Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-athena!martillo From: martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: Islam (long but not propaganda) Message-ID: <297@mit-athena.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 03:25:04 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-athe.297 Posted: Tue Jul 30 03:25:04 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 00:19:00 EDT Reply-To: martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) Distribution: net Organization: MIT Project Athena Lines: 216 Keywords: Islam, humiliation, degradation, `ulama, Qur'an Xref: linus net.politics:9496 net.religion:6878 >In the heat of the discussion of the Lebanon hostage crisis, several >accusations were directed to Islam as a whole. Being a muslem, I would like >to respond to one of these accusations. Maybe my response will help those who >want to better understand Muslems and Islam. >Mr. Joaquim Martillo (martillo@mit-athena.UUCP) charges that: >> Muslims as a matter of religious faith and practise consider themselves >> obligated to humiliate and degrade non-Muslims. >Imagine my surprise at reading that after all what I have been taught of my >religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that >Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in >self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those >who forgive. What bull shit! Tolerance has never been considered a virtue in the major Western religions. The concept of tolerance as a virtue begins with the Enlightenment and really only comes to full expression in the middle 19th century in Western Europe. To claim Islam a religion which came into being in the 7th century by Christian reakoning considers as a virtue an idea which neither Europeans nor Muslims hardly even thought about until 100 years ago is an insult to intelligence. >The rules given by the Koran (our holy book) and Sunna (prophet Mohammad's >sayings and actions) regarding treating non-muslems under muslem jurisdiction >are very clear and unambiguous: they should be allowed to worship freely; >their properties and religious structures are to remain untouched; but they >should pay a tax (called "Jiziah" in arabic) which is almost equivalent to the >tax paid by muslems ("Zakah"). Actually, the jizya and the kharaj were a crushing burden which wiped out the non-muslim peasantry almost everywhere in the Islamic world. The disappearance of the non-muslim peasantry is an easily verifiable fact. The following is the relevant passage on the jizyah from the Qur'an: Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given, who believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day, who forbid not what Allah and His apostle have forbidden, and follow not the true faith, until they pay the tribute out of hand and are humbled (hatta yu`tu 'l-jizyata `an yadin wa-hum saghirum is somewhat obscure -- I have translated according to later Muslim understanding.) Sura 9:29 The following is from a standard commentary on the Qur'an by Mahmud ibn `Umar al-Zamakshari (1075-1144). The jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. He [the dhimmi] shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say: 'Pay the jizya!', and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck. So what is the purpose of this shit -- which my parents and grandparents had to undergo? From the Hanbali jurist Ibn al-Naqqah (1400s) in Belin, "Fetwa relatif a la condition des dhimmis et particulierement des chretiens en pays musulmans depuis l`etablissement de l`Islam jusqu`au milieu du 8e siecle de l'hegire," Journal Asiatique 4th series, 19 (1852): 107-108 -- I believe Heddaya can find this at Widener or at the Library which I believe is in the Semitics Museum building: Perhaps in the end they will come to believe in God and His Prophet, and thus be delivered from this shameful yoke. Therefore, while Muslims are not obligated to convert by force, they are obligated to annihilate gradually the non-Muslim communities by humiliation and degradation. No wonder the Copts in Egypt get rather upset when Sheikh Hafiz Salama calls for the reintroduction of the jizya. > The two standard principles in Islamic Law >("shari'a") that define the relation with non-muslems are: This is pure ignorance. The legal basis of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is the pact of `Umar which gives the non-Muslims permanent second-class status and compels non-Muslims to abase themselves before Muslims. >1) Let them do what they believe in. (literal translation of the arabic > "etrukohom wa ma yadeenoon") >2) For them what is for us, and from them what is from us. ("lahom ma lana, > wa alayhom ma alayna") >Applying these principles, non-muslems are allowed to have their own laws in >marriage, divorce, and the like. What they don't get to choose, though--and >have to follow Muslem law in--is the penal code (for crimes) and the laws >governing financial transactions. Which is a fairly large qualification since Muslim courts invariably accept the testimony of Muslims and reject the testimony of non-Muslims. >The prophet Muhammad said: >* Protect my [contract with non-muslems]. (Muslem law defines the relation > with non-muslems as a social contract) The Qur'an says (Sura 5:51): O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are friends to one another. Whoever of you befriends them is one of them. Allah does not guide the people who do evil. Sura 9:30: The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah," and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." Thos are the words of their mouths, conforming to the words of the unbelievers before them. Allah attack them! How perverse they are! >* Whoever is unfair to a [non-muslem], or [taxes] him more than he can > afford, then I will [argue against him on the day of judgement]. The above quotation is from a non-canonical (and therefore of little legal value) hadith (if I recognize it properly). I believe the full context can be found in Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj (Cairo, 1382/1962-63) pp 122-25. It has no isnad (chain of transmission). >Moreover, Islam grants a special status to Christians and Jews (people of the >book), because Islam recognizes and acknowledges both religions as valid in >their own times and places. You must see how highly the Koran speaks of >Jesus and Moses to understand that no devout muslem is going to hurt a >christian or jew just because of the latter's belief. And if he does, then >he is simply violating the teachings of Islam as it stands documented. The Qur'an frequently states the Christians and Jews warped and distorted the teachings which Jesus and Moses gave. Such an idea cannot help but inspire Muslim contempt for Christians and Jews. >Please, don't prematurely judge a major religion of the world, which is also >associated with a major civilization. Also, observe that political groups >who are labeled as Muslem do not always operate in the name of Islam, or even >under its teachings. After reading Heddaya's rather ignorant statements about Islam, I am only more convinced that if a Westerner wants to learn about Islam, he should not listen to Westernized propagandists and apologists but rather should read and listen to men like the Ayatollah Khomeini, Sheikh `Umar Abd el-Rahman, `Umar el-Talmassani, Gad el-Hakk, Sheikh Hafiz Salama who are really all right in the mainstream of their tradition. In any case, even if Heddaya were writing truthfully, claiming that the Islamic attitude toward non-Muslims can be determined merely be reading the Qur'an is pure intellectual dishonesty. Analagously, I could prove on the basis of the USA Constitution and Declaration of Independence that Black slavery never existed in the USA. >The Barbaric Islam, as Mr. Martillo prefers to call it, has maintained and >developed the contributions of the ancient egyptian, greek, and persian >civilizations while Europe was in the dark ages! I do not deny that Muslims added a modicum to the classical heritage. I do believe their contribution is often exaggerated, but this is irrelevant to my contention. I contend that Islam qua ideology assigns non-Muslims permanent second-class status and requires the humiliation and degradation of non-Muslims. This can be determined by studying the body of Islamic commentary, jurisprudence, and theology of the last 1300 years. Further, the ideologicaly position of non-Muslims has been steadily declining over at least the past millenium. This is most apparent in the Hanbali school of thought which has tended lately to deny the legitimacy of the dhimma. Fortunately, for most of the last millenium, the rulers and their dependent jurists have taken a slightly more lenient viewpoint than the `ulama and the non-Muslim communities were able to survive to the 19th century when they could get protection from Europe. Unfortunately, nowadays the ruling-elites in most Muslim nations are almost totally Westernized and have lost both legitimacy and the will to resist the `ulama's increasing demands for power which have basically made the ideology of the `ulama equivalent to the ideology of Islam. Several have argued that Muslims are no better Muslims than Christians are good Christians. Therefore, my arguments would be irrelevant. But the fundamental ideology is important. Because Jim Crow conflicted with the fundamental ideology of American society, Jim Crow died in the USA. But in Germany several hundred years ago, Martin Luther said the synagogue should be burned and that the Jews should be gathered and murdered. And the Germans eventually carried out these tasks. Likewise in Islam the fundamental ideology has required the humiliation and degradation of non-Muslims. Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims cannot help but be affected. Consequently over the past millenium non-Muslims have been subjected to ever increasing contempt, harassment and persecution. And the Muslims see nothing wrong with this or like the Germans have refused to see it happening (by the way you should not ask Muslim whether they treat non-Muslims well -- that is like asking the Southern slaveholder whether his slaves were happy). For this reason, until Muslims make a fundamental ideological adjustment and concede that they just might owe non-Muslims for historical and current mistreatment, Muslims cannot be permitted to rule countries and must be returned to colonial status until they get over Islam. In the seventh century, when the Muslims took the Byzantine territories, I am sure that my ancestors who lived in these territories were relieved. The Byzantines were scum. Humiliation and degradation and permanent second-class-status were better than anything the Byzantines offered. But I nowadays do not compare Islam with Byzantinism but rather with truth, justice and the American way. Just as Byzantinism became detritus to be swept away by changing circumstances. Nowadays Islam is the detritus which should be removed to garbage dump of history.