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.
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/28/85)
> > 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 ...... I never said that they contributed to Greek Civilization, the time frame is all wrong. After all Mohammad live in about 1000 A.D. and Socrates drank in the hemlock in 454 B.C. Since the Islamic civilization was 1500 years after the golden age of Greece, it does not make sense to think of how Islam could have contributed to the ancient Greek civilization. The Islamic people took the books of the Greeks and kept them. The Christians in Europe burned them books. After the worst part of the "dark ages" the books were reintroduced to Europe. During the dark ages, the Islamic civilization invented Algebra and so on . . . -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (07/29/85)
> I wonder how Islam contributed to the Greek Civilization. Partly by preserving literature destroyed in the West by Christians. > 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 for the record "St. Sophia" goes along with "Thomas a Beckett" as an example of a non-name. To the best of my knowledge (some historian correct me), the church was named Hagia Sofia ("Holy Wisdom"). (And Sophias on the net may rest assured their lovers are philosophers :-) Islam, like Christianity, has long preached the highest standards of human behavior. Would that the adherents of all religions spent more time adhering to their highest teachings rather than murdering and enslaving those who disagreed with them. Would that pigs had wings, too. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
mandy@datacube.UUCP (07/29/85)
First, I'd like to thank Don Steiny for defending Moslems since I am one without any violent or barbaric attitudes. I'd also like to add that being from Iran, I know that a lot of people in Iran and outside of it do not generally agree with Khomeini's ideologies, which are fairly violent. Islam like any other faith, can be interpreted a million different ways; Khomeini just chose to use the most extreme way it could be used. If anyone wants to get upset about something, it should be about all the innocent teenage kids that have been sent to war blindly, "in search of a path to heaven by being a martyr". Mandy Salsali Datacube Inc. 4 Dearborn Road Peabody, Mass. 01960
tp@ndm20 (07/31/85)
Aplause for a truly well written and well substantiated posting!
No comments implied regarding the opinions expressed, but it is
nice to see this level of support for the opinions expressed in
a posting. Congratulations, Mr. Oliver.
Thanks,
Terry Poot
Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers
(214)739-4741
Usenet: ...!{allegra|ihnp4}!convex!smu!ndm20!tp
CSNET: ndm20!tp@smu
ARPA: ndm20!tp%smu@csnet-relay.ARPAsophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/31/85)
> Just for the record "St. Sophia" goes along with "Thomas a Beckett" as > an example of a non-name. To the best of my knowledge (some historian > correct me), the church was named Hagia Sofia ("Holy Wisdom"). (And > Sophias on the net may rest assured their lovers are philosophers :-) > > D Gary Grady Sophies too! -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
cdp@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (08/01/85)
> I never said that they contributed to Greek Civilization, >the time frame is all wrong. After all Mohammad live in about >1000 A.D. and Socrates drank in the hemlock in 454 B.C. Since >the Islamic civilization was 1500 years after the golden age >of Greece, it does not make sense to think of how Islam could >have contributed to the ancient Greek civilization. > The Islamic people took the books of the Greeks and kept them. >The Christians in Europe burned them books. After the worst part >of the "dark ages" the books were reintroduced to Europe. During >the dark ages, the Islamic civilization invented Algebra and so >on . . . -- >Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software I am sorry. I absolutely agree with you. All Islamic people contributed a lot to civilization, and no one disagrees with this. What I meant in my previous responce was that only the Turks have never created or contributed anything but only distroyed (and they continue to do that) whatever they find in their pass. They definitely contributed and still contribute barbarians to humanity.
cdp@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (08/02/85)
I am sorry again for my previous responce. Once again I left emotions drive my feelings without thinking enough...I think the characterizations used in my latest responce are .... stupid especially after considering the fact that two good friends of mine are Turks. I did not mean to blame any Turk and I retract everything I said. All I meant to do is to blame the Turkish government for (indeed) barbaric acts. No hard feelings (...I hope).
mike@rlvd.UUCP (Mike Woods) (08/09/85)
In article <526@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > > The Islamic people took the books of the Greeks and kept them. >The Christians in Europe burned them books. After the worst part >of the "dark ages" the books were reintroduced to Europe. During >the dark ages, the Islamic civilization invented Algebra and so >on . . . > According to my understanding of history (which is perhaps a little shaky), Greek, Roman, and just about all other literature was lost because of the fall of the Roman empire and a subsequent lack of anyone to prevserve the books. The Christians (or to be precise, the monks) saved what they could but as it took a looong time to copy a book their efforts were devoted to Christian literature (mainly the Bible). In all, it was a lack of a civilised world that destroyed Greek literature, not overt action by the Christians. Mike. Yes, I am a Christian. No I am not biased, just objective.
system@mcgill-vision.UUCP (System Manager) (08/09/85)
Since we just started to get the net news, I do not know how this discussion originated, but I find the following comment quite offensive: > What I meant in my previous responce was that only the Turks > have never created or contributed anything but only distroyed > (and they continue to do that) whatever they find in their pass. > They definitely contributed and still contribute barbarians to humanity. (by cdp@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA, no personal signature) I am not a nationalist at all, but I happen to be a Turk, and a generalization like the one above includes me and friends that I like in the group of people who destroy 'whatever they find in their pass' (sic). Friends here at the Computer Vision and Robotics Lab where I happen to be the system manager seem to think that I am rather constructive. Turk or not, I think this kind of discriminatory generalizations about nations or races should be kept out of the discussions here, or at least should be accompanied whith comments like 'My personal opinion is...' instead of 'They definitely contributed and still contribute barbarians to humanity.' Cem Eskenazi ...{ihnp4,decvax,....}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!system McGill University Electrical Engineering Montreal, Que. Tel.: (514) 392 5396
cdp@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (08/16/85)
As I said in the same note on net.politics I agree with you (Mr. Eskenazi and those who critisized my previous note) that my characterizations where unacceptably general. Below I post my response on the same question that was also posted on net.politics: --------from net.politics cdp@uiucdcs------ I am sorry again for my previous responce. Once again I left emotions drive my feelings without thinking enough...I think the characterizations used in my latest responce are .... stupid especially after considering the fact that two good friends of mine are Turks. I did not mean to blame any Turk and I retract everything I said. All I meant to do is to blame the Turkish government for (indeed) barbaric acts. No hard feelings (...I hope).