From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Subject: Re: UNHRC condemns the Khomeini regime AGAIN--Victory for the Resistance
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:13:25 GMT

brian had made some valid comments but I like to make some attempts at
clarifications.

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
: 
: Putting criminals in jail is not the problem.  The definition of the crime is
When jails are overcrowded and the state cannot support such expensive 
establishment, jail can be a problem.
: the problem.  In enlightened coutries, the state puts people in jail for
: theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc.  In other countries, people are put in jail
: for expressing unpopular ideas, denying the existence of God, making too much
: money, etc.  The definitions of the crimes are the problem, not the fact of 
: punishment.
The arguments against Islamic justice did not lie in the definition of crimes,
rather the fact of punishment. It is the old argument of "capital punishment".
	Western culture used to condone capital punishment with some tragic
results because of problems of integrity of "witnesses".
	Islam tries to solve the problem by assuring some methods of ensuring
the integrity of witnesses. The case of a drug dealer as witness given the
same treatment as a housewife does not arise.
	The witness criteria for Islam is so strict that if followed closely,
nobody should even be punished unless it is so blatant. The criteria that 4
witnesses who saw with their own eyes, and must be morally sound and never
commit any crime, is very hard to satisfy.
	The worst capital punishment of "death" should not be used at will.
Islam favours compensation to victims, and it is the victims who should give
pardons or the final decision on the penalty, not the state. If someone is
found to be guilty of causing death, the victim's family has the right to demand
death the the guilty, but he is strongly advised to just ask for compensation.
In fact, compensations are the most common punishments.
	Death to spies and treasons should be applicable in times of "war" as
given by the stories of prophet muhammad. He even pardon the crimes of the
worst enemies of Islam when he won Mecca, arguably to be the cause of chaos
later on the the Muslim administrations.

: 
: >>But under the principles of Enlightened Western Civilization and in
: >>contradistinction to backward Islamic primitivism, there are certain
: >>rights which states must not legislate away.  
: 
: I suppose this is just a technicality, but the government can never legislate
: a right away.  Rights exist even if the state chooses to ignore them.
: 
: >>>>In Iran the LAW is that women have to be veiled, if you want to judge the 
I rarely see Iranian women veiled. Islamic law does not require women to be
veiled, only cover their hair, like the old catholic nuns.
	We cannot prevent women from overdoing it by veiling themselves. It is
their right to disallow unwanted people from prying at them.
	If you are sincere in marrying these women, and the women consent, men
are allowed to view "more" in the presense of others.

: >>>>Iranian governemnt (or any other government) you have to judge them by 
: >>>>their laws and not by the laws of other countries. 
: 
: >>An argument so stupid that Afrikaner apologists for Apartheid and
: >>German apologists for Nazism refrained from making it.  If Nazis are
: >>killing people in accord with Nazi law, we civilized people are
: >>obligated to destroy Nazism.  If the South African government is
: >>legally oppressing blacks according to the principles of Apartheid, we
: >>civilized people must destroy Apartheid.  If Islam requires the
: >>oppression of women, we civilized people must destroy Islam.
If that is true yes. Why don't you ask the muslim women who wear veils although
Islam does not require them to.
: 
: I would not go that far.  What needs to be destroyed is islamic fundamentalist

What is an islamic fundamentalist? Muslim women who wear veils? Muslim men who
refrain from alcohol, discos, and prays 5 times a day?

: governments, not necessarily Islam itself.  People could still be muslims
: under a proper secular government.

A muslim who advocates a secular government is not a true muslim. A secular
government does not guarantee the most important aspect of Islam:

control the widespread of adultery: the reason is not the suppress sex because
islam is against the suppression of sexual desire, rather to control the
spread of diseases and distribution of gene pool.
	Islam is not christianity which considers the enjoyment of sex as 
something not to be desired. On the contrary. A muslim who suppresses sex, is
not a follower of Islam. The same is true of delicious food, travel, health,
beautiful things.
	There is no marriage vow in Islam, only the legalisation of sex 
properly recorded. Of course these intrepretation had been westernised
by the seculars.

