From: minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas)
Subject: Re: Spain and Iran
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 19:40:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.011450.2817@wuecl.wustl.edu> seyyed@wuee1.wustl.edu (Seyyed Mahdavian) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.181613.28368@ucunix.san.uc.edu> minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas) writes:
>
>>In light of some of the mail and the followups that were posted I am going to 
>>repost the relevant portion of one of my followups to Mr. Kambiz's post. I
>                                                                         ^^^^
>>don't think I misunderstood but in case I did, just let me know. BTW this 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>portion of the followup diverges onto a different subject matter; maybe about
>>what causes peoples ways of thinking to change.
>...
>>
>>zafar
>
>
>You mean you still don't understand what was wrong with your comment? That's
>incredible!!! What kind of food do you eat in Pakistan?
>OK, let me give you a hint. 
>Again this is what Kambiz wrote:
>
>>                                    In the openning ceremony Iran was the 
>> only country who did not let a woman to carry its flag. This made the 
>> Scandinavian womanTV commentator very angry.
>
>And this is what you wrote:
>
>>                                                                 If Mr. Kambiz
>> did not like the idea that a woman commentator was not allowed to carry a flag
>> it does not mean that all or even most or even a large minority of the Iranian
>> culture is bad, all it means is that there are somethings that need to be 
>> changed. 
>
>Now try to solve this short quiz in just one minute. Ready?
>Question: Why the woman commentator was angry?
>Answer:	1)Because she didn't like Iran
>	2)Because she didn't like Zafar
>	3)Because she wanted to carry Iran's flag with pride, but they didn't
>	  let her.
>	4)All of the above

None of the above. She was commentinng on an Iranian lady not being able to
caryy her countries flag, and she was angry because of that.

>
>...
>
>Ok, I still have a lot of comments to make, but I don't think it's a good idea
>to make fun of a Muslim brother.
>Look Zafar, until now you have insulted our religion (Shi'a), you have
>insulted our culture (you called us Persiophile or something, ...), you insulted

No I didn't say anything against Shia. I said something against the followers,
or proclaimed followers of Shia, that doesn't mean that I don't have problems
with people who follow Sunni, I do have problems with most Sunni Muslims.
Oh BTW, in case you want to know I am a Sunni Muslim, I am from ahl-i-sunna
wa jama'ah.

>Islamic scholars and called them fanatics, while you are so primitive in Islam
>that you even don't accept "Sahih Muslim" and "Sahih Bukhari" (these books are
>so important among SUNNIES that they put it only after Qur'an!). 

I didn't say anything against all of the Shia scholars. I have problems with 
the ones who say that Salman Rushdie should be assassinated. The problem is not
in the scholars themselves, it is with the scholarship that is involved and the
methodology of forming the fatwas. It is based on interpretations made in
the days when Islam was becoming a vast empire and Muslims were trying to
defend themselves from forces that would have denigrated Islam. These books 
were written mainly in the Abbasid. And the Abbasid period of Muslim rule
was a time of many great ironies. I will talk about that later, though.

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. 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.

>You are the
>one who posted the stupid list of your degrees and departments, showing how
>self-conceited you are, you blamed Iranians of "being Moslem, but knowing
>nothing about Islam" showing how arrogant you are, you ...

Look at what I wrote above and tell me if I am wrong.

>What you need is a little bit "taghwa", which is the foundation of Islam.
>I have been very patient with you, and still am willing to be. By the order
>of Qur'an, since you say that you are a Moslem, I'll accept it. But I am
>not stupid. If you have "taghwa", you are my dear Moslem brother, if you
>choose to be like hypocrites, I'll be watching!
>
>Seyyed.

Watch me please, I need to improve my attitude.

zafar

Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian