HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmf$1349@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re:  CFV ahmadiyya
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:20:25 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

In article <102654@bu.edu>, khalid@bu-bio.bu.edu (Rasheed A. Khalid) writes:
> Rami Hijazi wrote in an earlier article in support of Shakil's and
> against mine, that the correct word in the Quran is KHATIM (END),
> rather than KHATAM (RING OR SEAL), when trying to prove that
> Muhammad (on whom be peace and blessings of God) was the last
> Prophet of God and that no Prophet would come after him.
> I request you to take another look at the Quran -- the word IS
> KHATAM, the way I wrote it and not KHATIM, they way he suggests.
> I know of only one instance when in a recently published text,
> some non-Ahmadi published the Quran with "Khatim" to prove their
> point against Ahmadis, but since the safeguarding of the text of
> the Holy Quran is a duty taken by God upon himself, the book was
> removed from the shelves, and now the only Qurans available in
> the market are the ones with KHATAM in them.  It is interesting
> that now, even if the non-Ahmadis try to change the Arabic text
> of the Holy Quran, they cannot do so, given God's decree.  The
> present text of the Holy Quran goes in favor of the Ahmadiyya
> viewpoint (or is it that they have been able to interpret it
> with more effort and hardwork, to make their arguments sound
> more convincing?)
> 
> Regards,
> Rasheed,
> Boston,
> Massachusetts,
> U.S.A.
> 
> [The least expensive way to improve your looks is to wear a smile]
I did not have a copy of the Quran with me, rather I recalled it from
memory.  I ask Allah for forgiveness.  It was my mistake and I did not
intend it.  The argument is still the same.  According to Quran Muhammad
PBUH is the seal (last) of prophets and the argument brought by Ahmadis
did not come about till they came up with it and it is rejected because it
is not consistent with other verses in the Quran that suggest that Islam,
not other religions, is the religion of God.

Wassalam.

Rami Hijazi
From: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Bulbul)
Subject: Re: Arab U N I T Y
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:36:46 GMT

In <1992Nov20.042324.4798@trl.oz.au> faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris) writes:

" You do not have to convince a Christian Islam is the solution, since we
" have no choice but follow like other minorities. Otherwise, we would have to
" pick up and leave as that genius Bulbul said. However, you have to convince
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
" about a 150 million Arabs that it is the right way to go.

   The marked text is "kalimato .haQin orIda bihA bA.til!"
   
   Well, Aziz, it is not me who lied and said that nonMuslims are crushed in a Muslim
State. So if you yourself believe in that, and there were established such a state,
an option is to pack off, however, you are not forced.

   Second, Aziz, without Islam you would not be Arab in the first place. And as you
know everywhere it is not fair that a minority make the law of a state. So, if a
Muslim state was established in a country of Muslim majority and you don't like it
and can't resist it, you may flea, what else can you do? Be persecuted as you claim?

   If the Ottomans did not steal the riches of Arab countries, the Europeans would
have done it and more viciously, so what is your point? And remember that power
moved to the hands of nonArabs because of the Arab weakness at that time, so someone
nonArab would have seized it anyway.

** a^.tinI .hoRiYatI, 'anfiq ^alaYA
   iNanI 'anfaqto mA 'abqayto shaYA

--------------------sig.temp------------------------------------------
             _
  |\________(@)= |CENSORED|    In no way, do  the  expressed  opinions
   \_\  --/ _/                 (if any) represent the author or anyone
     \=====/                   else living or dead.
        ||                                          
        ~~         Intelligence: "waLah la'akiSHoh hal^a.sfOr."
From: tehhhal@ioe.ac.uk (MR HANIF LADHA)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Arab U N I T Y
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:07:04 GMT
Organization: Institute of Education, University of London

CAVEAT: I am new to the net and this is my first posting so please forgive
me if I transgress in any way.

In <1992Nov16.015228.26554@trl.oz.au> faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris) writes:

>I find an irony that people in the 21st century still think that religion will
>solve a human problem such as Arab unity.

We haven't as yet arrived in the 21st century, but nevertheless, are you of
the opinion that religion no longer has solutions to human propblems or
only "human propblems such as Arab unity."  What is so special about this
problem as opposed to problems like drug abbuse?

>During Islam there was no Arabs, there was an Islamic empire that
>incorporated the present Arabic states, Turkey, Iran,
>and many other places. Those people were united for a breif time in history
>due to the political nature of the empire that had the goal to spread the word
>of God through the Qu'ran.

I am not sure what you mean by "During Islam".  Isn't there Islam now?  Are
you refering to the historical development of Islam?  If so how can you
claim that there were not any Arabs?  Indeed many groups existed under the
rubric of an Islamic empire.  However, I am not convinced that they were
all united.  The first century of Islam was dominated by Arabs, then with
the comming of the Abbasis dynasty this domination was broken.  In this
process there was a great deal of conflict between Arabs and the non-Arabs
(mainly Persians).

>The problem is that people fail to recognise that Islam and all other religions
>have failed because they no longer serve the same purpose. Religions were
>meant to be a way for explaining nature, instead, they have become a race to
>reach the heavens. In the process the Arabs have lost every thing.

I am not confident about agruing this point with you as I am not sure what
you mean by "explaining nature."  However. with respect to "people fail
to... Islam and other religions have failed", I have a problem.  You
distinguish between people and religion.  Why do you treat them as two
different entities.  It is difficult to envisage religion without people.
What I am trying to get is that you cann't just say religions have failed.
You need to to look at how people have treated "their religions".

>The most practical solution toward the Arabic problems in my opinion is not
>through Islam.

This depends on how you define Islam. If you consider Islam as 
theologico-political system then of course it wouldn't work as there are 
so many flavours.  But, how about looking at the humansitic  values.


Kind regards,


Hanif.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: ahmed@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash)
Subject: Re: The Meanning of Deen
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:26:39 GMT

>In <15NOV199223325671@romeo.caltech.edu> rached@blanc.eng.ohio-state.edu 




>>]Article: 7512 of soc.culture.arabic
>>]From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
>>]Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION."ISLAM".AHMADIA
>>]Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 02:32:38 GMT

>>In article <1992Oct28.191034.9403@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>, ahmed@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed 
>-Habbash) writes:
>>|> As a side talk:
>>|> 
>>|> If you think Islam is only some rites, then you mean something else.
>>|> 
>>|> Islam is not just a religion, it is DEEN, which means law. 
>>|> 
>>|> Ahmed

>>Since when did the arabic word Deen (Religion) mean Law?. Also does this
>>mean that Judaism and Christianity are not Deens?. from where you are
>>writing (heart of Catholic country) many people can get very upset.
>> 
>>A.Faris

>In fact there was a reply to this message, but any way, I just repeat it
>again:

>In Surat Yousoph in the Qoran, " and thus We made a scheme for Yousoph,
>otherwise, he wasn't able to take his brother under the Deen of the King
>"
>The word Deen here means a law or a System. It has nothing to do with
>faith or rites.

>Christianity and Judaism are Deen also. Judaism has a law, and
>Christianity is supposed to follow that law, as Jesus (pbuh) clearly
>stated. 

>If you feel that these two religions have no law, then they are not the
>original ones, they are just stripped down versions.

>Ahmed El-Habbash

I have received an E-mail message saying that there are a large number
of verses in the Quran which do not refer to Deen to mean law.

I would like to add that, I referred to this verse in Suraht Yousoph
which clearly imply law or system as a meaning of the word Deen.

The too many other verses in the Quran, non of them contradicts with
that meaning. Non of them restrict the word Deen to mean rites. All these 
verses which refer to Deen imply system.

What I wanted to emphasize her is that Islam or Deen is not the same as
understood thsese days by the word religion which is almost restricted
to faith and rites.

so again Deen=system and law.

Also the word worship in Islam is more general than performing rituals.

There is a Hadeeth that says: Al-Deen Al-Mo'amalah, which implies that
Deen is ethics and etiquettes to be considered when dealling with
others. The same meaning is supported by many other Hadeeth.

This is the way used in Arabic language when trying to emphasize a certain
concept. When a single word could imply different meanings, you use this
word and restrict it to the meaning that you want to emphasize.

Example: Al- Hajj Arafah, which means Hajj is the standing at the
mountanin Arafah. but this is not All Hajj. 

So in general the Word Deen means Law/system/rituals/behaviour/..etc.

Ahmed


-- 
Ahmed I. El-Habbash, 
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College,
Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tel: office: +353-1-7021524
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: ARAB UNITY
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:07:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: trl.1992Nov15.220710.16484
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia

In article <27858.9211121256@thor.cf.ac.uk>, scemg@thor.cf.ac.uk ("M.G") writes:
|> Path: |>
 
|> Many articles have been written about ARAB UNITY
|> I beleive that ***NO WAY THAT THE ARAB WILL UNITE***
|> as long as :
|> 
|> -THE ARAB CHRISTIANS CONSIDER FRANCE IS THEIR MOTHER COUNTRY

Where is their home in your opinion?. Would you allow them to live in their
home as they desire without interference?.

|> 
|> -THE ARAB NATIONALIST WHO THINK THAT SADDAM, ASSAD, AND AFLAG
|>  ARE GREAT LEADERS

Did you know that Aflag became a Muslim?. Does your problem with them stem
from the fact they do not belong to your sect of Islam?.

|> 
|> -THE GULF PEOPLE WHO BELEIVE THAT USA IS GOD AND THEIR SAVIOUR

I would at this point say they are your God and Savior as well as mine, 
if it was not for them, the Ottomans would be our God and Savior.
|> 
|>            ************
|> 
|> THE ONLY SOLUTION IS THE ISLAMIC UNITY

Which sect of Islam are you refering to?

|> 
|> 
|> M.G.
|> 
|> CRDIFF,WALES, U.K.

A.Faris
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: ayoub@globey.cs.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: Arab  U N I T Y
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:15:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov24.042232.252@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad) writes:
>
>Thank you for your opinion.  Go find 100 native speakers of English and
>ask them whether Egypt of the Pharoahs was a 'civilization'.  You'll  
>probably get 95-100 'yes' answers.  Oh well, maybe it's all western
>propaganda!
>
>Tamer Abdelgawad.

Yeah it must be one of these bad Westren conspiracies again!!!!

Well, not only native speakers of English will agree with you, but
if you take any random  sample of 100 people from the face of this
planet (and maybe extra terrestials too, if they exist  :-),   you
will get the same response.

Are they too do not know what are they talking about ????

Nabil

          .-------------------------------------------------------------.
         /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
        /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
       /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
      /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
     /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
    '-------------------------------------------------------------'
From: mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael Gschwind)
Subject: Re: Israel Apartheid????
Organization: Vienna University of Technology
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:25:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.142336.4254@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:

   I also pointed out that giving special privileges to a certain
   group of people is not racist. Compare this to what is happening
The argument is weird - of course you could argue that 'racism' is
discriminating against somebody, not helping somebody because of race
- hmm - but why does the other group not qualify for this help?
Because of its race - so after all it is racism!
   with certain minorities in the US, which are favoured in certain
   things like addmitance to universities.
Which I view as VERY OBVIOUSLY RACIST ...

mike



--

Michael Gschwind, Dept. of VLSI-Design, Vienna University of Technology
mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at	(*) BOZO is a registered 
(currently somewhere in             trademark of Bush/Quayle 92
the Bay Area, back sometime     (*) UNIX is a registered 
at the end of this year)	    trademark of AT&T
     
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad)
Subject: Re: Arab  U N I T Y
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 06:08:55 GMT

In article <1ejp8uINNqsf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah) writes about civilizations in the middle east:
>
>Mathmetical pitfall, change thousands to hundreds and you may get the
>point.

I wasn't nit-picking!
I got your point, but you didn't get A. Faris' original point:  Islam
cannot claim a monopoly on powerful civilizations in the middle east.

Tamer Abdelgawad
From: abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: The Myth of Muslim 'Fundamentalism'.
Summary: A new phrase, and a rebuttal.
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:00:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Nov19.020005.9363
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov18.164845.15402@usl.edu> zxs6373@usl.edu (Siddiqui Zafar) writes:
>
>              In the name of God most Gracious most Merciful
>
>
>                   The 'Myth' of Muslim Fundamentalism
>                   -----------------------------------
>
>Of late there has been profuse use of the term "Muslim Fundamentalism' by some 
>of the netters who seek to bismirch the name of Islam and Muslims. I wish
>to bring to the notice of the readers the inappropriateness of the use of 
>the term Muslim Fundamentalism.


No 'bismirching' of Islam or Muslims intended, at least on my part.  I simply
want to be able to refer to groups like the ones that are killing innocent
tourists in Egypt.  I guess I'll call them Muslim Fanatics from now on, unless
you have other suggestions?


>Similarly, the edifice of Islam has its own superstructure in the form of
>complete and comprehensive guidance for social, political, economic,
>moral, spiritual and all other aspects of human life. This guidance is simply 
>and clearly shown in all minute and meticulous details in the Holy Quran and 
>the Sunnah (traditions) of the Prophet.


Surely you jest!  "minute and meticulous details"?  How come Muslims can't
agree *even* on the religious aspects of Islam, let alone social, political,
and economic aspects. I presume that you are aware that there are Shi'aa 
and Sunni Muslims?  and variuos sub-sects (Mathaheb)?

What you seem to miss is that various (not all) aspects of religion are open
to interpretation, and usually conflicting interpretations:  Most Muslims
agree that if you pass gas, you cannot pray unless you Wash (Wodou'), but
what if you *see* a dog?

Of course, the disagreements become much more significant when you are dealing
with social, political and economic aspects.


Tamer Abdelgawad 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael Gschwind)
Subject: Re: Israel Apartheid????
Organization: Vienna University of Technology
	<1992Nov10.144503.13134@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
	<1992Nov11.004543.29934@jetsun.weitek.COM>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:08:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.004543.29934@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

   In article <1992Nov10.144503.13134@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal) writes:
   >
   >to either America or Latin America, were denied.  In Latin
   >America most nations were deliriously happy to get Jewish
   >refugees, because they were good for the economy, and perhaps
   >because they haven't forgotten that Latin Americans are descended
   >mostly from Iberian Jews.  Most of

   I guess I missed something there. I thought that Latin Americans were
   descended mostly from the indigenous peoples...

The 'mostly' is difficult to quantify, and depends on the country ...
In Haiti, e.g. close to 0 indigenas, >70% in Guatemala, even more in
Bolivia... 

But, indeed, many Jews went undercover (only to be found again in our
days, by being outwardly Catholic, keeping various Jewish traditions
and migrating to Latin America ... many families did in fact not even
know (any more) why in their family nobody eats pork ("it's a family
tradition" etc.) and similar things...

I think U of Arizona is conducting research about this ...

mike

--

Michael Gschwind, Dept. of VLSI-Design, Vienna University of Technology
mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at	(*) BOZO is a registered 
(currently somewhere in             trademark of Bush/Quayle 92
the Bay Area, back sometime     (*) UNIX is a registered 
at the end of this year)	    trademark of AT&T
     
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: Oct 1973: Yom Kippur War (To Husam)
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:43:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.064735.27720@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, carasso@Turing.ORG (Roger Carasso) writes:
|> 
|> There was never going to be a partition because the Arab countries
|> would not stand for a Jewish state.
|> 
|> 	"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre
|> 	which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the
|> 	Crusades."  --Arab League Secretary Gen. Pasha,
|> 			May 15, 1948
|> 
|> 	"I declare a holy war! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"
|> 		Haj Amin al Husseini,
|> 		Mufti of Jeruslem, 1948
 
So who called the UN envoy resposible for the partition of Palestine?.

|> 
|> 
|> If you call that unprovoked, then you're fucking on drugs.  If Israel
|> wanted more land they wouldn't have given up the Sinai or territories
|> beyond the Golan that it took in 67.  They want peace, and the sooner
|> the Arabs recognize ISrael's right to Exist, the sooner they can have
|> their land back.
|> 
|> 
|> roger

They did by meeting with them about 10 times, and Israel refuses to budge.
The Israeli negotiation policy is not to trade land for peace, rather, peace
for peace. This means essentially a threat for Israel's neighbors, unless they
make peace they will not have peace. This is the statement of ambassador Shoval.

For your information Israel wanted the Golan heights weather provoked or not.
The golan heights is the source for most of the Jordan river waters and Israel
had to take it. They are stealing the waters of Lebanon, were they also provoked
by the Lebanese to steal their water?.

A.Faris
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bulgaria
From: es182@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: JESAIR
Reply-To: es182@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:46:53 GMT

There was some discussion on the net last month about the reliability of
JESAIR. A colleague of mine was in Sofia last week for a meeting. She'd
gone there by JESAIR. Her return over the weekend was delayed. She was
told that JESAIR's plane was grounded in England because the company
couldn't pay its bills. One delay after another. She finally gave up
and has been working her way back from Sofia at additional expense
because she couldn't wait any longer. Caveat emptor.

Ernest Scatton es182@albnyvms.bitnet
From: zlatev@an.isl.titech.ac.jp (Rossen Zlatev)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bulgaria
Subject: Re: OBSERVATION (nablyudenie)
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:47:26 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science and Engineering Lab., Tokyo Inst. of Tech., Japan
In-reply-to: radenski@msus1.msus.edu's message of 18 Nov 92 02:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.202923.1705@msus1.msus.edu> radenski@msus1.msus.edu writes:


>	 Just curious: is there a Bulgarian who would write a regular mail
>letter to his/her parents in Bulgarian but using the Latin alphabet?
>I guess most parents would rather not hear from their children, than 
>read Bulgarian in Latin. They are older people and they know that 
>you cannot separate the language from the alphabet.
>
>Regards,
>
>Atanas Radenski

	The answer is very simple. When one writes a letter to his/her
parents he/she do NOT need a computer. So the most natural way is to
use Cyrillic alphabet.
	The problem is that computers worldwide do NOT have Cyrillic
build in them. That is all we are speaking about.
	
All the best: Rossen
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bulgaria
Subject: Re: Anything goes
From: lihouba@dapsas1 (Christo Houbaviy)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:43:40 GMT
Distribution: soc.culture.bulgaria
Organization: Weizmann Institute of Science, Computation Center

In article <By0LDF.65K@newcastle.ac.uk> Marin.Guenov@newcastle.ac.uk (Marin Guenov (EDC - Cost Estimation)) writes:
>
>nexus@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Abstractor) writes:
>

[deleted]

>
>Meanwhile my humble advice to the s.c.b. contributors is:
>"Please write in English as more people can participate in the ng.
>However if you can't but want to share something, please don't
>worry about "abstractors" or "abstractions" and  write in
>Bulgarian, sticking to the phonetically closest combinations of
>the "mighty" latin (american :-)) letters. Anyone who knows Bulgarian
>will understand you.
>
>Za sega moiat scromen savet e:
>Molia pishete na angliiski za da mogat poveche hora da uchastvat v
>tosi forum.
>Ako vse pak ne znaete angliiski, no iskate da spodelite neshto, molia
>ne se "striaskaite" ot "abstractori", "abstractzionisti" i "abstractzii".
>Pishete na bulgarski kato se pridurjate kum fonetichno nai blizkite
>combinatzii ot latinski (americanski :-)) bukvi. Vseki, koito znae
>bulgarski, shte vi rasbere.

I absolutely agree with this suggestion. Let us stop the pointless
flame as it only decreases the band-width here. What are these
specultations about language and alphabet? Don't s.c.b. readers have
anything better to do than beat around the bush?
I think that Marin has said all there is to say in connection with
this thread - try to write in English but if you can't, feel free to
use Bulgarian. I think that the Net is hardly the right place to
satisfy one's ego and I would suggest that we stop this pointless
discussion _now_.

Arseny - I don't agree with your statement that the Net was designed
and licenced to be used in the US. It just happens that most of the
world uses the latin alphabet, and as you can see the net extends
beyond the US of A. I wouldn't call TIETZE's transliterations
_offensive_ and _bastardizing_ but I would urge him to try not to use
them as they are very difficult to read and understand.

(Sorry, brato (Abstractor) - prijatelstvoto e prijatelstvo no istinata e po-skqpa).


>All the best
>
>Marin.Guenov@uk.ac.newcastle

Regards,

XP|/|CTO


--
Christo Houbaviy [lihouba@dapsas.weizmann.ac.il]
Department of Molecular Genetics and Virology
The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel