dress because this is
their own type of dress, nothing enforced about that. Maybe we would hear
in another saying that non-muslims were forced to dress like muslims and
abandon their own dress :-).
By the way, what are we trying to prove now :-)?
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>> Islamic armies marched into the Middle East, Africa,
>> and Europe to expand the domain of Islam. What was that
>> if not transgression?
>Liberation.
There is some truth to this. While Muslim invasion
of Spain obviously transgressed on the Catholics,
the Jews of Spain welcomed the invaders, as they
had been victims of horrible Catholic persecution.
[Of course, the Muslim incursion into Spain was not
motivated to liberate the Jews, but rather to continue
expansion of the Islamic domain.]
>Actually, (I have no refrence on this) but there are some spanish historians
>who say that looking at the number of muslim ships and the size of the
>muslim army that "opened" spain, they had to have been supported by the
>spanish people themselves (spaniards), any documents on this is appreciated.
There was dissension among the Visigoths in Spain, and some
Visigothic nobles encouraged the Muslim invasion. For a
reference, see A History of the Jews by Solomon Grayzel,
p. 274.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Adam Shostack
> There is some truth to this. While Muslim invasion
> of Spain obviously transgressed on the Catholics,
> the Jews of Spain welcomed the invaders, as they
> had been victims of horrible Catholic persecution.
While the Muslims treated the Jews better than the Catholics
did, the Muslims arrived in Spain around the 9th century. Serious
Catholic persecution, in the form of the inquisition, did not come
until after the "reconquista," around 1100-1250.
BTW, I just picked up Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples. Are
there any biases in this work I should be aware of? No, let me
rephrase that. What biases in the work should I be aware of while
reading it?
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Khaled El-Sayed <khaled_...@ncsu.edu>
>
>> Non-Muslims were forbidden to speak disrespectfully of
>> Muhammed and Islam. They were subject to extra, heavy
>
>So why they would need to speak disrepectuflly of Isalm? It is as if you
>consider talking disrespectfully of Islam as a right for every
>non-muslim that he should enjoy freely!
And why not?
>How was that prevention (if it ever
>happened) being taken into effect? I would not imagaine
>that muslims would attend the church meetings and supervise what is being
>said!
Why would you not imagine this? This is exactly what I imagine happening.
Not only church meetings, but the press, private organizations, public
networks (USENET, for example) and any place else where someone may
criticize Islam or Mohammed (unless, of course, you think they have
no intention of enforcing this).
>And for the tax issue, they were exempt from other dues that are
>obligatory on muslims, they were exempt from military service too, so
>they had to pay their share to the society. Whether they were taxed
>adequately or over-taxed depends on the source of your readings.
>
They really have no option to join the military. While this could be
proclaimed as "generosity" on the part of their keepers it could also be
seen as a simple way to keep the non-Muslim population from learning how
to defend themselves or fight against their keepers. Slaves are often
kept from military duty for these same reasons. Don't think that people
can't see through this little "benefit".
But I understand that the Coptic Christians in Egypt were made extremely
wealthy from the enormous tax benefits they received under Islam (they
only dig through the trash out of a strong sense of tradition).
Sorry, I certainly wouldn't buy into a deal like that without a serious
fight. And I think I could get a few hundred million to back me as well.
Not everyone finds the idea of being kept by moslem masters as attractive
as you do (no matter how perfect you say Islam is). A system which tries
from the outset to stifle criticism probably has some serious flaws to hide.
Of course, I don't think we have anything to worry about because muslims
will never create a government which is recognized by all muslims as
following Islam. It is simply a fantasy of theirs. They can argue about
what they did and didn't do, or about what they will or won't do, but they
just can't do. Build your Islamic governments, make them work and show us
how wonderful they are. We have many examples of failed attempts. Please
don't just keep telling us how wonderful the first 2 generations after
Muhammad were. That was a long time ago. Done anything lately?
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>...the Muslims arrived in Spain around the 9th century. Serious
>Catholic persecution, in the form of the inquisition, did not come
>until after the "reconquista," around 1100-1250.
This information is incorrect.
In the year 700, the government in Spain
decreed that anyone found practicing a Jewish ceremony
should be sold into slavery, and that children of
suspected Jews should be taken away and brought up
by the Christian clery. The Muslims arrived in Spain
in the year 711 and conquered most of the peninsula
in very short order.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
mohamed.s.sadek
>In article <CA9oy...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
>(mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>>In article <51...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu ( ) writes:
>>><CA7p0...@cbfsb.cb.att.com>mm...@cbnewsf.cb.att.com(Mazen Mokhtar) writes:
>>>
>>>> Islam, by the grace of God, is just and enjoins justice. It does
>>>> not accept transgression.
>>>
>>> Islamic armies marched into the Middle East, Africa,
>>> and Europe to expand the domain of Islam. What was that
>>> if not transgression?
>>
>> Liberation.
>>
>
>Once again, I see the attempt at argument through discussion of a religion's
>"ideal", while another comes in to criticize the *reality* of how humans
>applied it. Consideration of the "ideal" *has no place* in a discussion of
>*reality* except insofar as that practice supposedly achieved/neared the ideal.
>
on your part, perhaps because of a lck of information one the phenomena
of the spread of Islam and what is populated here through biased sources
that neither are concerened with historical facts nor objectivity.
>While I admire much of Islam, I do not (like its defenders) automatically
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who are these defenders..!!???
>defend those who've historically implemented it by assuming they achieved
I personally believe that there has been excesses at times, but that is
expected from humans, what really matters is whether these excesses have
presented a trend and/or a systemic approach by the muslim states during
or after the opening of a state.
>that ideal. The Islamic expansion was nothing more than an imperialistic
>religious war of conquest, accomplished not through flower-power but
>force. To assume, as is done here, that the invaded populations either
That is what I call the misguided/far from fact opinion that is based
primarily on either personal bias and/or lack of authentic knowledge
based on sound sources of history. (but that is curable)
>wanted or needed "liberation" (from what? their own culture, beliefs???)
Take the case of Egypt for instance, where the Egyptians where suffering
a brutal occupation by their "co-religionists* the Romans, subjecting them
to their *iron fist* policy, depriving them of any/all rights, overburdning
them with taxes and treating them worse than animals.
(The word co-religionist is intended in general, however, the Egyptians
split from the Roman Church based on differences in beliefs including the
nature of Christ that continue to exist between the Egyptian Orthodox
Coptic Church and the Roman Catholic Church).
The Egyptians as well as others heard of the just teachings of the
muslims and their leaders at the time, and were desirous to have the same
justice applied to them in their own land.
The Egyptians did invite the Arab muslims and supported them in kicking out
the Roman occupiers. The Egyptians were exposed to Islam and the majority
of them joined the faith.
Take the case of the largest most populous muslim country, Indonecia.
