From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Date: 15 Nov 1992 17:43:16 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <1992Nov15.060935.28157@sarah.albany.edu>, ys3359@thor.albany.edu (Yazmasterj) writes:

> In article <1e4dogINNhct@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) went on about...

> >Granted, whether an individual is correct or not about his/her
> >beliefs is for God to decide.  But this is an issue of simple
> >semantics.  What gives Ahmadiyas the right to cast Muslims under
> >the same label as they see fit for themselves?
> 
> The Ahmadis are simply trying to practice their interpretation of Islam.
> They are not involved in a negative PR campaign.  

Excuse me, but who exactly gets to decide what constitutes a negative
campaign?  Are you not accusing *me* of a negative campaign of sorts
simply because I object to the semantics of the group name?  Surely,
it is the *affected* party which decides whether a campaign is
negative or not.  In my opinion, anyone who propagates material that
directly contradicts the Qur'an is indeed contributing negative PR to
Islam.

> Our religion is not a matter of maintaining a certain image within
> this world.  We are not trying to create a pop-religion here.  The
> Ahmadis have the right to derive 
> their own interpretations.  They have the right to accept Islam using
> their own interpretations.  We cannot use concerns over negative PR in
> determining who is or is not a Muslim.  

Why not?  They do have a right to accept Islam using their own
interpretations.  But if they decide to overrule certain aspects of
the religion, and divide the religion itself, then by the rules of
Islam itself, they cannot be Muslims.  It is as simple as that.

> >I was drawing an analogy.  I didn't claim they were interchangeable.
> 
> Your analogy is based on a comparison which cannot be made.  We cannot
> compare religious identity to nationality.  Religious identity is in
> the devine realm while nationality is completely worldly.

But we have guidelines for determining religious identity that was
given to us by God himself.

> [more of the same anti-Ahmadi arguments deleted]

How did you manage to delete what was never there in the first place?
I *never* said anything anti-Ahmadi.  My only objection is that they
insist on using the label "Islam" in their newsgroup name.
Anti-Ahmadi material would involve my claiming that something they
practice is *wrong*.  I never once claimed that.  What I do claim is
that their ideas are *unIslamic*.  Whether that is wrong or right is
up to individual discretion.

> >This leads us to an important question which has been asked before,
> >but I have not seen a satisfactory answer for.  If Ahmadiyas are
> >indeed Muslims, why do they need a new newsgroup?  Surely,
> >soc.religion.islam is sufficient since it addresses *all* Muslim
> >issues?  
> 
> If they feel their views are not being properly represented, they have the
> right to create a new forum for their ideas.  I assume they feel that sri
> is not properly representing their ideas.  

In which case, they aren't a part of Islam.  They should form their
own newsgroup with their own *name*.

> >If they believe they are Muslims, then soc.religion.islam should
> >serve their needs.  
> 
> SRI is a moderated newsgroup which relies on the subjective judgment of
> a few Muslims who have their own beliefs concerning Islam.  While I
> personally have never had cause to fault their judgment, if others
> do, they have the right to create new channels for their views.

I have never seen any such complaints.  What are you basing this on?
I have never seen anyone state that this is the reason for wanting to
create this newsgroup.  Or is this just another random statement like
so many of the other ones you have generated?

> >> If they believe they are Muslims, then they may create
> >> a newsgroup defining themselves as a Muslim sect.  
> >
> >If we are going to argue about Islam, then please do verify what you
> >state before you do so.  I quote from the Holy Qur'an:
> >
> >From Sura Al Anam (6):
> >
> >  159.As for those who divide
> >      Their religion and break up
> >      Into sects, thou hast
> >      No part in them in the least:
> >      Their affair is with Allah:
> >      And he will in the end
> >      Tell them the truth
> >      Of all that they did.
> >
> >Sects are clearly prohibited by Islam.  You may consider God to be
> >keeping a "low profile" these days, but for Muslims, the Qur'an is his
> >word, and hence, your point about sects is moot.  There is no such
> >thing as an X Muslim or a Y Muslim or whatever.  There simply
> >shouldn't be any sects under Islam.
> 
> I would love to see a united Islam.  This is far from the case however.
> Even if we should discount the Ahmadis as a *true* Muslim sect, there are
> many divisions within Islam.  The greatest of these examples is of course
> the Shia-Sunni division.  I am no less saddened by this than you are.  
> However, I am not trying to break the religion up.  In the verse above,
> Allah says that He will inform them of the truth.  This seems to leave the
> ball in his court.  

Indeed he will.  But you are ignoring a couple of important points.
First, you claimed that Muslim sects have a right to form their own
newsgroups under the Islam banner.  Clearly, the Qur'an tells us that
sects are forbidden.  Are we to conclude from this that you disagree
with God?  If so, then I have no further argument with you.

Clearly, if Islam is defined by the fact that there can be no sects,
than any sect is a violation thereof and cannot be a part of Islam.

Second, Allah does say that he will inform them of the truth, but he
also says that we should not associate with them.  To me that means we
should not have to be recognized under the same label as they.

As far as the Shia-Sunni division you speak of goes, the differences are
historical, and not really religious in nature.

-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================