diwan@sj.ate.slb.com (Abdul Diwan) (08/20/90)
The following are some of the excerpt from the Statement on the recent Middle East conflict by Islamic Society of North America. 'In the name of Allah the Most gracious, the Most Merciful' "There is no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and know all things. - (Quran 2:256) * Islam - fundamentally and by its very definition - is committed to the universal peace and therefore stands unequivocally against all and every aggression, including the forced annexation of lands. * Worldwide Muslims sentiment reject in principle the presence of foreign military forces in the birthplace of Islam. It is a dangerous precedent, sparking memories of colonialism, the lasting repercussions of which remains devastating to the life, liberty and culture of the region and its ecology. It is more resented since it is seen as emanating from the principle ally of the Israelis as well as a superpower that cannot readily be compelled to withdraw. * A continuing policy of categorical support for the Israeli occupation, ambitions, and oppression of the Palestinian people, coupled with an overriding focus on controlling energy resource opens a serious credibility gap between the American and Muslim and Arab peoples. * Steps should be taken to reduce the likelihood of immediate conflict, including the total withdrawal of outside forces from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the establishment of justice and high moral principles that Islam, and all divinely revealed religions has proclaimed to civilization, and the introduction of Islam and its culture to military personnel involved in the conflict. * We urge all parties to exercise restraint and commit themselves to resolve this dispute through measures ending the conditions that precipitated this confrontation, and to reflect on the immediate and far reaching devastation of war on life as is and life to come. * 'Do you think that you shall enter Paradise without trials that came to those who preceded you? They encountered suffering and adversity and were so shaken that even the Messenger and those of faith with him cried. " When will the help of Allah come !" But indeed the help of Allah is near' ( Quran 2:214)
goer@sophist.uchicago.edu (Richard Goerwitz) (08/23/90)
Diwan@sj.ate.slb.com (Abdul Diwan) writes: > > * Islam - fundamentally and by its very definition - is committed > to the universal peace and therefore stands unequivocally against all > and every aggression, including the forced annexation of lands. > > * Worldwide Muslims sentiment reject in principle the presence > of foreign military forces in the birthplace of Islam. It is > a dangerous precedent, sparking memories of colonialism, the > lasting repercussions of which remains devastating to the life, liberty > and culture of the region and its ecology. It is more resented > since it is seen as emanating from the principle ally of the Israelis > as well as a superpower that cannot readily be compelled to withdraw. > > * A continuing policy of categorical support for the Israeli > occupation, ambitions, and oppression of the Palestinian people, > coupled with an overriding focus on controlling energy resource > opens a serious credibility gap between the American and Muslim > and Arab peoples. Question. When does right and wrong take precedence over religious allegiance? Put differently, is it ever conceivable that a Muslim would side with a Christian to put down a threat from an evil Muslim? Another question: Is it wrong for a Muslim (say, King Saud) to call for the aid of a Christian, when in fact the Christian's motivations for hel- ping might be mainly economic? Put differently, let us suppose we have a leader who uses chemical weapons against his own people, attacks his neighbor to the northeast, and then attacks his neighbor to the south- east. It would be highly reasonable to think that such a person would not suddenly change his demeanor and cease attacking other countries for the rest of his life. Let us also assume that we have a great kingdom encompassing the heartland of Islam, Medina, Mecca, etc., and that it is poorly defended from this person. And let us assume, finally, that this kingdom has a Christian friend with a great economic interest in the sta- bility of that kingdom. Would it be a wise or unwise move for that great kingdom to call on the aid of its Christian friend in order to prevent further aggression on the part of the leader? A comment: With Hussein brashly attacking his neighbors, is it really sensible for everyone to continue harping on Israel? While everyone sits around quibbling about this one, small country next to the Mediter- ranean, Hussein gasses his people, brutally attacks Iran, invades and loots Kuwait, and then masses troups on the Saudi border. Israel is indeed a problem right now. I know, not simply from reading the papers. My brother-in-law taught Arab children on the West Bank, and saw the imprisonments, intimidation, and animosity first hand. I am opposed to this situation. I plead, however, for some perspective. It seems that some Muslims are fixated on Israel to the point of ignoring a much greater and more immediate threat. It is almost as if, by being Muslim, one has the right to play the part of a tyrant, just as long as he holds the "correct" political attitudes towards Israel and the US. Plea: Will some voice of sanity please side with me, a Christian, in saying that the Israeli situation is indeed in need of a solution, but that this is not the time or the place to fixate on it? We have here a man who has had his eye on all of his neighbors, and who represents not only an economic threat to the US, but a military threat to thou- sands of innocent civilians and to all his peaceful Arab neighbors. Is it not important that we unite for this common goal? I would only remind those who worry about a US presence in Arabia, that the US is primarily an economic power, and has very little interest in conquest. I would point to Europe and Japan, which were crawling with American military personnel forty years ago. Both now are prosperous, in contrast to their neighbors (which were taken over by the Soviet Union). Assaudiyya will not become an American colony, for heaven's sake. Does anyone really believe that we would be that stupid? Again, I emphasize: Let us not strain at the gnat, while swallowing the camel. Let's not quibble over the presence of some westerners on the northern Saudi frontier, and let an evil Muslim walk into Saudi Arabia over the dead bodies of his fellow Muslims. Realism and expediency are in order here, not to mention right and wrong. The battle hardened troups of a mad Muslim are infinitely more dangerous to the lives of people in the Near East than the troups of a Christian friend. Even if the motives of the Christian friend are not pure as fresh-fallen snow, they are at least better than those of a man who, professing Islam with the lips, attacks (without provocation) the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, and then masses troups on the Saudi frontier. Assalaam alaykum (with salaam in italics). A Christian friend, Richard P.S. Is there anyone out there who agrees with me, or is my voice a lone one, crying in the wilderness?
zix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal) (08/24/90)
According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries that the Uthmaniyah state was divided into so many smaller states that we know today! Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!! The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). Zaf
abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (08/25/90)
In article <1990Aug24.050736.14887@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> zix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal) writes: >According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim >countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries >that the Uthmaniyah state was divided into so many smaller states that we know >today! > >Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!! >The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of >the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). > >Zaf I have no choice but to agree with you Zaf. This is what is Islam about. No more than one ruler for muslims should be (A second khaliefah should be killed.). I am amazed by comments from some people saying one muslim country cannot envade another muslim country. Because it had to be only one and not many countries. IMPORTANT: Of course Saddam is not the proper ruler if there must be any. The effort must be made to remove Saddam but not to undo the unity between Kwuait and Iraq.
aabiyaba@athena.mit.edu (08/25/90)
In article <1990Aug24.050736.14887@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>,
posted by bes@tybalt.caltech.edu, zix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal)
boldly states:
"According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim
countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries
that the Uthmaniyah state was divided into so many smaller states that we know
today!
"Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!!
The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of
the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). "
Let us consider Saddam Hussein:
Saddam Hussein is the dictatorial generalissimo of the
avowedly socialist (Iraqi) Baathists whose philosophy is
incompatible with Islam.
Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran and Kuwait, his involvement
in Lebanon and of course his national policies are not
guided by Islam, not by pan-Arabism (another myopic
philosohpy), not by Iraqi nationalism, but by the principle
of self-aggrandizement. These points are self evident to
anyone who seriously studies the situation.
Let us consider the unification of modern muslim states:
By definition, Muslims strive to be one ummah (people or body).
That body must be guided by Islam and not some other
philosophy that seeks to justify itself through Islam.
To do so requires that individuals first aspire to live by Islam.
In the present historical frame work, the post colonial muslim
states must first tackle their own unique problems
of education and participatory government.
When representative muslim leaders emerge, their states will
be in a position to reach consensus on diverse issues
which will be conducive to the formation of a single
social, political and economic unit.
Dissent and other conflicts will have to be resolved through
the Islamic authority - there is none today but the
OIC is a candidate.
Let us consider Zafer Iqbal's statement about kafirs and puppets:
The events in the Persian Gulf serve to underscore just how
"independent" muslim states are.
It seems that this state of "independence" will last for
quite a while - instead of griping and striking at
the air, concerned muslims could at least propose
and act upon constructive ideas.
If, as Zafer says, Saddam is just another puppet, then why
support him? He is a far greater evil than others
in the region.
If puppets are to be done away with, who will replace them?
Propose a solution instead of emotional slogans.
I would be interested in your reaction to the presence of
"kafir" military advisors, arms, materiel ... in
muslim countries.
My assessment:
Gradually replace western troops with OIC peace keepers.
The OIC has never really done much but this is an
excellent occasion to give it some bite.
Even in a monarchy as far removed as Morocco, taking a
pan-Islamic stance (however diluted) may be the only
way to quell the simultaneous popular disquiet at the
western intervention and at Saddam Hussein's terror.
The invasion of Kuwait probably sounds the death knell of
Arab nationalism (and the PLO) as well as exposing
the nature of dictatorship elsewhere in the muslim
lands. This presents an enormous opportunity for
alternate world views to emerge.
Ahmed Biyabani
aabiyaba@athena.mit.eduzama@midway.uchicago.edu (iftikhar uz zaman) (08/25/90)
Zafer Iqbal writes: >According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim >countries should not exist!!! Wow! >Islam requires unification of Muslim countries And wow again! Zafer, living in this land where there are few Muslim around us I have found that we tend to get too intimate with this "Islam": being forced to continuosly explain what "Islam sez" on one topic or another, and being listened to like authorities on any issue dealing with Islam, my feeling is that the phrase "According to Islam..." slips off too easily from our tongues. My own solution to this has been that whenever I hear myself doing the "Islam sez" routine, to try to find WHERE "Islam" says the thing I hear it(/him?) saying it. What we have here is a fatwa: you have decided that there is some nass ("textual evidence": Quran, saying of the Prophet or somesuch) which demands that there be no borders between Muslim countries. I honestly can't think of where this nass might be. Can you? However, I do know that there are explicit ayahs in the Quran which speak of the evil of Muslims fighting Muslims. Look it up in your favorite concordance but it begins like this: "In ta'ifatan min al-muminin iqtatalu..." Roughly the meaning is that if two groups of Muslims begin to battle, try to find a way to bring about peace between them, if this is not possible and one is intent on doing injustice to the other ("in baghat ihdahuma...") then fight the one that does the injustice... Also, there is the explicit saying of the Prophet that the blood of a Muslim is haraam (forbidden) to any other Muslim except for three things-- apostasy, adultery and murder. [La yahillu dam imar'in Muslim illa bi ihda thalath: kufrun ba`d iman, wa zina ba`d ihsan wa qatl nafs bi ghayr haqq-- or words to that effect, from A'isha in Muslim Abu Da'ud etc.]. Now the fatwa you have given is that the demands of uniting the borders of Muslims outweigh the demands of this hadith, and of the ayah in the Quran referred to above. THIS IS fatwa: the weighing of all the textual evidence of the Quran and the hadith to judge which of all the evidence is the most appropriate to apply to the specific situation at hand. Do you really feel qualified for this task? >Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!! >The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of >the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). Once again, this is fatwa. A vague "Islam says" will not be good enough here. Let me take this opportunity to point out something I learned from a learned man a little while ago: a mas'ala is a "general rule" regarding some religious issue--for example, that if one falls asleep after making ablutions for prayers, one has to repeat the ablutions, or that if one has money which is unused for a whole year one has to give zakah on it. Similar to this might be a mas'ala you learn that "borders of Muslims must be united" (though I don't know whether this is a correct mas'ala). A fatwa is where you take the general rule and apply it to a specific situation: this really requires a lot more. Anybody can repeat a mas'ala he has learned, but a fatwa is a judgement in which you must take all the various mas'alas which apply to a situation and see which most appropriately fits the situation at hand... I think many a mufti would think twice about giving fatwa on the situation in Iraq... Respectfully yours, your brother in Islam, Iftikhar.
goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (08/25/90)
In article ix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal) writes: >According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim >countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries >that the Uthmaniyah state was divided into so many smaller states that we know >today! Since this posting, in effect, serves as a rejoinder to my posting of a day or two ago, let me respond. First I must wonder about the phrase "what Sadam has done." Which thing are you talking about? Are you talking about how he attempted to overrun Iran in its period of turmoil, and was rudely shocked by the Shiite resolve? Or are you talking about the time he unleashed poison gas on his own people? Or do you speak of the time he demanded that the Kuwaitis pump less oil so that he could repair his broken treasury, and, when they did not, annexed the country, and looted its stores? As for fighting between Muslims, I have received an illuminating reference: Hence, if two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between them; but then, if one of the two goes on acting wrongfully towards the other, fight against the one that acts wrongfully until it reverts to God's commandment; and if they revert, make peace between them with justice, and deal equitably: for verily, God loves those who act equitably! While political union of Islam might, in principle, be a just goal, this does not mean that any means of accomplishing it is also just. The English phrase that describes this mentality is "the end justifies the means." >Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!! >The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of >the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). You know, if words have simple English translations (such as haram and kufr), their is no obstacle to using them here. Although many of us understand them, many others do not. Your argument would be better served if you would use English. As it stands, it is not clear whether you are saying "it is senility to rely on the godless" or "it is forbidden to rely on the godless." I ex- pect that it is the latter :-). Having said this, let it be pointed out that believing Christians are not "kufr." Remember that Believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does what is right - shall be rewarded.... Implied in this statement is that Christians, in contrast to, say, pagans, believe in Allah. I would also point out that the Prophet contracted al- liances with Jews and Christians during his lifetime. It is perhaps best, therefore, not to be overzealous on the matter of condeming either Chris- tians or alliances with them. Again, as I said in a previous posting, let common sense prevail. Forget Israel for now. We have a leader in the Near East who is of immediate danger to his fellow Muslims, and all some seem to be able to do is whine about a tiny nation way over on the Mediteranean Sea, and quibble about the presence of American troups in the bleak desert of the Saudi frontier. I would think that things like murder, bombing, gassing, and looting would be of more pressing concern to those with a sense of justice than would petty academic debates like the ones we have been seeing. -Richard
acsghgk@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Hanif Khalak) (08/25/90)
[Moderator's note: replies to this article should remain of some relevance to Islam to be approved for posting. Thanks, Behnam ] In article <14598@wpi.wpi.edu>, goer@sophist.uchicago.edu (Richard Goerwitz) writes... > > >Question. When does right and wrong take precedence over religious >allegiance? Put differently, is it ever conceivable that a Muslim would >side with a Christian to put down a threat from an evil Muslim? It isn't inconceivable. > >Another question: Is it wrong for a Muslim (say, King Saud) to call for >the aid of a Christian, when in fact the Christian's motivations for hel- >ping might be mainly economic? Put differently, let us suppose we have You're assuming that the U.S. is Christian in a RELIGIOUS sense. If the U.S. is a Christian spiritual entity, than foreign/domestic/social policy must not be part of Christian spirituality, because the motivations are HARDLY moral. Masonic, maybe. Another (mighty faulty) assumption is that Saud'i is a Muslim regime. I don't konw if you follow the history of the Royal Family, but they don't deserve to be called Muslim religiously speaking. If you aren't interested in spirituality, again... >a leader who uses chemical weapons against his own people, attacks his >neighbor to the northeast, and then attacks his neighbor to the south- >east. It would be highly reasonable to think that such a person would >not suddenly change his demeanor and cease attacking other countries for >the rest of his life. Let us also assume that we have a great kingdom >encompassing the heartland of Islam, Medina, Mecca, etc., and that it is >poorly defended from this person. And let us assume, finally, that this >kingdom has a Christian friend with a great economic interest in the sta- >bility of that kingdom. Would it be a wise or unwise move for that great >kingdom to call on the aid of its Christian friend in order to prevent >further aggression on the part of the leader? > Why isn't the U.S. defending Turkey? Or Iran? Or Syria? More borders there to 'worry' about. Less OOZ's, though (Operative Oil Zones). I'm not so much worried about the U.S. going INTO S.A., but rather, NOT coming OUT. XREF: Israel/Lebanon. Saudi security is not necessarily the same thing as Muslim security. Sadam, with his politics has finally brought to head many hypocrisies in the govts of the Arab world. I think that one thing that Muslims should NOT be trapped into doing is taking this favorite litmus test of 'with us or against us' because of political mindslaughter, instead of relying on the robust principles of Islam which don't side with particular men, cultures, borders, bank accts., crude reserves, or power structures, but rather, enjoin felicity of spirit, the power of thought and action in goodness, and justice. Sadam's actions, no matter what 'justification', involved irrefutable aggression. This is wrong. >A comment: With Hussein brashly attacking his neighbors, is it really >sensible for everyone to continue harping on Israel? While everyone >sits around quibbling about this one, small country next to the Mediter- >ranean, Hussein gasses his people, brutally attacks Iran, invades and >loots Kuwait, and then masses troups on the Saudi border. Israel is >indeed a problem right now. I know, not simply from reading the papers. >My brother-in-law taught Arab children on the West Bank, and saw the >imprisonments, intimidation, and animosity first hand. I am opposed to >this situation. I plead, however, for some perspective. It seems that >some Muslims are fixated on Israel to the point of ignoring a much greater >and more immediate threat. It is almost as if, by being Muslim, one has >the right to play the part of a tyrant, just as long as he holds the >"correct" political attitudes towards Israel and the US. > I agree. The paranoid mentality toward Israel makes the Muslims like the Jews are against the Germans and Muslims. >Plea: Will some voice of sanity please side with me, a Christian, in >saying that the Israeli situation is indeed in need of a solution, but >that this is not the time or the place to fixate on it? We have here >a man who has had his eye on all of his neighbors, and who represents >not only an economic threat to the US, but a military threat to thou- >sands of innocent civilians and to all his peaceful Arab neighbors. Is >it not important that we unite for this common goal? > Language may be trivial to some, but... Again, you're assuming that your perspective is a bastion of sanity in the midst of imbecility. Condescension is not a good way to get support. :) More to the point, is there a right time or place to fixate on individual things? Is everything a mass of disconnected, irrelated points of information? I don't think so. And yet with all of our disconnection, we should work for a 'common' goal? Why isn't the U.S. in Eritrea trying to save millions (not thousands) from starvation by halting destruction and mutilation and political corruption? Why isn't the U.S. in Tamil/Sri Lanka easing tensions which have resulted in massacres 'a la carte'? Why isn't the U.S. in Burma? Korea? (oops..) Well anyway.. this carte noire machiavellian attitude that the U.S. has in foreign (and to some extent, domestic) policy is sickening. >I would only remind those who worry about a US presence in Arabia, that >the US is primarily an economic power, and has very little interest in >conquest. I would point to Europe and Japan, which were crawling with >American military personnel forty years ago. Both now are prosperous, >in contrast to their neighbors (which were taken over by the Soviet >Union). Assaudiyya will not become an American colony, for heaven's >sake. Does anyone really believe that we would be that stupid? Again, So domination by Western (American) materialism and bogus policies is an evident goal of humanity? We won't say anything to further the comparison between the ex-cold war partners. The age of mercantilism was long over, but greed and imperialism is shrouded in many guises. I'm not too sure if Saudi Arabia isn't ALREADY a 'colony' of the U.S. In a twenty-first century sense. >I emphasize: Let us not strain at the gnat, while swallowing the camel. >Let's not quibble over the presence of some westerners on the northern >Saudi frontier, and let an evil Muslim walk into Saudi Arabia over the >dead bodies of his fellow Muslims. Realism and expediency are in order >here, not to mention right and wrong. The battle hardened troups of a >mad Muslim are infinitely more dangerous to the lives of people in the >Near East than the troups of a Christian friend. Even if the motives >of the Christian friend are not pure as fresh-fallen snow, they are at >least better than those of a man who, professing Islam with the lips, >attacks (without provocation) the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, and then masses >troups on the Saudi frontier. I don't know if you read many Eastern media, but Sadam has treated Muslims from neighboring nations quite well. Even the expatriots of Egypt. Many thousands of Hajjis (Pilgrims) from Mecca going to India and ports west were released by Sadam and treated quite well. Sadam's calling a holy war (in spite of the fact that he is a secular Socialist) is proof that he wants Muslim support, not conflict, for whatever his reasons. > >Assalaam alaykum (with salaam in italics). > Wa'alaikum Assalam, wa Rahmatullah, wa Barakatu'. >A Christian friend, > I much more accept your Christian friendship than that of the U.S. govt. :) >Richard > >P.S. Is there anyone out there who agrees with me, or is my voice >a lone one, crying in the wilderness? Again, where IS this 'wilderness'? May our efforts be of goodly intent and fruition, God Bless those who do good works. Barak Allah Fiq.. Peace and sincerity, Hanif Khalak
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (08/27/90)
In article <14622@wpi.wpi.edu> abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu () writes: > >In article <1990Aug24.050736.14887@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> zix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal) writes: >>According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim >>countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries >>that the Uthmaniyah state was divided into so many smaller states that we >>know today! >> >>Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!! >>The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should >>most of the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). >> >>Zaf > >I have no choice but to agree with you Zaf. This is what is Islam about. >No more than one ruler for muslims should be (A second khaliefah should >be killed.). I am amazed by comments from some people saying one muslim >country cannot envade another muslim country. Because it had to be only >one and not many countries. Would either of you provide a theological basis for this from the Qur'an, the ahadith, or from wherever? That would be very surprising and interesting (to me, anyway, and probably some others). It would also be good to hear the same from those who say that a Muslim state can't attack another Muslim one but can attack a non-Muslim one. -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu Dept. of Comp. Sci.; U.of Ariz. UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Tucson, AZ 85721; USA Bitnet: bakken%cs.arizona.edu@Arizrvax AT&T: +1 602 621 4976 FAX: +1 602 621 4246
zix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug25.020408.368@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> zama@midway.uchicago.edu (iftikhar uz zaman) writes: >Zafer Iqbal writes: >>According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim >>countries should not exist!!! > >Wow! > Good stuff hey!!! 8^) >>Islam requires unification of Muslim countries > >And wow again! Zafer, living in this land where there are few Muslim >around us I have found that we tend to get too intimate with this >"Islam": being forced to continuously explain what "Islam sez" on one >topic or another, and being listened to like authorities on any issue >dealing with Islam, my feeling is that the phrase "According to >Islam..." slips off too easily from our tongues. My own solution to this >has been that whenever I hear myself doing the "Islam sez" routine, to try >to find WHERE "Islam" says the thing I hear it(/him?) saying it. > > What we have here is a fatwa: you have decided that there is some >nass ("textual evidence": Quran, saying of the Prophet or some such) which >demands that there be no borders between Muslim countries. I honestly can't >think of where this nass might be. Can you? However, I do know that there >are explicit ayahs in the Quran which speak of the evil of Muslims fighting >Muslims. Look it up in your favorite concordance but it begins like this: >"In ta'ifatan min al-muminin iqtatalu..." Roughly the meaning is that if >two groups of Muslims begin to battle, try to find a way to bring about >peace between them, if this is not possible and one is intent on doing >injustice to the other ("in baghat ihdahuma...") then fight the one that >does the injustice... > Also, there is the explicit saying of the Prophet that the blood of >a Muslim is haram (forbidden) to any other Muslim except for three things-- >apostasy, adultery and murder. [La yahillu dam imar'in Muslim illa bi ihda >thalath: kufrun ba`d iman, wa zina ba`d ihsan wa qatl nafs bi ghayr haqq-- >or words to that effect, from A'isha in Muslim Abu Da'ud etc.]. Now the >fatwa you have given is that the demands of uniting the borders of Muslims >outweigh the demands of this hadith, and of the ayah in the Quran referred >to above. THIS IS fatwa: the weighing of all the textual evidence of the >Quran and the hadith to judge which of all the evidence is the most appropriate >to apply to the specific situation at hand. Do you really feel qualified >for this task? > Everything I contribute to this BB are not my own personal opinions (which I keep to myself)!!! The only contributions are from Islam and have evidences to support them but I usually avoid giving all the evidences since I did not think that that anyone out there was keen on all the evidences since these are all topics which are pretty well known! Anyway, getting back to the first statement I made, I meant that it was correct for Sadam to attempt to unite Iraq and Kuwait and rermove the border between the two countries!!! Removal of the borders that the kafir have put therer for us is compulsary and we must push for it at every opportunity: reffered to the muslim ummah as ummatun wahada - one nation! And Muhammed (SAW) has said "Whoso comes to you while your affair has been united under one man, intending to divide your staff or dissolve your unity, kill him" (Muslim) Also its fard to remove foreign kufr presence from our lands whether they're American forces in Arabia or Israelis in Palestine! "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty unto him!" 9:123. >>Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!! >>The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of >>the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). > > Once again, this is fatwa. A vague "Islam says" will not be good enough >here. Let me take this opportunity to point out something I learned from >a learned man a little while ago: a mas'ala is a "general rule" regarding >some religious issue--for example, that if one falls asleep after making >ablutions for prayers, one has to repeat the ablutions, or that if one has >money which is unused for a whole year one has to give zakah on it. >Similar to this might be a mas'ala you learn that "borders of Muslims must >be united" (though I don't know whether this is a correct mas'ala). A fatwa >is where you take the general rule and apply it to a specific situation: >this really requires a lot more. Anybody can repeat a mas'ala he has >learned, but a fatwa is a judgement in which you must take all the various >mas'alas which apply to a situation and see which most appropriately fits >the situation at hand... > I think many a mufti would think twice about giving fatwa on the situation >in Iraq... > Respectfully yours, > your brother in Islam, > Iftikhar. I would never attempt to give a fatwa! There have been fatwa's given on these topics and scholars have given rulings ion these topics!!! For instance recently a fatwa was given in Jerusalem that those Muslims who fight with the Americans, against Muslims, their blood is halaal for you!!! As I said above, it is haram to rely on kaffir on defence of Muslims and also to request help from the us, britain, russia etc. Abu Hamid As-Saidi reelated that Muhammed(SAW) left Medinah until he arrived at Thaen-et-al-Wadfda amd when he saw a regiment there he said: "Who are they?" They sayd a tribe of Bani Qaayunqwa the relative of Abdullah bin Salam. He sad"Do you accept Islam?" They said"No" He Said "Leave, we don't take assistance from disbelievers" It's narrated by Ahmad and An Nisai from Anas that Muhammed(SAW) said: "Don't take the light from the the fire of the disbelievers" In arabic fire means their own weapons and military as a state or a tribe! It's haram to ask for defence by the kafir 'cos that will allow defending Muslims and Muslim countries at the hand of kufr when it is not allowed for the kafir to have authority over Muslims! Allah(SWT) in An-Nisai:141 refers to this prohibition "and Allah will not give the disbelievers any way (of authority) against the believers" This means that it's not allowed for the kafir to have any authority or ruling over the Muslims and Muslim countries! Abu Hanifah said: "Dar al Islam (the land of Islam) is any land where Islam is implemented as a whole and where security is in the hands of the believers so if the security comes in the hand of kafir the land becomes dar al kufr (the land of kufr) immediately!" If you want any more details on this, e-mail my mail address and I'll send you some stuff! Wasalaam. Your-brother-in-Islam Zafer
zix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal) (08/30/90)
>According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim >countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries >that the Uthmaniyah state was divided into so many smaller states that we know >today! Saddam has started using Islamic rhetoric only to gain Moslems' sympathy for his own devious purposes. A person who has killed many of the ulema (Islamic scholars) in his own country cannot be considered a representative of Islam. He is moved by greed, not by Islam. His country is one of the most secular states in the Arab world. Would a true Moslem burn down to ground 500 Kurdish villages, killing innocent women and children? Weren't those Kurds Moslems too? Unity for Moslems is an excellent goal towards which all of us should strive for. But Saddam is clearly not moved by such Islamic motives. I doubt that Moslems can achieve unity by declaring war on one another. The Quran prohibits war against Moslems (unless its for stopping the party committing the act of aggression). >Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!! >The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of >the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). Of course, the un-Islamic actions of the Saudi puppets don't justify the the even more evil actions of Saddam. >Zaf Behnam Sadeghi
abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (08/30/90)
In article <14658@wpi.wpi.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes: > > >In article <14622@wpi.wpi.edu> abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu () writes: > > > >In article <1990Aug24.050736.14887@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> zix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal) writes: > >>According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim > >>countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries > >>Zaf > > > >I have no choice but to agree with you Zaf. This is what is Islam about. > >No more than one ruler for muslims should be (A second khaliefah should > >be killed.). I am amazed by comments from some people saying one muslim > >Would either of you provide a theological basis for this from the >Qur'an, the ahadith, or from wherever? That would be very surprising Sure, According to a hadieth " IF a second ruler is proposed while a one is intact, then kill him - as far as he insists-". The rules of Islam come from 1)Quran. 2)Sunna(hadieth and deed of prophet) 3)The understanding of the companions(Ijma'a and Kias). The rule was clear for the companions immediatly after the death of the prophet (PBUH). Even those who opposed the newly elected (Khleefah) for example (Ali KAW) had no choice but to pledge to obey the new leader (Abu-Bakr). Most probably the mixed massage you are geting comes from the fact that muslims cannot agree on Saddam to be there "one" leader. >and interesting (to me, anyway, and probably some others). It would >also be good to hear the same from those who say that a Muslim state >can't attack another Muslim one but can attack a non-Muslim one. It is clear that those meant :one muslim "group" cannot attack another muslim "group" (This is from Quran). It is clear that there is a mix between "group" and "state". One more thing deserves to be mentioned. Muslims donot fight other nonmuslims for the sake of it, as it might be understood from your words. There must be a clear reason for (Jihad). A major one is fighting those who oppose -violently- the spread of Islam. Next it is not one of the goals of the fight to kill as much as possible from the enemy. Muslims are ordered to stop the fight as soon as the enemy does. The citizens of the beated enemy, are to be left un harmed and have the choice of choosing there own religion.
zama@midway.uchicago.edu (iftikhar uz zaman) (09/04/90)
[Though I am not really qualified to jump into this question of deciding whether Saddam's actions are supported by Islamic law or not, I believe that the arguments put forward so far n the net are clearly not tenable...I give no judgement on the issue...I merely propose that the arguments given so far do not really stand the heavy weight of the judgement they are trying to support] Zafer Iqbal made three claims: 1. Borders between 2 Musli countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries 2. It is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!! 3. The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). abaza(?) supported (and clarified) the first claim: 1. No more than one ruler for muslims should be (A second khaliefah should be killed.). Dave Bakken asked for a "theological basis" (see note at end, please, Dave) for these claims -- I assume he means claim 1. Also, Dave would throw in a fourth issue: >It would >also be good to hear the same from those who say that a Muslim state >can't attack another Muslim one but can attack a non-Muslim one. This last question is actually a good place to start from. What are the condition under which a Muslim state can attack a non-Muslim one? Basically the demands of da`wa have to call for the attack. In other words, if Muslims are being impeded in their calling to Islam they have the right (according to traditional Islamic law manuals) to try to negotiate with the "king" who is impeding the da'wa ("calling to Islam"); if the negotiation doesn't work, they have to offer him the option of living under Muslim rule as dhimmis ("protected people") and finally, if this doesn't work then, and only then, can they fight. The fact is that there is little question of impedence to da`wa, since Muslims are not doing da`wa any more! [People are going to say: "But what if a Muslim country is under attack, would you, Iftikhar, say that we shouldn't defend ourselves?" I'll say...well, I'll wait till those people say it]. "abaza" clarified Zafer Iqbal's claims to me: It is not that "Islam says" that there should be no boundaries (the idea of national boundaries not having existed in the time of the Propet, it is unlikely that Islam would say any such thing). The truth behind Zafer's claim is better put as "abaza" says it: Muslims should not have two "imams" (/caliphs) at the same time. [Zafer refers to the incident where `Umar the second caliph, on his deathbed, told a selection of six of the leaders of the Islamic community that they had to choose one person from among themselves to be the caliph. In the end there were two people left `Uthman and (memory fails me...). When the decision finally fell to `Uthman, someone either revealed `Umar's words or mentioned his own resolve, that if the decision between `Uthman and the other person hadn't been made he would have been forced to kill one of them [[sorry for this sketchiness--I thought I remembered the thing in detail, but it seems I don't...]] But here it is, then: Muslims should have only one imam. On the other hand, as Zafer himself puts it: even Saddam should have been overthrown a long time ago! So, if the basis for supporting Saddam's actions is that he should be the imam (amir ul muminin or whatever) and you yourself suggest that he is eminently UNqualified for this station; how can we support him in this bid? And, even after the bloodshed that will inevitably result if we suppose that Saddam is able to unite all the Middle East under him, if the Indonesians, the Pakistanis, etc. do not acknowledge him as Caliph, we will still have more than one imam in the Muslim world. That bloodshed could, perhaps (though I doubt it) be justified if there were some chance that Saddam might make it to being the amir ul muminin of the Muslims--but it seems almost certain that if Saddam continues on his path blood will be shed (one bad thing) along with the "united imamate" not being achieved for the Muslims. To summarize, then: To support Saddam's actions can (possibly) be justified as the lesser of two evils: we will suffer Muslim blood being shed by fellow Muslim because this is "less evil" than having two imams. But the fact is, that it seems much more likely that we will be stuck with BOTH evils: Muslim blood will be shed and Saddam will not be able to unite the Muslim world. This is why I think there is no question of supporting Saddam's annexation of Kuwait--were he a different man (maybe Muhammad Ahmad the Mahdi of Egypt), with different motivations, different manners of applying his intentions (i.e. according to sunna, "manner of the Prophet") then I would CONSIDER the question. But come on, a person who by all definitions of the word would be consider fajir and fasiq, are we to back his warfare in the name of jihad??? Iftikhar fasiq: someone who disobeys major laws of Islam. fajir: someone who does so openly. Note to Dave Bakken: I do not take offense easily however, a lot of people dislike the use of the word theology and theologians for religious scholars and scholarship. And it actually is a little off the mark. We are speaking of Islamic jurisprudence here--the field of theology is what is known as "kalam", while this has to do with law: "fiqh". {Some Muslims think there is no "kalam" in Islam, i.e. this is a later innovation and one of the prime causes for the decline of Islam etc...} -- "Much about your good people disgusts me, and it is not their evil I mean. How I wish they possessed a madness through which they could perish..." (Zarathustra). +++ zama@ellis.uchicago.edu xpszama@uchimvs1.uchicago.edu