From: wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna)
Subject: Re: islam & ethnicity
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:59:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.032855.11549@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
># dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>
>##However, I am
>##seriously deadlocked with you about the issue of Islam being transfered by
>##the father. I asked two Muslem guys here - one from India and one from
>##Turkey (both graduate students) - and they disagree with you; in their
>##opinion, the son of a Moslem father is considered a Moslem, and that
>##is that.
>...
>#The son of a Muslim father is presumed to be a Muslim, until proven
>#otherwise.   
>
>And in how many cases is it "proven otherwise"? 

Gee, let me check with higher authorities.  Don't be ridiculous.  There is 
no omnipresent entity that is constantly on a "witch hunt" trying to
determine what each individual's real beliefs are.  Muslims don't have to
periodically appear before some sort of big brother to affirm/confirm their 
personal beliefs.   However, if the son of a Muslim father, openly declares 
that he is, for example, an atheist, then he cannot be called a Muslim.

>And, if bloodlines
>have no relation to Islam, why not make it equal? Why not a) presume
>*everyboy* is a Moslem till proven otherwise,

Because this assumption would have no basis whatsoever.  Use your mind,
Danny.  The child of a Muslim/Christian father is presumed to be 
Muslim/Christian becuase it is reasonably assumed that that child 
would be/has been raised beleiving in the Islamic/Christian faith.

or b) *everybody* is
>a non-Moslem untill he is proven to be one!?
>While deleting my question, 

I have answered it a zillion times.

>you have nontheless answered it: in order
>to be considered a Moslem, someone who does not have a Moslem father
>has to convert. That is that. End of argument.

You still don't see the distinction between one being "presumed" a Muslim
/Christian and being "considered" a Muslim/Christian.  
Believe away, as you wish.  It seems that nothing will get through to you.
I give up.

>...
>#If Rushdie came out and openly declared that he is an atheist or an
>#agnostic, if he said that he doesn't consider praying five times a day
>#a duty on every Muslim, he would be considered a non-Muslim.   
>
>By who? By all Moslems? 

Yes.  By definition, he cannot be called a Muslim.

>
>#On the
>#other hand, if Danny Keren came out and openly declared he is an atheist 
>#or an agnostic, he would still be considered a Jew, because his mother 
>#is Jewish.  
>
>Be considered a Jew by who? 

By all Jews, I gather.  According to the definition that based on the halacha,
you'd still be considered a Jew.   Your religious faith and practices are not
important.

>A Jew in what sense? 

This is the point, namely, that ``contemporary definitions of most other 
major religious groups in the world are less ethnocentric than those for 
Jews?''   Do you dispute that?  If so, then explain.  A Muslim/Chrisrtian 
is defined by his religious beliefs and practice, not because his
father/mother happens to be Muslim/Christian.

>Is there a notion of
>a "secular Moslem" or not? If so, how many of Moslems are "secular"?

I'm not sure about what you mean by "secular" here?  Islam is a religion.
A person may call himself a Muslim, but that doesn't necessarily mean he
is, by definition.  If he doesn't believe in the Islamic faith, then of
course he's not a Muslim, even if he continues to calim he is.

>...
>#Past injustices cannot excuse present ones.  
>...
>#Today, Zionism, in the name 
>#of world Jewry and Judaism, is denying the Palestinians people (both Muslims 
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>#and Christians) their inalienable rights in their own homeland.
>
>Hogwash. What have Judaism and world Jewry have to do with this?

Duh.  I'll give you a hint: Israel, the zionist state, defines itself 
as ``the state of the JEWISH people'' and as ``the Jewish state''.  Its 
actions and racist laws are therfore being done, whether you like it or
not, in the name of world Jewry and Judaism.

>I am
>afraid the Nazi propaganda posted by our "Good rabbi" is sneaking
>through. To Judge on Judaism from its interpretation by some political
>currents is an evil thing. 

You need a reading lesson.  I'm NOT judging Judaism.  I'm simply 
saying that Zionism, as defined today in practice by the zionist
state (Israel), is perpetarting colossal crimes all IN THE NAME of world 
Jewry and Judaism.  That's a fact.  Don't blame me.  Blame zionism,
blame the Israeli Knesset and army.  Direct your indignation appropriately,
next time, please.

>I suggest that you think twice before you
>make such declarations.

I sincerely suggest you carefully read what is being said and think thrice
before attacking people and launching yet another emotional response.

>They can be applied to Islam too, BTW, and it
>won't be considered fair, now won't it?

Crimes have been committed in the name of Islam and Christianity.  Those
who misappropriate/use the name Islam/Christianity to justify their
crimes should be condemned.  The same applies to those who use the
name of world Jewry and Judaism. 

>...
>#Are you prepared to acknowledge and condemn present injustices that are done 
>#in the name of world Jewry and Judaism with same vigor that you use when the 
>#victims happen to be Jews?  I certainly hope you'd be.
>
>This is an insulting question, because of the mention of "Judaism and
>world Jewry". 

See above.

>Nontheless I will answer it - yes, Israel has done
>some thing that should be condemmned; yes, there are Jews who do
>things that should be condemmned, especially when they base them on
>a mis-interpreted version of the Jewish religion. 

Thanks.  Would you support a repeal of all laws in Israel that
discriminate against non-Jews?   Would you support a genuine democracy
in Israel, one in which all citizens (both Jews and non-Jews) have equal
rights?   Yes/no?

>Ofcourse, if Israel had not been forced into the corner by its
>neighbours, 

You had to go back to the old game of trying to find justifications, ha?

>who have sought (and some are still trying) to "annihilate",
>"exterminate", and "uproot" it, things would be much better off. I
>hope that you are aware that Israel is not the only one to blame
>for mideast tragedies. 

Yeah.  But, tell me Danny, who committed the original sin in Palestine?  
Who claims a God-given right to the land of "Eretz Israel", without regard 
to the native inhabitants of that land?  Who came (from the outside) and 
conquered whose land, destroyed whose homes, towns and farms, expelled natives 
and colonized their homeland?  Who has "uprooted" whom?  Who are the people 
being dispossessed, blatantly discriminated against, denied their political 
rights, not to mention their most basic of human rights?  

The Palestinians, the victims of zionism, have come around to forsaking 
a lot, and forgiving a lot, and agreeing to a small portion of their homeland 
in return for peace.  By contrast, Israel, the aggressor, the usurper, wants
to maintain its Jewish exclusivist character, wants even more territory, 
expells more natives, and speaks of "transfer", etc.  Israel, the occupying 
power over the West Bank and Gaza for the past twenty five years, is daily 
confiscating land, stealing water, crowding Palestinians out, breaking bones,
torturing people, shooting kids, razing trees, and demolishing homes.  
Who is "annihilating" and "exterminating" whom?

Are the Arabs driving the Jews into the sea?  Or is it the Israelis who are
intent on driving the Palestinian Arabs into the desert?

>-Danny Keren.

Waleed Muhanna
-=-
  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people
   to do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:26031 soc.culture.greek:12379 soc.culture.turkish:14645