Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news
From: abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Muslim View on Middle East conflict
Message-ID: <1990Aug30.021042.2173@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 30 Aug 90 02:10:42 GMT
Sender: news@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 43
Approved: bes@tybalt.caltech.edu

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.