Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!m2c!wpi!goer@sophist.uchicago.edu From: goer@sophist.uchicago.edu (Richard Goerwitz) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: RE: Muslim View on Middle East Conflict Message-ID: <14598@wpi.wpi.edu> Date: 23 Aug 90 11:40:41 GMT Sender: shari@wpi.wpi.edu Lines: 89 Approved: shari@wpi.wpi.edu 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?