Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!bbn.com!husc6!m2c!wpi!bakken@cs.arizona.edu From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: Muslim View on Middle East conflict Message-ID: <14658@wpi.wpi.edu> Date: 27 Aug 90 11:37:08 GMT References: <1990Aug24.050736.14887@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> <14622@wpi.wpi.edu> Sender: shari@wpi.wpi.edu Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 32 Approved: shari@wpi.wpi.edu 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