Reply to Kism on "land belongs to its owner"

Submitted by Prashant (United States), Apr 9, 2011 at 02:27

Dear Dr Pipes:

The misimpression that Kism is trying to create must be refuted. His implication that a land belongs to its owners needs to be questioned. First, does the land still belong to the owners if the owners usurped it from others. Do the zorostrians who were thrown out of Persia by invading Muslim armies have any right on the Iranian land? Are Kashmiris rightful owners of Kashmir when they are intimidating the current non-Muslim residents to leave the region? If the Islamic occupation of Spain had been allowed to continue, would we have been right to say that Spain is an Islamic land? Second, does the land still belong to the owners if their purpose is to snatch people's civil liberties and create second class citizens of those people who do not belong to a certain religion? Kism has written from some place in Australia. If a Hindu army from Nepal attacks that city of Australia where Kism lives, converts the majority of people to Hinduism and declares that region of Australia as a Hindu Kingdom, would Kism consider it a legitimate state of affairs. How easily we forget the wrong that we do/dd!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".