From: seyyed@wuee1.wustl.edu (Seyyed Mahdavian)
Subject: Re: Spain and Iran
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:55:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.194030.22691@ucunix.san.uc.edu> minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas) writes:

>Also my position on Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is no different than that
>of any other Muslim who is in the know about Islam. Alot of the Sahihat is 
>truly Sahih and alot of it is not. 

That's not correct Zafar. Though there are different versions of those books
(in fact in the versions that we believe most, you will find undisputable
proof for the justification of Shi'a's claim about Ali-ibn-Abitaleb and other
issues), but you can deny facts like "apostates such as Salman Rushdie should
be punished to death" only if you can present a reliable version of those
books in which your idea is supported. If you just say: I don't accept this
particular hadith (not just one hadith in fact), then how can you ever TRUST
the Sahih? Then the Sahih being important and reliable, simply doesn't make
sense.


>                                   So you can not say that I am so primitive
>in my Islam. Talk to those who are primitive about Islam on this net. They
>have some stupid notions about the religion and insist that what they are 
>saying is true and when someone like you tries to defend it they say that
>you are pushing religion down everyones throat. They tell falsehoods or 
>misconstrue Islam and call it freedom of speech, freedom of thought, 
>intellectualism, but you try and correct some wrong notions (in a way that I
>disagree with but that is beside the point), and that is labelled as fanaticism
>and apologetics, you are going after the wrong person Seyyed.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No! I am precisely after the right person! I don't give a damn to unbelievers
who call me fanatic, stupid, ... To be honest, I even enjoy it, because I
understand how badly they are hurt :-) The problem with you is different.
You are known as a knowledgeable man about Islam (and in fact you are). I am
afraid you are presenting a picture of Islam which is pleasant to the readers
of this newsgroup (because you oppose the government that they hate), but is
not a correct picture. I feel like you are giving those unbelievers kind of
bribe, i.e. you write pleasant articles for them, and in return, they support
your ideas. This is trading Islam. You have for example supported indirectly
Shahrokh Mortazavi, and only God knows how many private e-mails you have 
written to each other, and let me remind you what kind of guy Shahrokh 
Mortazavi is.
A few months ago, Shahrokh Mortazavi wrote:

> In his new book "History of Middle East Revisited", famed scholar Naivad
> Ham, writes (p 56):
>
> "Many debates have broken out on the encripted message in that sentence.
> However, recent research has shown that ``Mohammand is the _Seal_ of all
> Prophets'', simply and metaphorically compares him to the aquatic mammal
> with a smooth and torpedo shaped body".

You supported him in such a degree that he said: "Zafar, you have changed"
and he was right.
Let me tell you what your secret is. Your secret is that you attack the kind
of scholars that are hated by these people. Believe me that's the only reason
you have been able to survive so far.
I don't want to make a discussion with you here. I just give you a hadith
from Prophet Mohammad(s):
Once Prophet Mohammad(s) asked his companions: "What is the strongest handle
of faith?" One of them said: "Salat?" The prophet answered "No".
- Jihad ?
- No.
- Siam ?
- No.
- Infagh ?
- No.
...
Then the Prophet(s) said:
"The strongest handle of faith is LOVING FOR GOD AND HATING FOR GOD"

>
>Watch me please, I need to improve my attitude.
>
>zafar

So do I, but I sure will be watching you.

Seyyed.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian