🚀 go-pugleaf

I seek refuge in God.
In the Name of God :

huge@wi.rr.com wrote:
 
> >> The following is from a conversation  by a reporter for the wall
> >> street journal with Islamic students in egypt.
> >
> >Oh, yeah.  The Wall Street Journal.  Now THAT's not biased.  <snort>
 
> Are you saying that these students were manipulated by this journalist
> into saying these things? 

Nope.

> Are you saying this journalist is a liar? 

Nope.

> Is
> the journalist in some way misquoting these students? 
> Is he
> misrepresenting what they said? Don't you think these conversations
> are recorded, for that very purpose? 

Probably not.

> 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.

> 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.  

Have you or your family known this?

> 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.

 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."

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>  

3)  "Modesty is part of faith," says the Prophet Muhammad sallALLAHU
'alaihi was-sallam.  "Wearing whatever you want to wear" is not.  

Judge for yourself whether they're good examples of Islam or not.  I
know what I've learned from The Qur'an and Sunnah.

> 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.

> 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 :

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

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)

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?

> What about moderation, and
> tolerance?

What about it?  I've known both, all praise to ALLAH.  

>  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 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.

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

> >> 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.

> >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? 

> 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.

> 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?

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?

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 :

> >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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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 :

"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.

> Did the greeks not have a constitution?

Did they?  Would it make a difference now that you've failed to make a
point?

> 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?

Try again :

http://www.muslimamerica.net/siyasa.htm

was-salaam,
iman@merr.com