Not a single historian (western/non-western/muslim/non-muslim/biased
/non-biased) has recorded military conflicts of any sort in that whole
part of the world that includes Malaysia which is another populous muslim
country.
Read if you like:
1- "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical muslims,
sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword
upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that
historians haveever repeated."
De Lacy O'leary in "Islam at Crossroads" London 1923
2- "No other religion has spread so rapidly as Islam... The west has widley
believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But
no modern scholar accepts that idea, and the Quran is explicit in support
of the freedom of cpnscience"
James A. Michener in "Islam the misunderstood religion" Readers' Digest
(American Edition) May 1955.
3- "Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely
fostered in Christian writings that the muslims, wherever they went,
forced people to accept Islam at the point of thesword".
Lawernce E. Browne in "The prospect or Islam" London 1944
4- "I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a
place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid
simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous
regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers
his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his
own mission. These, and not the sowrd carried everything before them and
surmounted every trouble."
M. K. Ghandi in "Young India" 1924
5- "The picture of the muslim soldier advancing with a sowrd in one hand and
the Quran in the other is quite false"
A. S. Tritton quoted in "ISLAM" published in London 1951.
6- "My problem to write this monograph is easier because we are not generally
fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be
spent on pointing out our misrepresentation of Islam. The theory of islam
and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name.
The principle of islam, there is no complusion in religion, is well
known."
K. S. RamaKrishna Rao in "Mohammad the prophet of islam" Riyadh 1989
7- "The greatest success of Mohammad's life was effected by sheer moral force
without the stroke of a sword."
Edward Gibbon in "History of the Saracen Empire" London 1870
>by the "enlightened" Muslims is the height of "occidentalism".
>
>
The joke is really *funny*.
>
>--
>Tim Clock Ph.D./Graduate student
>UCI tel#: 714,8565361 Department of Politics and Society
> fax#: 714,8568441 University of California - Irvine
>Home tel#: 714,8563446 Irvine, CA 92717
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>
> Let me tell you something about the Pact of Omar, under
> which the conquered non-Muslims were forced to live.
Let's hear it.
> Non-Muslims were forbidden to speak disrespectfully of
> Muhammed and Islam. They were subject to extra, heavy
Oh No. What severe oppression. They were not allowed to curse the
prophet..!!??
The fact is they were free to disbelieve in him and his message.
> taxes. No new synagogues could be built. No synagogue
Lie.
> or church could tower higher than a neighboring mosque.
Lie.
> Non-Muslims could not ride on horses (only mules) and
> could not carry swords. Non-Muslims generally had to
> wear special dress to distinguish them from Muslims.
Lie.
> [In 850, Khalif Mutawakkil ordered that
> non-Muslims be forced to wear a yellow patch on their
> sleeves as well as a yellow head-covering!]
"pact of Omar" heh ..!!??
> I wonder if these non-Muslims would agree that the
> Muslim armies did not "transgress".
Read my post which I made before this. It quotes the non-muslim
objective historians/scholars on these things.
> Muslim armies did not "transgress".
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>
>>> Islamic armies marched into the Middle East, Africa,
>>> and Europe to expand the domain of Islam. What was that
>>> if not transgression?
>
>>Liberation.
>
> There is some truth to this. While Muslim invasion
> of Spain obviously transgressed on the Catholics,
And how was that..!!?
> the Jews of Spain welcomed the invaders, as they
> had been victims of horrible Catholic persecution.
> [Of course, the Muslim incursion into Spain was not
> motivated to liberate the Jews, but rather to continue
> expansion of the Islamic domain.]
Why would the muslims persecute the catholics who are people of the book
and spare/tolerate/protect/elevate the jews who are also people of the
book..!!??
>
>>Actually, (I have no refrence on this) but there are some spanish historians
>>who say that looking at the number of muslim ships and the size of the
>>muslim army that "opened" spain, they had to have been supported by the
>>spanish people themselves (spaniards), any documents on this is appreciated.
>
>
> There was dissension among the Visigoths in Spain, and some
> Visigothic nobles encouraged the Muslim invasion. For a
> reference, see A History of the Jews by Solomon Grayzel,
> p. 274.
Thank you for the refernce and agreeing to the point.
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed
Tim Clock
>In article <2C471FC...@news.service.uci.edu> tcl...@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes:
>>In article <CA9oy...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
>>(mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>>>In article <51...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu ( ) writes:
>>>><CA7p0...@cbfsb.cb.att.com>mm...@cbnewsf.cb.att.com(Mazen Mokhtar) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Islam, by the grace of God, is just and enjoins justice. It does
>>>>> not accept transgression.
>>>> Islamic armies marched into the Middle East, Africa,
>>>> and Europe to expand the domain of Islam. What was that
>>>> if not transgression?
>>> Liberation.
>>
>>Once again, I see the attempt at argument through discussion of a religion's
>>"ideal", while another comes in to criticize the *reality* of how humans
>>applied it. Consideration of the "ideal" *has no place* in a discussion of
>>*reality* except insofar as that practice supposedly achieved/neared the
>>ideal.
>>
> I'm sorry, but there appears to be a lack of understanding of *reality*
> of the spread of Islam and what is populated here through biased sources
> that neither are concerened with historical facts nor objectivity.
>
you say, "here". But I also have found that the greatest desire to "glorify"
any group comes from within. The intensity of that internal bias seems to
further depend upon the degree to which various divergent (supportive *and
critical) viewpoints *are allowed* to function within the group. In its
historical writings to itself, Islamic histories have certainly contained
(and continue to contain) their fair share of self-aggrandisement.
IMO, based as they are on *one* view of "what is right" and ready to
impose that view on others (for the others' "own good"), past and present
religious expansions have simply been exercises in religio-cultural
imperialism. In order to impose its religion, the invading group needed
to erase the indigenous religion. And, since in the past most of "culture"
hinged on a group's religion and religious traditions, such actions
effectively destroyed the local traditional culture.
And there are many ways to pressure Locals to accept
the "new path". Aside from the standard fare of physical
intimidation/threats, there are very effective forms of
economic, social and political coercion.
>
>>The Islamic expansion was nothing more than an imperialistic
>>religious war of conquest, accomplished not through flower-power but
>>force. To assume, as is done here, that the invaded populations either
>
> That is what I call the misguided/far from fact opinion that is based
> primarily on either personal bias and/or lack of authentic knowledge
> based on sound sources of history. (but that is curable)
I'm so pleased that I can be cured...
...
The fact that "armies", warriors and fighters led the expansion process,
and that the expansion was accomplished through victories in sought-after
battles/confrontations belies this view that Islam was freely accepted
by joyous locals and promoted by pacifist "missionaries". However...
>
>>wanted or needed "liberation" (from what? their own culture, beliefs???)
Your presumption that "they" would want to be liberated from their own
traditions/culture strikes me as the same sort of "centricism" that
marked Europe's colonial invasion of the Third World and its depiction of
the local cultures as "uncivilized".
>
> Take the case of Egypt for instance, where the Egyptians where suffering
> a brutal occupation by their "co-religionists* the Romans, subjecting them
> to their *iron fist* policy, depriving them of any/all rights, overburdning
> them with taxes and treating them worse than animals.
While "we" always are seen best when compared to "others" who are worse, I am
not about to accept your attempt to convince me that Islam *was always*
"better" and the regimes/cultures/traditions destroyed *were always worse*.
Those that try to present historical reality along these lines are clearly
biased to the reverse of those "here". What about cases where the people
thought the existing regime was fine?
>
> The Egyptians as well as others heard of the just teachings of the
> muslims and their leaders at the time, and were desirous to have the same
> justice applied to them in their own land.
All "people" who are ruled hope to be ruled with justice. That some groups
gladly accepted the intrusion of "better rulers" *does not mean* that they
also agreed with and willingly accepted the new religion. Being sudden
"minorities", they found that under the new regime "accepting the new
rules" brought advantages while retaining their suddenly-minority
traditional rules brought disadvantages***.
***When "earning a living" was at best a marginal process
for the average person 700 CE), who wants to put extra
obstacles in their way by "hanging on" to the old way.
>
> The Egyptians did invite the Arab muslims and supported them in kicking out
> the Roman occupiers. The Egyptians were exposed to Islam and the majority
> of them joined the faith.
>
Some did, some did not. Your implication that "they all" did is fanciful
at best...
While I agree that the "orientalist" view that Islam's expansion was
accomplished solely "at the point of a sword" is clearly a distortion,
those that claim that the sword played a minor part in its expansion
are equally off base. In comparison to the contemporary standards (650 CE)
of "conquest by force" Islam was possibly less violent but, being a
product of its very violent times, it was not "pacifist" by any means.
Moreover, any violence it did utilize was very likely justified
according to its tenets.
There are plenty of examples in Islam today
of how religious tenets are regularly used to
justify and accept violence on its behalf. So,
one can imagine what was justified in those
considerably more violent times where standards
of "brutality" were considerably lower.
Force comes in many forms, as many understand when discussing the "cultural"
imperialism" of the west/the US. As Islam discovered and implemented long ago,
and as the west/the US has used to great effect in the last 2-3 hundred
years, the *most powerful* form of control on minority groups (whether
domestic or "colonial") arises from economic and social forces that pressure
those groups to "assimilate" or accept additional disadvantages that are
suddenly associated (not just legally, but by the new dominate society) to
their "old traditions".
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>> Did the Muslim armies kill lots of people who resisted
>> their invasion? Yes. If that is not transgression, I
>> don't know what is.
>Well, this is war, there in no war without people getting killed.
Without Muslim armies marching into Asia, Africa, and
Europe, these wars would not have occurred. Follow my
logic?
>> Non-Muslims were forbidden to speak disrespectfully of
>> Muhammed and Islam.
>It is as if you
>consider talking disrespectfully of Islam as a right for every
>non-muslim that he should enjoy freely!
Here is how the Prophet Muhammad handled disrespect.
"Muhammad's behaviour with his Meccan detractors was
statesman-like. He declared general amnesty for the past
offences. But the few propagandists who had composed
verses ridiculing the Prophet were put to death."
(Asghar Ali Engineer, The Islamic State, p. 30)
Although the Prophet was fair in many respects, I find
executing verse-writers to be contemptible.
Of course standards were different then, yet many Muslims
believe such executions to be appropriate punishment
today, e.g., supporters of killing Rushdie.
I am glad to live in a country that places high value
on freedom of speech; the disrespect I have just
shown the prophet might get me beheaded in an Islamic
State.
>I would not imagaine
>that muslims would attend the church meetings and supervise what is being
>said!
In "The Islamic State" by Abdulrahman Kurdi, p.60,
there is a list of Islamic rules for non-Muslims residing
in an Islamic State. Here is rule #13:
"They are not allowed to open their own educational
institutions; however, their creed shall be taught
in their temples UNDER FULL SUPERVISION OF THE ISLAMIC
COURT." [Emphasis mine--rje]
>And for the tax issue, they were exempt from other dues that are
>obligatory on muslims, they were exempt from military service too, so
>they had to pay their share to the society.
Pretend for the moment that Utah was run by a Mormon
government, and you were a non-Mormon resident of Utah.
Pretend also that as a non-Mormon, you had to pay 5%
income tax to the Mormon government, whereas Mormons
did not have to pay such tax. When you complain,
the government counters that Mormons are required to
tithe 1/40 of their assets. Well, perhaps you too
tithe to YOUR church, and yet you are forced to pay
a 5% income tax beyond this just because you are non-
Mormon. Don't you think you'd rather live in another
state?
>> No new synagogues could be built. No synagogue
>> or church could tower higher than a neighboring mosque.
>What? When did that happen? What the significance of height of a
>building? There is not any part of Islam teachings that prescribes such
>a rediculus issue.
You can look up the Pact of Omar and see that it happened.
I can't explain all the transgression perpetrated
in the name of Islam.
>> [In 850, Khalif Mutawakkil ordered that
>> non-Muslims be forced to wear a yellow patch on their
>> sleeves as well as a yellow head-covering!]
>While such things were heard of, I doubt if they ever persisted for a
>long time.
Jews had to wear special dress for hundreds of
years, not only under Islamic rule but under Christian
rule as well.
>Non-muslims may have weared special dress because this is
>their own type of dress, nothing enforced about that.
Perhaps then the Jews wore yellow patches to be stylish?
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>> No new synagogues could be built. No synagogue
>> or church could tower higher than a neighboring mosque.
>> Non-Muslims could not ride on horses (only mules) and
>> could not carry swords. Non-Muslims generally had to
>> wear special dress to distinguish them from Muslims.
> Lie.
Yep, all lies. The Pact of Omar is a big lie
conjured up by non-Muslim historians; indeed, not just
the Pact of Omar is a lie, but so is nearly everything
else deemed by Mohamed Sadek to be unflattering to Islam.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>> While Muslim invasion
>> of Spain obviously transgressed on the Catholics,
>And how was that..!!?
Catholics had power. After the Muslim invasion,
Muslims took over power. Clear?
>> the Jews of Spain welcomed the invaders, as they
>> had been victims of horrible Catholic persecution.
>> [Of course, the Muslim incursion into Spain was not
>> motivated to liberate the Jews, but rather to continue
>> expansion of the Islamic domain.]
>Why would the muslims persecute the catholics who are people of the book
>and spare/tolerate/protect/elevate the jews who are also people of the
>book..!!??
Where does it say above that the muslims persecuted
the catholics?
>> There was dissension among the Visigoths in Spain, and some
>> Visigothic nobles encouraged the Muslim invasion. For a
>> reference, see A History of the Jews by Solomon Grayzel,
>> p. 274.
>Thank you for the refernce and agreeing to the point.
The same reference details the decrees in the Pact of
Omar, which you pronounced as lies. I guess it is not
such a reliable reference after all :).
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
mohamed.s.sadek
>
>While I agree that the "orientalist" view that Islam's expansion was
>accomplished solely "at the point of a sword" is clearly a distortion,
>
This is what fruitful dialogue leads to.
I am certainly glad to hear that.
>
>--
>Tim Clock Ph.D./Graduate student
>UCI tel#: 714,8565361 Department of Politics and Society
> fax#: 714,8568441 University of California - Irvine
>Home tel#: 714,8563446 Irvine, CA 92717
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>
> Without Muslim armies marching into Asia, Africa, and
> Europe, these wars would not have occurred. Follow my
> logic?
>
>
an end to it. Opression was rampant, and only through the intervention
of the muslims did it stop.
> Although the Prophet was fair in many respects, I find
Good.
> executing verse-writers to be contemptible.
In absence of the whole picture, the story becomes a distorted one.
The punishment of treason is always severe. What did the person
say, and what did it mean, how was it understood, what does it
imply...!!??
The arabs gave considerable weight to the spoken word. Before Islam,
A war would be waged because of a few words said in a certain way
for a certain purpose. Remeber that Omar abdel Rahman is accused of
"his feiry sermons and what they incite".
>
> In "The Islamic State" by Abdulrahman Kurdi, p.60,
> there is a list of Islamic rules for non-Muslims residing
> in an Islamic State. Here is rule #13:
> "They are not allowed to open their own educational
> institutions; however, their creed shall be taught
> in their temples UNDER FULL SUPERVISION OF THE ISLAMIC
> COURT." [Emphasis mine--rje]
>
Obviously the emphasis are yours, because that is the kind of thing that we
talked about once before. Rather than quoting the islamic sources of
legislation, youare quoting people's opinions and thoughts.
And for your information, here is what Mohamed Sadek says in his post:
"based on the teachings of the Quran, and the Sunna of the prophet
Mohammad (pbuh), the Islamic state canb not through any of its agencies
spy on the citizens of the state including the religious minorities
whether in their homes, businesses, and or religious and social
institutions".
The Arizona republic quoted (on the 1st of June) the FBI sources as being
upset for not being allowed to do "surveillence" to a muslim convention
held in Phoenix in 1990.
>
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
You know, I think I found out the reason for the dispute.
While I refered you to the sources of the sharia (Islamic law) and am
concerned about the law itself, you were focusing on what some people
might have misinterpreted/manipulated the laws to serve some cheap purpose.
So, we are really not talking about the same thing.
Now, if the issue is the practice of certain muslims, then that is one thing
while Islam as a law is the criteria for what its adherents do .
What some people do is that they are unable to distinguish between the two.
The teachings of Christ are not one and the same thing as what Hitler did.
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed
Khaled El-Sayed
>>> Non-Muslims were forbidden to speak disrespectfully of
>>> Muhammed and Islam. They were subject to extra, heavy
>>
>>So why they would need to speak disrepectuflly of Isalm? It is as if you
>>consider talking disrespectfully of Islam as a right for every
>>non-muslim that he should enjoy freely!
>And why not?
Simply because muslims do not give themselves the right to
speak disrespectfully of Judaism, Moses, Jesus Christ, or christianity ...
>>How was that prevention (if it ever
>>happened) being taken into effect? I would not imagaine
>>that muslims would attend the church meetings and supervise what is being
>>said!
>Why would you not imagine this? This is exactly what I imagine happening.
I think you have a lack of imagination then ;-)
>Not only church meetings, but the press, private organizations, public
>networks (USENET, for example) and any place else where someone may
>criticize Islam or Mohammed (unless, of course, you think they have
>no intention of enforcing this).
We were talking about the days of Omar by the way and we were speaking
about the right to speak disrespectfully not the right to criticize
subjectively, and there is a hell of a difference!
>They really have no option to join the military. While this could be
>proclaimed as "generosity" on the part of their keepers it could also be
>seen as a simple way to keep the non-Muslim population from learning how
>to defend themselves or fight against their keepers. Slaves are often
>kept from military duty for these same reasons. Don't think that people
>can't see through this little "benefit".
Same would apply if they were to join the military, we would find someone
out there saying that muslims enforced non-muslims to join the islamic army
and maybe they were put on the front line to receive the initial attack
and die first and so on and so on ......
>But I understand that the Coptic Christians in Egypt were made extremely
>wealthy from the enormous tax benefits they received under Islam (they
>only dig through the trash out of a strong sense of tradition).
Yes, to your surprise this makes a hell a lot of money!
>Sorry, I certainly wouldn't buy into a deal like that without a serious
>fight. And I think I could get a few hundred million to back me as well.
>Not everyone finds the idea of being kept by moslem masters as attractive
Ooh yeah, so only western masters are good!
>as you do (no matter how perfect you say Islam is). A system which tries
>from the outset to stifle criticism probably has some serious flaws to hide.
Who ever said that Isalm stifles criticism or constructive thinking?
Come on, lighten up!
>Of course, I don't think we have anything to worry about because muslims
>will never create a government which is recognized by all muslims as
>following Islam. It is simply a fantasy of theirs. They can argue about
>what they did and didn't do, or about what they will or won't do, but they
>just can't do. Build your Islamic governments, make them work and show us
>how wonderful they are. We have many examples of failed attempts. Please
>don't just keep telling us how wonderful the first 2 generations after
>Muhammad were. That was a long time ago. Done anything lately?
I agree with this one. Maybe neither me or you will live to see it, but
it is surely coming, or at least this is what I hope would be the case!
Danny Keren
# Simply because muslims do not give themselves the right to
# speak disrespectfully of Judaism, Moses, Jesus Christ, or christianity ...
Well, I wish it was true of everybody, but you might have noticed
three very active posters on these newsgroups who did not act according
to this principle. What I'm saying is that it seems some Muslims
bash other religions and vice-versa. That's life.
# Who ever said that Isalm stifles criticism or constructive thinking?
Salman Rushdie says so. The guy who had his head cut off in Saudi-Arabia
becasue he denounced Islam (this was just a year or two ago) might have
had such thoughts.
So now you might counter with an answer I am willing to admit carries
some weight: these instances do not reflect "true Islam". That might
very well be the case - all religions are corrupted when applied on a
massive scale and interact with the institutions of the state. I definitly
agree that Judaism and Christianity have also been corrupted. Frankly,
I think religion, or any spiritual teaching, can never be implemented
on a big scale (although religious ideas might transform a society; but
sometimes in a rather different direction than the original teachings
would had they been followed).
So, what is your version of "true Islam", and how would it deal with
Rushdie and with that guy in Saudi-Arabia? Please don't consider this
a flame; I am really interested in yours (and others) opinions.
Lastly, although such cases (Rushdie etc.) can be rejected as extreme
examples which do not reflect much about the general framework, it is
their extremity (any such word, BTW?) which makes them important. Like
in fucntions, the information is in the singularities.
-Danny Keren.
Khaled El-Sayed
>In article <gr-kme.743012310@druid> khaled_...@ncsu.edu writes:
>>Well, this is war, there in no war without people getting killed.
> Without Muslim armies marching into Asia, Africa, and
> Europe, these wars would not have occurred. Follow my
> logic?
Same applies to Israel formation then, without forming the state of
Israel, none of the recent wars in the middle east would have happened.
So ....
To get an appreciation of how well the nations joining the Islamic
state molded with the muslims, see the contributions of its original
inhabitants under the islamic state. Just see how many persians
contributed significanlty to the islamic culture, while before Islam,
persians and arabs were enemies.
>>It is as if you
>>consider talking disrespectfully of Islam as a right for every
>>non-muslim that he should enjoy freely!
>
> Here is how the Prophet Muhammad handled disrespect.
> "Muhammad's behaviour with his Meccan detractors was
> statesman-like. He declared general amnesty for the past
> offences. But the few propagandists who had composed
> verses ridiculing the Prophet were put to death."
> (Asghar Ali Engineer, The Islamic State, p. 30)
Mohamed Sadek commented on this eloquently.
> Although the Prophet was fair in many respects, I find
> executing verse-writers to be contemptible.
> Of course standards were different then, yet many Muslims
> believe such executions to be appropriate punishment
> today, e.g., supporters of killing Rushdie.
> I am glad to live in a country that places high value
> on freedom of speech; the disrespect I have just
> shown the prophet might get me beheaded in an Islamic
> State.
While this country places high value on freedom of speech, it is not
perefect in many other aspects and has apparently failed idealogically
in solving a problem like racism.
> In "The Islamic State" by Abdulrahman Kurdi, p.60,
> there is a list of Islamic rules for non-Muslims residing
> in an Islamic State. Here is rule #13:
> "They are not allowed to open their own educational
> institutions; however, their creed shall be taught
> in their temples UNDER FULL SUPERVISION OF THE ISLAMIC
> COURT." [Emphasis mine--rje]
It is all yours!
> Pretend for the moment that Utah was run by a Mormon
> government, and you were a non-Mormon resident of Utah.
> Pretend also that as a non-Mormon, you had to pay 5%
> income tax to the Mormon government, whereas Mormons
> did not have to pay such tax. When you complain,
> the government counters that Mormons are required to
> tithe 1/40 of their assets. Well, perhaps you too
> tithe to YOUR church, and yet you are forced to pay
> a 5% income tax beyond this just because you are non-
> Mormon. Don't you think you'd rather live in another
> state?
If you have lived long enough in Utah to love it, if you are OK in
other aspects, if your sons would not join the Mormon army, if you are free
to practice your religion (without the need to curse all Mormons and their
prophet or whatever), you may well stay there! If you are enlightened enough,
not a hard headed person, and realized that the other religion is the right
religion (specially if in principle it essentially conforms with your own
religion), then you may well think about changing, just for the sake
of being fair to yourself!
> You can look up the Pact of Omar and see that it happened.
> I can't explain all the transgression perpetrated
> in the name of Islam.
Ooh really, I am impressed! I think the following has been said a thousand
times, but you have to differentiate between Islam as a perfect system
prescribed by God and muslims who may fail to apply it or understand it! And
you just said it: 'perpetrated in the "name" of Isalm', that is if
anything of what you are claiming was ever the norm.
> Perhaps then the Jews wore yellow patches to be stylish?
I think this one deserves no comment!
Tim Clock
>In article <2C4B4A...@news.service.uci.edu> tcl...@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes:
>>
>>While I agree that the "orientalist" view that Islam's expansion was
>>accomplished solely "at the point of a sword" is clearly a distortion,
>>
> This is what fruitful dialogue leads to.
> I am certainly glad to hear that.
Ah...We have a Argic-smog clone on our hands. I see from your careful
dissection of my post and massive discarding of *all* points but this
one teeny lil' line that you learned your derailed train of thought from
Geraldo hisself. Nice try, though.
Tim Clock
>In article <52...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu ( ) writes:
>>In article <gr-kme.743012310@druid> khaled_...@ncsu.edu writes:
>>
>> Without Muslim armies marching into Asia, Africa, and
>> Europe, these wars would not have occurred. Follow my
>> logic?
>>
> No. The killing was already going on, and it is the muslims that put
> an end to it. Opression was rampant, and only through the intervention
> of the muslims did it stop.
>
Islam through this laughable exercise in third-grade "romanticizing".
Only through honest self-reflection can a person, or system/religion,
truly come close to its "ideal" standards. In many ways Islam achieved
this goal; certainly far more than did medieval christianity. You,
however, have a long way to go...
>
>> Although the Prophet was fair in many respects, I find
>
> In absence of the whole picture, the story becomes a distorted one.
> The punishment of treason is always severe. What did the person
> say, and what did it mean, how was it understood, what does it
> imply...!!??
I find this response really amusing, considering your intense efforts to
criticize the "other side" (Israel, etc.) by ignoring its perspective,
its side of the picture. So, with the "other" you seem to feel that
"the whole picture" consists of only your side. This is brilliant...,
in an afternoon-Talk Show sort of way.
This person's point is that the execution of someone for *saying* something
is wrong. You are right, 700-1100 CE was *amnother time* with much
harsher standards. This extreme penalty for *written heresy* was practiced
by both Christianity and Islam... Today, such a "punishment" IS wrong,
and those who still support such actions are out of time.
>
>> In "The Islamic State" by Abdulrahman Kurdi, p.60,
>> there is a list of Islamic rules for non-Muslims residing
>> in an Islamic State. Here is rule #13:
>> "They are not allowed to open their own educational
>> institutions; however, their creed shall be taught
>> in their temples UNDER FULL SUPERVISION OF THE ISLAMIC
>> COURT." [Emphasis mine--rje]
>>
>
> Obviously the emphasis are yours, because that is the kind of thing
> that we talked about once before. Rather than quoting the islamic
> sources of legislation, youare quoting people's opinions and thoughts.
>
I certainly agree with your point,...that one should look further for
"evidence" one way or another. However, the mere fact that this rule
*was devised* and put on the books *does* hint that Islam believed in
it and *intended* to apply it. *Now*, why don't you let us know about those
"souces of legislation" you mentioned. What do they say on the matter?
> And for your information, here is what Mohamed Sadek says in his post:
>
> "based on the teachings of the Quran, and the Sunna of the prophet
> Mohammad (pbuh), the Islamic state can not through any of its agencies
> spy on the citizens of the state including the religious minorities
> whether in their homes, businesses, and or religious and social
> institutions".
