From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: Jihad in Islam (was Re:Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:06:10 GMT


Please pardon me for having deleted parts.  I did read them, but put [.]
in the interest of brevity.

In article <1993Jan12.144820.10361@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.190912.5519@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan11.153815.17814@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>|> >In article <1993Jan10.204803.20891@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>|> >|> In article <1993Jan10.130329.28120@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> Ok, do you agree then that Salmon Rushdie deserves the death sentence ?
>|> >
>|> >My personal opinion is yes. But there are a lot of other Muslims who wouldn't
>|> >agree with me on this point.....
>|> 
>|> But what type of offense did Rushdie commit ?  Sure he wrote a lousy book that
>|> I wouldn't spend a penny on.  But that is his right to express.  Why try to
>|> kill someone for that ?  Where's the tolerance for other people in all
>|> of this ??
>A Muslim Scholar by the name Ahmed Deedad (may the doors of Paradise 
>always be open to him) told NBC and ABC in the US that if he was given 
>*ONLY* 5 min to explain about the *TRUE* case with Rushdie he would give 
>them 50 000 $.
>They *REFUSED*!!!!!!!
>So which is the case with Rushdie?
>First of all Rushdie was given 800 000 $ by the publisher Viking/Penguin 
>in "advance money" *BEFORE* he wrote the Book.
>Nothing wrong with giving anyone advance money but *800 000 $* that 
>is alot of money...
>Why would anyone give a Z-level writer 800 000 $ in advance??? You don't 
>have to be Sherlock Holmes to understand that it smells fishy.
>Salman knew exactly what he did. He knew that his book would cause alot
>of reaction and it was because of that he wrote it. There is actually 
>*nothing* of value in his book but it is instead only written for insults.
>If someone insult you then s/he isn't doing that because s/he likes you
>but so that you should react. And as you know we Muslims take our religion 
>seriously. For example he portrays the wives of the Prophet as whores!!!
>Were is his proof that they were actually whores???? If you tell him bring
>me your proof he will answer: Eyy it is *only* fiction!!!! You are insult-
>ing the wives of the Prophet which God in the Holy Quran says is like our
>own mothers and you tell me it is only fiction. Call your own mother whore 
>but leave the wives of the Prophet alone. They are as our mothers.

Then you should ignore him and his stupid book.  By calling for his
head you are not only bringing attention to him but additionally
increasing the profit of the booksellers (media hype sells the world
over).  You tell me that the publishers just had this in mind, and then you 
seem to be falling right into their trap.  Why are you falling for their 
scheme ? Look at me, I haven't bothered reading his book at all, precisely 
because I know that what the media thinks is important is most of the time 
irrelevant.

>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>(33:6)"The Prophet is closer to the believers than they are themselves, 
>and his wives are (as) their mothers; "
>
>Before the book got published a guy from India working in Viking Penguin 
>read it and appealed to Rushdie not to publish it as many people will 
>get offended and die for it.
>And Rushdie said:" I know what I`m doing."
>He appealed again to Rushdie but Rushdie repeated the same statement : 
>"I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING."
>
>A person who *KNOWS* that people will die because of his *GREED* and 
>because he want to be *FAMOUS* isn't worth forgiving.
>
>Every person has the *RIGHT* to write what ever they want.*BUT* they 
>have to be responsible for it too. Rushdie isn't a child, he did what 
>he did *KNOWING* exactly what he was doing, therefore he also have to 
>stand for it.

Look, why does anything that goes on somewhere else have to affect your
religious practice ???  Even if there's only YOU sincerely believing in
whatever you want, then power to you.  I don't see anything in the quote
above involving others in your belief.  It is between you and your G_d.
It is only when others infringe on this personal right of yours to have 
this freedom that there is trouble.

>Lets forget that he in for example p. 539 in his devilish book assassinate 
>Rama the 7th incarnation of god according to Hindu religion as a lecher, one 
>given to excessive sexual cravings and debauchery, and the *DEMON-KING* is
>portrayed as a righteous man. And that Sita is painted as a flirt.
>Let us forget what he says about Hinduism and Islam.

What he says is totally irrelevant.  I don't read fiction :-).  I tend
to judge for myself the truth and veracity of statements.  That goes
for the Bible, Quran, the Rgvedas, and whatever you throw at me.

>Well, lets take a quick glance at this masterpiece of Rushdie.
>Page 529 "..' Black shit is bad'..."
>
>So white shit is good but black shit is bad.
>I wonder, has Rushdie tasted shit???

As I said I haven't read the book.  Rushdie's welcome to say as anything
as obnoxious as he pleases.  He's as foolish as his statements make him
out to be.

>I don't know about your case but I'm white like snow and I don't like 
>people saying that my mother, sister, grandmother, i.e all my ancestors
>and relatives of female sex are made for *FUCKING* and *THROWING* over.

He can say whatever he wants.  I've got my own life to live.  I can
be either white, black, green, or red.  I tend to judge the merit of a
statement for myself.  If you get insulted, then that is your problem.
We live here on earth and be ready to bear the consequences of your
action if you want to act on what you feel.

>And then let us stop with looking at the *Biblical* verdict on Rushdie:
>In Islam we take our religion seriously......... :-).... I don't think I 
>need any words to prove that to you.....	

Just a question.  Why do you use "our".  Please explain to me where you
draw the distinction between "mine" vs "us."

>I can only speak for myself. The worst thing he can do to me is to kill me. But I 
>do not fear death as death is not worth fearing. Life and death are continious 
>elements. Death is something natural. But I would fear the punishment of God for 
>doing something wrong as I believe in a just God.
>
>If the ruler trys to force me to follw them through hurting my family I'd first 
>try to get my family out of the country and if that doesn't work then I'll try to 
>take the ruler himself or anyone who is of great improtance to him with me, i.e. 
>if they hurt my family continously.. If they only hurt them to keep me shut up 
>and not actively fight them then I'll propably cease doing that so that they don't 
>punish my family.
>
>Well, it is easy to talk about doing these kind of things if you haven't been
>in the situation yourself. But personnaly in a way I have. The Communist gov. 
>which ruled Albania had it as a rule to punish the relatives in Albania if
>their relatives abroud involved themselves into anti-communistgov. activities.
>My family for example did have a tough time. During the period the communist
>ruled the country two of my relatives toghether with 29 of my fathers friends  
>got killed by the gov. And my father came from a small mountain villiage. My 
>uncle down there and his two sons were on the top of the targetlist around 
>three years ago and would have gotten killed by the gov, but God wanted differ-
>antly and the communist gov. lost its power the same year. Every time we did 
>something abroad, everytime we made any anti communist gov. statements something 
>happened with our realtives down in Albania. So it is tough and it made us keep 
>quiet but it didn't make us follow the gov. They knew they could only push us to 
>a special direction but not more. 
>
>The situation could best be described with the saying of the prophet which I 
>always include in my .sig file:
>"He who amongst you should see something abominable should modify it
>with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do 
>it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength 
>enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhort it) from his heart, 
>and that is the least of faith."
>
>We tried the first one but it was pointless, so we went over to using our 
>tongue and our relatives got imprisoned or tortured so we ended up with 
>following the last thing, i.e. "abhort it from our heart".
>
>So I do agree it is a big problem but if the majority of the people ceased
>to follow the leader then he would have to change. 

I'm saddened to hear of your experience.  That is the reason why one should
be constantly on the vigil for letting others impose their beliefs (in this
case communism) on others.  There was an interesting article in national
geography on Albania about a year or two ago, I hope you had the chance to 
read it.

>(Sahih Muslim: Hadith 4573 - The book on goverment)"... the Messenger 
>of Allah (PBUH) said: 'The best of your rulers are those whom you love 
>[...]
>selves from their obedience (* except when they act against the 
>Laws of God *)."

>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>(12:40)" The Command is for none but for Allah: He has commanded 
>that ye obey none but Him: that is the right path."
>
>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>(7:3)" Follow the revelation sent unto you from your Lord , and do 
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>not follow the (so-called) guardians other than Him."
>


See this is what I don't understand about the Quran.  What is the
difference between revelation and "laws of God."  There seems to
be logic jump in going from to the other.

>|> But the Quran was written many centuries ago.  Why do you want to institute
>|> laws on people who want to live right here and now in the 20th century with
>|> laws of days gone by.
>|> 
>
>I'm not sure if you have read the laws in the Quran.
>
>These Laws are mostly regarding problems which propably will always occur 
>in a society like theft, rape, murder e.t.c. So these kind of laws will
>always be valid as the crimes will also exist. And even if we have a society 
>were *noone* steals then fine, the law doesn't have to be implemented. But 
>after some generations there will propably pup up individuals who may start 
>stealing. So what do you do then?? Well, you implement the Law.

Let me ask you this then.  Do you think the Quran was written in "good"
times or in "bad" times ?  Did it reflect the state of being of the people
who wrote them ?  Sure there are bad apples among all peoples and there
will be stealing etc.  but as we understand (mainly through psychology)
why people behave abnormally a lot can be done.  But that is dealing with
the physical wellbeing of society.  As for following a particular religion,
I'd be interested in my own selfish interests :-).  The best solution I
find is to believe nothing (but understand others "philosphy of life") and 
take nothing for granted.

>|> BTW, I think you should answer my last question!  What happened to the
>|> old religious philosophies in the middle east ??  According to a very close
>|> historian friend of mine the govts. in a lot of the muslim countries
>|> are laying waste to their old cultures 'cause it doesn't fit within an
>|> Islamic framework.  What a shame.  Some of my most favorite philosophies
>|> come (that the ancient Greek borrowed whole scale) from the era of Osiris
>|> and Isis.  I will post something about that if I have the time.
>I believe the best thing to do is to adress this question to Soc.
>Culture.Arabic or something like that as I lack the knowledge about 
>this.

That's fine.  I just don't like the fact that alien ideas not inceptive in
the society itself get forced on people... like the colonials did in my
part of the world, and to the native inhabitants here in the US.

>Peace
>Gani Skepi

I bid you peace too.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc