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
mohamed.s.sadek
>In article <CAHCz...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>
> 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)
>
I already aknowledged that whenever humans try to put any system into
practice, they will make mistakes, human imperfections will always
happen. What really counts, is the degree to which they happen.
>>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
That is what I mean. It is the "LESS" that counts.
>>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.
What tenets do you mean..!!??
>> There are plenty of examples in Islam today
>> of how religious tenets are regularly used to
^^^^^^^
rather misused.
>> 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
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>
>
> "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?
>
It is an offensive lie.
>
>>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
So, offending people's beliefs "is commonplace" in the west.
I think all countries in the world must learn this great tradition and
start adopting that great principle :-)
> to mock Islam in an Islamic State, hence I say to you,
> yes, Islam stifles some forms of criticism.
Sorry, but that is not "some forms of criticism", it is an offense.
Islam always allowed criticism. The Quran even documents the sayings
of those who rejected it. There are numerous stories about people
opposing the prophet (pbuh) himself openly and in public.
The same thing goes for the caliphs after him.
Omar (ra) himself once said to someone who was openly accusing him of
being wrong: "You are no good if you do not say it (you are wrong), and
we are no good if we do not allow it".
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>
>>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.
>
>
" 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, overburdening
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, Indonesia.
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 what jewish, christian, and hindu historians wrote:
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 have ever 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
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Hey, how about these citations by non-muslim scholars.
Mohamed
Tim Clock
>In article <2C4D0F8...@news.service.uci.edu> tcl...@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes:
>>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".
>>
> No, I am looking at the comparative aspect of the IDEALS. You see, some
> ideals are deficient to begin with. That is what we are looking for.
>
Fine, so you have been interested here in comparing and considering
"ideal"/ standards In Islam. I suggest that you contact the other
party to your original conversation to ask if this was HIS original
intent. IMO he was refering to and discussing the not-so-"ideal"
*ACTIONS* that have been commited by Muslim states and socieities.
> 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.
>
Of course...we both agree on this matter. The issue IMO has always been
that attempts to portray Islam amd muslim ACTION as (almost) perfect
are wrong, "centric" and distortions. Moreover, attempts to portray
Islam **as practiced** as *better* than every other system are wrong.
While it in many ways (but NOT ALL) *was* better in practice than
Christianity, its comparisons with other systems (India, Africa, Asia)
are much less clear.
>
>>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.
There you go again...trumpeting "we are better". The issue IS NOT
whether Islam is better than anybody, but whether some of its
practices *are* abusive, oppressive.
>
>>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.
Hogwash. This is the attitude that Europe had for years. Because
it *felt* that it was much more advanced than the barbarian (your
infidel) Third World, it felt justified in inflicting its *better*
system on others. And from that attitude came the joys of
colonialism. In your view there is little difference, except that
the name is the colonizing power is Islamic.
>
> Far less abuses have happened under Islam than any other system
> in history.
Balderdash. While this statement is, IMO, *generally* accurate with
reference to Medieval Christianity, it *is not* in relation to MANY
of the other societies throughout history. And, since I doubt that
you are aware of every socity throughout history, the fact that you
actually made such a sweeping statement shows simple, straightforward
cultural "centricism".
Tim Clock
>In article <2C4D0A6...@news.service.uci.edu> tcl...@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes:
>>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
>>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..??)
No, why do you ask? But, just for you, next time I'll forget on purpose
to mention it.
>>>
>>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...
Gee, there you go again, Mohamed. Talking about the Islamic "ideal" when
the other person is talking about *actions* commited by Islamic society/
governments. Foolish me, I thought that discussing this one with you
would avoid the issue of mixing talk of "ideals" and "actions".
>
> 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."
Then why are some of the duties, rights and privileges **different** for
muslims and non-muslims?
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>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 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.
It would be frightening indeed if the Jewish State
mixed politics and religion to such an extent that
it killed people for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery,
homosexual conduct, and the like. Fortunately, the
Torah has little political relevance in such matters.
On the other hand, politics and religion are inseparable
in Islam, and the penalties for apostasy, blasphemy,
adultery, and homosexual conduct in several fundamentalist
Muslim states is death. Is this acceptable?
>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."
Please explain why the Prophet himself contradicts his own
principle in verse 14 of his Declarations of Medina.
>The disscussion is about spying on religious minorities' religious
>activities. It looks like we are not talking about the same thing.
Islamic authorities had to approve the curriculum
in the Temples. They didn't call it spying, they
called it supervision.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>> yes, Islam stifles some forms of criticism.
>Sorry, but that is not "some forms of criticism", it is an offense.
Is there a clear demarcation between offensive criticism
and inoffensive criticism? I submit that the answer is
no, and this is what makes freedom of speech so precious.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Jonas Flygare
In article <FLAX.93Ju...@frej.teknikum.uu.se> fl...@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare) writes:
>In article <CAHCz...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>
> 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)
>
I already aknowledged that whenever humans try to put any system into
practice, they will make mistakes, human imperfections will always
happen. What really counts, is the degree to which they happen.
Somehow I fail to see how your reply corresponds to my question..
I got the impression that you claim Tim and you agree that no violence
occured (your statement, correct me if I'm wrong..). However,
you back this claim (?) by leaving out the rest of Tims sentence,
quoted below. Does that mean you agree to that also?
>>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
That is what I mean. It is the "LESS" that counts.
(Violence is always violence, and claiming to be peaceful, by being less
violent than another doesn't sound quite right. )
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Earlier you said it was peaceful, now
it's less violent. Correct?
>>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.
What tenets do you mean..!!??
The above is the quote from Tim's post, so I'll have to leave it to him to
answer. You should try to keep track of your posts and quotes.
CC:ing yourself might be a good idea.
zza...@v2.cgu.mcc.ac.uk
"Robert Knowles" <p00...@psilink.com> writes:
[....]
>They really have no option to join the military. While this could be
Contrary to public belief christians were part of muslim armies especially in
syria. They fought against the Romans, they were not required to pay Jizyah
as a consequence. So joining the aramy was an option and was not enforced on
them. If you do not serve in the army you pay, if you served you do not pay.
Concequently your hypothisies tumbles.
>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.
How misinformed you are! Intelectual critisisim of islam is not the issue.
What is forbiden is the slander of the prophet or islam. Freedom of expression
have not been so well protected, till the down fall of the Abasid's, and the
loss of Andalusia. In the last case you can see what replaced the tolerant
muslims. Humanity is in dire need of islam to keep the balance and sanity of
this world, from the excesses of the 'freedom' mongers who use it to let
murderes and thieves to get away with thier crimes.
Kamie
" We began as hunters and gatherers and
evolved to shoppers and borrowers."
Anon.
BONNIE
>
>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 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.
Just as I am not an Expert on the Quran, you are not an expert on the
Torah. To carry out any of the above senetences there would have to
be two witnesses of high moral standing, and 71 judges on the court.
Further, if the courts killed more than 1 person in 700 years to was
said to be a bloody period. It was not common! Further, there is no
Sanhedrin, so none of the crimes could be punnished today, (until the
temple is rebuilt).
E. Zeidan
!> Please explain why the Prophet himself contradicts his own
2222222222222222222
!> principle in verse 14 of his Declarations of Medina.
222222222 111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>>
Could you please,
-Explain what do you mean by (verse 14 of his Declarations of Medina)?
-Give examples, with references to: (contradicts his own principle)?
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
-Shafei
Eric S. Perlman
>In article <52...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu ( ) writes:
>>In article <gr-kme.743218614@druid> khaled_...@ncsu.edu writes:
>>
>>
>> "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?
>>
>
> It is an offensive lie.
Answer the question. OK, it's an offensive lie. Is it offensive enough
to be punishable by death? Is anything that offends Islam punishable by
death? That was the question to begin with.
>>>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
>
> So, offending people's beliefs "is commonplace" in the west.
That wasn't what Ron was saying.
Answer the question, Mohammed!
--
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.colorado.edu>
Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Eric S. Perlman
>>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".
>>
> No, I am looking at the comparative aspect of the IDEALS. You see, some
> 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.
Quite true. But I doubt you can substantiate your next claim:
> That is why, compared with any other, muslims have been praised for their
> tolerance towards "the other".
Tell that to the Baha'i in Iran. Tell that to the Armenians who
perished in the genocide committed against them by the Turks. Tell
that to the Jews who had to flee for their lives following the creation
of Israel, after which pogroms spread like wildfire throughout Arab and
Muslim nations. The deliberate starving and ethnic cleansing now going
on in the Sudan. I could go on and on. Islamic society has no better
and no worse a record than does Christian society or any other
theologically based society.
In a word, utter poppycock.
Khaled El-Sayed
>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.
OK, I got your feedback about this point, this statement was not accurate.
I meant the israeli-arab wars not every other war in the middle east.
Thanks,
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)
Dave Bakken
> 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".
It ``should not'' is what you mean. It certainly can (i.e., it would have the
ability). And I think that anyone except the most idealistic of Islamicists
realize that it will. But you will never understand this, or stop washing
your hands of all of the excesses done by people claiming to implement an
Islamic government, or explain how the Islamic government you hope to see
will be any less authoritarian than all of these over the last 1300 years...
> 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.
The FBI should do surveillence on any group that it reasonably believes is
planning crimes, especially violent ones, irregardless of the group's
religion, ethnicity, etc. This is its job. If they feel that this
1990 convention falls in this category then they are quite right in feeling
upset at being denied this law enforcement tool.
--
Dave Bakken Internet: bak...@cs.arizona.edu
Dept. of Comp. Sci.; U.of Ariz. UUCP: uunet!arizona!cs!bakken
Tucson, AZ 85721; USA Bitnet: bakken%cs.arizona.edu@Arizrvax
AT&T: +1 602 621 4089 FAX: +1 602 621 4246
Dave Bakken
> The teachings of Christ are not one and the same thing as what Hitler did.
Hitler did not claim to be a Christian, in fact he engaged in
occultic rituals.
Dave Bakken
>>In article <gr-kme.743218614@druid> khaled_...@ncsu.edu writes:
>>
>> "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?
>>
>
> It is an offensive lie.
But is it punishable in an Islamic state? You did not answer the question!
>>>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
>
> So, offending people's beliefs "is commonplace" in the west.
>
> I think all countries in the world must learn this great tradition and
> start adopting that great principle :-)
Not funny. One of the great strenghts in the West is our tolerance
of other peoples' opinions and beliefs. This includes when people
go beyond the point of good taste and cross into the very offensive.
This is indeed something that the rest of the world would do well
to adopt!
I think that the aftermath of ``The Satanic Verses'' (SV) versus that
of ``The Last Temptation of Christ'' (LTOC) is illuminating. When
LTOC came out, you saw Christians and others complaining that
such an offensive film should not have been produced. They were
saying that the producer should have been more responsible and not
produced a film they knew would be so offensive to many. I
do not recall hearing one Christian say that LTOC should be
banned (though I guess one or two redneck idiots somewhere may
well have).
In contract, when SV came out, there were riots in some cities,
and a number of people were killed. The death sentence for
Rushdie seems to have fairly widespread support, and not just
among Shias. Indeed, one of my favorite songs is ``Morning has
Broken'' by the then Cat Stevens. It is very tender poetry and
beautiful music! He later became a Muslim, and was asked about
the Rushdie sentence. I forget his exact wording, but he either
agreed with it or refused to condemn it. Either case is sad.
And you still think that strict Islamic states will be tolerant? Really?
>> to mock Islam in an Islamic State, hence I say to you,
>> yes, Islam stifles some forms of criticism.
>
> Sorry, but that is not "some forms of criticism", it is an offense.
The word ``offense'' almost always connotes something that is punishable,
correct?
> Islam always allowed criticism. The Quran even documents the sayings
> of those who rejected it. There are numerous stories about people
> opposing the prophet (pbuh) himself openly and in public.
Strict Islam in your pipe-dream theory may well allow criticism. Not
Islam in practice, when strict Sharia is implemented. Such criticism
is generally considered by the rulers, the objects of criticism,
to be ``an offense'' against Islam or even seditious activity. After
all, they fell they're implementing true Islam, anything else is heresy.
mohamed.s.sadek
>Islamic government in Sudan slaughters thousands of African Christians.
>
How can it be explained (in a logical wat) that the sudanese christians of
the war-torn south are fleeing the war by ...migrating north. Seeking help
support, and shelter from the muslim government in the north (well,
predominantly muslim government since it has a few christian ministers)..!!?
The truth about the Sudan has already been documented by the sudanes
christians and their leadership themselves.
>
>--
>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.
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>In article <CAIzp...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>>>
>> No, I am looking at the comparative aspect of the IDEALS. You see, some
>> ideals are deficient to begin with. That is what we are looking for.
>>
>
>Fine, so you have been interested here in comparing and considering
>"ideal"/ standards In Islam. I suggest that you contact the other
>party to your original conversation to ask if this was HIS original
>intent. IMO he was refering to and discussing the not-so-"ideal"
>*ACTIONS* that have been commited by Muslim states and socieities.
>
No. The subject lines that he chose were (and still are) :
"Is Islam racist", and "No transgression in Islam".
They both have to do with ISLAM rather than MUSLIMS.
Got it.!?
>>
>> The comparison is startling. More non-muslims have praised the rule
>> of Islam than any other rule of any other faith in history.
>
>There you go again...trumpeting "we are better". The issue IS NOT
>whether Islam is better than anybody, but whether some of its
>practices *are* abusive, oppressive.
>>
>
I did not say we are better, I did not speak about muslims.
Why is it so difficult, the disscussion is about Islam as
an IDEAL that is so good that even with imperfect humans trying
to practice it, it produces the best results.
Forgive me for stating the facts.
>>>
>> It is the relativeness (is there such word) that count.
>
>Hogwash. This is the attitude that Europe had for years. Because
>it *felt* that it was much more advanced than the barbarian (your
>infidel) Third World, it felt justified in inflicting its *better*
Who is "my infidel"..!!??
>system on others. And from that attitude came the joys of
It has been demonestrated by non-muslim scholars of THE WEST and EAST
that Islam is strongly against "inflicting its *better* system on others"
and that muslims have (to the highest degree) upheld these teachings.
>colonialism. In your view there is little difference, except that
***********
>the name is the colonizing power is Islamic.
Thank you for explaining "my view" to me.
>>
>> Far less abuses have happened under Islam than any other system
>> in history.
>
>Balderdash. While this statement is, IMO, *generally* accurate with
There will always be people who deny the glaring truth.
Western scholars, non-muslim historians, lay people, even
miracles will not be able to convince everybody.
This is the truth.
>reference to Medieval Christianity, it *is not* in relation to MANY
>of the other societies throughout history. And, since I doubt that
>you are aware of every socity throughout history, the fact that you
>actually made such a sweeping statement shows simple, straightforward
>cultural "centricism".
>>
>
>
>--
>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
Serdar Argic
>> That is why, compared with any other, muslims have been praised for their
>> tolerance towards "the other".
>Tell that to the Armenians
Hmmmm. "Perlmanian of ASALA/SDPA/ARF" was caught blatantly lying again.
For the record:
1. That beacon of historical revisionism even denies the genocide
of the entire Muslim population of x-Soviet Armenia, Van, Kars,
Bitlis, Erzincan, Erzurum and Ilica by his criminal Armenian handlers'
fascist grandparents between 1914 and 1920.
2. That beacon of genocide apology even denies the Armenian-Nazi
collaboration during World War II and today.
3. That beacon of ASALA/SDPA/ARF Terrorism and Revisionism Triangle
even denies the genocide of 204,000 Azeri people by the fascist
x-Soviet Armenian Government between 1988 and 1992.
4. That beacon of forgery even denies the cold-blooded massacre of
defenseless Muslim people by his criminal Armenian handlers grazing
at the ASALA/SDPA/ARF Terrorism and Revisionism Triangle.
Your Armenian grandparents committed unheard-of crimes, resorted
to all conceivable methods of despotism, organized massacres, poured
petrol over babies and burned them, raped women and girls in front of
their parents who were bound hand and foot, took girls from their
mothers and fathers and appropriated personal property and real estate.
And today, they put Azeris in the most unbearable conditions any other
nation had ever known in history.
Sorry, but the x-Soviet Armenian government got away with the genocide
of 2.5 million Muslim men, women and children and is enjoying the fruits
of that genocide. You, and those like you, will not get away with the
genocide's cover-up. Not a chance.
Now let the Armenians speak for themselves for the genocide of 2.5 million
Muslim people.
Source: "Men Are Like That" by Leonard Ramsden Hartill. The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, Indianapolis (1926). (305 pages).
(Memoirs of an Armenian officer who participated in the genocide of 2.5
million Muslim people)
"Foreword:"
"For example, we were camped one night in a half-ruined Tartar mosque,
the most habitable building of a destroyed village, near the border
of Persia and Russian Armenia. During the course of evening I asked
Ohanus if he could tell me anything of the history of the village and
the cause of its destruction. In his matter of fact way he replied, Yes,
I assisted in its sack and destruction, and witnessed the slaying of
those whose bones you saw to-day scattered among its ruins."
p. 202 (first and second paragraphs).
"We closed the roads and mountain passes that might serve as
ways of escape for the Tartars and then proceeded in the work
of extermination. Our troops surrounded village after village.
Little resistance was offered. Our artillery knocked the huts
into heaps of stone and dust and when the villages became untenable
and inhabitants fled from them into fields, bullets and bayonets
completed the work. Some of the Tartars escaped of course. They
found refuge in the mountains or succeeded in crossing the border
into Turkey. The rest were killed. And so it is that the whole
length of the borderland of Russian Armenia from Nakhitchevan to
Akhalkalaki from the hot plains of Ararat to the cold mountain
plateau of the North were dotted with mute mournful ruins of
Tartar villages. They are quiet now, those villages, except for
howling of wolves and jackals that visit them to paw over the
scattered bones of the dead."
>perished in the genocide committed against them by the Turks.
Is that why people call you 'Perlmanian the moronian'?
This is called 'the Armenian genocide of 2.5 million Muslim people'.
Source: "U.S. Library of Congress": 'Bristol Papers' - General
Correspondence Container #34.
"While the Dashnaks [x-Soviet Armenian Government] were in power they
did everything in the world to keep the pot boiling by attacking Kurds,
Turks and Tartars; by committing outrages against the Moslems; by
massacring the Moslems; and robbing and destroying their homes. During
the last two years the Armenians in Russian Caucasus have shown no
ability to govern themselves and especially no ability to govern or
handle other races under their power."
Source: F. Kazemzadeh, "The Struggle for Transcaucasia," (New York, 1951),
pp. 69-77.
This three-day massacre [by Armenians] is recorded in history as the
'March Events' and thousands of Turks, old people, women and children
lost their lives.
Source: K. Gurun, "The Armenian File," (London, Nicosia, Istanbul, 1985).
"Many Muslim villages have been destroyed by the soldiers of Armenian troops
armed with cannons and machine guns before the eyes of our troops and the
people.....According to documented information, 28 Muslim villages have
been destroyed...young Muslim women have been taken to Kars and Gumru,
hundreds of women and children who were able to flee their villages were
beaten and killed in the mountains..."
Source: W. E. D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, "Caucasian Battlefields,"
Cambridge University Press, 1953, p. 481.
"As the Armenians found support among the Reds (who regarded the Tartars
as a counter-revolutionary elements) the fighting soon became a massacre
of the Tartar population."
Source: General Bronsart wrote as follows in an article in the July 24,
1921 issue of the newspaper "Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung:"
"Since all the Moslems capable of bearing arms were in the Turkish Army,
it was easy to organize a terrible massacre by the Armenians against
defenseless people, because the Armenians were not only attacking the
sides and rear of the Eastern Army paralyzed at the front by the
Russians, but were attacking the Moslem folk in the region as well."
Source: Quoted by General Hamelin in a letter to the High Commissioner,
February 2, 1919, in the official history, "Les Armees Francaises
au Levant," vol. 1, p. 122.
"They [Armenians] burned and destroyed many Turkish villages as punitive
measures in their advance and practically all Turkish villages in their
retreat from Marash."
Source: John Dewey, "The Turkish Tragedy", The New Republic, Volume 40,
November 12, 1928, pp. 268-269.
"They [Armenians] boasted of having raised an army of one hundred
and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at
least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population."
>Tell
>that to the Jews who had to flee for their lives following the creation
But, you've got a minor problem; according to Jewish scholars, you are
a self-exposed/admitted pathological liar.
TURKEY AND THE HOLOCAUST
An interview with Stanford J. Shaw (History), who recently
completed two books: The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the
Turkish Republic, and Turkey and the Holocaust: Turkey's Role in
Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry from Nazi Persecution,
1933-45. Shaw chairs the undergraduate interdepartmental degree
program in Near Eastern Studies and has organized the Program for
the Study of Ottoman and Turkish Jewry. He is affiliated with the
G. E. von Grunebaum Center for Near Eastern Studies.
Editor: How did you come to write these two books on Turkey and
European and Turkish Jews?
Shaw: Basically, I'm an Ottoman historian, but I'm also Jewish.
I've spent twenty-five years studying Ottoman history, and as
time went along, whenever I found materials on the Ottoman Jews,
I collected them. But I never did anything with them until a
couple of years ago, when I suddenly realized that 1992 was the
500th anniversary of the Jews being expelled from Spain and
coming to Turkey. Then the Sephardic Temple down on Wilshire
Avenue invited me to give a series of three lectures on Ottoman
Jewry. These lectures were greatly appreciated, and I became
motivated to undertake further research to develop a book, The
Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish) Republic. This book
is quite different from the works of most Jewish historians, who
tend to look at the Jews in any country more from the viewpoint
of the Jews and the Jewish community, and rely mainly on Jewish
sources. I view my subject as an Ottoman historian, and I
approach the Jews of the Ottoman Empire largely from the point of
view of Ottoman society, using largely Ottoman sources. After I
finished this book and sent it to the press, I came across
additional documents relating to Turkish Jews during World War
II. In the completed book, I had said that Turkey had done a good
deal to rescue the Jews during World War II, but I did not
actually have many details. Then I found a batch of documents in
the Foreign Ministry archive relating to actions taken by Turkish
diplomats to help the Jews before and during the Holocaust. It
was too late to add this new information to the book in press, so
I decided to write a second book. I conducted further research,
mainly in the archives of the Foreign Ministry in Ankara and the
Turkish Embassy and Consulate in Paris. The result was the second
book, Turkey and the Holocaust, which details how Turkey helped
rescue Jews from the Nazis.
- How exactly did they do this?
The story takes place over a number of years. The book presents
the material in three parts, first of which deals with the period
before the Holocaust. When the Nazis came to power in Germany in
1933, they immediately started dismissing Jews and anti-Nazi
Germans from universities, hospitals, scientific institutes, and
the like. Turkey at that moment was just beginning the process of
reforming its universities, and it saw in these Jews, who were
being fired from their positions in Germany, a good source of new
talent to help modernize the Turkish universities. Within three
months after the Nazis started dismissing these Jews, Turkey
arranged to take many of them in. They were brought to Turkey and
were given appointments as professors in the Turkish
universities, as heads of scientific institutes, and as medical
personnel in hospitals. About 300 to 500 major Jewish professors
came to Turkey in the 1930s. Ernst Reuter, a German political
scientist, spent the war years teaching political science in
Turkey. After World War II, he was mayor of Berlin during the
Berlin Airlift. Fritz Neimark, a major German Jewish economist,
came to Turkey and helped establish a modern school of economics
in Istanbul. A man named Reichenbach, who was rescued from the
Nazis by Turkey and spent the war years in Turkey, eventually
came to UCLA, where he became a professor of philosophy. Other
German Jewish emigres engaged in cultural activities in Turkey.
One such was Karl Ebert, who had been a leading theatrical
producer in Berlin until he was expelled by the Nazis. He went to
Turkey, where he organized the Turkish National Theater and the
Turkish National Opera Company in Ankara, with the help of Paul
Hindemuth. So the first section of the book covers this first
phase, when Jews were being persecuted in Germany and rescued by
Turkey. Oddly enough, the German emigres, when they were in
Turkey, did not seem to think too badly of Germany. They regarded
themselves more as Germans than Jews, and they did not join in
the anti-Nazi activities of the local Turkish Jewish community. I
even found letters from the Nazi representatives to Turkey
praising these German Jewish refugees for their work in promoting
the idea of German culture. Even though these people had been
persecuted by the Nazis and rescued by the Turks, they shared the
Nazis' feelings of Aryan racial superiority over the Turks. The
second part of the book deals with the Holocaust, which began in
1940 when the Nazis occupied France. In Europe at that time, and
especially in France, there were about 20,000 Turkish Jews. They
had migrated to Europe for various reasons from about the turn of
the century onward. Most of them had settled in Europe during the
Turkish war for independence after World War I, when Greece was
threatening to overrun Turkey. The Greeks had persecuted the Jews
throughout the nineteenth century, and the Jews feared what might
happen to them if the Greeks took over in Turkey. Many Jews fled
to France during the 1920s and 1930s. Many also abandoned their
Turkish citizenship and became French citizens. Suddenly the
Nazis invaded France in 1940 and started introducing all sorts of
anti-Jewish laws. The Turkish Jews soon found that it was not
worth very much to be a French Jew, but that it was worth a lot
to be a Turkish Jew.
- How so?
Turkey remained neutral through most of World War II. It retained
its embassies and consulates in all the Nazi-occupied countries
until it finally entered the war on the side of the Allies at the
end of 1944. During the war, therefore, Turkey was in a position
to defend its citizens against anti-Jewish measures, and the
actions that Turkish diplomats took form the second chapter of
the book. Turkish diplomats who were stationed in France in
particular intervened to protect Jews of Turkish citizenship from
the Nazis. For those Turkish Jews who had retained their Turkish
citizenship, there was generally no problem. If they were
arrested and sent to a concentration camp, the Turkish diplomats
would communicate with the commanders of the camp and other
officials and say in effect: "These people are Turkish citizens.
You can't do this to them." And the Turkish Jews would be
released. If their businesses were confiscated, the Turkish
diplomats would protest and the businesses would be restored.
The Nazis in general wanted to keep the friendship of Turkey.
They hoped to be able to use Turkey as a gateway for an invasion
of the Middle East, and they also wanted to obtain chromium and
manganese from Turkey. In order to keep Turkish friendship, they
usually accepted these interventions on behalf of Turkish Jews.
The Turkish diplomats sometimes went to the concentration camps
to secure the release of Turkish Jews. At times they even boarded
trains hauling Turkish Jews to Auschwitz for extermination and
succeeded in getting them off the train. Most of the foreign Jews
were sent to a concentration camp at a place called Drancy in
Paris, and that's where most of the intercession by Turkish
consuls took place.
The greater problem came with the Turkish Jews who had abandoned
their Turkish citizenship and had become French citizens. The
consuls couldn't declare that these people were Turkish citizens
because they were not. My book includes photographs of Jews
lining up in front of the Turkish consulate, either to get
passports to return to Turkey or to get a restoration of their
Turkish citizenship. This was a bureaucratic matter, so
processing the application would take some time. In the meantime
it was a real emergency, because the Nazis would arrest Jews on
the streets for almost nothing. The Nazis would even arrest them
if they had radios or telephones in their apartments, because
radios and telephones were forbidden to Jews. To take care of
these former Turkish Jews, the Turkish diplomats invented a
document called gayri muntazem vatandash, or "irregular fellow
citizen." The document said in effect "This person is a former
Turkish citizen who has applied for the restoration of his
Turkish citizenship. In the meantime we would appreciate it if
you would treat him as if he were a Turkish citizen." The
diplomats wrote the document in Turkish and put their seals on
it. Since the Nazis could not read Turkish, on the whole they
accepted these papers as certificates of citizenship. By this
means, the Turkish diplomats were able to rescue many Jews who
had relinquished their Turkish citizenship.
Actually the Nazis were of two minds about the Turkish defense of
Jews. On the one hand the Nazi Foreign Ministry, which wanted to
retain the friendship of Turkey, was in favor of accepting these
interventions. On the other hand, Himmler and Eichmann wanted all
Jews exterminated. At times Himmler and Eichmann were able to
prevail and some of the Turkish Jews were sent off to Auschwitz
before the Turkish consuls could do anything.
- Do you have statistics on how many Turkish Jews were rescued?
There were about 20,000 Turkish Jews in Europe before world War
II, about 10,000 of whom were living in France. Most of the
information in this section of the book relates to the situation
in France. I have published the letters that the Turkish consuls
sent to the Nazi officials and the letters that came back in
reply. Generally the Nazis said that if the Turkish consul would
present documents certifying that arrested individuals are
Turkish citizens, and promise to send them out of France, the
Nazis would release them from the concentration camp. The Turkish
consuls also organized special trains to take Turkish Jews from
Nazi-occupied territory back to Turkey. These trains ran
regularly in 1943 and 1944. The Nazis gave the Turkish Jews visas
so they could pass out of Nazi territory, but the trains were
often held up by the Nazi-influenced governments of Eastern
Europe - Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria - because these
governments really didn't want the Jews to escape. As a result of
the Turkish consuls' efforts, about 3,000 to 4,000 of the Turkish
Jews in France were saved. Another 3,000 were sent off to
Auschwitz, where most of them died. The remaining 3,000 either
escaped across the border into Spain or fled to the area of
southern France occupied by the Italians, who treated Jews much
better than the Nazis did. At the end of 1943, however, Italy
fell out of the war, and that was the end for those Jews as well.
Incidentally, the Turkish diplomats in Nazi-occupied Greece also
worked to rescue Jews in that country.
- The second part of your book then deals with Turkish diplomats
acting to rescue Jews of Turkish citizenship or Turkish origin
from Nazi persecution.
Yes, and there is an aside I might add here: In their
interventions on behalf of Turkish Jews, the Turks cited their
treaty with Germany which stated that Turkish citizens in German
territory would be treated the same as German citizens in Turkey.
On that basis the Turks maintained that the Nazis could not
discriminate against Turkish citizens who are Jews. The Nazis
claimed (and the Vichy government agreed) that they were not
discriminating because they were treating all Jews equally.
Turkey protested, saying, "You are dividing our citizens
according to religion, but the Turkish constitution requires that
all citizens be treated equally, regardless of religion.
