HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdawkins@axion.bt.co.uk (Colin Dawkins)
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Subject: Re: CREATION
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:33:52 GMT
Reply-To: cdawkins@axion.bt.co.uk  (ABD AL-KARIM)
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


As-Salamu-Alaikum Brothers and Sisters.

"Lighten up..."

Interesting.....Words similar to those were probably said to the Jews relating to Usary. 

"Lighten up...."

1 Are you a Muslim ?
2 If you are then remember that you will have to justify your opinions to Allah.
3. If you are not then quite understandably you do not understand why Islam is so against the concept of Homosexuals.

In reference to point 3, Allah created man and woman for each other. In the words of the (translation of the Qur'an)..As a garment for each other. Allah destroyed a whole peoples (re Sodom and Gommorah) because of Sodomy.

Therefore if Allah in his infinite wisdom destroys this town because of Homosexuality, then I will not "lighten up.."

As for being a sinner and a muslim...Of course we are all sinners, but even the worse sinner in the time of the messenger (pbuh) never clamed to be homosexual.

I hope that more knowledgable people than myself will shed more light on this topic in shah Allah. Then we may be able to move on to more constructive matters.

Finally to anyone who thinks that they are a gay muslim "may Allah guide you and improve your condition". May Allah guide us all..
Xref: sparky alt.wanted.moslem.men:2 alt.wanted.moslem.women:2 misc.test:9086 alt.newbie:57 alt.wanted.moslem.gay:2
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Subject: Re: CREATION
Date: 29 Jul 1992 12:05:59 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <-6mmqn#.rdc@netcom.com> rdc@netcom.com (Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor) writes:
>
>
>As per the below requests, the following newsgroups have been created:
>
>	alt.wanted.moslem.women
>	alt.wanted.moslem.men
>	alt.wanted.moslem.gay
>
>---------------------------------
>
>IN SOC.CULTURE.IRANIAN ahmad@frisco.unet.com (Ahmad Esmaeili) wrote:
>)
>)     I have received many positive replies from our brothers in Islam in 
>)     support of starting the "alt.moslem_girls.wanted" newsgroup. Some
>)     sisters suggested the creation of another newsgroup called
>)     "alt.moslem_men.wanted". 
>
>IN SOC.MOTSS gooley@netcom.com (M. Gooley) writes:
>)
>)     As a gay muslim, I would be interested in a corresponding
>)     gay moslem newsgroup.
>)
>
>-- 
>_______________________________________________________________
>Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor,
>Dietary Researcher,
>Fiber Team,	     "Be one, be peace, be  like the hajiputki"
>Herbalife Inc.			-Maharji Marhiyogi
>E-mail:  rdc@netcom.com
>_______________________________________________________________

As-Salaamu-Alaikum.  Doubtless your intentions were noble and good BUT
I simply cannot understand how you justify creating an oxymoron such as
"alt.wanted.moslem.GAY".  The Qur'an and the Sunnah both make it very
explicitly clear what homosexuality is: a perversion of human nature.
Much as I would like to live in peace with the rest of the world, I am
more interested in living in peace under the approval of God.  And to
put it quite bluntly, if God disapproves of homosexuality, then so should
every Muslim.

I believe most Muslims know the story of Prophet Lot and Sodom and Gommorah.
Here is the ayah from the Qur'an describing what Lot told the homosexuals
of those cities:

        "What!  Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave
        the spouses whom your Lord has created for you?  Indeed, you
        are people transgressing (all limits)"  [26:165-166]

Another ayah gives a stronger condemnation of homosexuality:

        "And remember Lot when he said to his people, 'Will you
        commit abominations such as none in all the world has ever
        done before you?..."  [27:56]

And of course the two cities were eventually annihilated by the express
command of God solely on account of their disobedience on this point.

The jurists of Islam have differed on the punishment of a homosexual caught
in the act: either lashes as per fornication or death as per adultery.

****

I believe that it is your responsibility to yank the "wanted.gay" newsgroup
as soon as possible.

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah       
Xref: sparky alt.wanted.moslem.men:1 alt.wanted.moslem.women:1 misc.test:9085 alt.newbie:56 alt.wanted.moslem.gay:1
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Subject: Re: CREATION
Date: 29 Jul 1992 12:04:48 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <-6mmqn#.rdc@netcom.com> rdc@netcom.com (Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor) writes:
>
>
>As per the below requests, the following newsgroups have been created:
>
>	alt.wanted.moslem.women
>	alt.wanted.moslem.men
>	alt.wanted.moslem.gay
>
>---------------------------------
>
>IN SOC.CULTURE.IRANIAN ahmad@frisco.unet.com (Ahmad Esmaeili) wrote:
>)
>)     I have received many positive replies from our brothers in Islam in 
>)     support of starting the "alt.moslem_girls.wanted" newsgroup. Some
>)     sisters suggested the creation of another newsgroup called
>)     "alt.moslem_men.wanted". 
>
>IN SOC.MOTSS gooley@netcom.com (M. Gooley) writes:
>)
>)     As a gay muslim, I would be interested in a corresponding
>)     gay moslem newsgroup.
>)
>
>-- 
>_______________________________________________________________
>Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor,
>Dietary Researcher,
>Fiber Team,	     "Be one, be peace, be  like the hajiputki"
>Herbalife Inc.			-Maharji Marhiyogi
>E-mail:  rdc@netcom.com
>_______________________________________________________________

As-Salaamu-Alaikum.  Doubtless your intentions were noble and good BUT
I simply cannot understand how you justify creating an oxymoron such as
"alt.wanted.moslem.GAY".  The Qur'an and the Sunnah both make it very
explicitly clear what homosexuality is: a perversion of human nature.
Much as I would like to live in peace with the rest of the world, I am
more interested in living in peace under the approval of God.  And to
put it quite bluntly, if God disapproves of homosexuality, then so should
every Muslim.

I believe most Muslims know the story of Prophet Lot and Sodom and Gommorah.
Here is the ayah from the Qur'an describing what Lot told the homosexuals
of those cities:

        "What!  Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave
        the spouses whom your Lord has created for you?  Indeed, you
        are people transgressing (all limits)"  [26:165-166]

Another ayah gives a stronger condemnation of homosexuality:

        "And remember Lot when he said to his people, 'Will you
        commit abominations such as none in all the world has ever
        done before you?..."  [27:56]

And of course the two cities were eventually annihilated by the express
command of God solely on account of their disobedience on this point.

The jurists of Islam have differed on the punishment of a homosexual caught
in the act: either lashes as per fornication or death as per adultery.

****

I believe that it is your responsibility to yank the "wanted.gay" newsgroup
as soon as possible.

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah                   
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
From: ardalan@astrosun.aero.org (Shadan M. Ardalan)
Subject: Re: CREATION
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation; El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:38:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.113352@axion.bt.co.uk> cdawkins@axion.bt.co.uk  (ABD AL-KARIM) writes:
>
>As-Salamu-Alaikum Brothers and Sisters.
>
>"Lighten up..."
>
>Interesting.....Words similar to those were probably said to the Jews relating to Usary. 
>
>"Lighten up...."
>
>1 Are you a Muslim ?
>2 If you are then remember that you will have to justify your opinions to Allah.
>3. If you are not then quite understandably you do not understand why Islam is so against the concept of Homosexuals.
>
>In reference to point 3, Allah created man and woman for each other. In the words of the (translation of the Qur'an)..As a garment for each other. Allah destroyed a whole peoples (re Sodom and Gommorah) because of Sodomy.
>
>Therefore if Allah in his infinite wisdom destroys this town because of Homosexuality, then I will not "lighten up.."
>
>As for being a sinner and a muslim...Of course we are all sinners, but even the worse sinner in the time of the messenger (pbuh) never clamed to be homosexual.
>
>I hope that more knowledgable people than myself will shed more light on this topic in shah Allah. Then we may be able to move on to more constructive matters.
>
>Finally to anyone who thinks that they are a gay muslim "may Allah guide you and improve your condition". May Allah guide us all..

You know, I used to be Moslem.....that was until I noticed that people of just
about all religions tend to hide behind their religion when it comes to issues
that they are too closed minded to handle.....now I chose to be agnostic, 
meaning that is still believe in Allah, I just don't know who or want he is...

The Qur'an, as well as the Bible (and other religious books), were a reflection
of the times they were written in as well as doctrines for their religion....
And then, as in now, if something is not understood, it must be wrong and 
therefore destroyed....well, fortunately, this is something that can never be
detroyed....

So as some previously said, LIGHTEN UP!!!!!
And if you do not wish to lighten up, that's your business.....just as if
someone is gay is his/her business....so may Allah guide you and improve YOUR
condition, because my condition is just fine
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
From: rlc1028@tamsun.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor)
Subject: Gay Muslims (Re: CREATION)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:35:00 GMT

In article <l7dr0nINN121@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes...

>As-Salaamu-Alaikum.  Doubtless your intentions were noble and good BUT
>I simply cannot understand how you justify creating an oxymoron such as
>"alt.wanted.moslem.GAY".  The Qur'an and the Sunnah both make it very
>explicitly clear what homosexuality is: a perversion of human nature.

	What Qu'ran says and means is determined by each Muslim.

	And furthermore, even if it is decided that the Qu'ran
labels homosexuality as a sin, one may still be a Muslim and sin.

	If one may not be a Muslim if one sins, then there are no
Muslims.

	Praise Allah for this group!

Gadson Sandor
through:
rlc1028@tamsun.tamu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.wanted.moslem.men:8 alt.wanted.moslem.women:8 misc.test:9128 alt.newbie:63 alt.wanted.moslem.gay:8
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Subject: Re: CREATION
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:34:10 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


Ok. Time to introduce a new concept here. Its called
"If-you-don't-like-it-don't-read-it". 

And let each individual be a muslim in his or her own way.  
Its very simple, unsubscribe.

Live and let live (why is it that all the "great" religions have such
trouble with that concept?).

-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
From: robert@aero.org (R. S. Statsinger)
Subject: Re: CREATION
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:34:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.113352@axion.bt.co.uk> cdawkins@axion.bt.co.uk  (ABD AL-KARIM) writes:
>
> Allah destroyed a whole peoples (re Sodom and Gommorah) because of Sodomy.

Wait....that was Jehovah, wasn't it? I've always suspected that Jehovah
and Allah were the same guy. That would certainly make life alot simpler
for alot of people.

	Bob Statsinger

Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
From: will@bigsky.Aero.ORG (Willis Elias)
Subject: Re: CREATION
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation; El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:43:06 GMT

hello all Muslim brothers,
I recently read the following:

As-Salaamu-Alaikum.  Doubtless your intentions were noble and good BUT
I simply cannot understand how you justify creating an oxymoron such as
"alt.wanted.moslem.GAY".  The Qur'an and the Sunnah both make it very
explicitly clear what homosexuality is: a perversion of human nature.
Much as I would like to live in peace with the rest of the world, I am
more interested in living in peace under the approval of God.  And to
put it quite bluntly, if God disapproves of homosexuality, then so should
every Muslim.

I must say I agree and suggest that we initiate a Jihad against all such abominations! We must purge the world of such infidels. Jihad, Jihad !!!
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.men,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.gay
From: ba07479@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (ba07479)
Subject: Re: CREATION
Organization: Binghamton University Computing Services
	<1992Jul29.214306.1232@speedy.aero.org>
	<1992Jul30.110642@axion.bt.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:36:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.110642@axion.bt.co.uk> cdawkins@axion.bt.co.uk (Colin Dawkins) writes:

>PLEASE TAKE THIS GROUP OF THE NETWORK...
>
>IT IS AN ABOMINATION...A CURSE...A LIE AGAINST ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER RASSULLULLAH SALALLAHU ALAYHI WA-SALAM..

Laa taHaaf!

(Lighten up!)

AGS
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Keywords: imminent death of net predicted : -)
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:04:52 GMT

In article <8fVF02FW1aJX01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> In article <1992Jul17.002145.13006@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> > (anything
> >lacking an explicit copyright notice is given to the public domain):
> 
> That's completely incorrect.  That was the law prior to March 1, 1989, but
> for anything published since that date, copyright notice is permissive,
> not mandatory.  See 17 USC 401, as amended by  PL 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853
> (the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988).

Does this law mean that I cannot give something to someone without explicitly
stating "in the public domain???"  NOT

Posting to netnews is *sharing* information: that is giving and taking.

Now if I give you something without caveat, would not assume it is yours?

Furthermore, if you walk up to one of those copying machines in a drug
store and see a "work" above it with a note attached which reads "this is
my work -- please copy it and pass it along," do you really think the
owner can sue you for copyright violation for doing what he asked?

The first half of the above sentence said that anything you put in
anonymous ftp ...

Now are you trying to tell me that putting something in anonymous 
ftp is *not* asking everyone to take copies as they please?

The law does not protect you from your own stupidity: if you give 
it away, you cannot sue for copyright infringement.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:517 comp.org.eff.talk:5075 misc.legal.computing:1677 news.admin:6450
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:25:50 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>                       What if this *were* a piece of shareware?
> Would you feel like it was okay to copy it and not pay me, just
> because it was on the net?  What if it was on Compuserve?  How
> about your local bulletin board? 

This posting is shareware.  If you enjoy it, please send $5 to the author
within 7 days, or else report to the FBI for selective brain erasure.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:31:30 -0400 
From: Peter Glen Berger <pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
	<1992Jul30.194614.17046@mksol.dseg.ti.com>

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> If you post your article, shareware, etc., to the net, everyone has
> the right to COPY it.  They may not have the right to run your
> shareware or plagiarize your article without your permission, but
> that's something else again.

Okay.  I do not give permission for anyone to copy this article onto
or distribute this article on CD-ROM.  Anyone who does so is
"plagiarizing" (actually, copying) this article without my permission.
Anyone copying this article for non-profit purposes and on any media
other than CD-ROM, however, is copying it with my permission.

The point I'm making is that the author of a work of authorship has
the right to restrict the distribution of that work.  Whether the
technology will accomodate such restrictions, and whether those who
come into contact with the article are ethical enough to respect those
restrictions are entirely different questions.  Whether enforcement is
feasible or possible is an entirely different question.  But under US
Copyright Law, the author of a work has the RIGHT to withhold
permission to copy his work for good reasons, bad reasons, or no
reasons at all (except, of course, for the fair use exception).

This article is copyright 1992 Peter G. Berger.  Distribution of this
article on CD-ROM is expressly forbidden. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Berger		       ||  ARPA:     peterb@cs.cmu.edu
Professional Student	       ||            Pete.Berger@andrew.cmu.edu
Univ. Pittsburgh School of Law ||  UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pb1p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You will _croak_ you little clown, when you mess with President Brown!
 California Uber Alles! California Uber Alles! Uber Alles, California!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:457 news.admin:6178 comp.org.eff.talk:4830 misc.legal.computing:1485 misc.int-property:789
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:23:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.culture.usenet

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>o) Under current law, any original creative work is copyrighted the moment
>it is expressed.  This article is an example of something that is
>copyrighted.  The copyright exists whether you claim it or not.  It only
>fails to exist if I explicitly say "I abandon the copyright/place this
>work in the public domain."   (Or of course if it's not original or
>creative.)

In general I agree with the above as regards Usenet articles.  But are
there really no exceptions?  If a newspaper publishes a leaked
document, can it be sued for copyright infringement?  In the U.S.A.,
when does freedom of the press take priority over copyright?  What
about internationally?  How does one distinguish between the press as
generally conceived and the vanity press?  What if the newspaper
publishing the leaked document is self-published?  What if Usenet is
considered self-publishing with a large circulation and low
distribution costs?
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
``It takes a man months and months to reconcile himself to a new hat.  And
  just when you're preparing to send it to the jumble sale, he says, `That's
  rather a nice hat you've got on, where did you get it?' ''
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:504 news.admin:6413 comp.org.eff.talk:5047 misc.legal.computing:1653
From: bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:37:44 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD

In article <157crjINNbl9@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>The "Usenet Primer" contains terms and conditions
>>which apply to your use of the net.
>
>Heh.  Exactly who do you imagine to be party to this unsigned
>"contract" you declare to exist?  Good luck getting a judge to
>enforce a "contract" that was never agreed to, and whose terms
>have been explicitly rejected.

	Does this mean that I have a theat of services suit against you for
use of "my" machine to distribute your article?  (Or likewise, you have the
same against me for this article.)

	Bottom Line: What implicit copying rights (if any) does a poster
give me (as administrator of a news site) in return for use of my machine?
If the answer is none, then I can conceivably sue every site on the net for
forwarding this message.

				Bill Bogstad
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:485 news.admin:6362 misc.legal.computing:1612