🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:55:02 -0500, iman <iman@merr.com> wrote:

>I seek refuge in God.
>In the Name of God :
>
>huge@wi.rr.com wrote:
> 

>
>> How is reporting these informal,
>> non-politicized, unofficial positions, factually, misleading? 
>
>If we hold these positions to be representative of a particular party
>amongst the millenial muslim world, then no, they're not misleading.  If
>we imagine them to be representative of Islam, *that* is misleading.
>

You have not demostrated otherwise.


>> Tell me,
>> is the official palestinian response denouncing the WTC attack as
>> horrible terrorism a true reflection of the majority of palestinians?
>
>Why don't you go over there and do a survey?  Be careful of Israeli
>sniper bullets and bulldozers on your way.
>
>> Like the those palestinians in Gaza, the west bank,Wayne  and Paterson
>> New Jersey, Hempstead Long Island who were celebrating the act in the
>> streets.
>
>Pretty mindless of them if it's true, I admit.  Then again, neither my
>family nor I have known what it's like to have your pleas for an end to
>Israeli military occupation receive, at the most, ineffective token
>gestures of sympathy for the past five decades.  

Do you really want to open this can of worms up? I will go toe to toe,
if you wish....


>
>Have you or your family known this?

yes


>
>> You can take whatever position you want, officially. Behaving
>> the exactly opposite way destroys your credibility.
>
>I agree.
>
><snipped for brevity>
>
>> >> Sitting under a poster advertising "Crispy and Delicious McWings,"
>> >> Radwa Abdallah, an 18-year-old university student, is explaining that
>> >> she
>> >> rejoiced when she learned that thousands of Americans had probably
>> >> died in
>> >> the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
>> >> "Everyone
>> >> celebrated," Ms. Abdallah says, as her girlfriends giggle. "People
>> >> honked in
>> >> the streets, cheering that finally America got what it truly
>> >> deserved."
>> >
>> >> Fellow student Raghda El Mahrouqi agrees: "I just hope there were a
>> >> lot of Jews in that building," she says. Sherihan Ammar, an aspiring
>> >> doctor
>> >> in elaborate makeup and tight T-shirt, sums up her feelings this way:
>> >> "America was just too full of itself," she says with a dismissive
>> >> gesture.
>> >
>> >> [rest of article deleted]
>> >
>> >Yeah.  Eating the meat which one has no confidence as to how it was
>> >slaughtered.  A girl wearing showy makeup and a tight T-shirt.  That's
>> >representative of Islam for ya.  Uh-huh.
>> 
>> No, you miss the point. These are moderate, educated islamic students.
>
>In the ways of the world and materialism, yes.
>
>> Even with their education, and moderate practices they still espouse
>> the hatred of the fundamentalist muslims.
>
>Correction :  I am a muslim fundamentalist.  A fundamentalist, by
>definition, is one who adheres to the fundamentals.  The fundamentals of
>my religion do not teach me to espouse hatred.

Except to non-believers, infidels, and any threat to the world of
islam. Which is the sharia justification for killing christian
missionaries, and or sentencing them to death. 
>
> So you're now saying that
>> muslims who don't keep kosher, or women who show their faces with
>> makeup, and wear whatever they want are not good Islamic examples? 
>
>1)  Muslims don't "keep kosher."  Orthodox Jews do.  Yes, muslims also
>do not eat the flesh of swine, carrion or blood.  We -- those who know
>the religion -- take pains to insure that meat is certainly slaughtered
>"zabiha," or "In the Name of ALLAH."

Is this why islamic people buy kosher meat? It qualifies, and is
considered adequate for muslim consumption. Just because it wasn't
referred to by the islamic name. I assure you that the kosher
preparation of meat, in the same way as you described, predates islam.
You can claim it to be a different name, and claim that it is islamic,
only, but that is a lie. I have a pakistani friend who says many
devout muslims buy kosher meat, here. In fact I personally do know
muslims that buy kosher.
>
>2)  Sincere muslims, women or men, strive to avoid ostentation --
>intended merely to attract others' attention.  Whether make-up worn in
>public belies this striving is contingent upon intention and setting,
>though it should be remembered that both the make-up and the t-shirt
>certainly didn't escape the notice of the reporter. <g>  

Oh...so they are not SINCERE muslims. I believe that is an extremist
view of a fundamentalist. In claiming so, you are denouncing and
condemning them. I suppose that they won't have the same kind of
afterlife as you...hahaha. Wait a minute, you don't believe that they
are sincere, or good muslims, is that the pluralism you claim in
islam?
>
>3)  "Modesty is part of faith," says the Prophet Muhammad sallALLAHU
>'alaihi was-sallam.  "Wearing whatever you want to wear" is not.  