: 
: >>Moreover, because our culture is superior to Islamic primitivism and
: >>provides the best way to organize human society so far, we civilized
: >>people can and probably will destroy or neutralize Islam in the near
: >>future without hardly any effort.  If Islam is not emasculated in the
: >>way of its fellow mindlessly stupid Abrahamic religions (Christianity
: >>and Judaism), Iraq shows the future of Islam.

I thought Iran was supposed to be the future of Islam, not Iraq. Iraq is the
true example of "secular muslim" government where morality is thrown out of
the window. Isn't that the reason why USA supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Muslims know that Saddam Hussein is not a true Muslim. Everybody knows that
Iraq is an example of Secular Muslim government. Iran tried to destroy this
monster but guess who stopped Iran from doing that. Pray that Iran does not
become like Iraq just like the case of the Shah, if you believe in praying.

: 
: I hope you are right.  Remember though, that christian medievalism ruled
: europe for 1000 years before it finally gave way.  As long as the vast
: majority of the population holds radical religious ideas, they will 
: likely choose a radical religious government.
Christianity failed when it abandoned Morality, or rather just plain justice.
: 
: >This is typical of the 17-19th century European colonialists attitudes 
: >towards all people of the third world. This is a by-product of the RACISM
: >that they had towards all 3rd world people especially the ones in Africa.
: >The end product of your attitude, whethe Islam wanes or not is the complete
: >and utter destruction of all non-europeanized lands. Is this the kind of
: >civility that was taught to you at Harvard? 
: 
: Unfortunately, I am sure that he didn't learn that at Harvard, but it is true
: anyway.  There is such a thing as cultural primitivism.  There is such a
: thing as religious fanaticism.  There is such a thing as irrationalism.
: A culture infused with these is not as good as a culture without them.
: This is NOT a racist point of view (although certainly some racists might
: agree with it).  I suppose you could call it "culturist", but some 
: cultures ARE better than others!
: 
: >Well it is clear to me and has
: >been clear for a long time that western thought has always assumed itself to 
: >be superior, 
: 
: It IS superior!  Unfortunately, it is not perfect, but it is certainly the

Is western thought superior to Islamic thought? Do you know what Islamic thought
is? What you know is only the implementation of Islam and Western ideas?

: best thing so far.  What makes you think that it isn't?  Do you think that

Western thought is not superior because I'm exposed to both. I agree the 
western implementation is superior at the moment because they use common
sense better than the muslim rulers/people.

: no culture is better or worse than any other?  Or do you just not think that

Yes for certain era. Chinese and Indian cultures used to be the best in the
world judged by the ability to produce worldly goods and probably in the 
reduction of diseases, maximising pleasures etc.
	Remember that Islamic culture used to be the best as well judged on the
same criteria.
: western culture is good?
	What is western culture? Is it aetheism? Try to get an atheist president
of USA, UK etc. You may think it is secular but look at the marriage laws,
it is based on Christian laws. Look at the oaths taken at western courts.
: 
: >even thought it can not prove itself to be so, 
: 
: Actually, it can easily do so.  It does this by providing a method (reason)
: and a criterion (human life).  Perhaps you might want to use the method of
: revelation or irrationalism and the criterion of God's will, but those are
: invalid.  I can demonstreate that as well if you wish.  You may or may not
: agree, but that doesn't change the facts.

By all means demonstrate it. I have read some books proving you wrong. If you
believe like the communists that human beings can control another, you are just
as disillusioned as the the communists. Only the fear of god will prevent
someone from doing wrong, or reduces the chances of doing wrong.
	If I do not believe in god, my actions will be very different. I know
that supermarkets cannot control me if only I want to steal and I've stolen
only to remorse later on. At least I have some self-control.
	Imagine an aetheist/communist who have only themselves to look after.
The breakdown of western culture is due to the abandonement of morality. First
in sexual conduct, later on to other things as well. It is the presense of
conscious religious leaders that had prevented them from getting worse.
	Those who do not believe in religion any more, are still burdened by
doubts so at least they are restrained at the moment. The rise in the number
of psychopaths, whose aim is only the maximising "his pleasure" for the 
duration of his "life", is on the rise in USA. Pray that they do not invade
the leadership of USA.
: 
: >and it has the
: >ability to brain wash weak-minded Uncle Tom's like Martillo to mindlessly
: >parrot Western attitudes without even knowing where they came from.
: 
: Do you not think that people can freely consider these questions and come to
: reasoned conclusions about them?  Do you think that westerners are all 
: brainwashed?  Or do you think that they inherited their ideas genetically?
: One thing I find interesting is that unlike most cultures, westernism is
: open to everyone and has come to dominate many countries far outside the
: traditional "west" (such as Japan and Korea).  Why are you so skeptical of 
: the ability of individuals to think for themselves?  Are you personally
: unfamiliar with such behavior? 
: 
: >>>>In the scandinavian countries (some of them) you can walk naked. Does this 
: >>>>mean that US is violating human rights when police arrest any one who 
: >>>>shows his genitals in public?
: 
: I suppose that depends on where it is happening.  If he is doing it next to a
: busy street, he might cause an accident.  If it's on a nude beach, they would 
Don't you realise that "bikinis" used to be viewed as almost naked and may
"cause an accident", but they did not cause any accident. When X-films were 
shown on an advertising board, there were no reported accidents.
	I'm pretty sure there will not be any accidents when nudes are allowed
on the roads even when they have sexual intercourse right on sight as shown
by the X-film advertising board which are even larger and more obvious.
	Sooner or later people get used to it. This is the obvious trend in
the "decadent western culture", which is showing signs of strains in its 
economy, health(aids, herpes virus), psychopath killers whose pleasure in sex
is gone but only in violence.

: be violating someone's rights.
: 
: >>Maybe.  Justifying mindlessly stupid sharia laws by referring to US
: >>hang-ups is hardly persuasive.
: 
: Certainly.  The laws of the US are not perfect.  In fact, there are a great 
: many problems with them.  I never said the west was perfect.  I said it was
: better than islamic primitivism.
In what way? Your statement is valid if you know what islamic primitivism. You
quotes of what islam is shows how ignorant you are. At least I know both sides
of the story since I'm exposed to both.
	Try to read more about Islam. If you can't post your misgrievances about
islam and religion, in this usenet so that  someone, chrsitian or muslim or
whatever can enlighten you, provided you do not close your mind.
: 
: >>>One cannot justify a law simply by way of its existence.  God gave us brains
: >>>and the capacity to exercise our judgment.  
: 
: We have them, but God had nothing to do with it.

Can you prove conclusively that God had nothing to do with it.
If you can't why do you expect that we have to prove conclusively that
"god exists". The existence of god(supreme being) can be proven by 
"effects". This technique is used to prove the existence of zero and 
infinity.
	Have you seen zero or infinity. Impossible, it is just a concept which
 is
useful in calculations. The same is true as to the existence of god as the
theoretical infinity of wisdom, to explain the existence of the "universe",
and even the "big bang".
	Otherwise you have to resort to the even less logical explaination:
"it just happens". If you believe in "scientific method", this explaination
is not accepted.
: 
: >>Rousseau's definition of freedom is relevant.  A people is free when
: >>they submit to laws of their own making.  
: 
: That is a worthless definition.  Being enslaved by one's countrymen is no 
: better than being enslaved by a foreign power.  Freedom is properly an
: arrtibute of the individual.  Freedom is the ability to think for oneself
: and to act on those thoughts.  Since it is possible for such actions to 
: limit the freedom of others, laws must exist to prevent this, but otherwise,
: the government should keep it's hands off.  If it acts otherwise, it
Don't you contradict yourself here? You are proposing to have laws to subject
yourself to?
	Why do you have to have laws to brush your teeth in the morning,
eat certain food, be nice to people etc.
	We are enslaved by our biological self. I'm a rebel by nature.
I question even the need for being alife, even the need for "pleasure".
What is this "pleasure" any way?
	The only solution is only in the important islamic concept of
"slave of god". I found a way to release from my biological imprisonment but
I have to "rebel" against the "supreme being".
: is not generating freedom, it is generating tyranny.
: 
: >>A people like the Iranians
: >>who must obey sharia hermeneutic law is in fact enslaved.  Either the
: >>Iranians have freely submitted to sharia law in which case Iran
: >>represents pre-modern barbarism and should be dismantled so that
: >>Iranians can be trained to modern civilized behavior, or the Iranians
: >>are forced against their will to obey Sharia in which case the Iranian
: >>government is criminal and must be destroyed so that an acceptable
: >>civilized government can take the place of the current regime.
: 
: The fact is that there's a mix.  Some people want to abide by those laws.
: Others would prefer not to, but have no choice.  NEITHER is free in any
: important sense when they are forced to act this way by the government.
: 
: >So in either case, you want to see the country/race/people/one of the above/
: >all of the above of Iran utterly and completely destroyed. This is typical
: >of the civility of yours postings martillo. Ahem.... Ah martillo,.... Go to
: >hell.
: 
: Do you think that Martillo would want to prevent you from practicing your
: religion?  I don't think that's his positon (and it's not mine).  What is
: at issue is whether the muslims ought to be allowed to force OTHERS to abide

I sincerely hope you apply the same principle to yourself. Ought the non-muslims
be allowed to force OTHERS to abide by their non-religious laws. The fact of the
matter is that muslims had never been allowed to have their own laws. You
have broken your principle when it comes to your "interests".
: by their religious laws.  I think islam (and religion in general) is wrong.

I think non-religion is wrong.(I'm applying your argument here, remember)
: I also think that a properly moral state should allow people to make mistakes

I thought morality is only for religious people. How do people justify their
morality except for "personal" preservation and pleasure, even at the 
expense of their "children".
: of that kind as long as they don't use force to make others abide by their
: mistakes.  Does that surprise you?
No it does not surprise me because that is the basic principle of Islam.
That is why you hear so many muslims condemning themselves for the state they
are in. In Islam, the mistakes made by the people or person must be bourne by
the people/person even if they are muslims.
	I don't understand your term mistakes. Adultery, drunken driving,
affects other people, not only themselves. I wish it only affects themselves,
like the aids virus and drunken drivers killing themselves but it is not the
case.

: 
: >>>How do the laws restricting the choice of clothing in Iran benefit the
: >>>society?  Do we honestly expect that if women let some hair show or wear
: >>>something besides black, the whole country will fall into a frenzy of
: >>>illicit sexual liasons?
: 
: Since the source of the law is religious rather than rational, appeals to

Islmic law is always based on rationality.

: the irrationality of the laws will not change the minds of those who 
: support them.  No rational argument can ever prove to someone that Allah
: Jesus or Moses said something false, right?
Why don't you try?
: 
: >>These Islamist slavers argue so irrationally to a great extent because
: >>they suffer from massive coital deprivation.  
: 
: Oh come on.  I think you are going way too far here.  Most muslims are just
: trying to be good people according to the rules they have been taight since
: childhood.  Sure, these rules are bad, but most of the practitioners don't
How do you know that they are bad? Do you know what the rules are?
From what I read in your article, you do not know anything about Islam.
: realize this.
: 
: >>No woman would want to
: >>fuck such loosers who invariably treat women as inferiors whose only
: >>purpose is to gratify men.  Usually, they have no idea how to copulate
: >>properly and often confuse anal and vaginal intercourse when they
: >>attempt to have sexual intercourse with some poor human female forced
: >>into a marriage with one of them.  
: 
: Do you have some first-hand evidence the rest of us are unaware of? ;-)
: 
: >>The unmarried ones are in a
: >>constant state of irrational sexual heat, and the married ones are
: >>crazed because in their heart of hearts they know that they are
: >>sexually incompetent.
I thought this is applicable to western women. Not our women.
: 
: >>Because these Islamist yo-yos are so sexually incompetent, they have
: >>to guarantee that their wives are virgins on marriage (because Allah
: >>forbid their wives would be able to compare Islamist sexual
: >>dysfunction with normal male sexuality).  Well, to guarantee that
: >>their wives are virgins on marriage, the Islamist yo-yos must create
: >>massive barriers to unmarried human females ever having the
: >>opportunity for normal heterosexual female sexual gratification.
: >>Making women wear heavy shapeless black tents is the starting point
: >>for this program.

This guy should talk to my wife. I actually discussed with her about this
openly and she was very angry.
: 
: Oh come off it.  I thought you were trying to make intelligent arguments
: before.  Now you are just being insulting.  Cut it out.
: 
: --Brian

--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet

From: moussavi@hplred.HP.COM (Farshid Moussavi)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:47:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Hijab (again)
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA