HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ahmedss@ntmtv.UUCP (Syed Ahmed)
Subject: Re: NEARLY A DOZEN MOSQUES DESTROYED YESTERDAY
Reply-To: ahmedss@ntmtv.UUCP (Syed Ahmed)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:18:07 GMT

In article <3332@ucl-cs.uucp> B.Kumar@cs.ucl.ac.uk writes:
>Repl to: soc.culture.indian, soc.culture.pakistan, soc.culture.bangladesh
>
>The earthquake department of Allah's adiministration destroyed
>nearly a dozen mosques in INDONESIA by causing a powerful earthquake
>on 15 devcember.
>
>BBC reported that this powerful earthquake killed over 1000 people 
>and injured several thousand others.
>
>QUESTIONS:
>
>1) Why did Allah destroyed mosques which were build to pray him
>not one, but five times a day by very devout people?
>
>2) Will their be a protest in Islamic Countries against Allah
>for wanton and dastardly act of destruction of not one, but nearly
>a dozen places of worship?.
>
>Will protesters take to street against Allah and burn few more places
>of worship in rage? 
>
>3) Can Allah be declared a fanatic of other religion for destroying 
>places of worship?
>
>4) Can Allah be banned for religious offence?
>
>5) Is there a quranic sura that explains why Allah himself caused
>destruction of mosque? Is there any hadith about it?
>
>6) can isssue be raised in UN security council for this anti-islamic
>act of Allah by Organisation of Islamic Nations?
>
>(It is a serious post. So please start a flame war against Allah.)
>
>Regards,
>
>bkumar

Geez, Get Real Dude,
Your paranoia stinks !!!!!

Syed Sayeed Ahmed.
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Inflammatory conjectures in the latest Harpers'.
Date: 18 Dec 92 06:59:31 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu

In article <8042@news.duke.edu> shafqat@neuro.duke.edu (Saad Shafqat) writes:
>
>
>
>Harpers magazine of January 1993 contains an article by historian
>John Luckas about the events of the 20th century in which the
>author offers the conjecture that, "... were the British still in
>India, wouldn't we be better off ?  And wouldn't their subject
>peoples be better off ?"   
>
>Decades after the fact, here's one clown who still doesn't get it.

Salam alaikum, my brother Saad.

It seems of little consequence what this particular clown thinks. The
real tragedy is that many of our own people are convinced of the 
same.  Many of our own people do not take the time to think about
what exactly was it that made colonialism so cruel and dehumanizing.

Most of our openion leaders celebrated the departure of Sahib Bahadur
only from the point of view of territorial gain.  It was our land.
Other than that we really dont have a problem with colonialism.  Why
else would we refuse to build our own institutions, create our own
solutions.  If you remember my conversations with Haroon Dogar a few
months ago, we really have become the house negroes.  In that sense
the British have never really left.

And on a lighter note, desi sharab is not lower than walaiati sharab
because it does not taste as good (we all know that Murree Brewrey
tastes the best).  Nor can you question the level and quality of
its buzz.  No.  It is inferior to European beer because it is not
as _respectable_ :-)  Sorry, Mirza, its just an easy target :-)

j n a
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: ssh@allegra.att.com (syed s haider)
Subject: Re: Washington Ready to Brand Pakistan a Terrorist State
Summary: Pakistan should make its own list
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:52:11 GMT

In article <Dec.16.20.20.14.1992.15621@paul.rutgers.edu> varma@paul.rutgers.edu (not yet) writes:
>
>Following is a news article from misc.news.southasia
>posted by Brijesh Kumar:
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
>          Washington Ready to Brand Pakistan a Terrorist State
>
>                     Gerald Bourke in Islamabad
>                   Source: The Guardian, London
>                   Page 9, Deecmeber 14 ' 1992
>
>The United States government is seriously considering branding
>pakistan a terrorist state, Western diplomats in Islamabad said
>yesterday.
>
>If it goes ahead, this once staunch American ally would be added
>to a list that includes Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea and
>Cuba-- all of which are deemed by the state department to be
>sponsors of international terrorism.
>
>The point at issue is Pakistan's perceived support for militant
>Muslim separatists in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
>
>A report in a local newspaper on Saturday quoted sources "close"
>to the state department as saying that "Pakistan's training facilities
>and material assistance" to Kashmiri guerillas made its addition to
>the list "obligatory".
>
>US legislation requires the state department to submit a list of
>states
>promoting terrorism to Congress before December 31 each year.
>

Interesting.  Regardless of whether one considers the Kashmiri Muslims
separatists, terrorists, guerillas, or freedom fighters, one has only to
look at U.S. foreign policy towards [and her interference in] Central
America in the recent past to come to the conclusion that the U.S. belongs
very near the top of that list.  Nicaragua and El Salvador come readily
to mind.

Syed Shehryar Haider
ssh@allegra.att.com
From: aas4856@hertz.njit.edu (Grand Grimoire)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Ignore ... TEst !!!!!!
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:37:38 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
Originator: aas4856@hertz.njit.edu

this is a test .... please ignore !!!!!!

                                           abc.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Subject: Re: Islam Preaching Equality
Keywords: spend some time  with your bretheren starving in Bengal.....
Reply-To: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame 
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:24:10 GMT

rroy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raja R Roy) writes:

>   I don't know about others, but this fellow does not give any informa-
>tion to anyone. All he knows is to act like a parrot and say after every
>line that Islam is perfect, Quran is word of God, hence perfect, hence
>proved. Wish he could argue better than monkeys, and more, wish he could
>think . I mean he is so stupid to say that lightly beating women is OK.

(Raja means Shakil by "this fellow")

Shakil believes that the Quran is word of God, thus by definition perfect,
consistent, timeless and comprehensive (Shakil, correct me if I am 
misstating your position).  It is a matter of belief and thus not open
to argument or in need of any proof.  Within this framework of belief,
he attempts to provide rationale for various Islamic rules and 
regulations.  If you have any disagreements, you have to argue within
this context.

He and others have cited some evidence for validity of their beliefs,
which to them is convincing.  Here is what I remember:

1. The Prophet was illierate.  How could he have produced something
   of great beauty like the Quran? 

2. There are no contradictions in the Quran and is consistent with 
   all the known scientific facts and theories.  Furthermore, the
   Quran, with proper interpretation could be shown to have 
   anticipated some modern scientific facts and theories.

3. A challenge by the Prophet to produce a single verse matching the
   literary beauty and grandeur of the Quran remains unanswered for
   the past 1400 years.

4. When other religions and nations were busy discriminating on the
   basis of race, gender and class (or caste), Islam asserted the
   equality of all the human beings and gave significant rights
   to women.  Rest of the world is catching up only now with what 
   Islam said 1400 years ago.

5. The rapid spread of Islam after the Prophet (when Islam was 
   practiced in its pure form), the meteoric rise of the Islamic
   civilization and its primacy for hundreds of years are indicative
   of its divine nature.

Each of this can be debated and argued, but the whole exercise (IMO)
is futile.

-- Milind Saraph


Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:18147 soc.culture.bangladesh:6726 soc.culture.indian:40754
From: rafatm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (unknown)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Babri Masjid demolished
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:11:56 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.bangladesh, soc.culture.pakistan, soc.culture.indian
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Dec14.101612.9177@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, budaraju@cae.wisc.edu (Srinivas Budaraju) writes:
> In article <Bz7ro1.Dy7@sunfish.usd.edu> shariq@charlie.usd.edu writes:
> 
> Can you give some references to backup your claim that people converted
> to Islam because it provided justice for them? And, do you think the status
> of the harijan who converted to Islam improved in the (Hindu) society 
> because of the conversion? And how? Please provide some references.
> 
   It does not matter if their status improved in the Hindu community. After
converting to Islam they could join the Muslim community and be treated as 
equals. 

   As to your wanting proof that converting to Islam will bring equality, I  
suggest that you read up on Islam simply for educational purposes. You will
find that Islam has always preached equality among men. A man who was at
the bottom of the social, political, and economical heirarchy simply due
to some idiotic caste system would have nothing to lose by converting to
Islam (or in fact even Christianity and Judaism). 

regards 
Rafat Sadiq
From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:08:43 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec16.150317.2825@seas.gwu.edu> ahmad@seas.gwu.edu (Aftab Ahmad) writes:
>In article <liq3i3INN8ci@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>>I will first reparaphrase the points I wanted to make for a
>>more fruitful discussion.
>>
>	To me it seems that the Muslims did live harmoniously with "the
>masters" after the 1857 war. May be just a different point of view.   

Would you consider the following as "living harmoniously"
	1: Khilafat movement?
	2: Non cooperation movment?
	3: The massacre of Jallianwallah Bagh?
	4: Imprisonments of Ali Brothers
		boli amaaN Mohammad Ali ki
		keh jaan beyta Khilafat peh deyna
		[Mother of Mohammad Ali jauhar said:
		Son give your life on the altar of Khilafat]
	5: Imprisonments of Hasrat Mohaani (remember his
			perpetual "chakki peesna")
	6: Leaving of Jinnah for England after his disillusionment
	7: After 1935 there was nothing more like "harmony".


>>
>>2: Sir Syed and like minded people opposed this policy of seclusion
>>   of the general ulemas. They embarked on a more compromising path.
>>
>>3: Generation raised under Sir Syed lost sight of the reasons of 
>>   (i) why ulemas didn't compromise, (ii) why Sir Syed compromised.
>>
>>4: Therefore, we saw between 1900-20 efforts by Mohammad Ali Jauhar and
>>   co to follow Turkey's youthful march towards modernism.
>> 
>	Putting 2, 3 and 4 together, it looks that you see modernism
>synonymous with "compromising path". Do you see "Suleh Hudeebiah" 
>(prophet Muhammad's agreement with Meccans) as a compromising path
>(or modernisim). If you do, then you will have to agree that Aligarians
>were more "orthodox" than Ulemas if Orthodoxy means following the original
>lifestyle of prophet of Islam.

How does "suleh hudaibiya enter the picture here?
How about Badar, Khayber, Auhud, Khandaq, 
	victory of Mecca, Yermouk, Qadsiya...
	
>	I thought the whole point in Hindu-Muslim unity was a claim
>by Jinnah/Aligarians that they are two different nations - so they
>must compromise to let the country run. If before 30s and 40s they
>did not believe the "HIndus and Muslims are two nations", why were 
>they trying to unite them. See my point!
What is your point?

Unity is only possible if you see that "differences" are less than
the "commonalities". However, if the differences are more than the
"commonalities" then there is no chance of unity.

That is, in their
opinion (incorrectly) the difference betwen the two was not so great
as to matter much in the compromise. However, they realized that
what the thought was negligible was not so negligible. 

Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:18523 soc.culture.bangladesh:6896
From: shamim@poplar.egr.msu.edu (Tariq Shamim)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Victory Day in Bangladesh!!!
Date: 20 Dec 1992 03:41:21 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: poplar.egr.msu.edu

In article <BzIv5x.Aqv@news.udel.edu>, khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman) writes:
|> In article <1gvr9pINNge2@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> shamim@congo.egr.msu.edu (Tariq Shamim) writes:
|> >
|> >In article <17DEC199217112110@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>, towheed@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (NSSDC/NASA/HUGHES STX (301)286-6695) writes:
|> >>
|> >> .....stuff deleated......
|> >>
|> >>Syed S. Towheed (Long live the Bangali people, hell to 
|> >				Pakistani cowards  ! )
|> >                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
|> >>
|> >
|> >You must post an applogy, for using these words.  Otherwise a formal complaint
|> >will be sent to your system director.   
|> >
|> >Tariq Shamim
|> >Michigan State Univ                                
|> 
|> What apology?  We, the pro-independence Bangladeshis, are proud to hail our
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
This probably means that there are some Bangladeshis who are against independence !!

|> nation.  And yes, we do hate those Pakistani COWARDS who committed atrocities
|> against the heroic Bangladeshis; and who are not brave enough to come
|> forward to admit the facts and do not want to apologize for thier acts of
|> GENOCIDE (evidence of which is unsurfacing even today, read the related
|> article on scb posted by Saif Ahmed today).  We DO NOT HATE PKAISTANI
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^ 
|> PEOPLE, but we do hate the Pkaistani cowards. 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^ 
Correct spelling: Pakistani

No Pakistani gives a damn whether you hate us or not.  

 Unless anyone from 
|> Pakistan doesn't want himself/herself with the war crime of 1971, morally
|> or philosophically, we do not have anything to say against them.

I was not old enough in 1971 to appreciate what was happening there.  However,
by reading mail of some Bengalis (like you) on this net, I am happy that 
Bengladesh is no longer a part of Pakistan(Land of Pure).

|> 
|> Long live Bangladeshi people (except the collaborators),
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Collaborators of whom???  They were defending their country against the
foreign intrusion.  
 hell to Pakistani
|> COWARDS and the War Criminals!!

|> 

I have a question to ask you, There are more than a million illegal Bengali
workers in Karachi.  So are they pro or anti independence?

|> Khaleq

Tariq Shamim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: World Troubles...
From: eesd2ag@dct.ac.uk
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:08:38 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology




  I do not what the social conditions are in other countries after the 
destruction of the mosque in northern india. But here in britain right-wing
fascist's have seen this as an opportunity to cause more trouble's between
the muslims sikhs and hindus in britain. A sikh temple and several hindu 
places have been burned and vandalised. as well as some muslim places.
 It has has been suggested  by many 
that right-wingers are trying to cause more triuble. All religious leaders
here have called for calm and cool headedness. 
  It would be intteresting to know if there has been such incidences elsewhere
. Not much information is availble via the media dur to saturation coverage
of the royal family and the eec summit.
  Info would be welcome.











Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:18522 soc.culture.bangladesh:6895 soc.culture.indian:41459
From: BF87@MUSICT.MCGILL.CA (BF87)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Victory Day in Bangladesh!!!
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:37:34 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Dec19.213610.9627@umr.edu> raza@ee.umr.edu (Md Ishfaqur Raza) writes:
>
..(stuff deleted)
From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Date: 18 Dec 1992 10:13:30 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec17.170925@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan) writes:
>In article <lj1vblINNo1j@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan
>Hyder) writes:

A Pakistani criticizing his founding father looks like this:

>> A father presented a second hand car to his son. The son turns out
>> to be a spoiled brat, who in his intoxication, and rashness rams and
>> destroys the car in an accident, and in the process looses his one limb.
>> 
>>Then, he starts criticizing his father for having presented him the
>> second hand car  in the first place. He conjectured
>> that had he been given a Mercedes, he would not have lost
>> the limb because the Mercedes is much more sturdier and strong!!!!
>> 
>
>However in this thread, though it is unproductive to fight over events which
>took place in '47, one cannot reject the lessons which can be learnt by an open
>and  honest appraisal of people/politics of '47, only because events of those
>years are relevant to issues today and do affect present day society.

The lessons of this history are simple, and as follows:

Iqbal sees a dream.
Jinnah and his men turn it into "a" reality through hard work,
	perserverance, dedication and untiring resolve.
		[Note the quotes on "a"]
The inheritors of the reality  destroy the dream and its reality by
    their stupidity, selfishness, pettiness, bickering and irrelvance.

Then the inheritors find themselves in a sudden realization of their state.
Instead of criticizing their own ineptitude, they start criticizing
	the founding fathers!

The criticizm, however legitimate, will never be appropriate coming
from the mouths of the Pakistanis __ the inheritors of the dream!




Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:18550 soc.culture.bangladesh:6909
From: fall217@cse.unl.edu ()
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Interpretation of Quran
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:45:38 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu
Summary: s
Keywords: quran

In his letter Nadeem Malik has taken the interpretation of quran as a controversial issue.
I just want make it clear that it is explained in the quran it self why we should make it issue.

When Kaffir asked Prophet (P) that why dont Allah do not reveal the whole book in one day why it is comming bit by bit .  the reason was given in the Quran was that to explain it clearly means when their is a problem the answar was given.  So interpretation will be done under the context not how suitable to any one.
Take the example ot Sura Kafroon 

one verse says that to the KUffar : your deen is for you and mien is for me:

But in islam to preach islam is alsop allowed if not compulsary as you know.
When you know that this whole cha[pter was revealed to answar the call for compromise between toheed and Shirk.  these kafir said to the prophet that why not some time we will worship your God and some time you worship our gods.

I BELIVE  THAT POINT IS CLEAR THAT IF YOU WILL SEPRATE THE CONTEXT THEN YOU MAY LOOS THE REAL MESSAGE. THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO DEFINE YOUR OWN BELIFE YOUR OWN WAY WHICH MIGHT NOT BE ISLAM.
YOUR INTERPRETAION MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOWLLOWER OF ALLIJAH MUHAMMAD OR VICE WERSA






Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
From: rajiv@me.uta.edu (Rajiv Chakravarti)
Subject: Re: Ghazal Time...
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:06:05 GMT

In article <3gk2#!n@rpi.edu> husaia@aix.rpi.edu (Atiya Husain) writes:

  .... (a lot of humorous verses ... deleted )

Here's one more that I recollect from an old posting. A satire on the
current state of bureaucracy in India/Pakistan, etc.

	haakim-e- rishwat-sitaaN, fikr-e-giraftaari na kar
	kar rihaai ki koi aasaan soorat, chooT jaa
	maiN bataaooN tujh ko tadbeer-e-rihaai, mujh se pooch
	le ke rishwat phaNs gayaa hai, de ke rishwat chooT jaa 

Regards,
Ek maddah-e-Ghalib [ hum pesha -o- hum mashrab -o- hum raaz hai mera,
		     Ghalib ko buraa kehte ho achchaa mere aage ..... ]
--
=====================================================================
Rajiv Chakravarti
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
University of Texas at Arlington

rajiv@utacfd.uta.edu                             rajiv@me.uta.edu
=====================================================================
From: v999r9ne@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Vikram S Sinha)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: A query
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:57:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I have travelled to pakistan on numerous occasions with friends and 
family.I noticed a strange trait amongst the pakistani people. I have
observed that first cousins marry each other in most cases, this
practice is totally accepted by everyone and seems to violate no set
norms. Biologically this is nothing short of second order incest.It is
proven that inbreeding (even amongst first cousins) leads to the genetic
mutation of the offspring eventually. I am sure islam does not condone this
and I have met muslims from other countries too,they say that this practice
is totally alien to them. They like many others find this practice of 
marrying ones paternal or maternal uncle's or aunt's offspring disgusting.
Would someone please enlighten me as to why this custom is prevelant in
Pakistan.
                        With regards,
                        Vikram Sinha. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian
From: izaz@cbnews.cb.att.com (sheikh.izazul.haque)
Subject: Re: *** Revenge, Temples destroyed
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:26:03 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <Bz3rov.JL6@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v079rbu4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Sanjay Kohli) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.052527.19545@leland.Stanford.EDU>, arkay@leland.Stanford.EDU (Abdur Khan) writes...

Deleted
> 
> Where was your this Honourable Bastard when they stoned 10 hindu kids to 
> death. 
> 

deleted

> Everything don't you fuckin get it India is for Indian not for spineless 
> bastards!

i think this is a hopeless cause...here's my unfortunate conclusion...
the 90's is the decade of the religious war! Live it up, guys!

izaz