goer@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Richard Goerwitz) (08/06/90)
What are the religious implications of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait? -Richard -Richard L. Goerwitz goer%sophist@uchicago.bitnet goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer
John.Smith@brunel.ac.uk (John Smith) (08/09/90)
In article <1990Aug3.154028.27841@midway.uchicago.edu> midway!sophist!goer@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >What are the religious implications of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait? > Perhaps it means that he, as so many others, uses religion as an excuse to justify what he wants to do. That has happened before. It will happen again. As long as people feel a need to invent religions they will use them as tools to do as they want. Perhaps it means that in spite of being raised in the wonderful ways of Islam and reading all its holy writing and learning its laws it does not stop a man becoming what he has become. There are many people who have never heard of religon who would not act as he is doing. It makes one wonder. If others decide to kill him it will be because of the religion of money and power. Who will be more powerful Allah or Mammon ? Your question perhaps has no answer except more questions.
beekun@ncar.UCAR.EDU (R. I. Beekun) (08/10/90)
In article <14464@wpi.wpi.edu> John.Smith@brunel.ac.uk (John Smith) writes: > >In article <1990Aug3.154028.27841@midway.uchicago.edu> midway!sophist!goer@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >>What are the religious implications of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait? >> >Perhaps it means that he, as so many others, uses religion as an excuse >to justify what he wants to do. >Perhaps it means that in spite of being raised in the wonderful ways of >Islam and reading all its holy writing and learning its laws it does not >stop a man becoming what he has become. > >There are many people who have never heard of religon who would not act as he >is doing. Knowing about Islam should not be equated with belief in Islam and practise of the religion. Most importantly, the Qur'an in chapter 2, verse 256 asserts that "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error." Saddam Hussein, not Islam, is responsible for his actions. If he wishes to believe and practise the religion, that is his responsibility. If he wishes to commit atrocities, that is his responsibility too. He is not responsible for your sins or mine or Adam's or Eve's (PBUH). Just because somebody has an arabic/Muslim name and has "knowledge" of Islam does not meet that he has faith and is a Muslim. At the same time, no one can say who is a Muslim or who is not. Abu Syed Marwan ............................................................................ :... We decreed for the children of : : :Israel that whosoever kills a human : : :being for other than manslaughter or : / | "" | : :corruption in the earth, it shall be : / | | | | : :as though he had killed all mankind, : | | __| | | | : :and whoso saves the life of one, it : ____|___| | <__|__|__| | : :shall be as though he had saved the : | * : :life of all mankind. (Qur'an 5: 32) : _ / : :.....................................:....................................:
gt8145a@prism.gatech.edu (FADEL,AYMAN HOSSAM) (11/05/90)
Assalamu alaikum,
A discussion on soc.culture.arabic and talk.politcs.mideast
went something like this, and I'd like to hear the opinions
of others on this matter.
I said:
King Fahd's invitation to the non-Muslim soldiers is wrong
legally (shar'i) for two reasons.
1. It is forbidden for muslims to seek the help non-Muslims
fight Muslims.
2. It is forbidden for a non-Muslim power to enter the
Arabian Peninsula. This is on the basis of the report
of Umar radiya allahu anh who said the Prophet salla allahu
alaihi wa sallam said: There should not be two religions
in the peninsula of the Arabs.
3. god azza wa jall said in the Quran that Muslims were to
be the witness over mankind after the Prophet p.b.u.h. There-
fore, non-Muslims are not authorized to settle disputes among
muslims.
4. God tabarak also said that when two parties of Muslims fight
other muslims should arbitrate.
they said:
1. Many muslim scholars have declared Fahd's move permissible,
among them the scholars of al-azhar.
2. The Prophet's treaty with the Jews of Medina shows that it
is permissible to seek the aid of non-Muslims.
I said:
1. a. These scholars do not have freedom of expression in political
matters. However, I am in a quandry, since I believe we should
follow our scholars in all things. Otherwise, we follow the
conjecture (zann) of non-scholars.
2. a. The Prophet was not fighting any muslims.
b. The Prohet salla allahu alaihi wa sallam was made the chief
of Medina, and all disputes among the Jews were supposed to be
resolved by him. Moreover, the Muslims were protecting the Jewish
tribes. In this situation, the non-Muslims are fighting muslims
to solidify their control of oil resources.
Then I said:
1. If the Gulf states would take some painful internal remedies,
they could be strong enough to defend themselves.
These remedies include:
a. Allowing all to become citizens.
b. Ceasing the massive subsidies in health, housing and
education.
c. Making qualification the basis for reward,not
citizenship (muwatana).
d. compulsory military service.
I should note here that I wrongly implied that foreigners did not
get free health care in Kuwait.
They said:
1. Even with these measures, they would not be strong enough to
defend themselves.
So I responded:
Then they should rely on Muslim countries for defense.
They said:
No muslim country came.
I said:
Then Gulf countries should have increased the financial reward of
protection.
They said:
Then how is that different from us paying protection money to the
non-Muslims?
I said:
It's better to pay protection money to Muslims than non-Muslims.
I also said:
All who supported Iraq against Iran should realize that this was
absolutely forbidden, and they should feel much regret and repent.
I received no response about this.
Throughout, many insisted that it is none of my business how
the Arabian Peninsula khallasaha allahu min junuud al-kaafiriin
is run.
Please comment. Am I way off here?
Wassalam,
Aymanisaac@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Isaac Balbin) (11/05/90)
gt8145a@prism.gatech.edu (FADEL,AYMAN HOSSAM) writes: >Assalamu alaikum, Alaikum Assalam >2. It is forbidden for a non-Muslim power to enter the >Arabian Peninsula. This is on the basis of the report >of Umar radiya allahu anh who said the Prophet salla allahu >alaihi wa sallam said: There should not be two religions >in the peninsula of the Arabs. Okay. This is related to my other posting. Exactly what is the Islamic Geographic Definition of the ``Arabian Peninsula, khallasaha allahu min junuud al-kaafiriin''? Does every type of Islam accept the writings of Umar radiya allahu anh? Who does not, and why? -- ``A College degree is a right; not a privilege" -- ``A College degree is a right; not a privilege"