Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!topgun!mustang!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bes From: mughal@iago.caltech.edu (Mughal, Asim) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: Differences of a Muslim with Israel! Message-ID: <1990Nov14.113459.9292@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Date: 14 Nov 90 11:34:59 GMT Sender: bes@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 149 Approved: bes@tybalt.caltech.edu In article <1990Nov12.121229.18201@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, isaac@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Isaac Balbin) writes... >mughal@iago.caltech.edu (Mughal, Asim) writes: >>> Even in 1948, this area was part of >>>Israel. >>It certainly was, that was the time Israel occupied Falasteen, >>the question really is who was there prior to 1948? >>Is that not driving the people of land out of their homes? > >Not in this newsgroup it isn't. This newsgroup discusses Islam, >as I understand it. I am looking for Muslim (religious) answers to >certain questions. I am not looking for talk.politics.mideast. > You see actually it pertains to this newsgroup. In my previouw note I mentioned that Islam's holy scripture Quran, mentions that Muslims should fight those who drive Muslims ou of there homes. Muslims (the followers of Islam) all over the world (about one billion) do generally believe (you may make a survey if you disagree) that Falasteen is occupied by the so called state of Israel. My claim: Quran says to fight those who drive you out of your homes. Muslims believe that Falasteenis are drived from their homes. Thus the argument stays that it pertains to this newsgroup. >>> Does Islam believe in an eye for an eye? >>Islam certainly believes an eye for an eye and all Muslims >>are obliged to obey. >Thank you for the answer. Where is the source for Muslims believing this? >What does it mean in Islam. It is not taken legally by the other >two religions who reference this dictum. > It means exactly what it says. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. What two religions are you referring to without mentioning their names? >>BUT what about Judaism, does it not >>believe in it, can they murder 21 people for throwing >>stones. >I suggest you ask this question to the halacha mailing list which >asks questions of Jewish Law. >I doubt that police were acting based on Jewish Law. They were >probably acting according to the police manual and their orders. >I am unsure if you will find the Police manual in the Jewish Torah. > I dont mean to go out of the SRI topic here and merely want to mention the claim in Quran that the Jews are not following the teachings of Moses peace be upon him, (an exalted prophet of Islam, praised highly in Quran in many instances). The Police manuals were written by authorities, given authority by the elected leaders of Israel. Even if the Police was working according to the manuals, that does not relieve the state of Israel, the only country formed in the name of Judaism and claims to have the official religion Judaism, the teachings of Moses peace be upon him. No religion teaches killing people without proper cause, including Judaism. My claim, as I learnt from Quran, is that Jews today are not following the teachings of Moses peace be upon him. >>An eye for an eye to me means that they if >>someone throws stone at you, you may throw stones at him, >>but bullets ... Nah! > >Is that what it means to you or to Islam? I would ask the moderators >to direct the questions to be more in line with Islam, or at least >personal understandings of Islam. Does Islam have a *literal* reading, >and if so, a stone thrower should not complain if he/she gets hit >with stones in return. > It is the teaching of Islam as I mentioned, and yes if stones are thrown in return, what is remained to complain about? And please do not pretend to be an authority in Islam as to decide to recommend whether or not such a response is Islamic in nature or not. I am sure the moderator is fully aware of his esponsibilities. >>I agree that praying is not fighting and if there are >>people praying they are not fighting. But these are the >>people who drove those Falasteenis out of there home >>and throwing stones is the demonstration of frustrations >>these people have. Still not deserving bullets. > >I am interested in the Islamic perspective here. >Are you saying that according to Islam, because the Jews, in your >opinion, drove out people from Falasteen, that there is a mandate >in Muslim Law to attack Jews (or other conquering nations) residing >in Israel at any time, at any place, and without necessary direct provocation? And I am giving you the Islamic perspective (without a professional fee ..). I have already claimed above that Islam considers driving from homes a valid reason to fight and Muslims agree that occupation of Israel is driving Muslims from their home. >As I understand it, this is your understanding of Islam. Is that correct? > Your understanding in incorrect. >Your last "sentence" of "Still not deserving bullets" was out of >context since we were discussing those praying at the wall and not >the policeman who were there to police the area. > No it is not. We cannot see the incidence by breaking it into pieces wherever we like. We cannot condemn the throwing of stones and then in the same breath leave itupto the Police manuals to justify 21 murders. BTW, I am still within topic of SRI as it is a murder of 21 Muslims, requiring action from Muslims, the followers of Islam. >Can I now also add a very similar question? >Readers will no doubt know of the deplorable >slaughter of *200* Muslims by Hindus in India after >Hindus tried to storm a Muslim temple on the >grounds that it had no business in India. >What is the attitude of Islam to Muslim temples in foreign countries? >In particular, should they move their temple to another Islamic country, or >should they willfully endanger their lives by persisting in living >in a country that would appear to have a hostile group of people >against them? Is one permitted to endanger ones life thus, or should >one submit to martyrdom? First things first, since you have gained access to SRI, I think it is about time that you learn that there is no such thing as Muslim temple. The place where Muslims worship, is called by Quran Masjid. As far as I know, (and you may add to my knowledge Dr.) no relegion persecutes believers of other religion. It is the people who take the law of the Almighty in their hands. Why should the Muslims move their Masjid to other lands from where they are if there is no danger to their Masjid? Why should they have any fear in a non-Muslim state? and why should they die? I fail to comprehend. __Asim Mughal_______________________________________________________________ I only represent myself, not my university and/or my employer. ====To get on my ignore list; Send flames and/or unsolicited e-mail==== Mughal@citiago.bitnet mughal@Caltech.bitnet mughal@iago.caltech.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~