This is purely Mohamed's "interpretation"/reading of several sources.
What is being discussed here is "what *were* the laws, rules and
regulations actually applied by Islam to internal minorities".
>
> The Arizona republic quoted (on the 1st of June) the FBI sources as being
> upset for not being allowed to do "surveillence" to a muslim convention
> held in Phoenix in 1990.
So what? Irrelevant to the discussion. Shall I bring up the WTC bombing or
the "Rushdie affair" into this talk?
Tim Clock
>In article <52...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu ( ) writes:
>>>> No new synagogues could be built. No synagogue
>>> Lie.
>>>> or church could tower higher than a neighboring mosque.
>>> Lie.
>>>> Non-Muslims could not ride on horses (only mules) and
>>>> could not carry swords. Non-Muslims generally had to
>>>> wear special dress to distinguish them from Muslims.
>>> Lie.
>>
>> Yep, all lies. The Pact of Omar is a big lie
>> conjured up by non-Muslim historians; indeed, not just
>> the Pact of Omar is a lie, but so is nearly everything
>> else deemed by Mohamed Sadek to be unflattering to Islam.
>
> You know, I think I found out the reason for the dispute.
> While I refered you to the sources of the sharia (Islamic law) and am
> concerned about the law itself, you were focusing on what some people
> might have misinterpreted/manipulated the laws to serve some cheap
> purpose.
Look. It was clear every step of the way that the person *was not*
talking about Islam's IDEALS but about how it has been put into practice.
YOU were the one trying to counter his discussion of historical facts
with references to "ideals".
I would add, also, that it is tiring to regularly see people
trying to "defend" the historical actions commited under the name of
Islam *by refering to Islamic ideals*. One could do the same with
Christianity and Judaism. The issue is what *WAS DONE* in the name
of the religion, and accepted by all as "proper" then and now.
>
> So, we are really not talking about the same thing.
>
> Now, if the issue is the practice of certain muslims,
This *IS NOT* about "certain muslims" but about powerful muslim
rulers and about the attitude and restrictions Islamic society as
a whole inflicted ON Dhimmi minorities. These actions were *not*
just isolated little "abborations" but established patterns
reflecting how the society viewed its "ideals" and treated non-
muslims in their midst. If you wish to brush aside such action as
just the result of a few misguided muslims, I'll apply the same
argument concerning Christianity's "occasional violent actions"
in the MIddle Ages. "Boys will be boys..."
> then that is one thing while Islam as a law is the criteria
> for what its adherents do. What some people do is that they
> are unable to distinguish between the two.
I have yet to find anything (belief, principle,...whatever) that
*has NOT* been "misinterpreted"/distorted by humans. Islam and
its practice by believers is no different.
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>> Without Muslim armies marching into Asia, Africa, and
>> Europe, these wars would not have occurred. Follow my
>> logic?
>No. The killing was already going on, and it is the muslims that put
>an end to it. Opression was rampant, and only through the intervention
>of the muslims did it stop.
I feel a lot better about US involvement in Vietnam
now, thanks; the "killing was already going on" there.
And American Indian tribes had been fighting against each
other for years; thank God for European intervention.
>> executing verse-writers to be contemptible.
>The punishment of treason is always severe.
Does Islam consider writing disrespectful verses tantamount
to treason? Scary!
>Remeber that Omar abdel Rahman is accused of
>"his feiry sermons and what they incite".
Disrespectful verses are now tantamount to inciting
murder? Ouch!
>...the Islamic state canb not through any of its agencies
> spy on the citizens of the state including the religious minorities
They call it "supervision", so it's OK.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Jonas Flygare
In article <2C4B4A...@news.service.uci.edu> tcl...@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes:
>
>While I agree that the "orientalist" view that Islam's expansion was
>accomplished solely "at the point of a sword" is clearly a distortion,
>
This is what fruitful dialogue leads to.
I am certainly glad to hear that.
I'd like to hear what you say about the part that you left out?
(After the comma, above)
>those that claim that the sword played a minor part in its expansion
>are equally off base. In comparison to the contemporary standards (650 CE)
>of "conquest by force" Islam was possibly less violent but, being a
>product of its very violent times, it was not "pacifist" by any means.
>Moreover, any violence it did utilize was very likely justified
>according to its tenets.
> There are plenty of examples in Islam today
> of how religious tenets are regularly used to
> justify and accept violence on its behalf. So,
> one can imagine what was justified in those
> considerably more violent times where standards
> of "brutality" were considerably lower.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Flygare, + Pain is just
Wherever I go + weakness leaving
There I am... + your body. /Unknown
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>Simply because muslims do not give themselves the right to
>speak disrespectfully of Judaism, Moses, Jesus Christ, or christianity ...
What about Buddhism and Hinduism?
>we were speaking
>about the right to speak disrespectfully not the right to criticize
>subjectively, and there is a hell of a difference!
"Muhammed was a religious fanatic because he killed
people who made fun of Islam."
Tell me, is that acceptable criticism or disrespect
punishable by death?
>Who ever said that Isalm stifles criticism or constructive thinking?
>Come on, lighten up!
In the West, mocking government or religion via cartoons,
jokes, poetry, essays, etc., is commonplace. It is a crime
to mock Islam in an Islamic State, hence I say to you,
yes, Islam stifles some forms of criticism.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>So now you might counter with an answer I am willing to admit carries
>some weight: these instances do not reflect "true Islam".
Ask any Islamic officials in Iran or Saudi Arabia
if they are following "true Islam" to the best of
their ability, and they will probably answer yes.
So how is it that their decisions are so
obviously un-Islamic to the people who post
here?
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>> Without Muslim armies marching into Asia, Africa, and
>> Europe, these wars would not have occurred. Follow my
>> logic?
>Same applies to Israel formation then, without forming the state of
>Israel, none of the recent wars in the middle east would have happened.
>So ....
You are forgetting Nasser's war in Yemen, the Iran-Iraq
war, the Gulf War, etc. But this is beside the point.
It seems that you are now finally admitting that Muslims
transgressed in Asia, Africa, and Europe, but you would
like me to acknowledge that Israel transgressed too.
Is that why you brought up Israel?
>To get an appreciation of how well the nations joining the Islamic
>state molded with the muslims, see the contributions of its original
>inhabitants under the islamic state. Just see how many persians
>contributed significanlty to the islamic culture, while before Islam,
>persians and arabs were enemies.
Just look how much the Indians contributed to the Mexican
culture after Cortez invaded. Warms your heart, doesn't
it?
>Mohamed Sadek commented on this eloquently.
He has habitually called my sources lies
without ONCE producing a single citation of
his own contradicting my sources. Not much
credibility there.
>While this country places high value on freedom of speech, it is not
>perefect in many other aspects and has apparently failed idealogically
>in solving a problem like racism.
Whereas there is no racism in Arab states? Come on!
>If you are enlightened enough,
>not a hard headed person, and realized that the other religion is the right
>religion
Excuse me while I throw up.
>> Perhaps then the Jews wore yellow patches to be stylish?
>I think this one deserves no comment!
I think that is because you have no argument.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Adam Shostack
>rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu ( ) writes:
>>In article <gr-kme.743012310@druid> khaled_...@ncsu.edu writes:
>>>Well, this is war, there in no war without people getting killed.
>> Without Muslim armies marching into Asia, Africa, and
>> Europe, these wars would not have occurred. Follow my
>> logic?
>Same applies to Israel formation then, without forming the state of
>Israel, none of the recent wars in the middle east would have happened.
None?
The Iran-Iraq war was caused by Israel? The Yeminite civil war?
Iraq's invaison of Kuwait?
You are to quick to lay the blame on Israel.
BONNIE
>
>Same applies to Israel formation then, without forming the state of
>Israel, none of the recent wars in the middle east would have happened.
>So ....
You'd have thought the myth of Arab unity would have been shattered by
all the Inter-Arab conflicts between ...
Morocoo and Algeria
Libya and Tunisia
Libya and Chab
Libya and Sudan
Libya and Egypt
Syria and Lebanon
Iraq and Iran
Iraq and Kuwait
Iran and Bahrain
Iran and Qatar
Qatar and Muscat/Oman
Muscat/Oman and South Yemen
Saudi Arabia and South Yemen
South Yemen and Somalia
South Yemen and Yemen
...but blame them all on Israel. What they Hell.
ifa...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
> rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu ( ) writes:
>
>>In article <gr-kme.743012310@druid> khaled_...@ncsu.edu writes:
>
>>>Well, this is war, there in no war without people getting killed.
>
>> Without Muslim armies marching into Asia, Africa, and
>> Europe, these wars would not have occurred. Follow my
>> logic?
>
> Same applies to Israel formation then, without forming the state of
> Israel, none of the recent wars in the middle east would have happened.
> So ....
Suppoes that we accept the notion that the formation of
ISrael caused _some_ of the wars in the middle east.
Do we now agree that the process of the formation of Israel
and the process of establishing the Muslim empire are about
morally equivalent?
Noam
> Khaled
mohamed.s.sadek
>In article <CAHE3...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>> In absence of the whole picture, the story becomes a distorted one.
>> The punishment of treason is always severe. What did the person
>> say, and what did it mean, how was it understood, what does it
>> imply...!!??
>
>I find this response really amusing, considering your intense efforts to
>criticize the "other side" (Israel, etc.) by ignoring its perspective,
>its side of the picture. So, with the "other" you seem to feel that
>"the whole picture" consists of only your side. This is brilliant...,
>in an afternoon-Talk Show sort of way.
>
>This person's point is that the execution of someone for *saying* something
>is wrong. You are right, 700-1100 CE was *amnother time* with much
>harsher standards. This extreme penalty for *written heresy* was practiced
>by both Christianity and Islam... Today, such a "punishment" IS wrong,
You forgot Judaism. (is that purposely done..!! Tim..??)
Remember that the man who cursed God was killed (stoned to death) by Moses
(pbuh) and the leaders/most pious jews at the time in a public execution.
Remember that in Judaism (out of all religions), it has that law in the
Torah, itself documented with vivid examples of real life stories.
Remember that if you curse your father/mother, you are stoned to death
according to the Torah alone.
Remember that if you change your faith (and turn to other gods) you are
stoned to death according to the Torah alone out of all other scriptures
including the Quran and the new testament.
>and those who still support such actions are out of time.
>>
>>> In "The Islamic State" by Abdulrahman Kurdi, p.60,
>>> there is a list of Islamic rules for non-Muslims residing
>>> in an Islamic State. Here is rule #13:
>>> "They are not allowed to open their own educational
>>> institutions; however, their creed shall be taught
>>> in their temples UNDER FULL SUPERVISION OF THE ISLAMIC
>>> COURT." [Emphasis mine--rje]
>>>
>>
>> Obviously the emphasis are yours, because that is the kind of thing
>> that we talked about once before. Rather than quoting the islamic
>> sources of legislation, youare quoting people's opinions and thoughts.
>>
>I certainly agree with your point,...that one should look further for
Once again I am glad to hear the truth being attested to.
>"evidence" one way or another. However, the mere fact that this rule
>*was devised* and put on the books *does* hint that Islam believed in
*******************
Sorry, but what an absurd statement to make.
Islam is a faith with a book. It is to be believed in (or disbelieved in) by
others. I know you did not mean that (couldn't have) but it's redicioulesly
funny.
>it and *intended* to apply it. *Now*, why don't you let us know about those
>"souces of legislation" you mentioned. What do they say on the matter?
You know, I take the trouble to increase my own knowledge on faiths
(my own as well as others) from their sources. I also listed the sources
once before and they are in libraries. It will do others good to read
them for themselves and make their own conclusions.
>
>> And for your information, here is what Mohamed Sadek says in his post:
>>
>> "based on the teachings of the Quran, and the Sunna of the prophet
>> Mohammad (pbuh), the Islamic state can not through any of its agencies
>> spy on the citizens of the state including the religious minorities
>> whether in their homes, businesses, and or religious and social
>> institutions".
>
>This is purely Mohamed's "interpretation"/reading of several sources.
>What is being discussed here is "what *were* the laws, rules and
>regulations actually applied by Islam to internal minorities".
They will also be the interpretation of any one reading the Quran where
it says clearly :"Do not spy". What other interpretation could this have?
spy alittle, spy on some people and leave others, spy on religious
minorities, spy on the non-muslims...
Here is a major islamic principle: "Lahom malana, walaihum malaina"
This hadith (saying of prophet Muhammad (pbuh)), lays out the relation
between muslims and non-muslims in an Islamic state. It means:" to them
rights and previlieges same as to us, and on them of duties and respon-
sibilities, same as on us."
>>
>> The Arizona republic quoted (on the 1st of June) the FBI sources as being
>> upset for not being allowed to do "surveillence" to a muslim convention
>> held in Phoenix in 1990.
>
>So what? Irrelevant to the discussion. Shall I bring up the WTC bombing or
>the "Rushdie affair" into this talk?
>>
Wrong. The disscussion is about spying on religious minorities' religious
activities. It looks like we are not talking about the same thing.
>
>--
>Tim Clock Ph.D./Graduate student
>UCI tel#: 714,8565361 Department of Politics and Society
> fax#: 714,8568441 University of California - Irvine
>Home tel#: 714,8563446 Irvine, CA 92717
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>In article <CAHEE...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>>
>> You know, I think I found out the reason for the dispute.
>> While I refered you to the sources of the sharia (Islamic law) and am
>> concerned about the law itself, you were focusing on what some people
>> might have misinterpreted/manipulated the laws to serve some cheap
>> purpose.
>
>Look. It was clear every step of the way that the person *was not*
>talking about Islam's IDEALS but about how it has been put into practice.
>YOU were the one trying to counter his discussion of historical facts
>with references to "ideals".
>
ideals are deficient to begin with. That is what we are looking for.
With the human imperfections in practice and in applying any IDEAL, topping
that with a deficient IDEAL is certain to cause disasters as happened
through out history (including WWI and WWII).
Practice by humans will always be flawed. That is why you need as good
of an IDEAL as you can get to maintain the balance.
That is why, compared with any other, muslims have been praised for their
tolerance towards "the other".
>I would add, also, that it is tiring to regularly see people
>trying to "defend" the historical actions commited under the name of
>Islam *by refering to Islamic ideals*. One could do the same with
>Christianity and Judaism. The issue is what *WAS DONE* in the name
Sorry, not quite. No offence intended.
>of the religion, and accepted by all as "proper" then and now.
The comparison is startling. More non-muslims have praised the rule
of Islam than any other rule of any other faith in history.
Documented references have been posted numerous times on this net.
>>
>> So, we are really not talking about the same thing.
>>
>> Now, if the issue is the practice of certain muslims,
>
>This *IS NOT* about "certain muslims" but about powerful muslim
>rulers and about the attitude and restrictions Islamic society as
>a whole inflicted ON Dhimmi minorities. These actions were *not*
Since you and I have had this same disscussion before, I will
not repeat it again.
>just isolated little "abborations" but established patterns
>reflecting how the society viewed its "ideals" and treated non-
>muslims in their midst. If you wish to brush aside such action as
You know these are all lies being repeated and have been refuted before.
>just the result of a few misguided muslims, I'll apply the same
>argument concerning Christianity's "occasional violent actions"
>in the MIddle Ages. "Boys will be boys..."
>
>> then that is one thing while Islam as a law is the criteria
>> for what its adherents do. What some people do is that they
>> are unable to distinguish between the two.
>
>I have yet to find anything (belief, principle,...whatever) that
>*has NOT* been "misinterpreted"/distorted by humans. Islam and
>its practice by believers is no different.
>
>
It is the relativeness (is there such word) that count.
Far less abuses have happened under Islam than any other system
in history.
>--
>Tim Clock Ph.D./Graduate student
>UCI tel#: 714,8565361 Department of Politics and Society
> fax#: 714,8568441 University of California - Irvine
>Home tel#: 714,8563446 Irvine, CA 92717
Mohamed
Jake Livni
>Same applies to Israel formation then, without forming the state of
>Israel, none of the recent wars in the middle east would have happened.
Civil war and Black September in Jordan.
Civil War for 15 years in Lebanon.
Uprising and brutal snuffing out of dissidents in Syria.
Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Iran-Iraq war for 10 years; chemical warfare.
Kurds and Shi'ites slaughtered en masse in Iraq.
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Desert Storm.
Fundamentalist terrorism in Egypt.
Islamic government in Algeria overthrown by military.
Islamic government in Sudan slaughters thousands of African Christians.
All because of Israel!! Truly amazing. Those Mossad guys are
sneakier than anyone ever even dreamed!!
--
Jake Livni ja...@bony1.bony.com Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Serdar Argic
>Ah...We have a Argic-smog clone on our hands. I see from your careful
I see...We have a pathological liar on our hands. Remember, in article
<2BAC262...@news.service.uci.edu>, you have blatantly lied (repeatedly
so).
>The Goltz article was NOT published in the Sunday Times Magazine
>on March 1, 1992, but in the Guardian Sunday Section. The story WAS NOT
>filed frim Agdam but from London.
Now what would you do? Still have it? Your face, that is.
Source: 'The Sunday Times,' 1 March 1992 (a British Weekly, written by
Thomas Goltz, from Agdam, Azerbaijan.)
ARMENIAN SOLDIERS MASSACRE HUNDREDS OF FLEEING FAMILIES.
The spiralling violence gripping the outer republics of the former
Soviet Union gained new impetus yesterday with cold-blooded slaughter of
hundreds of women and children in war-racked Nagorno-Karabakh.
Survivors reported that Armenian soldiers shot and bayoneted more
than 450 Azeris, many of them women and children, who were fleeing an
attack on their town. Hundreds, possibly thousands, were missing and
feared dead.
The attackers killed most of the soldiers and volunteers defending
the women and children. They then turned their guns on the terrified
refugees. The few survivors later described what happened:" That's when
the real slaughter began," said Azer Hajiev, one of three soldiers to
survive. "The Armenians just shot and shot. And then they came in and
started carving up people with their bayonets and knives."
" They were shooting, shooting, shooting", echoed Rasia Aslanova, who
arrived in Agdam with other women and children who made their way through
Armenian lines. She said her husband, Kayun, and a son-in-law were killed
in front of her. Her daughter was still missing.
One boy who arrived in Agdam had an ear sliced off.
The survivors said 2000 others, some of whom had fled separately,
were still missing in the gruelling terrain; many could perish from their
wounds or the cold.
By late yesterday, 479 deaths had been registered at the morgue in
Agdam's morgue, and 29 bodies had been buried in the cemetery. Of the
seven corpses I saw awaiting burial, two were children and three were
women, one shot through the chest at point blank range.
Agdam hospital was a scene of carnage and terror. Doctors said they
had 140 patients who escaped slaughter, most with bullet injuries or deep
stab wounds.
Nor were they safe in Agdam. On friday night rockets fell on the city
which has a population of 150,000, destroying several buildings and
killing one person.
Serdar Argic
'We closed the roads and mountain passes that
might serve as ways of escape for the Turks
and then proceeded in the work of extermination.'
(Ohanus Appressian - 1919)
'In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists
a single Turkish soul.' (Sahak Melkonian - 1920)
mohamed.s.sadek
>
>>> executing verse-writers to be contemptible.
>
>>The punishment of treason is always severe.
>
> Does Islam consider writing disrespectful verses tantamount
> to treason? Scary!
>
as tantamount to distorting it. (purposely perhaps..!!)
You deleted what I said about the need to really know the whole story before
making a good judgement on the event, and you chose to take a part of what I
said to suit some purpose.
>
>>Remeber that Omar abdel Rahman is accused of
>>"his feiry sermons and what they incite".
>
>
> Disrespectful verses are now tantamount to inciting
What are those verses..!!?? what makes you know that they do not incite
murder..!!?? C R A P (Cite Refernbcese And Proofs).
> murder? Ouch!
>
>
>>...the Islamic state canb not through any of its agencies
>> spy on the citizens of the state including the religious minorities
>
>
> They call it "supervision", so it's OK.
such hillarious funny joke.
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed