From: cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Hamas
Date: 6 Jan 1993 19:38:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


ahmad@ra.cs.umb.edu (Ahmad Hashem) writes:

>In article <1i0epvINN6a4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah) writes:
>>
>>Where in quran or in hadith hamas violates the basic rules of justice.
>
>Please read the following carefully because I think we are going in
>circles here.  To say the least, Hamas's attacking Jewish *kids* violates 
>the basic rules of justice.  I mentioned previously Abu Bakr's commandments 
>to his army.  You said those do not apply when Muslims are weak.

I didn't say "those do not apply when Muslims are weak."  What I said was
that muslims have to treat others the same way they are getting treated.
And Abu Bakr commandments came to an army who was about to open a city for
islam in which its people didn't use to kill muslim kids.  I think the
circumstance here is different.

> But>you failed to quote the verse or hadith that when Muslims are weak they
>could kill (Jewish) kids; i.e., that when Muslims are weak they do not have
>to follow Abu Bakr's commandments.

I quoted you several ones, but who learns?  People look for the same 
wordings.  They may see it islamic only if there is a verse that says, "it 
is ok to take a jew border guard officer by the name Nassim Toldeno from Lud 
and ask for freeing your sick prisoner named only by Ahmad Yessin and 
ask to be freed within 24 hours otherwise it is oblegated on you to kill 
him only by guns not knives or sowards."  Another verse,"if jews shoot
your kids and kids who are only under the age of 12, you are obligated to
kill the same number of jewish kids in return, if you kill more or less
you're guilty."

Even if such a verse existed, people will still call this 'ad homenim'.

>>Do the peace negotiations discuss making treaties for a specific period, 
>>and is there a balance b/w jews and palestinians?  Did Sulh Al Hodibiah
>>forbid muslims from returning to Macca?  Did it give only the permission
>>for the Qurishes to be armed but not muslims? 

>Your point about the Palestinians being weak now does not stand.  The fact
>that Muslims made a SulH (peace treaty) when they were strong does not make
>it unIslamic for them to make one when they are weak.  

Simple logic, if there is no balance in power, there is no fair
peace.  A kid will realize this.

>After all, the Quranic verse about peace "If the enemy incline towards peace,
>do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God" (8:61) does not really
>qualify things.  I don't see why I have to accept, from an Islamic point of
>view, your divisions of when Muslims are weak vs when they are strong.

You are bringing a very interesting point here.  But again the point here
do this while you are  s t r o n g.  Lets see how this can be.

- Sorat Al Anfal main subject about fighting and jihad, not peace. and it 
  is evident throughout the verses that it calls for people to fight kafreen,
  jews and arabs.

- If you look at the verse just before this, we will find:
{
60. And prepare against them what force you can and horses
tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and
your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know
(but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in
Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be
dealt with unjustly.
}
What does this tell us?  Apply verse 60 before verse 61!
"Aidoo" and "wa In Janahoo lisalmi".  Which to my understanding
tells take all the means to be strong and if they later want to
make peace, there is nothing wrong in doing it, but always be
the strong one.

- Another interesting verse also before it:
{
57. Therefore if you overtake them(jews) in fighting, then scatter by
(making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that
they may be mindful.
}  

- Lets see the ones after it:
{
65. O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty
patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if
there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of
those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not
understand.
}
Note it is "O Prophet! urge the believers to war" not
"O Prophet! urge the believers to peace"    

And there are so many throught the sorat Al-Anfaal.

There is a very good verse that you should know about in sorat Mohammed
that explains it all, and please think about it:

Mohammed 
{
 35. And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the
 upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring
 your deeds to naught.
}

>As to the "specific period of time", I'd be willing, for the sake of argument,
>to comrpmise on this one; i.e., would YOU accept making a peace treaty with 
>Israel for, say, 50 years? 

Yes I would under conditions that doesn't allow me to violate islamic
rules.  The basic one is "prepare against them what force you can," not
a peace were we have a palestine without strong army.  Of course, jews
love this.

>You seem to reject the whole idea of talking with them to begin with.

I don't.  But let see if they accept the above term.

>Did not the prophet (pbuh) talk with his enemies?

Yes he did, but when he defeated them in battles of Badr and Ahzzab, 
and he had a strong army.  Remeber the keyword "strong".

>Did he arrive at SulH al-Hudaibiah without negotiating with them?

Yes he negotiated with them, when he was strong and had the upper
hand.  Remeber the humilation the arabs went thru at the start of
peace talks.

>Then why do you reject the whole idea of negotiations?

I don't.  "The peace they are looking for is not the
same peace we are looking for."  Ahmad Yassin.

>>It depends on how he causes it to break.  If he punches you on the face,
>>and caused it to break.  Don't do Qisas, go and kiss him on the cheek
>>and tell him thank you.
>Did you look up "ad hominem" in the dictionary yet? :-)

>Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with my question: I asked whether
>I'd be justifed in punching any *other* person from the same group in
>retaliation.

Your argument doesn't apply at the time of  war.  Since you
can't find your exact person that hit you, and since the other
person didn't make any difference whether you are the right person 
to puch, you're justified to punch any one.

>Look, Hamza, if the kid of an Arab is killed by Israelis, the
>desire of the father to revenge for his kid's death might make him take his
>weapon and kill some innocent Jewish kid in return.  He might feel better 
>this way.  He might call what he did heroism.  But please, don't call it
>Islamic.  Don't call it Jihad.  Call it revenge.

Only jewish kids are innocent, and arabs are not?  Islam tells you
to treat people the same way they treat you in fighting.  If they kill 
muslim kids, muslims have the right to do the same.  Is this 'ad hominem'?
Our kids are as innocent as theirs.

If you can't see this now, you may do some day.

>Best Ahmad
-- 
                  ___________________ cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu _____________
                 (______   _  |   _  |_
_____ H A M Z A ________) |-| |_ |-| | |