Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian

My buddy, seyyed@wuee1.wustl.edu (Seyyed Mahdavian) writes:

>In article <28600016@hplred.HP.COM> moussavi@hplred.HP.COM (Farshid Moussavi) writes:
>
>...
>
>Sorry, your article is too long for me to read carefully and answer in
>detail. 

My apologies

>1) You object that I am so sure about everything. Well everything that I am
>   very sure about is from the fact I read it in Qur'an and think about it.
>   I have a very strong reference such as Qur'an. But you are so sure about

Oh really?  How interesting.  Did you get the following statements from the
Qur'an?

>Mahin insulted "God" (and it's not her first time). Can you see the difference?
>I am sure you can't.
      ^^^^^
and

>Please just "think" about
>the following questions (you don't need to answer, I am sure you need
							 ^^^^^
>a lot of time to get a consistent philosophy for yourself).

not to mention

>you are afraid of the ever increasing tension against foreigners in
>the west countries. It's yourself that you care about; all the pleading
>for humanity is a big lie.

and last but not least,

>It's in "her" benefit to remain silent.

How do you know so much about other people?  If anything, Islam (as taught
in our schools in Iran) strongly discourages "tohmat" or quickly made
accusations.  Hasn't Islam taught you anything about being humble?  If we
are all 'bandeh' or servants to God, that doesn't make us God to non-Muslims, 
giving ourselves the power to pass judgement on them so easily.

>   yourself that you condemn the government, the parliament, and the people
>   (who have voted to them) of a so-called "civilized" country like England

There you go again, drawing conclusions...
I never condemened the entire country of England.  I just said that a law
which protects only one religious institution from insults and not others
is dumb.  So, I expressed my disagreement with only ONE law.  At least I am 
allowed to express this in England.

>   and you call their law "a dumb law" (I would say you have insulted all
>   british citizens), and you have no reference except your humble opinion.

Oh, great, now you "would say that I have insulted all british citizens".
I'll leave that for the British citizens to decide, and I trust that even
if they agree with you, they won't kill me.  Besides, since when are you 
concerned with not insulting people from other countries?  You just mocked
their civilization in the above, I might add..  Also, I agree- my opinion
is quite humble.  Is yours?

>2) You implicitely accept that insulting the religious believes of more than
>   1 billion people needs some kind of punishment, but it shouldn't be death.

No, I never accepted such a thing. I don't subscribe to such medieval teachings.
What I say is people have freedom of speech.  With freedom, comes 
responsibility.  This means that if you insult some group of people, you
should not be surprised that they get pissed off.  It is up to each person
to exercise their judgement when using this very very dear right that many have
fought and died for throughout history.  It is downright wrong, however to use
violence and intimidation to silence this person.  Killing this person will
just add to the initial insult.  Besides, the Islam that I have seen enforced 
in Iran insults many, including women, so what do you say to that? Can you 
insult someone else and say it is legit because it is your religious belief?

>   Well, it's just that we have our own law. We don't have to follow the
>   law that you suggest. If I kill a lamb, say for "eyde ghorban" in public
>   in the streets of London, according to our law, I have not done anything
>   wrong, but according to English law, I will be prosecuted. On the other
>   hand, they don't have any punishment for adultery or homosexuality, while
>   we do. We respect their law in that we do not do anything against it (this is
>   an implicit agreement while we are seeking VISA), we expect them to
>   respect our law too. 

Even in their own land?

>   It's funny, a while ago someone objected to the Islamic rule that some 
>   killers can pay an amount of money and escape from
>   the death penalty. He wanted all killers to be executed. Now you object
>   to the rule that another kind of crime is punished by death. Please stop

Verbally attacking someone is hardly a crime punishable by death.

>   dictating us what to do and what not to do. We have a very well established

Excuse me, but everyone can see here who is attempting to dictate who. I say it 
is wrong to use force on people you do not like or who do not agree with you.  

>   dictating us what to do and what not to do. We have a very well established
>   law, and we precisely know our duties.

Goebbels and Himmler would have loved you.  Actually, Pinochet in Chile is
a little on the defensive, and maybe you could still help him...

>3) You keep saying that people are equal and there is no difference between 
>   them, one has not the right to enslave the other, ...
>   You are confused on this issue sir. People are equal from the point of view

That's the whole point, my friend:  people are NOT equal!  Everybody is 
different and I love it!  I love to see all the different people and 
celebrate how each person stands behind his/her way of life.

The confusion is yours, because I said people have EQUAL RIGHTS.  Having equal 
rights is the only way to guarantee they can stay their individual selves 
IF THEY WANT TO.  Of course, ideally, you would like everyone to be equal, that
is, equal to and a copy of YOU - a "true believer".  But then don't we all 
wish everybody would see things "our way"?  When do you want to make room in 
your world for OTHERS? Think about it, even though it is just a humble opinion.

>   of color of skin, race, language, ... not from the point of view of what 
>   they "perform" or even what they "believe" in. The last issue, that is 
>   their believes, is not of concern to people (i.e. we do not punish anyone
>   just for his/her believes) but he/she will be punished or rewarded by God
>   for even his/her "believes". About the other one, that is the "acts" of
>   people, we people have the duty to react and punish if necessary. It is
>   a fact that some people have the "right" to kill some others, even more than
>   that, they have the "duty" to kill. You have the right, or better say, the
>   duty to kill someone like Adolf Hitler. The only difference again is that

Adolf Hitler murdered people.  He destroyed entire countries and nations.
He didn't just "write a book" or "show some hair", or even "insult
the sacred believes of 1 billion muslims"  He thought he was right,
superior to others, and was willing to destroy anything that offended
him and his plans. I'm telling you, he would have loved you!!

>   we believe in a precise law of God, while you have created an imperfect
>   law of yours; it's not our problem, it's yours.

No Seyyed, it's ours.  If we don't have a future together, we don't have
a future.  I'm Iranian too, you know.

Besides, I never created a law of my own, and your law is far from perfect.
(No insult intended.)

>
>Seyyed.
>----------

Agha Javad