Therefore, you cannot single out Turkish Jews." American consuls
in Paris, by contrast, accepted the Nazi argument and told
American Jews who were being persecuted by the Nazis that they
couldn't do anything about it, because the American Jews were
being treated the same as other Jews. The third part of the book
takes place in Turkey, which was the principal center during the
Holocaust for activities aimed at the rescue of Eastern European
Jews. The kwish Agency, an organization established by Jews in
Palestine to help resettle Jews to Palestine, set up an office in
Istanbul in 1940 under the leadership of Chaim Barlas. Other
Jewish organizations in Palestine, especially the kibbutzes, also
sent representatives to Istanbul to set up headquarters. These
groups first tried to contact Jews in Eastern Europe to find out
what was happening. Today we know about the Holocaust, but at
that time people didn't know what was going on. They didn't
imagine the Nazis could do the things they were doing. And so the
first step was to get information, and the Turkish government let
them use the Turkish mails to send letters to their relatives and
friends in Eastern Europe. The Jewish organizations found out
what was happening when they received replies. Later on when the
Nazis began to intercept such letters, the Jews received
assistance also from the Vatican nuncio, Angelo Roncali, who
served as the Vatican representative in Istanbul from 1935 to
1944 and later became Pope John XXIII. As the Vatican
representative during the war, he used the facilities of the
Catholic Church to supplement what the Turkish government was
doing to assist Jewish agencies in contacting Jews in Eastern
Europe. With the cooperation of the Turkish government, these
agencies then sent hard currency, food, clothing, and even
railroad and steamship tickets to Jews in Czechoslovakia,
Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. They weren't able to help much in
Poland because by then the Nazis had wiped out almost all the
Polish Jews. Whenever possible the rescue agencies arranged for
the Jews to get out of Eastern Europe either by train through the
so called Orient Express route to Istanbul, or by boat through
the Black Sea to Istanbul.
Turkey was not eager for all these refugees to remain within its
borders during the war, because it was being blockaded and was
suffering terrible shortages of food and clothing. The
government, therefore, facilitated the movement of the
non-Turkish Jewish refugees from Turkey to Palestine, either by
the Taurus Express Railroad through the mountains to Syria and
Palestine, or by small boats across the eastern Mediterranean
from southern Turkey to Palestine. These efforts were bitterly
opposed not only by the Nazis, but also by the British, who did
not want any more Jewish immigration to Palestine because they
feared it would hurt their relations with the Arabs. The British
constantly pressured the Turkish government to stop this traffic
and send those Jews back. In a few cases the Turkish government,
yielding to British pressure, did send the boats back. For
example, in one incident, the steamship Struma, with some 700
Jewish refugees from Romania, was sent back by the Turkish
government as a result of the intervention of the British
ambassador. When that ship was sunk by a Soviet submarine, all
were lost except one person. Nevertheless, all told, the Turkish
government allowed no fewer than 100,000 Eastern European Jews to
pass through Turkish territory and move on to Palestine during
the Second World War. The Turkish authorities also provided these
refugees with facilities and money, and gave them permission to
send money and food out of the country.
- Many of these Jews who passed through Turkey may still be
living in Israel.
Yes, and their children. But let's return for a moment to the
first group, the Turkish Jews who came from Europe. They did not
go on to Palestine; they stayed in Turkey. It was the
non-Turkish, Eastern European Jews who passed through Turkey en
route to Palestine. Their story is very interesting.
- And you have rescued it from obscurity.
Many studies have been made of the Holocaust, but most of them do
not focus on the Eastern European or Middle Eastern Jews. Most of
the scholarship has centered on the Western European Jews, of
whom 6 million were massacred by the Nazis. My study deals with a
much smaller number of people. I have tried to round out the
picture, and I hope my book will persuade other scholars to
undertake further investigations in the history of Eastern Jews.
When it comes to numbers, the German Jews were also relatively
small in number. Most of the millions slain were Polish Jews. The
rescue of 100,000 Eastern European Jews may not seem so
significant compared with the total of 6 million who were
murdered, but it meant a lot to those who were saved.
About three-fourths of the book consists of documents -
translations of many documents. They are included because the
story is not well known. Not only are people in the West unaware
of the courageous actions of the Turkish diplomats; even the
people of Turkey did not know the story. I felt that they would
not fully understand this remarkable achievement unless they
could see the documents.
- What languages are used in the documents?
Most of them are in Turkish or French; some are in Hebrew. There
is a great deal of material in Hebrew about the organization of
the boats going to Palestine, the passengers, and so on, but I
did not go into those details extensively. I describe mostly what
Turkey did, so most of my documents are in Turkish or French. A
few documents are in English. The Jewish groups in Istanbul did
not necessarily cooperate with one another to rescue Jews; in
fact, they often fought with one another. They took turns trying
to get the Turkish government to deport rival groups. For
example, some of the kibbutz groups felt that the Jewish Agency
was run by Western European Jews who were interested only in
helping Western European Jews. Finally, in 1944, President
Roosevelt sent a personal representative, Ira Hirschman, who had
been an executive of Bloomingdale's department store in New York
City, and Hirschman managed to reconcile their differences. The
documents related to his mission are in English.
I also obtained many documents from Serge Klarsfeld, a Holocaust
historian in France, who mainly worked on the French Jews. (His
father was killed by the Nazis.) He gave me materials he had
gathered in the German archives on the Turkish Jews, so I didn't
personally consult the German archives. I believe that much more
can be learned from the German archives, and I hope someone
someday will make the effort.
- This new book fits in well with your teaching, doesn't it?
Right. I'm giving a course on the history of the Jews of the
Ottoman Empire. I first gave the course two years ago. In
addition to research, writing, and teaching, I've been actively
involved in the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the
coming of the Jews to the Ottoman Empire. Among other things, I
helped organize a large international conference on the subject
which was held in Istanbul in 1992.
- Now that your books are finished and the conference has taken
place, what do you plan to do next?
I'm working on two new books. One is a history of the Turkish War
for Independence, which took place after World War I, during the
years 1918 to 1923. The Turks warded off the efforts of the
victorious European powers to occupy Turkey and end its
independence. The second book is a study of Sultan Abdul Hamid
II, the last major sultan, who ruled from 1876 to 1909. He was an
important modernizer in his own way, although he also suppressed
all sorts of political movements.
Stanford J. Shaw received a B.A. in History and an M.A. in
British History. He then shifted to Near Eastern History, earning
a second M.A. and a Ph.D. at Princeton. As a doctoral candidate
at Princeton, he spent two years abroad, studying at the School
of Oriental and African Studies, University of London; the
University of Cairo, the American University at Cairo, and the
University of Istanbul. He taught at Harvard before coming to
UCLA in 1966. His postdoctoral research has been supported by the
John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Research Institute
in Turkey, the Social Science Research Council, the National
Endowment for the Humanities, the Fulbright Program, and ISOP. He
has received honorary degrees from Harvard University and
Bosporus University, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey, and medals of honor
for lifetime contributions to the fields of Islamic and Turkish
studies from the Center for Research in Islamic History, Art, and
Culture in Istanbul and from the American Friends of Turkey in
Washington, D.C. In addition to undertaking many professional
service activities and public lectures in both the United States
and Turkey, Shaw has also produced eight books and one edited
volume. His History of the Ottoman Empire and Modem Turkey (2
vols.) has been published in many editions (six editions or
reprints from 1977-1991), and translated into Turkish (1983,
1991) and French (1984). His book The Jews of the Ottoman Empire
and the Turkish Republic (MacMillan, London, and New York
University Press, 1992) will be published in Turkish translation
by the Turkish Historical Society, Istanbul. His Turkey and the
Holocaust: Turkey's Role in Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry
from Nazi Persecution, 1933-1945 will be published by Macmillan
Publishers, London, and New York University Press in 1993. A
pamphlet summarizing the book was published in Ankara, Turkey, in
1992.
mohamed.s.sadek
>In article <CAIz4...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>>>by both Christianity and Islam... Today, such a "punishment" IS wrong,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> You forgot Judaism. (is that purposely done..!! Tim..??)
>
>No, why do you ask? But, just for you, next time I'll forget on purpose
>to mention it.
I know that.
>>
>> 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."
>
>Then why are some of the duties, rights and privileges **different** for
>muslims and non-muslims?
>>
>
Good question. Any examples you have in mind..!!??
>
>--
>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
>
>>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.
>
>
> It would be frightening indeed if the Jewish State
> mixed politics and religion to such an extent that
> it killed people for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery,
> homosexual conduct, and the like. Fortunately, the
I agree.
> Torah has little political relevance in such matters.
Who said that..??
It seems to me that the Torah was revealed by God to Moses for
the israelites to live by.
> On the other hand, politics and religion are inseparable
> in Islam, and the penalties for apostasy, blasphemy,
Right. You can not separate the two. But Islam is the same as Judaism.
There are a great deal of similarities, but there are also differences.
An example, is the law on apostacy, which we spent weeks covering it
in both the Torah and the Quran.
> adultery, and homosexual conduct in several fundamentalist
> Muslim states is death. Is this acceptable?
>
There will always be wrong interpretations to every law, including the
secular ones. In the muslim world, whenever it is divided into little
separate and execlusive entities, that creates an atmosphere which is
conducive to legislative diversion.
>
>>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."
>
> Please explain why the Prophet himself contradicts his own
> principle in verse 14 of his Declarations of Medina.
I did not know that the declaration of Medina is composed of verses.
What does it say, and what is your source..??
>
>>The disscussion is about spying on religious minorities' religious
>>activities. It looks like we are not talking about the same thing.
>
> Islamic authorities had to approve the curriculum
> in the Temples. They didn't call it spying, they
> called it supervision.
Are you talking about Islam or muslims..!! Have you forgotten your
choice of the subject line..!!?
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
Allow me to correct your view here. The jews are the only ones who can tell
others what offends them, so are the blacks, so are you and me.
We can not and do not and will not (as a western soceity) define what is
offensive and what is not for everyone. It is left entirely to the affected
group/individuals involved.
That is why people/companies always apologize publicly and are sometimes
punished by law suits for libels and other offensive criticism.
>--
>(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>
>
> >>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
>
> That is what I mean. It is the "LESS" that counts.
>
>(Violence is always violence, and claiming to be peaceful, by being less
>violent than another doesn't sound quite right. )
It might not sound quite right to you, but it is a fact of life.
>I'm not quite sure what you mean. Earlier you said it was peaceful, now
>it's less violent. Correct?
>
No. Incorrect. What did I actually say..!!??
Please, allow me to introduce a peace of truth, Peace as no violence
only exists in the world of angels, but here on earth, there was always
violence, there is violence now, and there will always be violence.
So, unless we want to hide our heads in the sand, we need to have the
least amount of violence, hence the "LESS" thing.
> >>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.
>
> What tenets do you mean..!!??
>
>The above is the quote from Tim's post, so I'll have to leave it to him to
>answer. You should try to keep track of your posts and quotes.
>CC:ing yourself might be a good idea.
>
Thank you. I knew it was Tim's and I knew he will read it.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Jonas Flygare, + Pain is just
>Wherever I go + weakness leaving
>There I am... + your body. /Unknown
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>>
>>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 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.
>
>Just as I am not an Expert on the Quran, you are not an expert on the
>Torah. To carry out any of the above senetences there would have to
I accept your statement that you are not an expert on the Quran.
But how do youy know whether I am an expert on the Torah or not..!!??
I can read the Torah, at least its english translation.
>be two witnesses of high moral standing, and 71 judges on the court.
Sorry, but the story that I cited earlier does mention that.
>Further, if the courts killed more than 1 person in 700 years to was
>said to be a bloody period. It was not common! Further, there is no
Hmm. There must have been a lot of "bloody periods" in the biblical
times.
>Sanhedrin, so none of the crimes could be punnished today, (until the
>temple is rebuilt).
Wrong. There was no "Sanhedrin" when Moses (pbuh) is supposed to have
killed the man above.
>
Khaled El-Sayed
>In article <gr-kme.743220114@druid> khaled_...@ncsu.edu writes:
> 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?
No! I am admitting that muslims made wars for the cause of propagating
Islam and this was the only feasible way to do it at this time (flame me
as you wish). So, yes early Muslims made wars in Asia,
Africa, and Europe, they didn't trangress as you imagine though. Again
refer to Webster for the definition of transgress!
The point in bringing up Israel is to remind you that people of other faiths
made wars for the cause of their religion too. So what do you think of the
crusaders by the way?
> Just look how much the Indians contributed to the Mexican
> culture after Cortez invaded. Warms your heart, doesn't
> it?
I don't claim to be knowledagble about the Mexican history. So, in what
way did the indians contribute to the Mexican culture?
>>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.
You are not even able to read ;-) or maybe you just didn't get his reply
to that particular point!
> Whereas there is no racism in Arab states? Come on!
At least in Egypt where I lived there is no such thing as racism.
If there is racism in other arab states it does not comapre to any level
with the amount of hate here!
>>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.
Good, this is good for your health, I am glad I have helped ;-)
>>I think this one deserves no comment!
> I think that is because you have no argument.
Sure, I have no argument when the discussed issue is so pointless, got it?
mohamed.s.sadek
>>In article <52...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu ( ) writes:
>>>In article <gr-kme.743218614@druid> khaled_...@ncsu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> "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?
>>>
>>
>> It is an offensive lie.
>
>Answer the question. OK, it's an offensive lie. Is it offensive enough
>to be punishable by death? Is anything that offends Islam punishable by
>death? That was the question to begin with.
>
>>>>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
>>
>> So, offending people's beliefs "is commonplace" in the west.
>
>That wasn't what Ron was saying.
>
>Answer the question, Mohammed!
>--
Ok. Ok. You got me there. I don'y know what to say, I was hoping
to get away with it...:-)
Here is my answer: It is an offensive lie that is punishable.
I left out the word death, because the punishment is not death.
Also, the circumestances of the offence have to be taken into consideration,
If the offender is out of the muslim state, then no sharia applies, if
the offender is a clown/actor/harmless/..then that is different from a
person who is leading an armed rebellion to destabilize the state.
We in the west should not be proud of being able to offend people's
beliefs. The jews (from among all people) should be the least expected
to rush to defend this shameful practice. But ....what do you know.
>"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
>A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
> Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.colorado.edu>
> Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>>
>> 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.
>
>Quite true. But I doubt you can substantiate your next claim:
>
no matter what.
>> That is why, compared with any other, muslims have been praised for their
>> tolerance towards "the other".
>
>Tell that to the Baha'i in Iran. Tell that to the Armenians who
I do not know about the Bahai in Iran. Iran is not synonimous
with Islam.
>perished in the genocide committed against them by the Turks. Tell
With regards to the armenians, I will refer you to Serdar Argic, who
quotes jewish and armenian (along with western non-muslim) sources
that leave no room for what you said.
>that to the Jews who had to flee for their lives following the creation
You should have said "following the creation of Israel in Palestine".
Then you would have had no surprise.
>of Israel, after which pogroms spread like wildfire throughout Arab and
>Muslim nations. The deliberate starving and ethnic cleansing now going
>on in the Sudan. I could go on and on. Islamic society has no better
The truth about the Sudan have been revealed and posted here by the sudanese
christian themselves in a glaring and amazing way.
>and no worse a record than does Christian society or any other
>theologically based society.
Now, that needs to be qualified.
>
>In a word, utter poppycock.
>
Such humor.
>--
>"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
>A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
> Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.colorado.edu>
> Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Mohamed
Serdar Argic
>Answer the question. OK, it's an offensive lie. Is it offensive enough
Typical 'perlman' crap. Answer the question: Who slaughtered 2.5 million
Muslim people in x-Soviet Armenia and Eastern Anatolia between 1914 and
1920?
1) Armenians did slaughter the entire Muslim population of Van.[1,2,3,4,5]
2) Armenians did slaughter 42% of Muslim population of Bitlis.[1,2,3,4]
3) Armenians did slaughter 31% of Muslim population of Erzurum.[1,2,3,4]
4) Armenians did slaughter 26% of Muslim population of Diyarbakir.[1,2,3,4]
5) Armenians did slaughter 16% of Muslim population of Mamuretulaziz.[1,2,3,4]
6) Armenians did slaughter 15% of Muslim population of Sivas.[1,2,3,4]
7) Armenians did slaughter the entire Muslim population of the x-Soviet
Armenia.[1,2,3,4]
8)....
[1] McCarthy, J., "Muslims and Minorities, The Population of Ottoman
Anatolia and the End of the Empire," New York
University Press, New York, 1983, pp. 133-144.
[2] Karpat, K., "Ottoman Population," The University of Wisconsin Press,
1985.
[3] Hovannisian, R. G., "Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918.
University of California Press (Berkeley and
Los Angeles), 1967, pp. 13, 37.
[4] Shaw, S. J., 'On Armenian collaboration with invading Russian armies
in 1914, "History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey
(Volume II: Reform, Revolution & Republic: The Rise of
Modern Turkey, 1808-1975)." (London, Cambridge University
Press 1977). pp. 315-316.
[5] "Gochnak" (Armenian newspaper published in the United States), May 24,
1915.
Source: "Adventures in the Near East" by A. Rawlinson, Jonathan Cape,
30 Bedford Square, London, 1934 (First published 1923) (287 pages).
(Memoirs of a British officer who witnessed the Armenian genocide of 2.5
million Muslim people)
p. 178 (first paragraph)
"In those Moslem villages in the plain below which had been searched for
arms by the Armenians everything had been taken under the cloak of such
search, and not only had many Moslems been killed, but horrible tortures
had been inflicted in the endeavour to obtain information as to where
valuables had been hidden, of which the Armenians were aware of the
existence, although they had been unable to find them."
p. 175 (first paragraph)
"The arrival of this British brigade was followed by the announcement
that Kars Province had been allotted by the Supreme Council of the
Allies to the Armenians, and that announcement having been made, the
British troops were then completely withdrawn, and Armenian occupation
commenced. Hence all the trouble; for the Armenians at once commenced
the wholesale robbery and persecution of the Muslem population on the
pretext that it was necessary forcibly to deprive them of their arms.
In the portion of the province which lies in the plains they were able
to carry out their purpose, and the manner in which this was done will
be referred to in due course."
<<While the Greek and Armenian community leaders in Istanbul and Paris
pressured the Allies to drive the Turks out of Istanbul and much of
Anatolia, the Empire's Jewish leaders, remembering very well the
persecution their people had suffered as Ottoman territories had come
under the rule of independent Christian states, not only refused to
join their delegations but actively pressured the Allies to allow the
Turks to remain in areas where they consisted a majority of the
population, thus incurring further the wrath of the Christian leaders.
In Thrace and Southwestern Anatolia also the invading Greek army, which
was attempting to provide the Paris Peace Conference with a fait accompli
in the territories it wished to retain, armed the Christian minorities
and encouraged them to attack Muslims, with the Jews suffering as well
because of their support for the Turks during the war [89], and with
the once-flourishing Jewish community of Salonica in particular being
permanently displaced by Greek refugees from Anatolia settled there after
the Greek army evacuated Anatolia.
The Greek army that occupied much of Southwestern Anatolia starting
in May 1919 slaughtered thousands of Jews and Muslims in the course
of its attack, not only during its initial landings at Izmir, but also
in the interior during the subsequent two years, and particularly
during its final retreat to Izmir, when it ravaged and burned Bursa
and other towns and villages along the way. Albert Nabon, Principal
of the AIU [Alliance Israelite Universelle] Boy's School in Izmir,
reported to the Alliance on 6 July 1919:
'The city was put on fire and sacked, the people dispoiled
of all they possessed. There is no food, putting the entire
population on general, and our co-religionists in particular,
in danger of suffering greatly from these privations'
going on to describe how most Jews, not only from Izmir but also from
Greek attacks at Aydin, Bergama and Manisa, took refuge in his school,
where they were suffering from overcrowding , lack of food, and
medicine. [90]
The Jews of Tire, led by Rabbi Ismail ha-Cohen, established close ties
with the local Turkish resistance as well as with the Turkish national
forces operating against the Greeks in the vicinity despite considerable
pressure from local Greek commanders [91]. In Odemis, Rabbi Isaac Franco
refused the demands of the Greek military authorities for him to greet
their army as it occupied the city [92]. In Aydin, Jews hid Turks in their
homes as the Greeks ransacked the city following its occupation, and
refused to join local Greeks and Armenians in welcoming the occupying
Greek army and flying Greek flags from their buildings [93]. As a result,
the long-standing Greek religious prejudice against Jews as well as Muslims
was manifested in numerous incidents that took place until ..the Turkish
national army finally recaptured Southwestern Anatolia in 1922 [94].
Jewish notables, like the Muslims, were beaten and executed, many
Jewish homes and shops were ravaged and burned, and hundreds of Jews
were deported to almost certain death in the countryside. As the Greek
army retreated in panic late in the war, moreover, it burned the Jewish
and Muslim quarters of Izmit, Manisa and Bergama, destroying synagogues,
yeshivas and hospitals as well as homes and businesses while killing
hundreds and forcing the remainder of the non-Christian population to
flee in panic,..[95]. Though many Jews returned to Izmir following the
restoration of Turkish rule and its inclusion in the Turkish Republic,
the Jewish population of Izmir following the war reached no more than
half its former size.>>
[89] Edgar Morin, Vidal et les siens (Paris, Seuil, 1989), 67-93.
A dossier of reports on Greek atrocities against people and officials
in the Izmir area is in BA [Basbakanlik Arsivi=Prime Minister's
Archives], Adliye Tezkere 246/2740, 18 September 1920; see also
Ottoman Council of Ministers Minutes/MVM vol.213 no.457, 24 November
1334/1918; vol. 215, no. 249, 28 May 1335/1919; vol.216 no.263, 1 June
1335/1919, describing Greek soldiers driving the settled population
out of Bergama and Izmir; vol.216, no.269, 1 June 1335/1919, describing
the displacement of Jews and Muslims at the Dardanalles/Canakkale by
Greek settlers from the Aegean islands; vol. 216, no.288, 9 June 1919,
regarding Ayvalik; vol.216 no.380, 21 June 1919, describing Greek and
Allied attacks on the local populations in Thrace and at Izmir,
Diyarbekir and Bayezid; vol.216 no.323, 26 June 1919; vol. 216 no.337,
15 July 1919; vol. 216 no.339, 15 July 1919; and particularly vol.216
no.343, 16 July 1919, regarding Greek atrocities in Aydin province;
vol.217 no.573, 29 November 1919, and vol.221 no.127, 30 April 1921,
and no.239, 4 August 1921, on Greek atrocities in Thrace; vol.218 no.9,
11 January 1920 on resettlement of Greeks from America in Anatolia;
also BEO, 343329; Greek atrocities in Southwestern Anatolia and Thrace
were condemned by an international investigation commission headed by
American High Commissioner in Istanbul, Admiral Mark Bristol, leading
the Allies to abondon further support for the Greek invasion. See
Ottoman Council of Ministers Minutes, vol.217 no.481, 16 October 1919.
Also Hayyim Cohen, Jews of the Middle East, 18.
[90] Similar reports came from Nabon to the AIU on 2 July 1919 (no.23/915),
9 July 1919 (no.26/927), 12 July 1919 (no.27/932) and 14 July 1919
(no. 28/933). In Nabon's report of 17 July 1919 (no.30/935), he stated
that the Greeks at Aydin had burned 200 Jewish houses and 13 shops,
had dispoiled all the local Jews of their money and property, and had
strangled two Jews as well as driving the remainder to seek refuge
in the local AIU school: 'At Aydin, Manisa, Tire and everywhere else,
our Jews live in an atmosphere of suspician by the Greek inhabitants'
who suspect that they favor the Turks. On 23 July 1920 Nabon reported
that all the Jews had left Izmir, the synagogue had not been burned, but
the Greeks had taken all its valuables as well as the property of local
Jews, and the streets were full of bodies.
[91] Guleryuz, ibid.; Galante, Turcs et Juifs (1932), 54.
[92] Galante, Anatolie (1939) II, 41.
[93] Guleryuz, ibid.; Galante, Anatolie II, 101-2.
[94] See Guleryuz, 'Kurtulus Savasinda Egede ve Bursada Yahudiler', Salom,
30 October 1985; Galante, Turcs et Juifs, in Histoire des Juifs de
de Turquie, 26-28, and El Tiempo, 22 October 1922.
[95] Univers Israelite, 2 September 1921, p.467-48, quoted in Guleryuz;
see also Galante, Anatolie II (1939), 70-100; and 'Manissa', EJ XI,
878-79.
Danny Keren
# 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.
So, are we going to continue with this? What's the use? All these debates
which transgress 4,000 years backwards... sheesh.
# 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.
Just out of curiosity, is there any such law in the new testament??
-Danny Keren.
Tim Clock
>In article <2C4E172...@news.service.uci.edu> tcl...@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes:
>>>
>>> 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."
>>
>>Then why are some of the duties, rights and privileges **different** for
>>muslims and non-muslims?
>>>
> Good question. Any examples you have in mind..!!??
>
quite in contrast to the historic realities.
Jonas Flygare
In article <CAL23...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
[Much rambling deleted]
So, bu being slightly less viloent than a massmurderer, I can still claim
to be peaceful? Wonders! Newspeak isn't far away.
Once you give up the strive for peace, in the absolute sense of the word,
lose all credibility. It is one thing to admit that it is hard/impossible
to achieve total peace, another to claim what you do.
Fact of life, what a joke^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H indeed...
--
Eric S. Perlman
>In article <1993Jul22.1...@colorado.edu> per...@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <CAIzp...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Quite true. But I doubt you can substantiate your next claim:
>>
> The Quran speaks about those in whose hearts will always be doubts
> no matter what.
Explain this a bit more, please.
>>> That is why, compared with any other, muslims have been praised for their
>>> tolerance towards "the other".
>>
>>Tell that to the Baha'i in Iran. Tell that to the Armenians who
>
> I do not know about the Bahai in Iran. Iran is not synonimous
> with Islam.
But it does claim to be an Islamic state.
>>perished in the genocide committed against them by the Turks. Tell
>
> With regards to the armenians, I will refer you to Serdar Argic, who
> quotes jewish and armenian (along with western non-muslim) sources
> that leave no room for what you said.
You know something, Mohamed, you're one of the VERY few on this net who
give even the slightest bit of credence to anything Serdar Argic writes.
I stopped taking his word for anything three years ago, when he was
using the account/id of one Hassan B. Mutlu. Very frankly, what
Argic/Mutlu writes has been shown, over and over again, to be a miasma of
deliberate and flagrant strip quotes, phrases taken completely out of
context, and occasionally he even quotes sources that do not exist, or
attempts to insert words into those texts that aren't there.
The minute you start quoting anything from Mr. Argic and give it any
credence you go down rather drastically in my book, and also in at least
98% of those here in tpm. He has, to put it rather mildly, no
credibility at all.
>>that to the Jews who had to flee for their lives following the creation
>
> You should have said "following the creation of Israel in Palestine".
> Then you would have had no surprise.
Israel was the Jewish homeland long before the UN partitioned mandatory
Palestine to include a Jewish state. Jews are a nation, just like any
other, and we have a homeland. That homeland is Israel -- what you call
Palestine. No, it wasn't Arabs who drove us out (mostly) nearly two
thousand years ago. But that doesn't at all lessen our right to return
to our homeland and maintain a state there.
>>of Israel, after which pogroms spread like wildfire throughout Arab and
>>Muslim nations. The deliberate starving and ethnic cleansing now going
>>on in the Sudan. I could go on and on. Islamic society has no better
>
> The truth about the Sudan have been revealed and posted here by the sudanese
> christian themselves in a glaring and amazing way.
Frankly, the only things I've seen posted by Sudanese Christians here
contradict what you're trying to say very clearly. Try again.
Eric S. Perlman
Punishable by what sentence? You're still evading the question. OK,
there can be extenuating circumstances, and it may depend on whether the
offender is a clown or a politician or whatever, but what kind of
penalties are we talking about?
I am disturbed by what you write at the end: "We in the west should
not be proud of being able to offend people's belifs." You should do a
little reading into the history of Christianity, Mohamed -- for
centuries Catholics believed that Jews killed Jesus and that the Jewish
people must bear the burden for the crime through eternity! That was
only repealed by the Vatican in *1963* -- yes, only 30 years ago. So in
a very real way the very existence of Jews was for nearly two thousand
years an insult to the beliefs of Catholics.
Yes, this is an extreme example, but do you see where I am leading? The
minute we start to restrict such basic freedoms as the freedom of speech
and expression, who knows what could be next.
--
mohamed.s.sadek
>In article <CAJ41...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>
>> Islam always allowed criticism. The Quran even documents the sayings
>> of those who rejected it. There are numerous stories about people
>> opposing the prophet (pbuh) himself openly and in public.
>
>Strict Islam in your pipe-dream theory may well allow criticism. Not
>Islam in practice, when strict Sharia is implemented. Such criticism
>is generally considered by the rulers, the objects of criticism,
>to be ``an offense'' against Islam or even seditious activity. After
>all, they fell they're implementing true Islam, anything else is heresy.
>--
The stories where lay unknown muslims openly and publicly criticized
the ruler were "Islam in practice," where "strict Sharia" was
implemented.
>Dave Bakken Internet: bak...@cs.arizona.edu
>Dept. of Comp. Sci.; U.of Ariz. UUCP: uunet!arizona!cs!bakken
>Tucson, AZ 85721; USA Bitnet: bakken%cs.arizona.edu@Arizrvax
>AT&T: +1 602 621 4089 FAX: +1 602 621 4246
Mohamed
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>Contrary to public belief christians were part of muslim armies especially in
>syria. They fought against the Romans, they were not required to pay Jizyah
>as a consequence. So joining the aramy was an option and was not enforced on
>them. If you do not serve in the army you pay, if you served you do not pay.
What about Christians ineligible for military service (the
(handicapped, the feeble, etc.). There was no option
for them to avoid Syrian Jizyah. If you were Christian,
you payed, if you were Muslim, you didn't.
>Intelectual critisisim of islam is not the issue.
>What is forbiden is the slander of the prophet or islam.
I've never met anyone yet who knew how to
differentiate criticism of Islam from slander of Islam.
If someone says, "Muhammed was deluded and Islam is
based on a lie," is that punishable slander?
(If so, every atheist who values his life better keep
his mouth shut.)
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
mohamed.s.sadek
>In article <CAL3q...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul22.1...@colorado.edu> per...@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>
>> I do not know about the Bahai in Iran. Iran is not synonimous
>> with Islam.
>
>But it does claim to be an Islamic state.
>
Not according to the rabbis of Israel..!
This is just an example to make the point.
>>>perished in the genocide committed against them by the Turks. Tell
>>
>> With regards to the armenians, I will refer you to Serdar Argic, who
>> quotes jewish and armenian (along with western non-muslim) sources
>> that leave no room for what you said.
>
There is no doubt that sardar argic's "compelling evidence" is
rather strong.
>>>that to the Jews who had to flee for their lives following the creation
>>
>> You should have said "following the creation of Israel in Palestine".
>> Then you would have had no surprise.
>
>Israel was the Jewish homeland long before the UN partitioned mandatory
>Palestine to include a Jewish state. Jews are a nation, just like any
>other, and we have a homeland. That homeland is Israel -- what you call
>Palestine. No, it wasn't Arabs who drove us out (mostly) nearly two
>thousand years ago. But that doesn't at all lessen our right to return
>to our homeland and maintain a state there.
>
I am sorry, but nothing justifies the israeli occupation of Palestine.
>>>of Israel, after which pogroms spread like wildfire throughout Arab and
>>>Muslim nations. The deliberate starving and ethnic cleansing now going
>>>on in the Sudan. I could go on and on. Islamic society has no better
>>
>> The truth about the Sudan have been revealed and posted here by the sudanese
>> christian themselves in a glaring and amazing way.
>
>Frankly, the only things I've seen posted by Sudanese Christians here
>contradict what you're trying to say very clearly. Try again.
>
I meant what I posted refering to the christians of sudan.
I posted it twoice already and will post it again soon.
>
>--
>"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
>A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
> Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.colorado.edu>
> Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Mohamed
mohamed.s.sadek
>>>
>>>Answer the question, Mohammed!
>>>--
>>
>> Ok. Ok. You got me there. I don'y know what to say, I was hoping
>> to get away with it...:-)
>>
>> Here is my answer: It is an offensive lie that is punishable.
>>
>> I left out the word death, because the punishment is not death.
>> Also, the circumestances of the offence have to be taken into consideration,
>> If the offender is out of the muslim state, then no sharia applies, if
>> the offender is a clown/actor/harmless/..then that is different from a
>> person who is leading an armed rebellion to destabilize the state.
>>
>> We in the west should not be proud of being able to offend people's
>> beliefs. The jews (from among all people) should be the least expected
>> to rush to defend this shameful practice. But ....what do you know.
>
>Punishable by what sentence? You're still evading the question. OK,
>there can be extenuating circumstances, and it may depend on whether the
>offender is a clown or a politician or whatever, but what kind of
>penalties are we talking about?
>
father/mother.
>I am disturbed by what you write at the end: "We in the west should
>not be proud of being able to offend people's belifs." You should do a
>little reading into the history of Christianity, Mohamed -- for
>centuries Catholics believed that Jews killed Jesus and that the Jewish
You are the one who obviously did not read. You had thousands of jews
(according to the gospels) joyously screaming "crucify him.. crucify
him..", those were forcing the Roman leader who did not want to
crucify him saying that he "finds nothing wrong with him"...
>people must bear the burden for the crime through eternity! That was
Islam teaches against punishing someone for the crime of their ancestors.
So does the bible.
>only repealed by the Vatican in *1963* -- yes, only 30 years ago. So in
>a very real way the very existence of Jews was for nearly two thousand
>years an insult to the beliefs of Catholics.
>
So..? It sounds to me that this is all the more reason to not allow
offensive slurs against people's beliefs.
>Yes, this is an extreme example, but do you see where I am leading? The
No.
>minute we start to restrict such basic freedoms as the freedom of speech
>and expression, who knows what could be next.
>
That is really a twisted way of looking at things. You are advocating
hurting people by making offensive and abusive statement about their
beliefs for guarding against wrong doing..!!??
>
>--
>"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
>A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
> Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.colorado.edu>
> Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Mohamed
Serdar Argic
> With regards to the armenians, I will refer you to Serdar Argic, who
> quotes jewish and armenian (along with western non-muslim) sources
> that leave no room for what you said.
There is no point arguing about easily verified facts, Mohamed.
However, before I move on, let me tell you just a few things
about a crook called 'perlmanian'. As Cosar, Mutlu, Akgun, Akman,
Parlakbilek and Uludamar have repeatedly exposed, 'perlmanian'
and 'arromdian' are nothing but a couple of pathological liars
and anti-Muslim idiots working for ASALA/SDPA/ARF criminals.
They even had to leave 'usenet' after being publicly humiliated
and exposed by our dear friends Mutlu and Cosar via hundreds
of publicly available scholarly sources and archival material.
Those morons have even forged usenet articles in an attempt to
cover up the crimes of their fascist grandparents (see below).
Now it is my turn - please stick around and watch.
Here is another Armenian source on the Armenian genocide of
2.5 million Muslim people that took place between 1914 and
1920.
Source: "From Sardarapat to Sevres and Lausanne" by Avetis Aharonian. The
Armenian Review, Vol. 16, No. 3-63, Autumn, Sep. 1963, pp. 47-57.
p. 52 (second paragraph).
"Your three chiefs, Dro, Hamazasp and Kulkhandanian are the ringleaders
of the bands which have destroyed Tartar villages and have staged
massacres in Zangezour, Surmali, Etchmiadzin, and Zangibasar. This is
intolerable. Look - and here he pointed to a file of official documents
on the table - look at this, here in December are the reports of the last
few months concerning ruined Tartar villages which my representative
Wardrop has sent me. The official Tartar communique speaks of the
destruction of 300 villages."
p. 54 (fifth paragraph).
"Yes, of course. I repeat, until this massacre of the Tartars is stopped
and the three chiefs are not removed from your military leadership I
hardly think we can supply you arms and ammunition."
"...it is the armed bands led by Dro, Hamazasp and Kulkhandanian who
during the past months have raided and destroyed many Tartar villages in
the regions of Surmali, Etchmiadzin, Zangezour, and Zangibasar. There are
official charges of massacres."
<1993Apr8.2...@news.columbia.edu>
v...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Vedat Dogan)
In article <1993Apr7.2...@urartu.sdpa.org> d...@urartu.sdpa.org (David Davidian) writes:
>In article <1993Apr7.0...@news.columbia.edu> v...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
>(Vedat Dogan) wrote in response to article <1993Mar31.141308.28476@urartu.
>11sdpa.org> d...@urartu.sdpa.org (David Davidian) writes:
>
>[(*] Source: "Adventures in the Near East, 1918-1922" by A. Rawlinson,
>[(*] Jonathan Cape, 30 Bedford Square, London, 1934 (First published 1923)
>[(*] (287 pages).
>
>[DD] Such a pile of garbage! First off, the above reference was first published
>[DD] in 1924 NOT 1923, and has 353 pages NOT 287! Second, upon checking page
>[DD] 178, we are asked to believe:
>
>[VD] No, Mr.Davidian ...
>
>[VD] It was first published IN 1923 (I have the book on my desk,now!)
>[VD] ********
>
>[VD] and furthermore,the book I have does not have 353 pages either, as you
>[VD] claimed, Mr.Davidian..It has 377 pages..Any question?..
>
>Well, it seems YOUR book has its total page numbers closer to mine than the
n>crap posted by Mr. [(*]!
o boy!
Please, can you tell us why those quotes are "crap"?..because you do not
like them!!!...because they really exist...why?
As I said in my previous posting, those quotes exactly exist in the source
given by Serdar Argic ..
You couldn't reject it...
>
>In addition, the Author's Preface was written on January 15, 1923, BUT THE BOOK
>was published in 1924.
Here we go again..
In the book I have, both the front page and the Author's preface give
the same year: 1923 and 15 January, 1923, respectively!
(Anyone can check it at her/his library,if not, I can send you the copies of
pages, please ask by sct)
I really don't care what year it was first published(1923 or 1924)
What I care about is what the book writes about murders, tortures,et..in
the given quotes by Serdar Argic, and your denial of these quotes..and your
groundless accussations, etc.
>
[...]
>
>[DD] I can provide .gif postings if required to verify my claim!
>
>[VD] what is new?
>
>I will post a .gif file, but I am not going go through the effort to show there
>is some Turkish modified re-publication of the book, like last time!
I claim I have a book in my hand published in 1923(first publication)
and it exactly has the same quoted info as the book published
in 1934(Serdar Argic's Reference) has..You couldn't reject it..but, now you
are avoiding the real issues by twisting around..
Let's see how you lie!..(from 'non-existing' quotes to re-publication)
First you said there was no such a quote in the given reference..You
called Serdar Argic a liar!..
I said to you, NO, MR.Davidian, there exactly existed such a quote...
(I even gave the call number, page numbers..you could't reject it.)
And now, you are lying again and talking about "modified,re-published book"
(without any proof :how, when, where, by whom, etc..)..
(by the way, how is it possible to re-publish the book in 1923 if it was
first published in 1924(your claim).I am sure that you have some 'pretty
well suited theories', as usual)
And I am ready to send the copies of the necessary pages to anybody who
wants to compare the fact and Mr.Davidian's lies...I also give the call number
and page numbers again for the library use, which are:
949.6 R 198
and the page numbers to verify the quotes:218 and 215
>
>It is not possible that [(*]'s text has 287 pages, mine has 353, and yours has
>377!
Now, are you claiming that there can't be such a reference by saying "it is
not possible..." ..If not, what is your point?
Differences in the number of pages?
Mine was published in 1923..Serdar Argic's was in 1934..
No need to use the same book size and the same letter
charachter in both publications,etc, etc.. does it give you an idea!!
The issue was not the number of pages the book has..or the year
first published..
And you tried to hide the whole point..
the point is that both books have the exactly the same quotes about
how moslems are killed, tortured,etc by Armenians..and those quotes given
by Serdar Argic exist!!
It was the issue, wasn't-it?
you were not able to object it...Does it bother you anyway?
You name all these tortures and murders (by Armenians) as a "crap"..
People who think like you are among the main reasons why the World still
has so many "craps" in the 1993.
Any question?
Serdar Argic
>> With regards to the armenians, I will refer you to Serdar Argic, who
>> quotes jewish and armenian (along with western non-muslim) sources
>> that leave no room for what you said.
>You know something, Mohamed, you're one of the VERY few on this net who
>give even the slightest bit of credence to anything Serdar Argic writes.
You know something, 'perlmanian', coming from a self-admitted/exposed
pathological liar and idiot, I'd take that as a compliment. Besides,
it is matter of credibility and according to 99.99% of Western and
Jewish scholars, you are nothing but an idiot.
J. C. Hurewitz, Professor of Government Emeritus, Former Director of
the Middle East Institute (1971-1984), Columbia University.
Bernard Lewis, Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern History,
Princeton University.
Halil Inalcik, University Professor of Ottoman History & Member of
the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, University of Chicago.
Peter Golden, Professor of History, Rutgers University, Newark.
Stanford Shaw, Professor of History, University of California at
Los Angeles.
Thomas Naff, Professor of History & Director, Middle East Research
Institute, University of Pennsylvania.
Ronald Jennings, Associate Professor of History & Asian Studies,
University of Illinois.
Howard Reed, Professor of History, University of Connecticut.
Dankwart Rustow, Distinguished University Professor of Political
Science, City University Graduate School, New York.
John Woods, Associate Professor of Middle Eastern History,
University of Chicago.
John Masson Smith, Jr., Professor of History, University of
California at Berkeley.
Alan Fisher, Professor of History, Michigan State University.
Avigdor Levy, Professor of History, Brandeis University.
Andreas G. E. Bodrogligetti, Professor of History, University of California
at Los Angeles.
Kathleen Burrill, Associate Professor of Turkish Studies, Columbia University.
Roderic Davison, Professor of History, George Washington University.
Walter Denny, Professor of History, University of Massachusetts.
Caesar Farah, Professor of History, University of Minnesota.
Tom Goodrich, Professor of History, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Tibor Halasi-Kun, Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies, Columbia University.
Justin McCarthy, Professor of History, University of Louisville.
Jon Mandaville, Professor of History, Portland State University (Oregon).
Robert Olson, Professor of History, University of Kentucky.
Madeline Zilfi, Professor of History, University of Maryland.
James Stewart-Robinson, Professor of Turkish Studies, University of Michigan.
.......so the list goes on and on and on.....
>I stopped taking his word for anything three years ago, when he was
>using the account/id of one Hassan B. Mutlu. Very frankly, what
So you continue to lie there with your brain cells off. You have been
publicly exposed and humiliated by Mutlu and Cosar and had to leave
usenet. By the way, it is 'Hasan', not 'Hassan'; a typical idiot. Now
let us see what you have hatched this time - shall we?
>Argic/Mutlu writes has been shown, over and over again, to be a miasma of
>deliberate and flagrant strip quotes, phrases taken completely out of
>context, and occasionally he even quotes sources that do not exist, or
>attempts to insert words into those texts that aren't there.
Just love those pathological liars. Again, why should one believe a
self-admitted compulsive liar and an ASALA/SDPA/ARF crook? Remember,
according to Jewish and Armenian scholars, you are nothing but a
pathological liar. Remember, we have a contract with the "perlmanians"
of the ASALA/SDPA/ARF Terrorism and Revisionism Triangle. You idiots
would insult the silent memory of 2.5 million Muslim people who were
ruthlessly exterminated by your fascist grandparents between 1914 and
1920 via forgeries and non-existent crap and we would expose and
humiliate you criminals, residing at ASALA/SDPA/ARF, in public via
141MB of scholarly sources, eyewitness accounts and archival material.
What was your problem again?
<1991Jan10.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
ah...@eecg.toronto.edu (Parlakbilek Ahmet)
Subject: YALANCI, LIAR : DAVIDIAN
Keywords: Davidian, the biggest liar
Following is the article that Davidian claims that Hasan Mutlu is a liar:
>From: d...@urartu.SDPA.org (David Davidian)
>Message-ID: <11...@urartu.SDPA.org>
>In article <1991Jan4.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ah...@eecg.toronto.
>edu (Ahmet Parlakbilek) asked a simple question:
>[AP] I am asking you to show me one example in which mutlu,coras or any other
>[AP] Turk was proven to lie.I can show tens of lies and fabrications of
>[AP] Davidian, like changing quote , even changing name of a book, Anna.
>The obvious ridiculous "Armenians murdered 3 million Moslems" is the most
>outragious and unsubstantiated charge of all. You are obviously new on this
>net, so read the following sample -- not one, but three proven lies in one
>day!
> - - - start yalanci.txt - - -
[some parts are deleted]
>In article <1990Aug5.1...@cbnewsd.att.com> the usenet scribe for the
>Turkish Historical Society, h...@cbnewsd.att.com (hasan.b.mutlu), continues to
>revise the history of the Armenian people. Let's witness the operational
>definition of a revisionist yalanci (or liar, in Turkish):
>[Yalanci] According to Leo:[1]
>[Yalanci]
>[Yalanci] "The situation is clear. On one side, we have peace-loving Turks
>[Yalanci] and on the other side, peace-loving Armenians, both sides minding
>[Yalanci] their own affairs. Then all was submerged in blood and fire. Indeed,
>[Yalanci] the war was actually being waged between the Committee of
>[Yalanci] Dashnaktsutiun and the Society of Ittihad and Terakki - a cruel and
>[Yalanci] savage war in defense of party political interests. The Dashnaks
>[Yalanci] incited revolts which relied on Russian bayonets for their success."
>[Yalanci]
>[Yalanci] [1] L. Kuper, "Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century,"
>[Yalanci] New York 1981, p. 157.
>This text is available not only in most bookstores but in many libraries. On
>page 157 we find a discussion of related atrocities (which is title of the
>chapter). The topic on this page concerns itself with submissions to the Sub-
>Commission on Prevention of Discrimination of Minorities of the Commission on
>Human Rights of the United Nations with respect to the massacres in Cambodia.
>There is no mention of Turks nor Armenians as claimed above.
- - -
>Vay sarsak, vay yobaz, vay yalanci! Vay Turk milletinin yuz karasi Mutlu vay!
>The depth of foolishness the Turkish Historical Society engages in, while
>covering up the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, is only surpassed by the
>ridiculous "historical" material publicly displayed!
>David Davidian <d...@urartu.SDPA.org> | The life of a people is a sea, and
Receiving this message, I checked the reference, L.Kuper,"Genocide..." and
what I have found was totally consistent with what Davidian said.The book
was like "voice of Armenian revolutionists" and although I read the whole book,
I could not find the original quota.
But there was one more thing to check:The original posting of Mutlu.I found
the original article of Mutlu.It is as follows:
> According to Leo:[1]
>"The situation is clear. On one side, we have peace-loving Turks and on
> the other side, peace-loving Armenians, both sides minding their own
> affairs. Then all was submerged in blood and fire. Indeed, the war was
> actually being waged between the Committee of Dashnaktsutiun and the
> Society of Ittihad and Terakki - a cruel and savage war in defense of party
> political interests. The Dashnaks incited revolts which relied on Russian
> bayonets for their success."
>[1] B. A. Leo. "The Ideology of the Armenian Revolution in Turkey," vol II,
======================================================================
> p. 157.
======
QUATO IS THE SAME, REFERENCE IS DIFFERENT !
DAVIDIAN LIED AGAIN, AND THIS TIME HE CHANGED THE ORIGINAL POSTING OF MUTLU
JUST TO ACCUSE HIM TO BE A LIAR.
Davidian, thank you for writing the page number correctly...
You are the biggest liar I have ever seen.This example showed me that tomorrow
you can lie again, and you may try to make me a liar this time.So I decided
not to read your articles and not to write answers to you.I also advise
all the netters to do the same.We can not prevent your lies, but at least
we may save time by not dealing with your lies.
And for the following line:
>Vay sarsak, vay yobaz, vay yalanci! Vay Turk milletinin yuz karasi Mutlu vay!
I also return all the insults you wrote about Mutlu to you.
I hope you will be drowned in your lies.
Ahmet PARLAKBILEK
<1991Jan11.0...@cs.umn.edu>
co...@tera.cs.umn.edu (A.Coras)
Keywords: Fake-Quote by David Davidian
>From: d...@urartu.SDPA.org (David Davidian)
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.mideast
>Subject: Davidian Addressing Accusations I
[AC] >From: d...@urartu.SDPA.org (David Davidian)
[AC] >Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.mideast
[AC] dd>According to Esat Uras [1], 2,345 Armenians were removed from Istanbul
[AC] dd>on April 24-26, 1915 and were murdered. Go get the book, Uras has been
[AC] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[AC] Where did you find the "1915 AND WERE MURDERED" LIAR David Davidian?
[AC] >From a text you don't have! Besides I have Yale University to back me up!
[AC]
[AC] Who says that I don't have the "text"? Here is the Turkish Text:
[AC]
[AC] Source: Esat Uras, "Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi," Belge
[AC] Yayinlari, 1976 (2nd Edition).
[AC]
[AC] p. 612.
[AC]
[AC] "Bununla beraber Istanbul'da oturan 77,735 Ermeniden soz konusu olan
[AC] ihtilallere katilmaktan sanik olarak yalniz 2345 kisi tutuklanip,
[AC] digerlerinin huzur ve rahatla is ve gucleriyle mesgul olduklari ve
[AC] buyuk bir guvenlik icinde yasadiklari goz onune alinirsa, bu
[AC] tedbirlerin herhalde gerekli oldugu ve Ermenilere karsi hicbir hareket
[AC] anlamini tasimadigi meydana cikar."
[AC]
[AC] in English:
[AC]
[AC] However, considering the fact that only 2345 of the 77,735
[AC] Armenians living in Istanbul were arrested because of joining
[AC] the mentioned revolutions, and the others have been living and
[AC] continuing their activities with peace and comfort in a
[AC] great security, it becomes clear that these precautions
[AC] were necessary and was not a move against Armenians [as a nation]
[AC] Where did you find the "1915 AND WERE MURDERED" David Davidian? Or are
[AC] you a Liar?
>No liar. Based on your source, you are simply correct for Uras directly wrote
>that 2,345 Armenian were arrested (tutuklamak). Those Armenians were deported
>and eventually murdered. Note, I didn't add quotations around the text
Where did you find the "eventually murdered" Davidian? Any sources, references?
>associated with Uras. He simply supported my contention that Armenians from
Now trying to twist after claiming that it was true by giving it with a
reference to Esat Uras. Why did you, then, give it with a reference to
Esat Uras? You little duckling, and why did it take you so long to say that
it was not a quote from Esat Uras? Why didn't you accept it 1 month before
when I first asked it. Why did you prefer to say that:
>From: d...@urartu.SDPA.org (David Davidian)
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.mideast
>Subject: Read Before You Write - You Looked in the Wrong Book!
>Keywords: Turkish Re-Write of History
>Message-ID: <11...@urartu.SDPA.org>
>Date: 21 Dec 90 15:26:31 GMT
Now, tell me Davidian. Which one is trying to Re-Write history? Which one is
playing around quotes? Which one is quoting non-existing quotes? Which one
is adding "1915 and were murdered" and when caught on revision, trying to
escape saying that "I didn't put it in quotes"? You insisted that it was
"correct". You gave "correct" references for me to find, and now you say
"it was not a quote"? You are a truly a very low life form Davidian.
>Istanbul were arrested, deported and were murdered. Read my original postings
>with the 1988 English version of Uras's text. You were so zealous in your
>attempt to discredit me, you forgot the original purpose of our "discussion"!
Original purpose? I am only exposing your lies, that's all. It is a very
simple task, I go and check everything you say and find your lies.
>I showed that Istanbul Armenians were indeed deported during the genocide. You
Only 2345 out of 77,735 , and those who were involved in revolutions.
>spent so much time calling me a liar, you forgot to address the real issue! If
Why? Didn't I expose your lies? Isn't that an issue for you? Who are you?
Aren't you the Davidian that I have been exposing his lies for one month?
>you recall, Cosar, you asked me to prove that Armenians from Istanbul were
>removed...and I did, but you never provided a refutation.
"Removed"? Where did you get it? They were arrested that's all in those
paragraphs, where did you find the "rest"? Please give me the reference
and quote.
>In contrast, however, I did include quotes around the following text:
> On December 7th, 1915 the German Ambassador Metternich informed Berlin
> that 4,000 Armenians have been deported from Istanbul and that the total
> up to that time was 30,000 deported and that "gradually a clean sweep will
> be made of the remaining 80,000 Armenians of the Ottoman capital".
This contradicts with your Esat Uras paragraph. Which one do you believe in?
How could 30,000 Armenians out of 77,735 be deported and still 80,000 of
them remain? Aren't you again a little bit off mathematics?
>Turkish source, meaning it from "your side" -- not mine), what about the
>30,000 "already deported", and another "4,000", etc., from the German source?
Tell me about the Armenian population in Istanbul, with references and quotes,
then I will give you another lecture on mathematics, ok?
[AC] Himm, a typical example of Rewriting-History. When the original document
[AC] does not support you, have it translated to English by an "independent
[AC] Armenian Translator" and then use it to support your lies.
>Again, Cosar, you are so much of a zealot, still after my pants, you failed to
We saw the one after pants, didn't we?
>note that I have nothing to do with the Yale Journal, nor do Armenians. I
How about Dadrian? Or better "Dadrain"?
>never mentioned about translations, the Yale Journal is in English.
Yokh yav? Thanks for the info.
[AC] > "The accuracy of the sources used in this article was verified by
[AC] > an independent translator jointly hired by the Yale Journal of
[AC] > International Law and Professor Dadrain (the author). The Journal
[AC] > ^^^^^^^
[AC] > took this unprecedented step because the location of the sources
[AC] > and the variety of foreign languages in which the material appear
[AC] > made an exhaustive review by the Journal staff impossible.
[AC] I think you mean "Dadrian", don't you? Are we again trying to hide the
[AC] Armenian-Connection Mr. Davidian?
>No Cosar, it's called a typographical error. If you get a copy of Yale Journal
If this "typo" is done by someone who "forgets" to put quotes around his
quotes, then claims them to be true for one month and then say, "Oh, I did
not put quotes around them", then one better suspect.
>you will read Dadrian. I am not hiding anything. In contrast, in TEL you
Who, you? The one who claimed his "fake-quote" as true for one month?
>claimed that Cosar is your real name, not Coras!
Why are you interested in my "real" name?
>And once again, Cosar, your zealousness helped prove my point, and as a bonus
>you contradicted yourself and Professor Justin McCarthy, as follows:
Justin McCarthy? What are you talking about Davidian? Have you begun losing
your mind? May be I shouldn't have hit your head so strong, sorry if it
caused some permanent damage.
>I was referring to page 266 in the Yale Journal! -- which says "eventually
>executed" - note: the quotes.
Please give this quote Davidian, I will anyway get a copy of this issue,
but I want you to quote it yourself, will you?
>You fell into the same trap I had caught another fool in via email! You spent
Who is this fool? Give me his name. May be someone that we know ha?
Tell me who is this fool caught by your "lies"?
>so much time fighting the battle -- calling me a liar -- you lost the war! By
Again? Who made you the "referee"? Who counted the scores? What game were we
playing? The one who tells more "lies" wins! Was this the name of the game?
BTW, aren't you a little optimistic with fake-quotes, fake-references and
and a fake-translation at hand made in 1990?
>the way, can you read German?
>Now, I request you to FAX me a copy of page 612 and the copyright page of YOUR
>Uras's text. My work FAX number is (508) 872-8692. Thank you.
First you please, send a copy your Yale journal at the below address(No bombs
please, there are 600 more people living there):
Ahmet Cosar
Computer Science Department
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
>David Davidian <d...@urartu.SDPA.org ...maybe next year!
Belki yarin, belki yarindan da yakin.
A.Coras
Serdar Argic
>Punishable by what sentence? You're still evading the question. OK,
If your prayers were answered, bones would rain from the sky, 'perlmanian.'
Answer the question: Who slaughtered 2.5 million Muslim people between
1914 and 1920? Well, according to Armenian and Jewish scholars, x-Soviet
Armenian Government is guilty of genocide in 1914. And you've got 'no'
credibility compared to the following Jewish scholars.
Source: Stanford J. Shaw, on Armenian collaboration with invading Russian
armies in 1914, "History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Volume
II: Reform, Revolution & Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975)."
(London, Cambridge University Press 1977). pp. 315-316.
"In April 1915 Dashnaks from Russian Armenia organized a revolt in the city
of Van, whose 33,789 Armenians comprised 42.3 percent of the population,
closest to an Armenian majority of any city in the Empire...Leaving Erivan
on April 28, 1915, Armenian volunteers reached Van on May 14 and organized
and carried out a general slaughter of the local Muslim population during
the next two days."
FROM FLIGHT to FREEDOM - THE SPANISH INQUISITION and LIFE in TURKEY
Source: HIRHURIM - The Jewish Magazine of Brendeis University
(Massachusetts). Vol. 1, No: 2, Spring 1992
Andrew Sackser
Throughout history the children of Israel have suffered at hands
of others. A people set apart from their neighbors by their
faith, countless. Jews have often had to pay for this faith with
their lives. There was, however, one haven where Jews did not
suffer the large-scale persecution characterizing their entire
existence. This haven was Turkey. For over five hundred years
Jews have flourished there, enjoying relatively uninterrupted
freedom and safety that has only been rivaled in America. This
year marks the quincentennial anniversary of the ingathering of
Jews to Turkey, and highlights one of the brighter chapters in
Jewish history.
The massive flight of Jews to Turkey in 1492 was the result of an
expulsion order from the Spanish monarchy of Ferdinand and
Isabella. This was perhaps the worst tragedy faced by the Jews in
the Middle Ages. Jews had existed in Spain for hundreds of years.
Under the Moorish occupation of the country they fared well,
excelling in the sciences and even rising high in the political
sphere. Unfortunately for Spain's Jews, however, infighting and
dissolution left the Moors vulnerable to the ascent of Christian
power on the peninsula. At first the Jews lived as well under
Christians as they had under the Moors. Tolerance continued to be
the norm, and Jews maintained their civil privileges. As in
previous golden ages, this prosperity and good fortune came to an
end.
The year 1391 saw a significant increase in persecution. Taking
advantage of the current political instability, the virulently
anti-Semitic priest Ferdinand Martinez hailed in a reign of
terror unprecedented in Spanish history. Inflamed by his rhetoric
of hate, angry mobs ran amok through the Jewish quarters of
cities such as Seville, Cordova, and- Barcelona. Homes were
destroyed, possessions stolen and houses of worship burned or
converted to churches. Thousands of defenseless men, women, and
children were brutally slaughtered. Those who survived did so by
undergoing forced conversions. Those few who did not convert were
either burnt or put to the sword. A small minority, who escaped
the carnage unscathed, did so only because they were passed by
during the frenzied slaughter.
The Jews who were forced to accept the baptism on the pain of
death wereby no means converted in spirit. Many continued to
secretly practice their religion. In public they donned the
clothing and mannerisms of the gentile, while in their homes they
practiced the faith (of their fathers and passed the law on to
their children. Called Marranos, meaning accursed, by the
Spanish, these unfortunates were at the same time outcasts from
Spanish society and forbidden from returning to Jewish society.
Although they were theoretically able to live and prosper as
gentiles, they were met with as much bigotry and persecution as
their openly practicing brethren.
The Marranos, and indeed all the Jews of Spain, were dealt their
harshest blow in the infamous Spanish Inquisition. The
Inquisition had been established hundreds of years before to gain
control over heretics and dissenters within the Church. Following
the unification of Aragon and Castille, Ferdinand and Isabella
allowed its resurgence in Spain.. Special tribunals were set up
to try and persecute the Marranos. Usually the possession of
wealth or power coveted by the state or Church was enough to have
one brought before the Inquisition. Once brought into this
terrible ordeal, there was no escape. Seized in the name of the
Inquisition, the victims were shut away in dungeons and tortured
for days on end. The inquisitors forced the Marranos to confess
their heresies. Real or imagined, the victims would confess to
anything as their tortured bodies were burned with irons, pierced
with metal wedges and torn on the rack. In a perverse sense of
mercy, those who repented were strangled before being burnt.
Presiding over this gruesome affair was the Grand Inquisitor
Thomas de Torquemada. He was followed by many others. All told,
some thirty-two thousand innocents were put to death during the
Inquisition's horrible course. The King had little problem in
slaying perhaps the most learned and productive of his subjects.
This was an economic, not a moral campaign, and the Inquisition
gave him the means to take all that the Marranos had at once
rather than fleece them over time.
This was one of the darkest hours in Jewish history. The Jewish
community of Spain, the most vibrant of its day, was reduced to
shambles. Then, in 1492 came the expulsion order from Ferdinand
and Isabella. It was an extreme measure, designed to eliminate a
powerful class of people whom the Crown blamed for the country's
problems. The Jews who were thrown out from Spain were not
allowed to take anything of value with them. All of their
property was seized by either the Church or the State. Penniless
and stateless, they were forced out of their homes.
Those emigrants-by-force had nowhere to go. England had already
expelled its own Jews, and anti-Jewish fanaticism was rampant
throughout the rest of Europe. Some found haven in Portugal,
others in Italy. A small minority even sought refuge in the New
World. But the vast majority of Spain's outcasts had nowhere to
go, and no one to turn to. That is, until Bayezid II, Sultan of
the Ottoman Empire, officially welcomed the Spanish Jews into his
realm. Specifically, he ordered his provincial governors not to
refuse the Jews entry, and to extend them courtesy.
His act of charity saved thousands who would have otherwise
perished. The Sultan took in the Jews for a number of reasons. He
saw them as a productive and learned people who had much to offer
his growing empire. Furthermore, the fanatical anti-Semitism
native to Europe did not exist in the Muslim East. Under Islam
there was a tolerance for "The People of the Book" that had no
parallel in the West. Islamic tradition stipulates that Jews, and
other monotheists, had the right to protection of their lives,
property and religious life, provided that they accepted Muslim
rule and paid a special monetary tribute to the state. Unlike
most of his Western counterparts, the Ottoman ruler recognized
that, freed from violent persecution, the Jews could contribute
much to long-term prosperity and growth. The new immigrants were
settled throughout the empire, and the Sultan used them to
populate areas where loyal and productive subjects were needed.
For the first time, many Spanish Jews found that they were not
outcasts, but rather accepted members of Turkish society. This
was not only due to the extreme tolerance exhibited by the Turks,
but to the fact that the Ottoman Empire was a conglomerate of
many diverse people and cultures. The Jews had a place for
themselves within the "millet system." This was a system afforded
to minorities which provided them a limited self-government under
rabbinic authority. The Turkish system was one which gave the
Jews a great deal more freedom than they had known in Europe. And
despite several restrictive measures, they were free from the
horrible tyranny and persecution that had previously plagued
them.
Having finally found a home for themselves, the Spanish Jews
settled down within the Ottoman empire. Synagogues were built and
religious centers were established in many major cities. Despite
contributing to Ottoman society, the Jews were able to maintain
their own culture within the millet. Ladino, a Spanish dialect
with Hebrew influences, was preserved as the language of the
community. Schooled and raised in their own language, academic
and religious scholarship rose to new heights that rivaled the
achievements of Jews in prechristian Spain. The Ottoman system
was one that let these achievements be rewarded. Several
distinguished scholars and financiers were able to rise to the
higher echelons of society. There were Jewish doctors and
economists in the Sultan's court, and even several Jews who held
key political posts.
Jewish culture grew along with the Empire, and flourished during
the 16th and 17th centuries when the Empire was at its peak. The
Empire, however, was rapidly losing ground to Europe as
stagnation and internal disputes sapped its energies. Even in
hard times the Jews managed to survive. The usual pattern of
scapegoating and persecution that took place in Europe was
noticeably lacking in these times of decline. It was during this
period when the Sultan reportedly declared, "I distinguish my
Muslim subjects in the Mosque, my Christian subjects in the
Church, and my Jewish subjects in the Synagogue, but there is no
other difference among them. My love and justice for all of them
is very strong and they are all my true children."
As the empire fell apart there were several major events which
impacted on the Jewish community. Most important was the
secularization that was beginning to takeplace. In a vain effort,
the central government tried to integrate the various minorities
who were beginning to fall under the spell of nationalism. This
official declaration of equality had its draw-backs. The Jews, in
a move towards equality, were forced to relinquish their limited
self-rule and privileges existing under the millet system.
Despite this, the empire was still a safe haven. The Ottoman
Empire crumbled in World War I as the victorious Allies carved up
its remaining holdings in Europe and the Middle East. The Turks,
however, still had to wage a bitter war of independence to insure
control over Anatolia. Unlike most minorities, the Jews supported
Turkey in its War for Independence. Following the war, Turkey
made a concerted effort to catch up with the West. Part of this
campaign was the adoption of a constitution making Turkey a
secular republic. Now, for the first time, the Jews were legal
first-class citizens with all the rights and responsibilities of
Muslims. During the inter war years many Turkish Jews found their
fortune taking a turn for the worse as Muslims reasserted control
in both the public and private spheres. Despite this negative
setback tolerance remained very high, and many Jews soon found
Turkey to be a refuge from the rising tide of Nazism.
Because Turkey retained its neutral status during World War II,
its Jews were spared the ravages of the Holocaust. This was no
easy task, since Turkey was surrounded by Nazi-controlled Europe
and Arab states with pro-Nazi sympathies. There is even the case
of the Turkish consul on the island of Rhodes, who in the summer
of 1944 saved forty-two jews from the death camps. Risking his
own life, Consul Selahattin Ulkumen placed as many Jews as
possible under the protection of the Turkish flag. He then
remained behind to protect those bad saved. With the suspension
of diplomatic ties in August 1944, Mr. Ulkumen was arrested by
the Nazis. The Jews made it to Turkey, and many lived long enough
to see the retired diplomat receive the honor of Hassid Umot
Ha'olam from Yad Vashem in 1990.
After the war, many Jews left Turkey for the new state of Israel.
Unlike many other Muslim countries, Turkey was quick to recognize
the Jewish state, and did not experience the wave of
anti-Semitism that swept the surrounding Arab states. A one-year
ban on emigration, coupled with a post-war economic downturn,
prompted many to leave in 1949 when the border was re-opened. One
quarter made aliyah to Israel, half emigrated to North America
and France, and one quarter, mainly the wealthy, remained behind.
Today, there are roughly 27,000 Jews remaining in Turkey. With so
many of their co-religionists gone, the Jews of Turkey are
finding it hard to maintain their Jewish identity. As a result,
the few left behind have consolidated their communities by
banding together in Istanbul and several other cities. The Jewish
community of Istanbul, by far the largest, is vibrant and content
to stay put. Whatever anti-Semitism remained ceased to be
actively expressed, at least in public life. While it may be true
that the general population harbors no ill feeling towards the
Jews, the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism has many Jews
worried. Their worst fears were, realized when in September 1986
an Arab terrorist squad attacked the Neve Shalom Synagogue in
Istanbul. Before blowing themselves up, the attackers used hand
grenades and automatic weapons to murder defenseless worshipers.
Fortunately, thereaction of the Turkish public was one of
outrage.
Despite their acceptance by the overwhelming majority of the
Islamic community, Turkey's Jews know that they been extremely
lucky to have enjoyed over 500 years of peace and harmony. This
peace, uninterrupted until the recent attack on Neve Shalom, has
lasted far longer than any other peace in Jewish history. It is
with pride that both Turks and Jews will celebrate this year as
the 500th anniversary of peaceful coexistence.
Shaqeeqa
>>
>> "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?
Dear Ron:
Obviously you don't understand or care to understand Islam. You
cite examples of Khomeini and in Saudi Arabia to prove your
point that Islam is an intolerant and extremist religion.
Obviously no one can change your opinion, so why don't you just
drop the subject already? If you dispise Islam so much and
no one can reason with you, why bother? Why don't you take the
subject to soc.religion.islam or another appropriate group? If
you want to *really* say that we are a bunch of misguided and
ignorant fundamentalist fools, you've made your point. Have a
little decency and stop adding insult to injury.
Anisa
Shaqeeqa
>In article <CAJ41...@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>
>
>Answer the question. OK, it's an offensive lie. Is it offensive enough
to be punishable by death? Is anything that offends Islam punishable by
death? That was the question to begin with.
>> So, offending people's beliefs "is commonplace" in the west.
>
>That wasn't what Ron was saying.
>Answer the question, Mohammed!
Maybe the guy doesn't KNOW the answer, Eric!
When I have questions about Jewish law and practices, I find out from
the most qualified source. Why don't you AND Ron follow suit? Many
of us don't have the time or qualifications to answer such questions.
We are not religious scholars! Even when we answer you're question,
you delegitimize it or misjudge it. Nothing appease you! Tell you
what, if you are REALLY interested, give me a call and I'll be glad
to refer you to an appropriate person. Please stop pressing this
issue, it is getting very annoying!
Anisa
Tim Clock
>>> With regards to the armenians, I will refer you to Serdar Argic, who
>>> quotes jewish and armenian (along with western non-muslim) sources
>>> that leave no room for what you said.
The mind of the smog-Argic has no room for fresh air, let alone a
coherant train of thought. "'Thought', heavens, what's that", he was
heard to say as he vented his rage on the nearest Greek-type-person
...or......I mean: Armenian?,
...I mean: x-Knights of Columbus?,...fascist Monglian?
...uhhh..: Red Crescent nurse in really tight skirt/pants?
he could find.
>
>>Eric:
>>You know something, Mohamed, you're one of the VERY few on this net who
>>give even the slightest bit of credence to anything Serdar Argic writes.
>
>Smog-Argic:
>You know something, 'perlmanian', coming from a self-admitted/exposed
>pathological liar and idiot, I'd take that as a compliment. Besides,
>it is matter of credibility and according to 99.99% of Western and
>Jewish scholars, you are nothing but an idiot.
>
Of course, 100% of historians have, as an example of their great good
taste and general disdain for motor-mouths, taken absolutely *no*
notice of the Smog's existence (such as it is).
[Deleted was the list of reknowned historians who, since they don't
care at all, couldn't care less about the Smog's long-running
vaudeville act here on t.p.m.]
>
>What was your problem again?
>
Oh nothing. I just noticed an unwashed Argic as I passed by here so,
naturally enough, I flushed it.
Stewart Clamen
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.
Iran and Chad are not Arab countries.
--
Stewart M. Clamen Internet: cla...@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science UUCP: uunet!"cla...@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue Fax: +1 412 681 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Serdar Argic
>>> With regards to the armenians, I will refer you to Serdar Argic, who
>>> quotes jewish and armenian (along with western non-muslim) sources
>>> that leave no room for what you said.
> There is no doubt that sardar argic's "compelling evidence" is
> rather strong.
And no swinging of lies will be enough to cover up the crimes of the
fascist x-Soviet Armenian government, Mohamed. As has been incontrovertibly
proven by 99.99% of the historians, there was a genocide of the Muslims
carried out by order of the x-Soviet Armenian Government. Massacres of
Muslims must be studied in detail, because they are the first modern
example of the horrible crime of genocide. Blame must be apportioned
to the Armenians and their supporters for the murder of Muslims.
'Kill Turks and Kurds wherever you find them and in
whatever circumstances you find them. Turkish children
also should be killed as they form a danger to the
Armenian nation.' (Hamparsum Boyadjian - 1914)[1]
[1] M. Varandian, "History of the Dashnaktsutiun," p. 85.
Source: Hassan Arfa, "The Kurds," (London, 1968), pp. 25-26.
"When the Russian armies invaded Turkey after the Sarikamish disaster
of 1914, their columns were preceded by battalions of irregular
Armenian volunteers, both from the Caucasus and from Turkey. One of
these was commanded by a certain Andranik, a blood-thirsty adventurer.
These Armenian volunteers committed all kinds of excesses, more
than six hundred thousand Kurds being killed between 1915 and 1916 in
the eastern vilayets of Turkey."
Source: "U.S. Library of Congress:" 'Bristol Papers' - General Correspondence
Container #34.
"While the Dashnaks were in power they did everything in the world to keep the
pot boiling by attacking Kurds, Turks and Tartars; by committing outrages
against the Moslems; by massacring the Moslems; and robbing and destroying
their homes;....During the last two years the Armenians in Russian Caucasus
have shown no ability to govern themselves and especially no ability to
govern or handle other races under their power."
Sources: (The Ottoman State, the Ministry of War), "Islam Ahalinin
Ducar Olduklari Mezalim Hakkinda Vesaike Mustenid Malumat," (Istanbul, 1918).
The French version: "Documents Relatifs aux Atrocites Commises par les Armeniens
sur la Population Musulmane," (Istanbul, 1919). In the Latin script: H. K.
Turkozu, ed., "Osmanli ve Sovyet Belgeleriyle Ermeni Mezalimi," (Ankara,
1982). In addition: Z. Basar, ed., "Ermenilerden Gorduklerimiz," (Ankara,
1974) and, edited by the same author, "Ermeniler Hakkinda Makaleler -
Derlemeler," (Ankara, 1978). "Askeri Tarih Belgeleri ...," Vol. 32, 83
(December 1983), document numbered 1881.
"Askeri Tarih Belgeleri ....," Vol. 31, 81 (December 1982), document
numbered 1869.
"Those who were capable of fighting were taken away at the very beginning
with the excuse of forced labor in road construction, they were taken
in the direction of Sarikamis and annihilated. When the Russian army
withdrew, a part of the remaining people was destroyed in Armenian
massacres and cruelties: they were thrown into wells, they were locked
in houses and burned down, they were killed with bayonets and swords, in places
selected as butchering spots, their bellies were torn open, their lungs
were pulled out, and girls and women were hanged by their hair after
being subjected to every conceivable abominable act. A very small part
of the people who were spared these abominations far worse than the
cruelty of the inquisition resembled living dead and were suffering
from temporary insanity because of the dire poverty they had lived
in and because of the frightful experiences they had been subjected to.
Including women and children, such persons discovered so far do not
exceed one thousand five hundred in Erzincan and thirty thousand in
Erzurum. All the fields in Erzincan and Erzurum are untilled, everything
that the people had has been taken away from them, and we found them
in a destitute situation. At the present time, the people are subsisting
on some food they obtained, impelled by starvation, from Russian storages
left behind after their occupation of this area."
The following means for the Muslim Genocide are to be employed:
1.- Propaganda: To disseminate Hunchak revolutionary ideas,
particularly among the working classes, by means of books,
newspapers, talks and lectures, and to set up revolutionary
organizations and action squads.
2.- Terror: To employ punitive terrorist tactics against Turkish
administrators, agents, informers and traitors. Terror is to be
used as a weapon defending the revolutionary organization
and protecting the people against oppressors and corrupt
administrators.
3.- Organization of vigilante groups: To hold in readiness a military
force to protect the people from government troops and the
attacks of savage tribes. In the case of a general revolt these
bands would play a leading role.
4.- General Revolutionary Organization: To form a large number of
revolutionary groups acting in close collaboration, with the
same goals and objectives, employing the same tactics and
organized from the same centre. The strength and powers of
all the various sections of the organization in Turkish Armenia
are set forth in the special statute listing the organization and
activities of the Hunchak revolutionary party.
5.- The organization of revolutionary squads.
6.- The outbreak of war between Turkey and any other country is
the most opportune moment for the beginning of a general
revolution.
Art. l- All adults of sound character who willingly and
knowingly accept the general principles of the Hunchak
Committee and who undertake to perform the duties demanded
of them by the Rules and Regulations will be admitted as
members of the Committee irrespective of race or religion.
Art. 2- In places where there are Hunchak sub-committees or
groups, anyone who expresses, either orally or in writing his wish
to join can be accepted on condition that two members of the
sub-committee act as his guarantors and provided that he
secures a majority of votes.
Art. 3- The new member has to sign and submit to the
sub-committee a document of absolute loyalty.
Duties and Rights of Members
Art. 4- All comrades are required to conduct themselves in
such a manner so as to uphold the flag of the Committee and
preserve intact its principles.
Art. 5- Each member must endeavor to recruit others and in
this way to secure the growth of the Party.
Art. 6- Each member is obliged to propagate the principles of
the Party and to distribute its publications.
Art. 7 - Each member is required to propagate the views of the
Party both orally and in writing.
Art. 8- Each member has to communicate any information
concerning the Party, immediately, either to his local office or to
the Party Centre.
Art. 9- Members are under an obligation to extend whatever
help needed, whether moral or material, to their comrades who
share the same ideals and aspirations with them.
Art. 10- Members have to attend the meetings of the
sub-committee or group. If anyone fails to do so, he has to present
his excuses to the Assembly.
Art. 11- In matters concerning the internal administration of
the Party, members are obliged to observe discipline strictly and
without any reservations.
Art. 12- If a member has to be away from his district for a long
period, a recommendation letter will be sent by his
sub-committee or group to the Party organization of the area
where he will be staying, in order to ensure his participation in it
as a member.
Art. 13- Members can complain to the Executive Committee,
the Central Committee or to the Assembly of Representatives of
any abuses they may witness in the Party.
Art. 14- Each member must have a certain amount of training
in the use of fire-arms.
Art. 15- Each new member has to make a contribution as
admission fee to the Party commensurate with his financial
capacity.
Art. 16- Each member is required to pay a fixed sum as a
monthly membership fee, commensurate with his financial
capacity.
Art. 17- Any person who wishes to join the Hunchak Party in
an area where there are no Hunchak sub-committees or groups
will apply to the organization of the nearest district. After a
thorough investigation and the study of his credentials, the
candidate may be elected as member of that organization by a
majority of votes.
Art. 18- If a member of the Hunchak Party resides in a region
where there are no sub-committees or groups, he will endeavor
to form a sub- committee or group by recruiting suitable
comrades to the Party. If he remains alone, he will establish
contact with the organization of the nearest district and will
remain in touch with it.
Art. 19- No member is entitled to engage in any action, to
apply to the authorities, to make commitments or to take
decisions or judgements independently on behalf the
Party.
Art. 20- Only those members who have fulfilled their
obligations without fail and have never been accused of
misdemeanor by the Party can be appointed to leading
positions.
In June 1915, a major uprising took place in Sebinkarahisar
under the leadership of the famous Nazi Boyadjian. The Moslem
districts were burnt down. Hundreds of soldiers and gendarmerie
were killed and hundreds of civilians also perished.
Armenians first of all occupied the Talori region, which included
the villages of Siner, Simai, Gulli-Guzat, Ahi, Hedenk, Sinank,
Ekind, Effard, Musson, Etek, Akcesser. Leaving their wives,
children and property in these inaccessible spots, the Armenians
joined forces with other armed bands coming from the Silvan
districts in the plain of Mus, after which the whole body of
3000 men gathered in the Andok Mt. Five or six hundred wished
to surround Mus, and started off by attacking the Delican tribe to
the south of the city. They slaughtered a number of the tribe and
seized their goods. The religious beliefs of the Muslims who fell
into their hands were derided and disparaged, and the Muslims
themselves murdered in the most frightful manner. The rebels
also attacked the regular troops in the vicinity of Mus, but the
large numbers of the regular forces prevented them from
occupying the city.
The rebels joined the bandits in the Andok Mts., carrying out
the most frightful massacres and looting among the tribes of the
neighbourhood. They burned Omer Agha's nephew alive. They
raped a number of Turkish women at a spot three or four hours'
distance from Gulli-Guzat and then strangled them.
At the beginning of August the rebels attacked the Faninar,
Bekiran and Badikan tribes, perpetrating equally horrible
atrocities. The rebels in the villages of Yermut and Ealigernuk in
the nahiye of Cinan in the kaza of Cal attacked the Kurds in the
neighbourhood, as well as the villages of Kaisser and Catcat.
Towards the end of August, the Armenians attacked the
Kurds in the vicinity of Mus and burned down three or four
villages, including Gulli-Guzat. As for the 3000 rebels in Talori,
they continued to spread death and destruction among the
Muslims and other Christian communities, refusing to lay down
their arms.
Serdar Argic
>>>>Mohamed:
>>>> With regards to the armenians, I will refer you to Serdar Argic, who
>>>> quotes jewish and armenian (along with western non-muslim) sources
>>>> that leave no room for what you said.
>The mind of the smog-Argic has no room for fresh air, let alone a
Obrother, one compulsive liar (clock) is defending yet another pathological
liar (perlmanian). Well, you still have a rather minor problem, 'clock'; why
should one believe a self-exposed/admitted liar? Remember, in article
<2BAC23F...@news.service.uci.edu>, you have blatantly lied (repeatedly
so).
>There was no such letter in the Chronicle on that date, or at any other time.
>The earlier citation is also a fabrication.
Yet another 'perlmanian the moronian' is in action. Got a minute?
The Armenian publication Hairenik (an official mouthpiece for the x-Soviet
Armenian Government)[1]:
"Sometimes it is difficult to eradicate these poisonous elements (the Jews)
when they have struck deep root like a chronic disease, and when it
becomes necessary for a people (the Nazis) to eradicate them in an uncommon
method, these attempts are regarded as revolutionary. During the surgical
operation, the flow of blood is a natural thing."
Extracts from a letter dated December 11, 1983, published in the San
Francisco Chronicle.
"We have first hand information and evidence of Armenian atrocities
against our people (Jews). Members of our family witnessed the
murder of 148 members of our family near Erzurum, Turkey, by Armenian
neighbors, bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish
and/or Muslim. Armenians should look to their own history and see
the havoc they and their ancestors perpetrated upon their neighbors.
Armenians were in league with Hitler in the last war, on his premise
to grant themselves government if, in return, the Armenians would
help exterminate Jews. Armenians were also hearty proponents of
the anti-Semitic acts in league with the Russian Communists."
Signed Elihu Ben Levi, Vacaville, California.
[1] James G. Mandalian, 'Dro, Drastamat Kanayan,' in the 'Armenian
Review,' a Quarterly by the Hairenik Association, Inc., Summer:
June 1957, Vol. X, No. 2-38.
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
> Please explain why the Prophet himself contradicts his own
> principle in verse 14 of his Declarations of Medina.
-Explain what do you mean by (verse 14 of his Declarations of Medina)?
I have already done so, but here it is again. In the
Prophet's Declarations of Medina (his "Constitution"
for the first Islamic State), he says in paragraph 14
that believers are not to take the side of an unbeliever
against a believer, or kill a believer on account of
his connections with an unbeliever.
In no way can this be construed as treating people equally.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
E. Zeidan
!> I've never met anyone yet who knew how to
!> differentiate criticism of Islam from slander of Islam.
!> If someone says, "Muhammed was deluded and Islam is
!> based on a lie," is that punishable slander?
>>
Very easy, you have to bring forth your evidence, if you
do not lie.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
-Shafei
E. Zeidan
!> In article <1993Jul22.1...@sol.UVic.CA> eze...@engr.UVic.CA writes:
!> Please explain why the Prophet himself contradicts his own
!> principle in verse 14 of his Declarations of Medina.
!> -Explain what do you mean by (verse 14 of his Declarations of Medina)?
!> I have already done so, but here it is again. In the
!> Prophet's Declarations of Medina (his "Constitution"
!> for the first Islamic State), he says in paragraph 14
111111111111
!> that believers are not to take the side of an unbeliever
!> against a believer, or kill a believer on account of
!> his connections with an unbeliever.
!> In no way can this be construed as treating people equally.
>>
Now, is it a verse or a paragraph? please give
a complete account. There was a second question,
I think!
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
-Shafei
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>We can not and do not and will not (as a western soceity) define what is
>offensive and what is not for everyone. It is left entirely to the affected
>group/individuals involved.
If a society is going to execute someone for being
offensive, the least it can do is define "offensive"
so as to give fair warning. But I submit such a
definition is impossible to give...there is no
real demarcation between offensive and inoffensive
criticism even in Islam. The community of
Islam punishes critics of Islam when their criticism is
deemed offensive. This has the effect of stifling
criticism of Islam in general.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>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."
Tim Clock asks:
Then why are some of the duties, rights and privileges **different** for
muslims and non-muslims?
Mohamed Sadek, apparently unfamiliar with the Prophet's own
Constitution of Medina, challenges:
>Good question. Any examples you have in mind..!!??
I suggest a look at verse (paragraph) #14 of the
so-called Constitution of Medina, where it is stated
that a believer shall not kill another believer in
retaliation for a non-believer, and that a believer shall
not help a non-believer against a believer.
Quiz: Who has more rights and privileges under #14,
Muslims or non-Muslims?
Source: Muhammad Hamidullah, The first written constitution
in the world, Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf, 3rd ed, 1975.
Or if arabic is preferred, try
Muhammad Hamidullah, Al-Watha'iq al-Siyasiyyah, Beirute:
Dar al-Irshad, 3rd ed, 1969.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>> It would be frightening indeed if the Jewish State
>> mixed politics and religion to such an extent that
>> it killed people for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery,
>> homosexual conduct, and the like.
>I agree.
Good. And since you are not a hypocrite, you will
thus also find it frightening when Islamic states
mix politics and religion to such an extent that
they kill people for apostasy, blasphemy, etc.
>It seems to me that the Torah was revealed by God to Moses for
>the israelites to live by.
Israel is not so backward as to base her civil law on
milleniums-old religious law.
>Right. You can not separate the two. But Islam is the same as Judaism.
>There are a great deal of similarities, but there are also differences.
>An example, is the law on apostacy, which we spent weeks covering it
>in both the Torah and the Quran.
Israel doesn't prosecute apostates. Fundamentalist Islamic
states do. Quite a big difference politically, I would say.
>I did not know that the declaration of Medina is composed of verses.
>What does it say, and what is your source..??
The self-proclaimed master of true Islamic sources is
asking ME where to find the Prophet's own Declarations
of Medina?
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
>No! I am admitting that muslims made wars for the cause of propagating
>Islam and this was the only feasible way to do it at this time (flame me
>as you wish). So, yes early Muslims made wars in Asia,
>Africa, and Europe, they didn't trangress as you imagine though. Again
>refer to Webster for the definition of transgress!
According to Webster, "transgress" means to go beyond a
limit or boundary. It seems to me that's exactly what
the invading Muslim armies were doing.
>So what do you think of the crusaders by the way?
I have denounced the mixing of politics and religion,
and I have denounced those who proclaim that *their*
religion is the only right one. So do you have to ask?
>I don't claim to be knowledagble about the Mexican history. So, in what
>way did the indians contribute to the Mexican culture?
Art, literature, etc. etc. ...see soc.culture.mexican.
>You are not even able to read ;-) or maybe you just didn't get his reply
>to that particular point!
If Mohamed Sadek has replied to my challenge,
to provide a single source that contradicts my sources
on either bloodshed in Mecca or on the Pact of Omar,
(which he called false), I haven't seen it.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
rev...@euclid.ucsd.edu
aald...@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>Many of us don't have the time or qualifications to answer
>such questions. We are not religious scholars!
It is a sad state of affairs when a critic has to
worry that some religious scholar might deem his
criticism of Islam offensive and punishable.
As a devotee of freedom of speech, I thank God I don't
live in a fundamentalist Islamic state.
--
(rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Zidouri Abdelmalek 03/95
REV> aald...@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>Many of us don't have the time or qualifications to answer
>such questions. We are not religious scholars!
REV> It is a sad state of affairs when a critic has to
REV> worry that some religious scholar might deem his
REV> criticism of Islam offensive and punishable.
REV> As a devotee of freedom of speech, I thank God I don't
REV> live in a fundamentalist Islamic state.
What does "QUALIFICATIONS" has got to do with freedom
of speech and fundamentalist Islamic state?
Religious scholars as I understand from Shaqeeqa
are those who specialize in the subject and know
more Quran and Hadith than a computer scientist
or a medical doctor. Why people accept expertise
in different sciences but not in Islamic Theology?.
REV> (rev...@math.ucsd.edu)
Malek.
--
Malek.
"We cooperate in what we agree on, and forgive each other for that
in which we disagree." Hassan El Banna.
Tim Clock
>>sa...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes:
>
>>Mohamed Sadek:
>>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."
>
[Tim Clock asks:
Then why are some of the duties, rights and privileges
>
>Ron Evans:
>Mohamed Sadek, apparently unfamiliar with the Prophet's own
>Constitution of Medina, challenges:
>
>>Good question. Any examples you have in mind..!!??
>
> I suggest a look at verse (paragraph) #14 of the
> so-called Constitution of Medina, where it is stated
> that a believer shall not kill another believer in
> retaliation for a non-believer, and that a believer shall
> not help a non-believer against a believer.
>
> Quiz: Who has more rights and privileges under #14,
> Muslims or non-Muslims?
In the first place, I would simply wonder whether, according to the
proscriptions outlined in "paragraph 14", the "duties and responsibilities"
outlined in the hadith Mohamed presents above are "the same" for muslim
and non-muslim.
[they could be "different but similar" but, if so,
should be labelled as such, not the "same". *This*,
could be the core of the contesting arguments here..?]
>
> Source: Muhammad Hamidullah, The first written constitution
> in the world, Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf, 3rd ed, 1975.
> Or if arabic is preferred, try
> Muhammad Hamidullah, Al-Watha'iq al-Siyasiyyah, Beirute:
> Dar al-Irshad, 3rd ed, 1969.
--
Shaqeeqa
>Then why are some of the duties, rights and privileges **different** for
>muslims and non-muslims?
Good question. Hey, Ron, why don't you tell us why Jews have 715 (?)
commandments to abide by while non-Jews have a three-quarters less
than that?
Why are the duties, rights, and privileges ** different** for men and
women? They are both equal, remember?
.. .. .. .
__. _ _ . .
(_/|___(_|__|__(_|___(_:_)
..
Shaqeeqa
My point is that you should be asking these questions to
someone well-versed in Islamic theology - not your average
Muslim who may not be qualified to answer such specific
questions. Your approach is very insulting, Ron, because
you don't **really** want to know the answers. You only
want to judge and condemn Islam.
With regard to criticism, the difference between YOUR criticism
and ours is that you qualify your "freedom of speech" while
while taking the *liberty* to slander OURS as anti-semitic.
Anisa