So freedom isn't part of your islam, then, as you have asserted over
and over. 
>
>Judge for yourself whether they're good examples of Islam or not.  I
>know what I've learned from The Qur'an and Sunnah.

Here, you definitively denounce others.
>
>> Are
>> you saying that muslims are  not allowed to think or act out of the
>> box?
>
>Our "box" is quite broad, thank you.  We have no need to imagine
>otherwise.

Obviously not. You can't even dress as you wish.

>
>> Are you saying that female muslims shouldn't have these freedoms?
>
>Anyone -- I repeat -- ANYONE, provided they do not break laws that are
>recognized as common sense to most Americans, has the freedom to do as
>they wish :

In an islamic state, there are no such freedoms. Only outside of islam
even for islamic people, according to the koran. In an islamic state,
sharia is the law. Even if you are not islamic, you must obey.
Wait.....islam is tolerant, pluralistic, and doesn't force itself on
anyone else.


>
>"Let there be no compulsion in religion.  Good sense is distinct from
>corruption."  (The Qur'an 2 : 256)

Here you contradict yourself, as does the koran. This is part of the
problem. The koran says that you should kill non-believers, infidels,
and those that pose a threat to islam. At the same time it espouses
peace love and understanding. Just like the old testament, and new
testament, differing portions can be cited to serve whatever purpose,
whenever, however you wish. You can denounce something as not
representing islam, or you can do it if you wish. Either way, you can
justify almost anything you want, provided you give the proper
interpretation and line of the koran. Yes you can say one thing one
time, completely contradict yourself another, and at the same time
always be consistent with the koran. You can prove yourself correct
all the time with the koran. Any argument based on an inconsistent
premise can always be justified. Since the koran is filled with
mutually exclusive "truths"  any argument solely based on it is
fallacious.
>
>Whether or not other muslims understand this verse as I do is
>irrelevant.  As those who profess to be muslim, we represent Islam ONLY
>to the degree we adhere to The Qur'an.
>
>Now, if a woman does not wish to dress modestly, she stands in contumacy
>of the following verse :
>
>"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to
>display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw
>veils over their bosoms," (The Qur'an 24 : 31)

More intolerance and removal of rights by you and your fundamentalist
form of islam.
>
>Certainly, if she doesn't want to follow, she doesn't have to.  As such
>-- unless she's entirely ignorant of the verse -- she can hardly call
>herself a muslim with any measure of sincerity. 
>
>> Which represents the islamic world, these moderate, educated students,
>> or the fundamentalist, uneducated moslems? 
>
>False dichotomy : Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Excuse me?????What kind of argument is that?
>
>> What about moderation, and
>> tolerance?
>
>What about it?  I've known both, all praise to ALLAH.  

Apparently it is not a shared view of tolerance, and moderation
outside the fundamentalist view of islam. Oh wait, there is no VALID
view outside of the world of islam. Only in the koran will you find
the answers, right? YEAH...tolerance, acceptance, and moderation.

>
>>  I thought they should be given the same respect, and
>> treatment as all others.
>
>Who?  One who is ignorant of Islam and laughs at the 9/11 terror should
>be given the same respect as one who knows his religion and finds the
>incident deplorable?

Is that view just for public record?
>
>Is this the kind of "fair treatment" you're advocating?
>
>> Isn't that what you've been asserting islam
>> is about, especially on the website you keep linking to?
>
>I suggest you read carefully.  Islam recognizes sovereignty on the basis
>of conviction.  That is, if you so choose to live as a Buddhist, you are
>free to do so.  If you so choose to live as an atheist, you are free to
>do so.  ALL faith communities and NON-faith communities have recognized
>sovereignty under the banner of Islam.

Islam says anything you want it to, whenever you want it to, as I
pointed out above.


>
>No compulsion in religion.  We mean what we say.  Simple.

Yeah, tell that to all the non-believers being oppressed in islamic
states around the world.
>
>> >> So I guess the muslim world is tolerant of other religions and people,
>> >> as Iman would lead us to believe. I guess their official beliefs vary
>> >> greatly from practice. Maybe, the world of islam really is rallied
>> >> behind us? YEAH RIGHT.
>> >
>> >Let's imagine for a moment that I, as a muslim, represent the muslim
>> >world, and you, as an American, represent America.
>> >
>> >Now I have both academically and *experientially* studied Islam for over
>> >ten years, lived abroad in the Middle East for about five, living,
>> >working, breaking bread, crying and laughing among muslims.  If one were
>> >to describe to me the Tuesday Terror long before 9/11, I could have told
>> >you that whoever would perpetrate such an act would have acted anathema
>> >to Islam.
>> >
>> >I took a vacation to Turkey last month.  Arrived in Istanbul on 9/8.
>> >Three days later, Turkish media were inundated with news from America.
>> >I witnessed first-hand deep pain and sorrow among the muslims of Turkey
>> >for what had happened.  I witnessed muslims who decried the terrorism,
>> >who *knew* it was heinous and unjustified.
>> 
>> I can point out a large number of instances where muslims behaved in
>> exactly the opposite way. While I'm not calling you a liar, it seems
>> that there is more than enough evidence of behavior that absolutely
>> contadicts your statements.
>
>Iman :  And I can point out this many ...
>
>Huge :  And I can point out that many ...
>
>Iman :  And I have this many friends who say ...
>
>Huge :  And I have this many friends who say ...
>
><raspberry!>
>
>The truth of Islam is not determined by a "majority," in case you
>haven't heard.  It's determined by The Qur'an and Wisdom of our Prophet
>-- may the eternal mercy and blessings of ALLAH be upon him.  Whether
>one or one million adheres to these criteria, the criteria remain the
>criteria.
>
>The English language isn't going to change because the majority of
>people who speak can't form a grammatically-correct sentence.  English
>grammar remains English grammar.

Actually it does. Like all living languages, it is dynamic, and in
constant change. There are many islamic scholars that believe the
koran is a living document, and open to modern interpretation. They
believe fundamentalist movements in islam are perverting the spirit of
islam. They believe that islam can apply to the modern world, but
through modern interpretation. They believe that the world of islam
has been corrupted over the last seventy-five or so years, by
fundementalist movements.
>
>> >Yes, I am aware of those "muslims" who say otherwise.  And they are
>> >sadly mistaken, their reaction bearing more the influence of dialectic
>> >materialist philosophy than one of Islam.
> 
>> Why did Malaysia, and Indonesia fail to vote in favor of condemning
>> the WTC attack at the Asian conference, last week? 
>
>I don't know.  Why don't you ask a Malaysian or Indonesian conference
>representative?
>
>> Let me
>> guess....it's that the minority of the muslims in these countries
>> would revolt and protest, and the majority would back them for
>> condemning the terrorist action. Nah...
>
>Do you imagine that one political envoy necessarily represents the view
>of the majority?  Did every republican feel they were accurately
>represented by Clinton wherever he went overseas?  Did every democrat
>feel they were accurately represented by Bush Sr. or Reagan when they
>went overseas? 

In this case, they vote the way their respective legislators voted for
them to. Not by some personal non representative way.
>
>> could it be that they are now
>> islamic countries, and the majority of muslims in these countries
>> would revolt?
>
>Could be.  Then again, Lake Michigan could have drained into the earth
>by now.  Many things are possible.


Is this another denial of a threat posed by the world of islam in an
islamic majority?
>
>> The truth, that the majority (muslims) wouldn't allow
>> them to condemn the attack is not valid? 
>
>Don't know.  If it's nothing more than a prima facie condemnation, it
>looks like a mistake.  If the "condemnation" is tantamount to signing
>into law civil rights restrictions against citizens of Malaysia and
>Indonesia, it does not look like a mistake.
>
>I haven't been provided with enough information to make a sound
>judgment. 
>
>> Are you telling me that there
>> was some other reason, other than political instability for going
>> against the Muslim belief that the attack was good, and justifiable?
>
>Save among the ignorant and desperate, there is no "muslim belief that
>the attack was good and justifiable."  Every learned muslim has already
>said this over and over and over again ...
>
>YOU, on the other hand, want to believe the worst of us.  That is YOUR
>problem.  NOT mine.  
>
>Now I'd like you to imagine someone whom you perceive to be the "average
>muslim" who hears you villifying his religion left and right.  Assuming
>you were right about everything you say, do you think your way of
>approaching him and his religion is going to make things better?
>
>You CANNOT force your way of life and your way of thinking upon others. 
>This, I believe you know, yet you belie the very foundation of your
>knowledge.  What is your intention in peddling all of your jingoistic
>crap?  Honestly, answer me : WHAT IS IT?
>
>Do you imagine you're "convincing me" that your way of life is better
>and we had better abandon Islam or else?  Just what the hell are you
>trying to prove?

I can't prove anything to someone who doesn't think the box is larger
than islam. I don't try to. I do, however, intend to expose your lies,
and inconsistencies for those who don't know any better. I will to toe
to toe with you, based on any logical argument. Not based on
inconsistent premises. I will demand sound and valid arguments, and
expose the ones that I can, that aren't.
>
>Do you think human beings are that one-dimensional where they just go
>out and "celebrate" simply because they hate others for no reason other
>than "they just hate"?  You buy this racist nonsense? 

At this point, I do believe that you are that one-dimensional, and you
have done nothing to show otherwise.
>
>Are you that kind of an individual?
>
>> >Now you have a choice : you can decide which of us is more
>> >representative of Islam and proceed accordingly.  You can decide to
>> >listen and give credence to those -- both muslim AND non-muslim -- who
>> >would love nothing more than to pit muslims vs. Americans and America
>> >vs. Islam.
> 
>> I don't care how many publications you can link to. 
>
>You didn't respond to a link.  You responded to this :

Here, you didn't read. I responded to your reposting of the body from
that website.
>
>> >Now you have a choice : you can decide which of us is more
>> >representative of Islam and proceed accordingly.  You can decide to
>> >listen and give credence to those -- both muslim AND non-muslim -- who
>> >would love nothing more than to pit muslims vs. Americans and America
>> >vs. Islam.
>
>This statement has no link, save to a better future, God-willing.  If
>you wish to turn your back on it, I want nothing to do with you.
>
>> It's absolutely
>> meaningless.
>
>No, it isn't.  Unless you imagine an offer of peace to be meaniningless,
>in which case I can't help you.

It has nothing to do with peace.
>
>> I can counter with a whole slew of my own articles with
>> contradictory evidence. 
>
>Which means that you have a choice between an optimistic and a
>pessimistic view.  Your call, not mine.

I am only optimistic if I agree with you? Some pluralism, and
openness....
>
>> You also didn't address my pointing out that
>> your mulsimamerica site was condemning other people, namely
>> christians, and jews for their beliefs, 
>
>Kindly point out where it "condemns other people for their beliefs."  I
>haven't seen anything of the sort.

      Seventh, Jews and Christians are warned to prepare for
Armageddon
by beating their
swords into plowshares, Muslims for The Hour by becoming like the
better
son of Adam: 
instead, Jews, Christians and Muslims -- many and few -- are actively
promoting Apocalypse. 
Avoid Messianic Apocalyptic Dementia, or believing that you (or those
of
your communion) are
uniquely and divinely anointed and appointed to save the world, or a
remnant, or to usher in a
new world or a new message for the faithful, while this world falls
away
into the Fire.  This
all-time favorite tool of deception is today a main event in media
circuses and more often fatal.

Is this not a condemnation? this is exactly what I responded to. Yes
it denounces christian beliefs, and incorrectly reports jewish beliefs
that it also denounces.
>
>> while claiming that islam is
>> about plurality, and tolerance, and that it allows for others to
>> practice what they want.
>
>That is correct.
>
>> >> but there are an awful lot of poorly educated muslim
>> >> extremists, and propaganda believing islamic people.
>> >
>> >Eliminate the word "muslim" and "islamic" from your statement and I can
>> >guarantee you that more people will find it more convincing and less
>> >inciteful.
> 
>> Again, I've also pointed out moderate and educated muslims that share
>> the same beliefs.
>
>You've pointed out nothing but what you associate with Islam that is not
>associated with Islam.  Nothing new.
>
>> So yes, the use of pointing out muslims and islamic
>> people is valid for my statement with not all, but the majority.
>
>According to a very, very narrow and uninformed view that depends more
>upon a media which does NOT consist of experts in the field of Islamic
>studies than it does upon experts in field of Islamic studies.
>
>> Therefore, people WILL find it convincing, and more inSIGHTful.
>
>If they're short-SIGHTed, probably.
>
>> >If you're *really* objective and neutral, you'll identify the problem as
>> >a *human* one that cuts across all boundaries.
>> 
>> If you really want a true dialogue, answer all of my points, and don't
>> include rhetoric, or meaningless, vague nonsensical language.
>
>Yes'massah.
> 
>> BTW...a few months ago I had pointed out the koran allows for killing
>> a newlywed for having had premarital sex. There was a muslim (qatra)
>> who denied it. qatra, claimed that I was spouting nonsense and laughed
>> me off as a lunatic. It turns out that in an islamic country in africa
>> a woman who is pregnant was just sentenced to death for what? Try...
>> for having premarital sex. I guess that in an islamic country, that is
>> run as a theocracy, tolerance is really practiced
>
>I'd like you to show me the chapter and verse number that allows for
>killing a newlywed for having premarital sex.
>
>I throw the gauntlet at your feet.  I DARE you to show me the chapter
>and verse number, little man.  Let's see what you've got, punk.  This
>oughta be good ... I can hear you squirming in your seat already.

I don't have the time to search it out in your nonsensical, self
contradicting book. I offer this to you. Classic sharia is based on
the koran and almost every muslim would agree to that. If this is so,
then somewhere in the koran, one would be able to derive such a law.
This is what the logical implication would be. Either it is derived or
directly implied by the koran, and teachings of mohammed. Sharia is
Islamic law. A sharia court in nigeria convicted a pregnant women to
death by stoning. This for having premarital sex. This "sharia" is
definitely demostrative of tolerance, acceptance, and allows for
practicing freedom of religion. This link provides factual support for
this story:

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/nigeria1023.htm

Here is a link about another teenaged girl who was forcibly raped by
three men, became pregnant out of wedlock, and had her sentence
reduced to 100 lashes in a public flogging, for having pre-marital
sex. She was raped for god sakes! Yes, this islamic religion is one of
freedoms...reproductive rights freedom, freedom from rape,
understanding, and just punishment. YEAH RIGHT

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/petition/cane.htm

Here are some other fine examples of the religious tolerance, and
compassion of islam:


http://pw1.netcom.com/~jrhowell/rel/news01.htm
>
>> Oh...and in another part of this thread, iman claimed that the first
>> democracy was created as a muslim republic in 622. 
>
>Stop wasting our time and usenet bandwidth with the bitter fruits of
>your inadequate reading comprehension skills.  Here's what was written
>that you so woefully misquote :

A. I did not misquote. Misquoting would have contained quotation
marks. I paraphrased, and carried out logical implications that your
mind obviously can't handle.

B. Remember, everything that you say or state implies other things.
The more you spout, the more you reveal. Also, the more you reveal,
the more you are prone to inconsistency, and being caught in a lie.

C. It seems that you are incapable of understanding how a statement
can be constructed that has multiple implications that refute more
than one point at the same time. Most remarks of this kind will not
closely resemble any one point it is intended to refute 
>
>"Islam established the first constitutional federal republic in human
>history." 
>
>> May I remind iman
>> of a greek named Democritus.
>
>You may.  I could care less.

Obviously, when someone is about to call you on a lie.
>
>> Did the greeks not have a constitution?
>
>Did they?  Would it make a difference now that you've failed to make a
>point?

You are obviously too simple minded to carry out the implications, and
they must be spelled out, apparently.
>
>> Oh the islamic one was the first ever in human history. YEAH
>> RIGHT...Besides, iman doesn't realize that by definition, a theocracy
>> is not, nor can be a democracy.
>
>You haven't read a thing at the site, have you?

HELLO...YOU claimed our democracy was based on your federal republic,
which you claimed to be the first in all of humanity. I merely pointed
out that our democracy is based on a federal, constitutional republic
that is democratic.One that just happens to predate the one you
mentioned by almost a millenium. The greek constitutionalized federal
republic, and that one WAS democratic. In order for OUR democratic
system to be based on your system , yours would implicity have to be a
democratic one. Ours hardly resembles the one you refer to as yours,
being the first. IT ISN'T.

Also, if yours was the first constitutional, federal republice, what
was the Greek one? Again, we revisit your statement:

>"Islam established the first constitutional federal republic in human
>history." 

 If this is true, then either the greek constitutional, federal
republic came afterward, or the greeks are not considered human by
you.

These are the logical implications if your original statement is not a
lie.

Well....The greek system of a constitutionalized, federal republic
predated yours by almost a millenium, therefore, you must not consider
the greeks humans. If this is so, and you truly represent islam (as
you claim), then islam is not the inclusive, tolerant, understanding,
pluralistic world you claim it is. 

Therefore, you are either lying with your original statement, or you
are lying with your representation of the real world of islam. Either
way, simply put, you are lying.
>
>Try again :
>
>http://www.muslimamerica.net/siyasa.htm
>
>was-salaam,
>iman@merr.com