Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!yale!husc6!m2c!wpi!zama@midway.uchicago.edu
From: zama@midway.uchicago.edu (iftikhar uz zaman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Muslim View on Middle East conflict
Message-ID: <14990@wpi.wpi.edu>
Date: 4 Sep 90 11:47:41 GMT
References: <1990Aug24.050736.14887@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> <14622@wpi.wpi.edu> <14658@wpi.wpi.edu>
Sender: shari@wpi.wpi.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 112
Approved: shari@wpi.wpi.edu


[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