heddaya@harvard.ARPA ( Solom) (07/20/85)
In the heat of the discussion of the Lebanon hostage crisis, several accusations were directed to Islam as a whole. Being a muslem, I would like to respond to one of these accusations. Maybe my response will help those who want to better understand Muslems and Islam. Mr. Joaquim Martillo (martillo@mit-athena.UUCP) charges that: > Muslims as a matter of religious faith and practise consider themselves > obligated to humiliate and degrade non-Muslims. Imagine my surprise at reading that after all what I have been taught of my religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those who forgive. The rules given by the Koran (our holy book) and Sunna (prophet Mohammad's sayings and actions) regarding treating non-muslems under muslem jurisdiction are very clear and unambiguous: they should be allowed to worship freely; their properties and religious structures are to remain untouched; but they should pay a tax (called "Jiziah" in arabic) which is almost equivalent to the tax paid by muslems ("Zakah"). The two standard principles in Islamic Law ("shari'a") that define the relation with non-muslems are: 1) Let them do what they believe in. (literal translation of the arabic "etrukohom wa ma yadeenoon") 2) For them what is for us, and from them what is from us. ("lahom ma lana, wa alayhom ma alayna") Applying these principles, non-muslems are allowed to have their own laws in marriage, divorce, and the like. What they don't get to choose, though--and have to follow Muslem law in--is the penal code (for crimes) and the laws governing financial transactions. The prophet Muhammad said: * Protect my [contract with non-muslems]. (Muslem law defines the relation with non-muslems as a social contract) * Whoever is unfair to a [non-muslem], or [taxes] him more than he can afford, then I will [argue against him on the day of judgement]. Moreover, Islam grants a special status to Christians and Jews (people of the book), because Islam recognizes and acknowledges both religions as valid in their own times and places. You must see how highly the Koran speaks of Jesus and Moses to understand that no devout muslem is going to hurt a christian or jew just because of the latter's belief. And if he does, then he is simply violating the teachings of Islam as it stands documented. Please, don't prematurely judge a major religion of the world, which is also associated with a major civilization. Also, observe that political groups who are labeled as Muslem do not always operate in the name of Islam, or even under its teachings. The Barbaric Islam, as Mr. Martillo prefers to call it, has maintained and developed the contributions of the ancient egyptian, greek, and persian civilizations while Europe was in the dark ages! Abdelsalam Heddaya Arpa: heddaya@harvard.arpa Internet: heddaya@harvard.HARVARD.EDU UUCP: {seismo,ihnp4,...}!harvard!heddaya
cdp@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (07/22/85)
I wonder how Islam contributed to the Greek Civilization. I would rather say it destroyed it when the Turks demolished the Byzantine Empire and burned Greece from east to west. They even blew up part of Parthenon. Just look at what happened to the (one-time) Glorious St. Sofia in Constantinople the most important Cathedral of all Christianity (at that time). Just a few weeks ago the Turks demolished an ancient Greek church (a precious piece of art) in Istanbul despite the protests of the Greek government and numerous other international organizations. Of course I have nothing against Islam but I was just wondering about their contributions ......
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (07/24/85)
In article <harvard.264> heddaya@harvard.ARPA ( Solom) writes: >Imagine my surprise at reading that after all what I have been taught of my >religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that >Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in >self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those >who forgive. > > Abdelsalam Heddaya > Arpa: heddaya@harvard.arpa > Internet: heddaya@harvard.HARVARD.EDU > UUCP: {seismo,ihnp4,...}!harvard!heddaya It is with great interest that I read this article. Mr. Heddaya shows a fair amount of valor in his eagerness to act as apologist for Islam. I have no doubt that Mr. Heddaya is both devout and truly a paradigm of tolerance, though in believing so I must also admire his philosophic dexterity. No doubt there are numerous other Moslems who also find it possible to pass by an unguarded building brimming with infidels without a longing thought of explosions and billowing flame and who do not spend the occasional night with warm and liquid dreams of bludgeoning young American servicemen into paste or stretching the neck of a passing B`hai. Still, I find it difficult to believe Mr. Heddaya`s claims of tolerance as the standard for the Moslem world. First, the claim that allowances are made for infidels in Islamic law is true, but the remaining law that ALL must live by is still intrusive and all-encompassing enough to make an Hassidic Jew a slacker; this is a law that punishes petty theft with mutilation/amputation and adultery with death. Even in "moderate" Saudi Arabia, the punishment for drinking alcohol is enough to make my hands shake as they reach for the Jack Daniels. HOWEVER, there are those who say I am cynical. There are those who say (quite incorrectly) that I, in turn, am not the paradigm of objectivity. So, let me defer to a true believer, the one, the only, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini himself - no piker when it comes to Islamic law, let me tell you. The following is from a speech given December 12, 1984, the birthday of Mohammed, and is taken from the April, 1985 edition of Harper`s. To wit: "If one allows an infidel to continue in his role as corrupter of the earth, his moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel, and thus stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him. For if he remains alive, he will become more and more corrupt. This is a surgical procedure commanded by God the all-powerful. Those who imagine that our time on earth is a divine gift, those who believe that eating and sleeping like animals are gifts from God, say that Islam should not inflict punishments. But those who follow the teachings of the Koran know that Islam must apply the lex talionis and thus that they must kill. Those who have knowledge of the suffering in life to come realize that cutting off th hand of someone for a crime he has committed is of benefit to him. In the Beyond he will thank those who, on earth, executed the will of God. War is a blessing for the world and for all nations. It is God who incites men to fight and to kill. The Koran says: "Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased." The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we will soon win the war [against Iraq]. That will not be enough for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says "War, war until victory." A religion without war is an incomplete religion. If His Holiness Jesus - blessings upon him - had been given more time, he would have acted as Moses did, and wielded the sword. Those who believe that Jesus did not have "a head for such things," that he was not interested in war, see in him nothing more than a simple preacher, and not a prophet. A prophet is all-powerful. Through war he purifies the earth. The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that it is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam. Thanks to God, our young people are now, to the limits of their means, putting Gods commandments into action. They know that to kill unbelievers is one of man`s greatest missions." I suppose that tolerance, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beheader. Er... beholder. Bill Oliver The opinions expressed above are my own and should not be considered the opinions of any Agency, Office, or empoyee of the State of North Carolina.
paulb@ttidcc.UUCP (Paul Blumstein) (07/25/85)
Bill Oliver's posting of the Ayatollah's speech shows another example,
of the many throughout history, of a person or group that feels that
he/she/they know what G-d wants and it is their job to carry out His
will. (Aside: Do they think that G-d can't carry out His own will?).
It reminds me of an old Yiddish saying: When man thinks, G-d laughs.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Paul Blumstein "I may be drunk, but you're ugly.
Citicorp/TTI Tomorrow, I'll be sober."
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. W. Churchill
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(213) 450-9111
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!paulbsteiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/26/85)
> > In article <harvard.264> heddaya@harvard.ARPA ( Solom) writes: > >Imagine my surprise at reading that after all what I have been taught of my > >religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that > >Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in > >self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those > >who forgive. > > Abdelsalam Heddaya > > Still, I find it difficult to believe Mr. Heddaya`s claims of tolerance > as the standard for the Moslem world. > The following is from a speech > given December 12, 1984, the birthday of Mohammed, and is taken from > the April, 1985 edition of Harper`s. . . . speech by Kohomeni, he talks of dying and killing to make the world right . . . > > Bill Oliver > Citing Kohomeni to make arguments about Islam in general is analogous to quoting Falwell to make arguments about Christianity in general. Many religions have had to alter their fundemental beliefs to exist in the world as has been since the early times when the religions started. The Shi'i and the Suni'i are quite different. The idea of an Inman, a leader who is divinely inspired and incapable of error is a Shi'ite belief. I am sure that even among the Shi'ites it is not completely agreed that Kohomeni is an Inman. The rift within Islam is so great that it brought down the centuries old Islamic empire in the 1500's. Western culture owes a vast debt to the Islamic empire. All of the ancient Greek works, including the New Testment, were saved by Moslems. The Christians burned the library at Alexandria. The Islamic cultures preserved the philosophy and geometry of the ancient Greeks and reintroduced it to Europe. "Algebra" comes from an Arabic word, and our system of numbers comes from Arabic. The beliefs of the Islamic people may seem strange or even violent to us. However, we all exist in this world together. Islamic people have a heritage of a great culture that is older than the cultures in Europe and the United States. Often people in the United States cite examples to show how barbaric, backward, evil, or whatever that Moslems are. How do you think this makes a Moslem feel? No wonder so many Moslems in the Mideast hate the United States. When our ansestors were burning each other at the stake, the Moslems were enriching the world with important advances in litrature, medicine, art, mathematics, and science. Yet people in the United States have the audacity to call THEM barbarians. European powers eventually took over all of the Arabian states. They colonized them, as it were. Basically, that means that European powers simply took whatever resources they wanted from their colonies. In Arabia it was oil, and for many years Western powers simply took the oil and charged themselves any price they wanted. Sure they had to pay part to the countries, but they pumped out the oil and sold it to themselves, so they could charge any price they wanted. It was a messy business when the Arab states demanded determination over their own resources. In short, the Islamic people have been ripped off, insulted, and generally abused in the worst way by the West and they have every reason to be angry. It is reasonable to make an attempt to understand other people in the world. I found "The Majesty that was Islam" a good introduction to the "golden age" of Islam. It is not reasonable to expect a people with as long a history as the Islamic people to suddenly shift their world view so that it agrees with the average American world view. If you do not like the customs in Arabia, don't go there. If you want to abide by the customs of the country you visit and to learn to respect the people and the customs, then any place is open to you. It's true, Dorthy, it's not Kansas, but you might discover that it is OZ. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (07/26/85)
> 1) Let them do what they believe in. (literal translation of the arabic > "etrukohom wa ma yadeenoon") > 2) For them what is for us, and from them what is from us. ("lahom ma lana, > wa alayhom ma alayna") > > Applying these principles, non-muslems are allowed to have their own laws in > marriage, divorce, and the like. What they don't get to choose, though--and > have to follow Muslem law in--is the penal code (for crimes) and the laws > governing financial transactions. In practice it doesn't quite work that way. Recently a Japanese couple were stoned to death in one of the Arab countries because they didn't happen to be legally married, and the woman was pregnant. They were techs of some sort. At least they waited till the baby was born before executing the woman. Could someone confirm this? I don't have the article at hand.
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (M. A. Upmalis) (07/26/85)
In article <264@harvard.ARPA> heddaya@harvard.ARPA ( Solom) writes: >The rules given by the Koran (our holy book) and Sunna (prophet Mohammad's >sayings and actions) regarding treating non-muslems under muslem jurisdiction >are very clear and unambiguous: they should be allowed to worship freely; >their properties and religious structures are to remain untouched; >.. >.. > >Applying these principles, non-muslems are allowed to have their own laws in >marriage, divorce, and the like. What they don't get to choose, though--and >have to follow Muslem law in--is the penal code (for crimes) and the laws >governing financial transactions. > An important point, is that in Western society much of what we hold in religion we also hold in the criminal law, so that polygamy, Marijuana, etcetera that we hold illegal can be part of religious beliefs elsewhere. An example would be to offer communion in an Islaam state would have to be done with grape juice, or after special provision with wine. Education is another thing held under law and often also claimed by religion especially the more fundamentalist religions whatever their stripe. Even amng the open Muslim states there exists some variance in what can or cannot be done. >The prophet Muhammad said: > >* Protect my [contract with non-muslems]. (Muslem law defines the relation > with non-muslems as a social contract) >* Whoever is unfair to a [non-muslem], or [taxes] him more than he can > afford, then I will [argue against him on the day of judgement]. > >Moreover, Islam grants a special status to Christians and Jews (people of the >book), because Islam recognizes and acknowledges both religions as valid in >their own times and places. You must see how highly the Koran speaks of >Jesus and Moses to understand that no devout muslem is going to hurt a >christian or jew just because of the latter's belief. And if he does, then >he is simply violating the teachings of Islam as it stands documented. I have to agree with the intent, the openess of the Prophet's contract jars with western society. The education Act in Ontario was amended a few years back from an instruction for teachers to promote Christian to Judeo Christian Morality. For my friends that were Hindu or Shinto or Muslim, they seemed to have been forgotten.... > >Please, don't prematurely judge a major religion of the world, which is also >associated with a major civilization. Also, observe that political groups >who are labeled as Muslem do not always operate in the name of Islam, or even >under its teachings. One must look at the people who wrap their actions in the cloth of the Prophet, What is happening to the B'ahai In Iran stands foremost in my mind. They may not represent the spirit of Muslim, but they represent by sheer numbers the impact of what has become revilutionary fundamentalist muslim in this world.... > >The Barbaric Islam, as Mr. Martillo prefers to call it, has maintained and >developed the contributions of the ancient egyptian, greek, and persian >civilizations while Europe was in the dark ages! The Muslim world had some of the worlds first and most progressive University, and then the mullahs came in and the advance of knowledge slowed. I think the rationale for one of the burnings of the Library of Alexandria was that if it (the knowledge conatained in the Library) was correct it was in the Koran, and that if it was not in the Koran then it was wrong, so there was no need for the library.... -- Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo> ihnp4!watmath!watarts!mupmalis
jhs@druri.UUCP (ShoreJ) (07/27/85)
Abdelsalam Heddaya writes: >religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that >Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in >self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those >who forgive. Bill Oliver writes: >So, let me defer to a true believer, the one, the only, Ayatollah Ruhollah >Khomeini himself - no piker when it comes to Islamic law, let me tell you. >The following is from a speech given December 12, 1984, the birthday of >Mohammed, and is taken from the April, 1985 edition of Harper`s. >Thanks to God, our young people are now, to the limits of their >means, putting Gods commandments into action. They know that to kill >unbelievers is one of man`s greatest missions." I write: The *word* as delivered by the various sects of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (and lots of others too numerous to mention here) is often idealistic. Problem is, that same word is interpreted by homo sapiens, any particular one seeing or distorting things within the context of their own particular dialectic, culture, passions, or mental aberrations. No matter the lunatic extremist--Khomeini, Meyer Kahane (sp?), Jim Jones, James Lincoln Rockwell, or Stalin--there will always be horror committed and insanity spread. And these same people will always draw other loons to them. The *word* matters little--what is done with the word is the crux of it. Just a thought. -- Jeff Shore, ..!ihnp4!druri!jhs "You can't call ME crazy!! I'll kill ya!!!"
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (07/27/85)
>> In article <harvard.264> heddaya@harvard.ARPA ( Solom) writes: (paraphrased for length) Hey, we`re not such bad guys. We tolerate you. >> > Abdelsalam Heddaya >> I reply, (paraphrased again) Oh yeah? That`s not what I hear from the Western Front. Quote from Khomeini.... >> >> Bill Oliver Now on to Don Steiny..... >> > Citing Kohomeni to make arguments about Islam in general >is analogous to quoting Falwell to make arguments about Christianity >in general.... > > The Shi'i and the Suni'i are quite different. The idea >of an Inman, a leader who is divinely inspired and incapable >of error is a Shi'ite belief. Well, perhaps, if you want to make a very bad analogy. Khomeini and Falwell are similar in that they are both so-called fundamentalists. Falwell on one hand, however, is at best a spokesman for a minority of Protestant fundamentalists in the US. Khomeini is a leader with authority similar to that of the Pope, exerted in countries where his voice is law. There are 35 million people in Iran alone, 98% of which are big fans of his(1). This is not the leader of some rag tag fugitive fleet running from the invading Zionists. We`re talking bunches of folks. If one is driven to discussing Oriental religion in terms of the West, then I suggest that the analogy with Catholicism/Protestantism is better. Then, in fact, one can make statements about Christianity as a whole, with the caveat that no statements are universal. Sure, Shiites get their jollies from blowing away lots of people, which everyone on the net agrees is a no-no. The Sunni mostly just like to blow up Israelis, which seems, on the net, to be OK. > > Western culture owes a vast debt to the Islamic empire. > (paraphrase) Moslems did a bunch of neat stuff a few centuries back. Better than the West. Sure. Does this make them tolerant? Things have changed since the 13th century, Mr. Steiny. Islam gets high grades when compared to early medieval West. Mosts folk`s concepts of civilized behavior have changed since then; fundamental Islam generally hasn`t. > (paraphrase)e The West did a bunch of nasty things to the Arabs, and everything`s all our fault. > > In short, the Islamic people have been ripped off, insulted, >and generally abused in the worst way by the West and they have >every reason to be angry. > Without addressing your accusations against the West, let me remind you that my article was in response to Mr. Heddeya`s assertions of Islamic tolerance. If you are saying that Islam is justified in it`s intolerance, that is a different question altogether. I somehow get the impression that the general drift of your article was that Islam really is tolerant; I just chose a straw man by choosing a spokesman from the second biggest Islamic sect rather than the first. WELL. Let`s look at it a little more closely, then. As Mr. Heddeya stated, even in the most liberal Islamic state, the penal code is still derived from religious thought. That means that the best one can do in terms of separation of church and state is more than the legendary Mr. Falwell thinks of in his most expansive moments. To quote the Islamic Council of Europe: Islam conceives of God`s purpose of creation as the realization of His will, the highest part of which is the moral... That is why Islam soes not countenance any separation of religion and state. The state is society`s political arm which, like society itself, is meant to bring about the realization of the absolute in history. Between the state proper, society with its other organs and institutions, and man as person, there is only a division of labor, a distinction as to function. All are subject to the same purpose and goal. The transitiveness of man`s actions demands a public law to regulate it. It cannot be satisfied with a verdict of conscience. That is why Islam had to develop the sharia, a public law governing the personal as well as the societal fields of actions...(2). Even when explicitly acting as apologist for Muslim views on human rights, Brohi(3) finds himself saying: As an Islamic State is an ideological State, some reservation will have to be made against non-Muslims in matters which demand complete identification with the ideology of the State.... and then ends with: Europe has opted for the `permissive society` and has landed in chaos. Islam on the other hand has asked us to become members of a disciplined society; by disciplining ourselves we rule ourselves from within. The State enfroces the law of God against those who are out to disrupt social order and pose threats to human security. Or observe the Universal Islamic Declaration (4): IV Framework for an Islamic Order 1) State Policy a) The sharia is the supreme law of the Muslim community and must be enforced in its entirety in all aspects of life. Each and every Muslim country must explicitly make Sharia the criterion by which to judge public and private conduct of all, rulers and ruled alike, and the chief source of all legislation in the country. c) It is the obligation and right of every person to participate in the political process, and political authority is to be entrusted to those who are worthy of it ACCORDING TO THE ISLAMIC CRITERION OF KNOWLEDGE, TRUSTWORTHINESS, AND CAPABILITY. (emphasis mine) f) ALL persons in authority are bound by the rules of the Sharia both in regard to their personal as well as public conduct. (empahsis mine) Admittedly, the Sharia is unequally applied to non-Muslims, depending upon which country one happens to be in. However, in a fundamentalist state it is almost always partially applied, especially in the Hadd punishments, those directly decreed by God. For example, the Koran demands punishment of fornication with 100 lashes, adultery with death, drinking of intoxicating beverages with 40 lashes, and theft with amputation(5). Furthermore, as with all legislatures, the laws are made to extend around the immediate `liberties` given to the minority. What good is liberty to eat pork if the sale of pork is forbidden? So, this great tolerance I am hearing about is a tolerance of a country where I would be taxed differently because of my religion, I would be held unequal under the law because of my religion, I would be barred from high political office because of my religion, and, OK, somewhat less than half the people want to kill me as a religious duty. > Often people in the United States cite examples to show >how barbaric, backward, evil, or whatever that Moslems are. >How do you think this makes a Moslem feel? No wonder so many >Moslems in the Mideast hate the United States. > I would hope that this theoretical Moslem would go back and work to see that I no longer have so many examples to cite. I don`t hate anybody. I once seriously considered converting to Islam, and I am basically sympathetic with much of Islamic theology. I just don`t see this as tolerance. > > It's true, Dorthy, it's not Kansas, but you might discover >that it is OZ. I am not Dorothy, Mr. Steiny, and, though it may be a shock, this is not Oz. Bill Oliver standard disclaimer 1) Ghulam Sarwar. Islam: Beliefs and Teachings. The Muslim Educational Trust, pubs. 1982. p 204. 2) Isma`il Al Faruqi, Islam as Culture and Civilization. in Islam and Contemporary Society. published by Longman in association with the Islamic Council of Europe, London and New York. pp 140-176. 3) Allahbukhsh K Brohi, Human Rights and Duties in Islam. in Islam and Contemporary Society. pp 231-252. 4) Salem Azzam, Secretary General, Islamic Council. in Islam and Contemporary Society. pp 253-266. 5) Herbert J. Liebesny. The Law of the Near and Middle East. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1975. p228-229.
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (07/29/85)
In article <11000113@uiucdcsb> cdp@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA writes: > >I wonder how Islam contributed to the Greek Civilization. I would >rather say it destroyed it when the Turks demolished the Byzantine >Empire and burned Greece from east to west. They even blew up >part of Parthenon. Just look at what happened to the (one-time) >Glorious St. Sofia in Constantinople the most important Cathedral >of all Christianity (at that time). Just a few weeks ago the Turks >demolished an ancient Greek church (a precious piece of art) in >Istanbul despite the protests of the Greek government and numerous >other international organizations. Of course I have nothing against >Islam but I was just wondering about their contributions ...... This kind of misinformation and vendetta posing as commentary makes me sick. Any decent reader of history knows Islamic scholarship was the bridge which carried Greek knowledge to Europe in the Middle Ages, without which none of Greek philosophy, ethics, or politics would have survived to the present, or contributed to the Renaissance, etc.. And any reader of Islamic history knows that the classical period of Islam as a trading empire ended with the Turks. For more, read Shaban's two-volume set on Islamic history (my favorite); on early Islam, Maxime Rodinson's *Muhammad* is good. As far as modern history goes, I've never seen Turkey since the Ataturk social revolution -- a Western, secular one -- classed with the Islamic states that need religion as part of the foundation of the state for historical and political reasons. The depredations of the current Turkish military regime have little if anything to do with Islam or religious law. I have enough Islamic friends to feel deeply insulted by articles like the one above. Criticism should never degenerate into dehumanizing slander. Nuff said. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (07/30/85)
>In the heat of the discussion of the Lebanon hostage crisis, several >accusations were directed to Islam as a whole. Being a muslem, I would like >to respond to one of these accusations. Maybe my response will help those who >want to better understand Muslems and Islam. >Mr. Joaquim Martillo (martillo@mit-athena.UUCP) charges that: >> Muslims as a matter of religious faith and practise consider themselves >> obligated to humiliate and degrade non-Muslims. >Imagine my surprise at reading that after all what I have been taught of my >religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that >Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in >self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those >who forgive. What bull shit! Tolerance has never been considered a virtue in the major Western religions. The concept of tolerance as a virtue begins with the Enlightenment and really only comes to full expression in the middle 19th century in Western Europe. To claim Islam a religion which came into being in the 7th century by Christian reakoning considers as a virtue an idea which neither Europeans nor Muslims hardly even thought about until 100 years ago is an insult to intelligence. >The rules given by the Koran (our holy book) and Sunna (prophet Mohammad's >sayings and actions) regarding treating non-muslems under muslem jurisdiction >are very clear and unambiguous: they should be allowed to worship freely; >their properties and religious structures are to remain untouched; but they >should pay a tax (called "Jiziah" in arabic) which is almost equivalent to the >tax paid by muslems ("Zakah"). Actually, the jizya and the kharaj were a crushing burden which wiped out the non-muslim peasantry almost everywhere in the Islamic world. The disappearance of the non-muslim peasantry is an easily verifiable fact. The following is the relevant passage on the jizyah from the Qur'an: Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given, who believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day, who forbid not what Allah and His apostle have forbidden, and follow not the true faith, until they pay the tribute out of hand and are humbled (hatta yu`tu 'l-jizyata `an yadin wa-hum saghirum is somewhat obscure -- I have translated according to later Muslim understanding.) Sura 9:29 The following is from a standard commentary on the Qur'an by Mahmud ibn `Umar al-Zamakshari (1075-1144). The jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. He [the dhimmi] shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say: 'Pay the jizya!', and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck. So what is the purpose of this shit -- which my parents and grandparents had to undergo? From the Hanbali jurist Ibn al-Naqqah (1400s) in Belin, "Fetwa relatif a la condition des dhimmis et particulierement des chretiens en pays musulmans depuis l`etablissement de l`Islam jusqu`au milieu du 8e siecle de l'hegire," Journal Asiatique 4th series, 19 (1852): 107-108 -- I believe Heddaya can find this at Widener or at the Library which I believe is in the Semitics Museum building: Perhaps in the end they will come to believe in God and His Prophet, and thus be delivered from this shameful yoke. Therefore, while Muslims are not obligated to convert by force, they are obligated to annihilate gradually the non-Muslim communities by humiliation and degradation. No wonder the Copts in Egypt get rather upset when Sheikh Hafiz Salama calls for the reintroduction of the jizya. > The two standard principles in Islamic Law >("shari'a") that define the relation with non-muslems are: This is pure ignorance. The legal basis of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is the pact of `Umar which gives the non-Muslims permanent second-class status and compels non-Muslims to abase themselves before Muslims. >1) Let them do what they believe in. (literal translation of the arabic > "etrukohom wa ma yadeenoon") >2) For them what is for us, and from them what is from us. ("lahom ma lana, > wa alayhom ma alayna") >Applying these principles, non-muslems are allowed to have their own laws in >marriage, divorce, and the like. What they don't get to choose, though--and >have to follow Muslem law in--is the penal code (for crimes) and the laws >governing financial transactions. Which is a fairly large qualification since Muslim courts invariably accept the testimony of Muslims and reject the testimony of non-Muslims. >The prophet Muhammad said: >* Protect my [contract with non-muslems]. (Muslem law defines the relation > with non-muslems as a social contract) The Qur'an says (Sura 5:51): O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are friends to one another. Whoever of you befriends them is one of them. Allah does not guide the people who do evil. Sura 9:30: The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah," and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." Thos are the words of their mouths, conforming to the words of the unbelievers before them. Allah attack them! How perverse they are! >* Whoever is unfair to a [non-muslem], or [taxes] him more than he can > afford, then I will [argue against him on the day of judgement]. The above quotation is from a non-canonical (and therefore of little legal value) hadith (if I recognize it properly). I believe the full context can be found in Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj (Cairo, 1382/1962-63) pp 122-25. It has no isnad (chain of transmission). >Moreover, Islam grants a special status to Christians and Jews (people of the >book), because Islam recognizes and acknowledges both religions as valid in >their own times and places. You must see how highly the Koran speaks of >Jesus and Moses to understand that no devout muslem is going to hurt a >christian or jew just because of the latter's belief. And if he does, then >he is simply violating the teachings of Islam as it stands documented. The Qur'an frequently states the Christians and Jews warped and distorted the teachings which Jesus and Moses gave. Such an idea cannot help but inspire Muslim contempt for Christians and Jews. >Please, don't prematurely judge a major religion of the world, which is also >associated with a major civilization. Also, observe that political groups >who are labeled as Muslem do not always operate in the name of Islam, or even >under its teachings. After reading Heddaya's rather ignorant statements about Islam, I am only more convinced that if a Westerner wants to learn about Islam, he should not listen to Westernized propagandists and apologists but rather should read and listen to men like the Ayatollah Khomeini, Sheikh `Umar Abd el-Rahman, `Umar el-Talmassani, Gad el-Hakk, Sheikh Hafiz Salama who are really all right in the mainstream of their tradition. In any case, even if Heddaya were writing truthfully, claiming that the Islamic attitude toward non-Muslims can be determined merely be reading the Qur'an is pure intellectual dishonesty. Analagously, I could prove on the basis of the USA Constitution and Declaration of Independence that Black slavery never existed in the USA. >The Barbaric Islam, as Mr. Martillo prefers to call it, has maintained and >developed the contributions of the ancient egyptian, greek, and persian >civilizations while Europe was in the dark ages! I do not deny that Muslims added a modicum to the classical heritage. I do believe their contribution is often exaggerated, but this is irrelevant to my contention. I contend that Islam qua ideology assigns non-Muslims permanent second-class status and requires the humiliation and degradation of non-Muslims. This can be determined by studying the body of Islamic commentary, jurisprudence, and theology of the last 1300 years. Further, the ideologicaly position of non-Muslims has been steadily declining over at least the past millenium. This is most apparent in the Hanbali school of thought which has tended lately to deny the legitimacy of the dhimma. Fortunately, for most of the last millenium, the rulers and their dependent jurists have taken a slightly more lenient viewpoint than the `ulama and the non-Muslim communities were able to survive to the 19th century when they could get protection from Europe. Unfortunately, nowadays the ruling-elites in most Muslim nations are almost totally Westernized and have lost both legitimacy and the will to resist the `ulama's increasing demands for power which have basically made the ideology of the `ulama equivalent to the ideology of Islam. Several have argued that Muslims are no better Muslims than Christians are good Christians. Therefore, my arguments would be irrelevant. But the fundamental ideology is important. Because Jim Crow conflicted with the fundamental ideology of American society, Jim Crow died in the USA. But in Germany several hundred years ago, Martin Luther said the synagogue should be burned and that the Jews should be gathered and murdered. And the Germans eventually carried out these tasks. Likewise in Islam the fundamental ideology has required the humiliation and degradation of non-Muslims. Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims cannot help but be affected. Consequently over the past millenium non-Muslims have been subjected to ever increasing contempt, harassment and persecution. And the Muslims see nothing wrong with this or like the Germans have refused to see it happening (by the way you should not ask Muslim whether they treat non-Muslims well -- that is like asking the Southern slaveholder whether his slaves were happy). For this reason, until Muslims make a fundamental ideological adjustment and concede that they just might owe non-Muslims for historical and current mistreatment, Muslims cannot be permitted to rule countries and must be returned to colonial status until they get over Islam. In the seventh century, when the Muslims took the Byzantine territories, I am sure that my ancestors who lived in these territories were relieved. The Byzantines were scum. Humiliation and degradation and permanent second-class-status were better than anything the Byzantines offered. But I nowadays do not compare Islam with Byzantinism but rather with truth, justice and the American way. Just as Byzantinism became detritus to be swept away by changing circumstances. Nowadays Islam is the detritus which should be removed to garbage dump of history.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (07/30/85)
> > I wonder how Islam contributed to the Greek Civilization. I would > rather say it destroyed it when the Turks demolished the Byzantine > Empire and burned Greece from east to west. They even blew up > part of Parthenon. Just look at what happened to the (one-time) > Glorious St. Sofia in Constantinople the most important Cathedral > of all Christianity (at that time). Just a few weeks ago the Turks > demolished an ancient Greek church (a precious piece of art) in > Istanbul despite the protests of the Greek government and numerous > other international organizations. Of course I have nothing against > Islam but I was just wondering about their contributions ...... The ages VII through XII were not the most interesting era in Europe. Head bashing with swords was one of the tipical pasttimes. During this time Moslem were studying Aristotle, Plato, Euclides etc., developed notions of algebra and algorithm (al-gibra and al-gorithm). Only afer numerous contacts of Europians with Muslim the more enlightened part of Middle Ages begun. As far as destroing or drastically "remodelling" churches by Turks, remeber what Spanish did after their Reconquista. When one is dismayed by the current wave of shovinism, fundamentalism etc. in Muslim countries, it is good to remember that Europe was indulging itself in similar vices no more than 50 years ago. 50 years is not much, when one inspects the development of a civilization through ages. P. Berman
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (08/01/85)
> > Nowadays Islam is the detritus which should be > removed to garbage dump of history. How do you propose to do that? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/02/85)
One paragraph in Y. Martillo's article reads: >Several have argued that Muslims are no better Muslims than >Christians are good Christians. Therefore, my arguments would be >irrelevant. But the fundamental ideology is important. Because Jim >Crow conflicted with the fundamental ideology of American society, >Jim Crow died in the USA. But in Germany several hundred years ago, >Martin Luther said the synagogue should be burned and that the Jews >should be gathered and murdered. And the Germans eventually carried >out these tasks. I think it's important to note that "eventually" here means "after about 450 years". I think Luther's attitude toward Jews was ugly. But though Luther's influence was strong during the Reformation, his suggestions for the Jews were not really taken seriously. I think this is mainly due to the fact that Luther did not set himself up as an authority (like the Pope). He emphasised *sola scriptura* as the principle authority and put the Scriptures themselves in the hands of the common people by translating them into their language. Your paragraph insinuates that the German persecution of the Jews was a direct fulfillment of Luther's mandate. I agree that "the fundamental ideology is important." But I think you are mistaken in including Luther's attitude toward Jews as part of that. I think it was on the fringe. If it wasn't why did it take so long for the tasks to be carried out? Things were different in Germany 450 years after Luther. In particular, the Church's attitude toward Scripture had deviated considerably from Luther's view. Hitler did use Luther's opinion as part of his rallying call. But the thing that allowed him to get away with it was the change in context. The "fundamental ideology" of the church (not to mention society) had changed considerably since Luther's time. I think that was what either allowed it to accept the fringe as fundamental or made it powerless to oppose such acceptance effectively. Also, I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). Also, where do you think Hitler got his ideas about eugenics and social Darwinism? Was that part of Luther's fundemental ideology? It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of doing things. No one (especially those sympathetic to the views of these men) wants to admit that their ideas provided a significant influence for the Nazis. But the effects of ideas often go beyond the intent and foresight of their progenitors. Affixing blame is an irresistable temptation for many, however. And it is so much easier to cut through the complex web of influence in history to draw simple lines of influence that suit the blamers purposes better. If the influence of these men on Nazism was not their intent, or part of their "fundemental ideology", still less is it of Christianity. Yet, the blamers must have a real devil and Christianity makes a nice one in some circles. I really doubt that Mr. Martillo has the intent that I just mentioned, but simplistic, cause-effect statements like this one do have that cumulative, subtile effect on others. Where is the hate going to stop? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (08/04/85)
> > Also, I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler > compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through > men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). > It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, > Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, > these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of > doing things. Nietzche wrote to his sister in 1887 . . . . . . You have committed one of the greatest stupidities--for yourself and for me! Your association with an anti-Semitic cheif expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me again and again with meloncholy. . . . It is a matter of honor with me to be absolutely clean and unequivical in relation to anti-Semitism, namely *opposed* to it, as I am in my writings. I have recently been persecuted with letters and *Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheets.* My disgust with this party (wich would like the benefit of my name only too well!) is as pronounced as possible, but the relation to Forster [Nietzche's sister's husband], as well as the afteraffects of my former publisher, the anti-Semitic Schmeitzer, always brings this disagreeable party back to the idea that I must belong to them after all . . . It arouses mistrust against my character, as if publicly I condemmed something which I favored secretly--and that I am unable to do anything against it, that the name Zarathustra is used in every *Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheet*, has almost made me sick several times. The Portable Nietzche ed. Walter Kaufman p. 456-457 The last thing Nietzche wrote was a letter to his friend Overbeck: To friend Overbeck and wife. Although you have so far demonstrated little faith in my ability to pay, I hope to yet demonstrate that I am someone who pays his debts--for example, to you, I am just having all anti-Semites shot. Dionysus -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/04/85)
In a recent article Yakim Martillo described the persecution of
minorities under Arab/Islamic rule. The forgotten Jewish refugees,
who fled from Arab persecution to Israel, provide a clear example
of what could happen to minorities under Arab rule in the 20th century.
To illustrate my point, I am posting a letter sent to the Ann Arbor News
on 4/13/75 (with the permission of the author) by Aviva Mutchnick.
Aviva came to Israel as an infant refugee from Iraq.
This is her story:
----------------
REFUGEES FROM ARAB STATES
My family can claim continuing residence in Bagdad, Iraq for nearly
2,500 years. In all that time we were considered strangers, people in
exile. We were the Jews of Israel taken into captivity by the Babylonians
some 600 years before the birth of Christ.
The people of Bagdad have referred to their city as the "Tray of
Gold," but a popular Jewish lyric depicts Bagdad as a "Tray of Gold...
with a scorpion in it." The Oriental Jews withstood many persecutions
and endured the periodic decimations of pogroms.
My family recalls the pogrom of 1941 when a massacre of Iraqi Jews
followed the failure of the Arabs to oust out the British from an alliance
with Nazi Germany. The rebels vented their rage on the Jewish Quarter.
Many dozens of Jewish lives were terminated.
The situation of Iraqi Jews deteriorated when Israel was proclaimed
a sovereign state in 1948. Even though Jews were considered second class
non citizens, they were not allowed to emigrate. Those who attempted to
flee were caught and hanged in the public square.
Iraqi Jews were finally allowed to depart in 1951, but were not
premitted to take any possessions except the clothing on their backs.
These hapless 125,000 victims were accepted by Israel with the full
realization the economic hardships would effect the fledgling nation.
Refugees were sheltered in tents and shacks. Food stamps were employed
to distribute the limited quantities of food. As a consequence, rationing
was instituted for the entire country in order to provide the Jewish
refugees from Arab states.
My family, like many others with a large number of children, was
given a tent with canvas sleeping cots. This was to be our home for
eight years.
Pneumonia was common amongst the children as their meager clothing
provided unsuitable for the wet winter weather. Makeshift barracks,
unheated, served as schools. The low protein and high starch diet
lowered resistance to infection....
Within two decades, the situation changed. All refugee camps
disappeared as the former Oriental Jews were assimilated into the fabric
of the new Israeli society. Problems remain, inequities occur, but all
Israelis are geared to sacrifice for the common good.
Not all Jews were fortunate to leave Iraq of for that matter, Syria.
A small number maintained their protestations of loyalty to the Iraqi
governments. Their fate has subsequently proved horrendous as they are
now captives of repressive governments. Loyal, though they might claim
to be, saboteurs and the fifth columnists they have been declared.
Many Jews were under house arrest for years, were condemned in
kangaroo courts for treason and sentenced to death. How ludicrous the
charges, how awful the spectacle of their motionless bodies in the
hangmam's noose in the square of Bagdad....in the presence of jubilant
and cheering Iraqi Arabs.
In Israel the refugees from Arab States now control their own fate.
They are no longer a repressed minority subject to the excesses of
tyrannical Arab governments.
How ironic that Arab refugees from Israel were placed in detention
camps by there brethren. How regrettable that they were denied the basic
human rights of other Arab citizens in the host countries.
Israel has succeeded to well with her refugees as she responded out
of need and deep love. The ingathering of repressed Jews continues.
Aviva Mutchnick
----------------
--
Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jhorlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/06/85)
> Hitler did use Luther's opinion as part of his rallying call. ... > > I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler > compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through > men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). Also, where do you think > Hitler got his ideas about eugenics and social Darwinism? Was that part > of Luther's fundemental ideology? > > It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, > Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, > these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of > doing things. No one (especially those sympathetic to the views of these men) > wants to admit that their ideas provided a significant influence for the > Nazis. But the effects of ideas often go beyond the intent and foresight of > their progenitors. [DUBUC] Thus, by the same reasoning, we should belittle mathematics and science, because THEIR usage leads to heinous weapons in the hands of people who believe in notions like nationalistic superiority, race hatred, etc. Of course, those other notions were just a minor influence on the warmongers. Clearly it was the mathematics and science that was the most evil part of their thinking. > If the influence of these men on Nazism was not their intent, or > part of their "fundemental ideology", still less is it of Christianity. Was this Martin Luther person you quoted, who suggested the burning of the synagogues, doing so out of his "fundamental ideology", and that of today's Christians (many of whom use the name Lutheran [???])? > Yet, the blamers must have a real devil and Christianity makes a nice one > in some circles. Given what Mr. Luther himself said, I can see why. Can you explain why the other side of the coin might be presented similarly as a devil? -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/07/85)
Why are Camus & Sartre mentioned as sources of nazi ideology or ideas for hitler's writings or speeches? Simple chronology makes it nearly impossible. hitler's "My Struggle" (Mein Kampf) was published in the 1920s; nazi ideology was fully formed by the time they assumed power. Sartre studied with Heidegger in 1938 for a year or so. Nearly all Sartre's & Camus' writings date from the 1940s on. Only some unpolitical philosophical essays (Sartre) & juvenilia & reviews (Camus) were written in the 1930s. Maybe Heidegger is the source intended: an ex-Jesuit whose works on metaphysics are seminal for 20th century existentialism, Martin Heidegger joined the nazi party in 1933 and was nazi rector of the University of Freiburg from 1933-1936. But Heidegger's abstruse & obscure essays supply no political ideas; only his nazi party affiliation & public pronouncements as a nazi official could have provided any fodder for hitler. Ron Rizzo
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (08/08/85)
------------------------------
After reading a long article on islam by Mr. Martillo, one who is not "disposed"
to believing him might feel "overwhelmed" by all of his "facts" and obscure
"references" that he uses to "prove" whatever point he chooses to make and
what's more:
you are expected to understand his profound hatred for the whole of islam and
all muslims because some of his ancestors suffered at the hands of a group of
muslims. After all, who wants to argue with a guy whose family has a long
history of being oppressed? Who wants to tell him that his hatred for all
muslims is unjustified and unfair? That would be equivalent to "taking sides"
with the "other side".
But if one digs thru his "facts", one finds nothing more than quotes from a
carefully picked bunch of extremists who can be found in just about any culture
and any religion. How about if I give you a horrible picture of christianity
by giving you a nightmarish picture of the dark ages, the holly wars, the
popes who controlled the kings, the witch-burning ... . History will give me
all the "facts" I need. That will only give a picture of the "past" of
christianity. Complete that with a picture of the "present" of christianity
by a few examples given to us by the likes of Falwell. True, he doesn't have
"obvious" political power like Khomeini yet. Not yet.
But he doesn't just hate those who oppressed jews. His hatred is very calculated
and very pointed. He doesn't hate christians who have far excelled muslims in
jew suppression (if numbers are important at all). But ofcourse, his family
was in Libya. He speaks from experience. But even those jews who do have the
experience of living thru Hitler's Germany only blame Hitler and a few select
people around him. The nation which carried out his horrible plans suddenly
gets back its innocence once the terrible leaders are gone and their culture
becomes a much nicer culture.
Obviously Mr. Martillo wants peace in the middle east. He just doesn't believe
that muslims and muslim culture are worthy enough to support peace. After all,
how can you lay the foundations of peace with some barbaric states? Aren't his
numerous, long articles intended to make this point clear? If that is so, why
don't we stop analyzing the other side's beliefs and start talking about the
"actions" that each side (state of israel and arab states around it) have
taken towards peace in the middle east?
Farzin Mokhtarian
ubc-vision!mokhtar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We taught you, because you already knew."
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/08/85)
>Why are Camus & Sartre mentioned as sources of nazi ideology or ideas >for hitler's writings or speeches? Simple chronology makes it nearly >impossible. >hitler's "My Struggle" (Mein Kampf) was published in the 1920s; nazi >ideology was fully formed by the time they assumed power. Sartre >studied with Heidegger in 1938 for a year or so. Nearly all Sartre's >& Camus' writings date from the 1940s on. Only some unpolitical >philosophical essays (Sartre) & juvenilia & reviews (Camus) were >written in the 1930s. >... > Ron Rizzo I mentioned Nietzsche as the primary influence. Camus and Sartre were secondary. It's true that their part as sources is questionable. But the matter of influence isn't only a question of primary sources. There is also the aspect of support: what provided fuel for the fire once it has started or reflected conditions of the time that allowed Nazi ideology to bloom and hold sway? Hitler killed himself in April 1945. I would mark that as the end of the Third Reich. The reason I mentioned Camus and Sartre was because of Nietzsche's influence on them and that some of their philosophical ideas about the meaninglessness, purposelessness and futility of life were in print during the late 30's and early 40's (although they weren't translated into english until after wwII). The extent of help these ideas gave the Nazi's may be debated, but their usefullness as a reflection of the intellectual mood of the times is on more solid ground, I think. Ideas don't have to be expressly political to influence political action. That's part of the "fundamental ideology" thing that Mr. Martillo was talking about. Anyway, some of the works that were "floating around" were: Camus: L'etranger (The Stranger) 1942 Le myth de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sysphus [sp?]) 1943 Caligula (a play, wasn't published until 1945 but was written by Camus in 1938) Sartre: La Nausee (Nausea) 1938 L'Etre et le neant (Being and Nothingness) 1943 It's easy to see where the view of humanity reflected in these works could justify (apart from the authors intentions) the idea that human life is of no more significance than inanimate matter. If you believe that, then how you treat humans is left up to asthetics. For folks like Hitler and Mengele that apparently wasn't as formidable an obstruction as it was for Camus and Sartre themselves. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/09/85)
In article <5712@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >The reason I mentioned Camus and Sartre was because of Nietzsche's influence >on them and that some of their philosophical ideas about the meaninglessness, >purposelessness and futility of life were in print during the late 30's and >early 40's (although they weren't translated into english until after wwII). >The extent of help these ideas gave the Nazi's may be debated, but their >usefullness as a reflection of the intellectual mood of the times is on >more solid ground, I think. Ideas don't have to be expressly political >to influence political action. >.... >It's easy to see where the view of humanity reflected in these works >could justify (apart from the authors intentions) the idea that human >life is of no more significance than inanimate matter. This is so far out of whack that it hardly merits a response, but such a slur on these two great writers should be answered. The views expressed above recall the attitude of 18th century traditionalists toward Voltaire, who was blamed for the evils of the French Revolution. Persons who believe that life is meaningless and futile do not expend great energies in political activism and in the writing of literary and philosophical works, as these two men did. Please read *The Plague* (*La Peste* in French) if you think that Camus's writings reflect the idea that human life is insignificant and pointless. Sartre was a moralist above all. The concepts of "bad faith" and moral responsibility play a major role in his philosophical works, and he gave his passionate support to many political causes, which often brought him into conflict with established institutions. In order to avoid too close an identification with the powers that be he rejected membership in the French Academy, the Legion d'Honneur, and the Nobel Prize. For a while he was a supporter (but not a member) of the French Communist Party, but he broke with it later over Hungary, Algeria, and the events of May 1968, after which he became something of a Maoist/libertarian (?). For his views on anti-Semitism see his 1948 work *Portrait of an Anti-Semite*, a psychological study. His funeral in 1980 was attended by tens of thousands of people, while tributes came in from all over the world. Why? Because he revealed the meaninglessness of life? I doubt it. Whatever your opinion of the political and philosophical views of Camus and Sartre, the idea of linking them in any way with the Third Reich is totally absurd. Some of the stuff I read in net.politics these days is just amazin'. Doesn't anyone read books anymore? Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/12/85)
In article <539@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: >> >> Also, I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler >> compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through >> men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). >> It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, >> Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, >> these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of >> doing things. > > Nietzche wrote to his sister in 1887 . . . And then comes lots of liberalish Nietzsche quotes, against Anti-Semitism, German nationalism, etc.. None of these quotes can wipe away that there were enough ambiguities in Nietzsche about supermen and power and dumb cowlike masses to permit fascists to easily abuse Nietzsche whenever they found it convenient. How did Camus and Sartre get on a list of people influencing Hitler? Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/15/85)
Sartre & Camus were active in the anti-nazi resistance. Sartre in his opinions & philosophical views was a rigorous moralist. It's possible to make a case that "existentialism" as exemplified by Sartre, Camus & others is the continuation of European humanism. At any rate, it's bizarre to attribute any atmosphere of inhumanity to these writers in particular. Nietzsche influenced an entire generation or two, including people of all political orientations: eg, Hannah Arendt, the liberal "humanist" historian of totalitarianism, Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the most impor- tant Protestant theologians of this century, etc. Paul Dubuc's claims make no sense in the light of even a rudimentary knowledge of 20th century cultural history. Regards, Ron Rizzo