Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!oliver From: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.followup Subject: Re: Re: Islam (long but increasingly tedious) Message-ID: <41@unc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 15:20:31 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.41 Posted: Sat Jul 27 15:20:31 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 06:33:54 EDT References: <10@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) Distribution: net Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 208 Keywords: Cylons, Zionists, bad guys, more horses, more mouths. Xref: watmath net.politics:10153 net.followup:5136 Summary: >> In article heddaya@harvard.ARPA ( Solom) writes: (paraphrased for length) Hey, we`re not such bad guys. We tolerate you. >> > Abdelsalam Heddaya >> I reply, (paraphrased again) Oh yeah? That`s not what I hear from the Western Front. Quote from Khomeini.... >> >> Bill Oliver Now on to Don Steiny..... >> > Citing Kohomeni to make arguments about Islam in general >is analogous to quoting Falwell to make arguments about Christianity >in general.... > > The Shi'i and the Suni'i are quite different. The idea >of an Inman, a leader who is divinely inspired and incapable >of error is a Shi'ite belief. Well, perhaps, if you want to make a very bad analogy. Khomeini and Falwell are similar in that they are both so-called fundamentalists. Falwell on one hand, however, is at best a spokesman for a minority of Protestant fundamentalists in the US. Khomeini is a leader with authority similar to that of the Pope, exerted in countries where his voice is law. There are 35 million people in Iran alone, 98% of which are big fans of his(1). This is not the leader of some rag tag fugitive fleet running from the invading Zionists. We`re talking bunches of folks. If one is driven to discussing Oriental religion in terms of the West, then I suggest that the analogy with Catholicism/Protestantism is better. Then, in fact, one can make statements about Christianity as a whole, with the caveat that no statements are universal. Sure, Shiites get their jollies from blowing away lots of people, which everyone on the net agrees is a no-no. The Sunni mostly just like to blow up Israelis, which seems, on the net, to be OK. > > Western culture owes a vast debt to the Islamic empire. > (paraphrase) Moslems did a bunch of neat stuff a few centuries back. Better than the West. Sure. Does this make them tolerant? Things have changed since the 13th century, Mr. Steiny. Islam gets high grades when compared to early medieval West. Mosts folk`s concepts of civilized behavior have changed since then; fundamental Islam generally hasn`t. > (paraphrase)e The West did a bunch of nasty things to the Arabs, and everything`s all our fault. > > In short, the Islamic people have been ripped off, insulted, >and generally abused in the worst way by the West and they have >every reason to be angry. > Without addressing your accusations against the West, let me remind you that my article was in response to Mr. Heddeya`s assertions of Islamic tolerance. If you are saying that Islam is justified in it`s intolerance, that is a different question altogether. I somehow get the impression that the general drift of your article was that Islam really is tolerant; I just chose a straw man by choosing a spokesman from the second biggest Islamic sect rather than the first. WELL. Let`s look at it a little more closely, then. As Mr. Heddeya stated, even in the most liberal Islamic state, the penal code is still derived from religious thought. That means that the best one can do in terms of separation of church and state is more than the legendary Mr. Falwell thinks of in his most expansive moments. To quote the Islamic Council of Europe: Islam conceives of God`s purpose of creation as the realization of His will, the highest part of which is the moral... That is why Islam soes not countenance any separation of religion and state. The state is society`s political arm which, like society itself, is meant to bring about the realization of the absolute in history. Between the state proper, society with its other organs and institutions, and man as person, there is only a division of labor, a distinction as to function. All are subject to the same purpose and goal. The transitiveness of man`s actions demands a public law to regulate it. It cannot be satisfied with a verdict of conscience. That is why Islam had to develop the sharia, a public law governing the personal as well as the societal fields of actions...(2). Even when explicitly acting as apologist for Muslim views on human rights, Brohi(3) finds himself saying: As an Islamic State is an ideological State, some reservation will have to be made against non-Muslims in matters which demand complete identification with the ideology of the State.... and then ends with: Europe has opted for the `permissive society` and has landed in chaos. Islam on the other hand has asked us to become members of a disciplined society; by disciplining ourselves we rule ourselves from within. The State enfroces the law of God against those who are out to disrupt social order and pose threats to human security. Or observe the Universal Islamic Declaration (4): IV Framework for an Islamic Order 1) State Policy a) The sharia is the supreme law of the Muslim community and must be enforced in its entirety in all aspects of life. Each and every Muslim country must explicitly make Sharia the criterion by which to judge public and private conduct of all, rulers and ruled alike, and the chief source of all legislation in the country. c) It is the obligation and right of every person to participate in the political process, and political authority is to be entrusted to those who are worthy of it ACCORDING TO THE ISLAMIC CRITERION OF KNOWLEDGE, TRUSTWORTHINESS, AND CAPABILITY. (emphasis mine) f) ALL persons in authority are bound by the rules of the Sharia both in regard to their personal as well as public conduct. (empahsis mine) Admittedly, the Sharia is unequally applied to non-Muslims, depending upon which country one happens to be in. However, in a fundamentalist state it is almost always partially applied, especially in the Hadd punishments, those directly decreed by God. For example, the Koran demands punishment of fornication with 100 lashes, adultery with death, drinking of intoxicating beverages with 40 lashes, and theft with amputation(5). Furthermore, as with all legislatures, the laws are made to extend around the immediate `liberties` given to the minority. What good is liberty to eat pork if the sale of pork is forbidden? So, this great tolerance I am hearing about is a tolerance of a country where I would be taxed differently because of my religion, I would be held unequal under the law because of my religion, I would be barred from high political office because of my religion, and, OK, somewhat less than half the people want to kill me as a religious duty. > Often people in the United States cite examples to show >how barbaric, backward, evil, or whatever that Moslems are. >How do you think this makes a Moslem feel? No wonder so many >Moslems in the Mideast hate the United States. > I would hope that this theoretical Moslem would go back and work to see that I no longer have so many examples to cite. I don`t hate anybody. I once seriously considered converting to Islam, and I am basically sympathetic with much of Islamic theology. I just don`t see this as tolerance. > > It's true, Dorthy, it's not Kansas, but you might discover >that it is OZ. I am not Dorothy, Mr. Steiny, and, though it may be a shock, this is not Oz. Bill Oliver standard disclaimer 1) Ghulam Sarwar. Islam: Beliefs and Teachings. The Muslim Educational Trust, pubs. 1982. p 204. 2) Isma`il Al Faruqi, Islam as Culture and Civilization. in Islam and Contemporary Society. published by Longman in association with the Islamic Council of Europe, London and New York. pp 140-176. 3) Allahbukhsh K Brohi, Human Rights and Duties in Islam. in Islam and Contemporary Society. pp 231-252. 4) Salem Azzam, Secretary General, Islamic Council. in Islam and Contemporary Society. pp 253-266. 5) Herbert J. Liebesny. The Law of the Near and Middle East. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1975. p228-229.