Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxt!martillo From: martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Anti-Arab flaming - angrier still Message-ID: <382@ihuxt.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Apr-84 19:28:45 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxt.382 Posted: Tue Apr 3 19:28:45 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Apr-84 13:41:15 EST References: <503@mprvaxa.UUCP> <373@ihuxt.UUCP>, <374@ihuxt.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 93 >1. In regards to the Q'uran - > Mr. Martillo managed to find a brief extract from one Sura which could > be read as anti-Jewish. Award him a gold star. The second one, about > humbling and tribute, expresses the fact that under strict Moslem law, > only non-Moslems pay taxes - this system was actually in use for a while > after the original Moslem conquest of the Levant and North Africa, > immediately after Mohammed's death. Obviously it is neither practical > nor applied today. Actually, I can find many such passages in the Qur'an. But just as the Constitution of the United States barely alludes to slavery, the Qur'an really only alludes to the systematic degradation of non-Muslims. Just as American state governments developed meticulous slave codes, likewise Islamic Jurists developed meticulous codes for the degradation of dimmis (subject people). Reading only the Constitution and referencing only the Declaration of Independence, a scholar could probably also deny that slavery existed in late 18th and early 19th century America. The author is actually referring to an extremely lenient Hanafi interpretation of this passage. The Ottoman Empire used this interpretation in its Balkan provinces where Muslims were a minority and where it might be difficult to crush the rebellion a more normative interpretation might cause. Whether jizyah originally meant specifically the tribute non-Muslims were to pay is subject to dispute. A few less religious Muslim rulers (in opposition to the ulama) simply imposed a tax not too extortionate and only required symbolic humiliation. In the law codes "wa-hum saghirun -- and they are humbled" lead to many interesting practices like forcing Jews and other non-Muslims to go barefoot when outside the non-Muslim ghetto area (mellah, hara' in the Jewish case). The French terminated this quaint application of Muslim law around 1910. I quoted the passage because it explicitly states Muslims do not consider Jews and Christians worship the same God which they do. I have heard imams in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Israel make exactly the same statement. > It is mildly rediculous for a descendent for a descendent of Libyan Jews > and a WASP former resident of Lebanon to be arguing Islamic theology in > this forum. My assertion remains: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The vast majority of traditional Islamic scripture, teaching, AND CULTURE, > is extremely tolerant towards Jews. Historically, a Jewish minority has > been safer among Moslems than Christians (not that this is saying much). > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mr. Martillo disagrees. Neither of us is a real expert. Go find out for > yourselves. I do not know what makes the author think I am not an expert except possibly that I disagree with the author's uninformed opinion. I do know the author is an illiterate and ignoramus in Islamic scholarship whose only experience with even half-baked Islamic culture was living in Lebanon which is a periphery region where Muslims have yet to achieve complete domination. By the way somehow despite Islamic tolerance and Christian intolerance over the past 500 years, the Jewish fraction of the population in Europe was going up while the Jewish fraction of the population in the Islamic world was declining rapidly. >2. Racism or not-racism > Yep, Arabs and Jews are not merely members of the same race, but of the > same Semitic cultural grouping within the Caucasian race. So I guess > the term "racism" is not technically correct. How about narrow-minded > redneck xenophobic ethnocentric bigoted chauvinist stupidity, then? > To quote Mr. Martillo: > "I am not implying anything. I dislike Muslims explicitly. They have an > ideology which requires my subjugation." > Fine. That is not only incorrect but disqualifies you from making > substantive contributions to debate on one of the world's great > political issues - the Middle East situation. And it still doesn't > belong on the net. The author has shown no qualifications whatsoever to make comments on Islamic ideology. I suppose if I despise fascism and I dislike fascists, I am unqualified to enter a debate on fascism. Mr. Bray is simply unwilling to concede that non-Muslim minorities in Muslim controlled regions might have some legitimate gripes against Muslims. Also, he refuses to accept evidence for those legitimate gripes. He is by definition evincing prejudice which implies perhaps some deeper bigotry. Maybe he should disqualify himself from further debate.