From: gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD:SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM.AHMADIYYA Moderated
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:05:47 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <100233@bu.edu> khalid@bu-bio.bu.edu (Rasheed A. Khalid) writes:

>	Those who are against the newsgroup seem to have a clear problem
>accepting the very idea that Ahmadis should sort of "own" a newsgroup.  

I have stated in the past, and I state it again: I have no objections
to the creation of an Ahmadi newsgroup.  I specifically have
objections to the creation of an Ahmadi newsgroup under the Islam
heading.  My reasoning is this: If the Ahmadis are Muslim, then they
do not need a new newsgroup.  If they are not Muslim then their
newsgroup should not be under the heading of Islam.  I reject the
argument that they are kind of Muslims but not the same as Muslims
etc. etc. etc.  You are welcome to keep claiming that we have said
other things.  I shall correct you whenever I see the need.

In fact, I have also stated that I would support the creation of an
Ahmadi newsgroup that I considered to be named appropriately.  One of
the reasons I cited was that that should make you happy; furthermore
we would be spared having to hear you singing praises of Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad at the drop of a hat.

I have no fondness for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  My duty as a moderator
does not require me have one, nor does it require me to not reveal my
negative opinions of him.  Some Christians have very negative opinions
about Muhammad.  Nonetheless, I do not accuse the moderators of
soc.religion.christian or any other newsgroup for that matter, to be
biased against me.

>This
>feeling of discomfort seems to stem not from a genuine feeling of being
>different from Ahmadis conceptually, but from the fear that their own
>influence on the net might be dimished or at least, diluted to a certain
>extent.  I base my assumption on the fact that certain people who were/are
>moderators of the newsgroup soc.religion.islam are the ones who seem to be
>hurt most by the new proposal.

We disapprove of the new proposal for the reasons mentioned above.  On
a personal basis, you have accused us of unethical conduct.  You have
not been able to substantiate your charges, nor have you withdrawn
them.  This has caused me to become annoyed and therefore diminshes my
support of any Ahmadi newsgroup whatsoever.

It does not diminish it to the extent that I feel that it should not
exist, but I definitely feel that an Ahmadi newsgroup should not be
moderated; I do not trust you because I think you are hypocritical and
oppurtunistic.  Your accusations of bias by me were intended as nothing
more than a political ploy.

>	3.   THE NON-AHMADI NEWSGROUP SHOULD BE CHANGED FROM "SOC.RELIGION.
>ISLAM"  TO  "SOC.RELIGION.ISLAM.NON-AHMADIYYA", TO INDICATE DIFFERENCE
>FROM THE AHMADIYYA NEWSGROUP, EXCEPT IF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEWSGROUP
>CHOOSE TO HAVE ANOTHER NAME.

Does soc.religion.islam belong to the Muslims?  No.  It belongs to the
Usenet community as a whole.  It is a specialized newsgroup, intended
to discuss topics relative to Islam.  Similarly, an Ahmadi newsgroup
would discuss topics relevant to Ahmadiasm.  To believe that you and
you alone have sole rights to the newsgroup
"soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya" is flawed thinking.

Basalat Ali Raja.
Newsgroups: news.groups