mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (mokhtar) (10/11/84)
> From the North African non-Muslim point of view, the existence of Muslim > states ANYWHERE is ILLEGITIMATE while the DOMINATION of Muslim lands by > the British and French during the last century was the most PROGRESSIVE > development of the last MILLENIUM. [ emphasis added ] Well, at least I am lucky enough to finally comprehend the true meaning of the word `progress'! > No longer did non-muslims have to > grovel at the feet (literally) of Muslim overlords, and gradually the > British and French were EXTERMINATING Muslim culture. UNFORTUNATELY, in > the aftermath of World War II the British and French COULD NOT SUSTAIN > their EMPIRES and once more the Muslim nations lapsed into cruel > tyranny. [ emphasis added ] I am not quite clear here. Just what kind of `extermination' do you have in mind? Is it the kind that Hitler had in mind for Jews or is it a `good' kind of extermination, like when you exterminate the roaches? Farzin Mokhtarian < ubc-vision!mokhtar > ---------------------- "How can one tell a man he's not alive, that he's never been alive?"
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (10/15/84)
>> From the North African non-Muslim point of view, the existence of Muslim >> states ANYWHERE is ILLEGITIMATE while the DOMINATION of Muslim lands by >> the British and French during the last century was the most PROGRESSIVE >> development of the last MILLENIUM. [ emphasis added ] > >Well, at least I am lucky enough to finally comprehend the true meaning of >the word `progress'! When the French took over Morocco, Jews had to remove their shoes upon leaving the mellah (ghetto) because otherwise Jewish dirt might enter Muslim areas. Conditions for Jews and other non-Muslims in Libya, Yemen and Iran (where European influence was smallest) in the late 19th century and early 20th century were worse than for blacks under Jim Crow. Doing away with Jim Crow is considered good and progressive; therefore wiping out Islam is good and progressive. The inability of Muslims to concede that they might just have treated the former dhimmi (subject) peoples just a wee bit badly shows that they are unfit to rule. (See Rawls, Theory of Justice). >> No longer did non-muslims have to >> grovel at the feet (literally) of Muslim overlords, and gradually the >> British and French were EXTERMINATING Muslim culture. UNFORTUNATELY, in >> the aftermath of World War II the British and French COULD NOT SUSTAIN >> their EMPIRES and once more the Muslim nations lapsed into cruel >> tyranny. [ emphasis added ] >I am not quite clear here. Just what kind of `extermination' do you have in >mind? Is it the kind that Hitler had in mind for Jews or is it a `good' kind >of extermination, like when you exterminate the roaches? I specifically said culture not people. (Why not say Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Chief Islamic functionary for the Jerusalem area and war criminal?) Once Muslims transcend Islamic barbarism, I expect they will be decent people. I see nothing wrong with exterminating Nazi culture or Jim Crow. Unless Islam shows some awareness of its flaws soon, behavior of Muslims puts Islam in the same category. Iran shows there is no need to lie to vilify Islam.
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (10/17/84)
Martillo makes the claim that since conditions for Jews under Islamic rule
were worse than Jim Crow laws, destruction of Islam is a good thing.
Wouldn't the analagous thing to do in the USA about Jim Crow Laws is
the destruction of the USA?, or of Christianity, of
whatever-irrelevant-characteristic-of-the-population-you-like?
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcmartillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (10/21/84)
>Martillo makes the claim that since conditions for Jews under Islamic rule >were worse than Jim Crow laws, destruction of Islam is a good thing. >Wouldn't the analagous thing to do in the USA about Jim Crow Laws is >the destruction of the USA?, or of Christianity, of >whatever-irrelevant-characteristic-of-the-population-you-like? There is a major difference. Jim Crow was not inherent in the USA. We know this because such laws have been struck down. Mistreatment of non-Muslims is part of fundamental Islamic law which no `Alim (Islamic Scholar) suggests changing nor are Muslims particularly upset about such laws. Americans have the merit that they fought a civil war over the treatment of blacks. No Muslim group has ever fought a civil war to end mistreatment of non-Muslims. Also Christian Europe had an Enlightenment which results in tolerance nowadays being considered a virtue. Most of the `Ulama (Islamic Scholars) consider tolerance a sin. Those Muslims who opted for tolerance (Ahmadis and Bahais) were declared infidel and are persecuted or slaughtered. I doubt Kolodney would call for the continuance of pre-Enlightenment Christianity if it still existed in the West.
6912ar04@sjuvax.UUCP (rowley) (11/16/84)
(bug? what bug? I don't see no bug!)
Any religion which propagates such beliefs should either be stamped out of
exsistence or drastically revised.
A. J. Rowley
--
There is no dark side of the moon really; as a matter of fact, it's all dark...
-"Eclipse", Pink Floyd