From: slzm9@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Nonviolence, defense and America (Was Re: Violence, defense and Islam)
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:08:56 MDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Utah State University

In article <2343.117.uupcb@wugate.wustl.edu!travel>, carl.camurca@wugate.wustl.edu!travel (Carl Camurca)  writes:
> Hi everybody!
> 
> BS>From: bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
> BS>Subject: Re: ?Islam
> 
> BS>Jihad is indeed a reality of Islam. Holy War is an incorrect
> translation
> BS>of it. It literally means "struggle" and by that is meant struggle in
> BS>the path of God. The greatest Jihad, or "Jihadi Akbar" is the
> spiritual
> BS>struggle against one's evil temptations.
> 
> Thanks so much for the elucidation. It happens very seldom in this echo,
> that an innocent question gets a straight and clear explanation instead
> of picking on the color or the name of the poster...
>

   Carl, you hit the nail on the head with that one.
 
> 
> BS>Jihad may also take violent forms.  But we are not talking about
> BS>aribtrary violence here.  The Qur'an regulates the type of violence.
> 
> BS>With all due respect to pacifist philosophers, be they Ghandi or Dr. King,
> BS>a world-view which does not permit the use of force even in self-defense
> BS>is not practical on a national level.  For example, if Nazi Germany
> BS>invades you, you want to defend youself.   The Qur'an specifically
> BS>permits the use of violence as a method of defense and a means to put
> BS>an end to oppression.

   Ahh here we come to a very interesting point. This goal of change was
sought by the world against the Nazis. The world sought to confine the
nazis within their own borders. Many of us now seek to change racist
America and the question is "Is self defense practical/necessary/
justified?"
   One possible answer is that when you strike out against someone
striking you then you have already lost this battle. If you do not
strike back but you refuse to get off the bus, or leave the building
or whatever what choice do the authorities have. They can physically
move you, kill you and move you, or let your remain. Usually they
choose the first but if there are 100,000 people sitting on buses
or in buildings then it stops being a manageable problem. The
remaining choices are to kill the protester or let them remain.
   This brings us to the Nazis. If a person or a country has chosen
a tradition of non-violence their approach to interpersonal/foreign
affairs is quite different to one that has violence as a possible
alternative. A truly non-violent nation would have realized at the
end of World War I that if Germany was not given the means to
rebuild itself and feed its people then an even stronger threat
would grow out of such suppression. Sure enough the lack of adequate
food, shelter and clothing in Germany led the populace to seek
alternatives. When the leadership could not give them a chance to
earn a living then the Germans turned to a group that was determined
to take from the world what they would not freely give. Thus
the economic suppression of Germans, at least in part, may have
led them to consider radical alternatives, e.g. the Nazis.

   Surely you can see the analogy between then and now. Rich folks,
mostly white males, are suppressing a class of people, the poor folks
(mostly minorities). These oppressors have not learned from the past
and do not see that unless they make it possible for the poor people
to earn a living then civil war must result. 
   If the rich people in this country will not provide poorer people
with the oppurtunity of education and economic well-being then
as sure as you are reading this the poorer folks will eventually
rise up to take it.
   I only hope this can be done non-violently. We shall see.

> 
> BS>Malcolm X, as a Muslim, said that he accepted the use of violence for defens
> BS>against violence.  He said, in fact, that if the violence is in self-defense
> BS>he wouldn't even call it "violence," he would call it "intelligence."  He
> BS>said --and I am praphrasing-- "We are only non-violent to those who are
> BS>non-violent to us."
> 
> Well, now we got another problem. *WHO* defines, what "defense" is and
> when it is necessary? Hitler was defending the lebensraum of the Aryan
> race, Bush was defending the "free" world in Iraq, Grenada, Vietnam
> etc., Breshnev defended The Only Ideology in Afghanistan, Khomeini
> defended the Islam against the evil West, especially evil heretics
> like Rushdi. Are the lyrics of the song "Cop killer" an appell for
> self-defense? The German army knew a term called "Vorne-Verteidigung"
> ("forward defense"). What does this mean exactly? Doesn't it sound more
> like attack? I mean, this is slippery ground, by this way "defense"
> becomes quickly something different and uncontrollable.
>

   This is the sticky wicket, the proverbial catch 22. What one says
is aggression others do not agree with? So people like Suddam Hussein
recapture lands that he claims once belonged to Iraq. Indeed Hussein
always maintained that Kuwait were territories that were once part
of Iraq. Thus his "reclaiming" them against western usurpation was
self-defense. Now everybody didn't see it that way. So George Bush
decided to help DEFEND those poor kuwaitis. For this he sent missions
INTO Iraq but these troops were DEFENDIND Kuwait, right. See you
can interpret it any way you want which is exactly the "slippery
ground" that Carl was referring to I think.
 
 
> BS> Behnam Sadegi
> 
> Thoughtful, Carl.
> 
>  * OLX 2.1 TD * We now return to our regularly scheduled flame-throwing...
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                
   I respectfully request that all attacks on William Carter Franklin
cease. We are sisters and brothers, regardless of our points of view we must
stick together if we are to execute any change in racist America.


Peace, but not without justice,
zip