From: ahmad@ra.cs.umb.edu (Ahmad Hashem)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Hamas
Date: 24 Dec 92 20:54:30 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <1hcrepINNkrp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah) writes:
>Don't play smart by asking individual evidences!  Be general in your
>perspective.

'ppreciate the advice.

I see little point in pursuing this particular issue further.  We both agree 
in principle that it is not morally wrong to attack soldiers of an occupying
army.  You said Toledano in particular killed kids and women, and even though
this is probably not correct, there is no need to focus on it.

>I wonder what you would do if you were in their position and have one
>of your kids die in front of your eyes.  If you can "swallow" this, others
>don't!

If I were put in such a disastrous situation, and I hope I'd not, I'd 
probably become insane, and hate myself and the world.  I don't know.

Of course, if I am in that situation, I am not justified in doing whatever 
action I choose.  Principles of right and wrong still apply.

>Sure.. Ron wants to tell so many good things about Islam.  One of them
>is that parents whose kids are getting shot in cold blood are child-
>abusers.   Very good intention, isn't it?

If the above is true, and I very much doubt it, we still can give credit
when it is due, and point out to mistakes when we find some.  After all,
Quran says "wa la tabkhasoo an-nasa ashya'ahum" ('withhold not things
justly due to people') 26:183.

>Fine.. But, what times do muslims apply this verse?  Even if they get
>killed by injust doings.  Islam does apply this verse, and much better
>verses than this, which are throught Quran and Hadith, in times different
>than what the Palestinian people are going through.
>As I told you "Lukil Maqaamin Maqaal".
>
>The above verse was applicable in times where Islam was the major
>power and muslims were in peace and not oprressed.  However, Al-BaQarah
>verses which you completely ignored, which talk about "Qisas" retaliations,
>came in a time where muslims were opressed, beaten, deported, etc which are
>the same of the Palestinians today.

To say the very least, this is not uncontroversial.  I see more of your 
personal views here than what the verses clearly say.

"Likul maqaamin maqaal" is fine with me, but who is to decide what the
maqaam now is, and what the best maqaal that suits it?  I happen to think
that the best maqaal now is to pursue the peace process to its limits, and
see where it might lead.

Who is to decide that such and such applies when Muslims are in power, and 
such and such when they are oppressed?  I do not want to advocate total 
pacifism, because I don't believe in it, but I can imagine someone other 
than me [or you, of course :-) ] arguing for it based on what our Prophet
told 'Al Yasser "Sabran 'Al Yasser" ("be patient").

As to Qisas or retaliation, so many scholars have expanded on it.  To say 
the very least, many take the verse "faman 'afa wa aSlaH" ('he who forgives
and amends..') to be epitomizing the whole Islamic difference.  There were
many studies on why Islam is the final religion and Muhammad (PBUH) is 
the Seal of Prophets, whereas all previous religions had it in their
Scriptures that another religion/prophet will follow.  This lead to the
idea that there have to be many unique characteristics of Islam that no
other religion has (check Allama Muhammad Iqbal on this one).  One such 
characteristic, it is thought, is the introduction of a balance between
Qisas and IHsan in achieving justice.

>  And if this verse is not applicable to muslims these days, Hamas, Malcom X,
>  and many others are all wrong and you are the new Sheikh of Islam.

Although I am not very happy with the tone of what you're saying, your 
point is well taken nevertheless.  I certainly don't give Malcolm X too 
much authenticity.  I respect the man, and he is certainly a great person,
but this is different from saying he is a scholar on Islam and whatever
he says about it is correct.

As to Hamas and others, yes I do think they are wrong IF they consider it
okay to kill a kid.

>  44. "Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and
>  light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah)
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of
>  Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required
>  to guard (part) of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses
>  thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  unbelievers."
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  The prophets who submitted themselves to Allah are among them
>  the prophet of Islam(pbuh).  So  he is part of these people
>  "Alatheena Aslamoo" who judge for jews and muslims. And the
>  rest of the verse is directed to muslims otherwise it would've
>  been said instead of "therefore fear not the people and fear Me,
>  and do not take...", "therefore let them fear....".
>  So when the next verse comes, both jews and muslims are included.

I fail to see the connection.  I also fail to see how the "fear Me"
material is relevant here (but of course I always thank you for
quoting the Quran).

>* A final word to you that is don't be like these people of the
>  book "who beleive in part of the book and disbeleive in the
>  other."

Thanks; really.  We always need to remember this.

Best Ahmad
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic