From: jodar@aludra.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Re. soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
Date: 9 Nov 1992 16:39:19 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
Summary: Comments on Rebuttal....

Assalamu Alaikum....

Auzu Billahi Min Ash-Shaitan Nirajeem.  Bismillah...

In article <1992Nov9.151709.3634@bernina.ethz.ch> Brother Nadeem
Malik (nadeem@igpho) writes:

[regarding the violence in Bangladesh]
>Such violence clearly establishes a separate identity -- this is the
>most basic requirement to justify NEED for a newsgroup.

Actually, the most basic requirement to justify the need for a
new newsgroup is whether there is a need for the newsgroup.  To
my understanding, this is determined by:

- Whether or not there is a need for a newsgroup
- Whether or not this need is satisfied by an existing newsgroup
- Whether or nor the existing newsgroup can handle the traffic

If I am mistaken in this, I ask anyone familiar with readnews
policy to please correct me.

The violence in Bangladesh mentioned previously would seem to
establish a seperate identity.  It does not establish the need
for a new newsgroup.  You may have noticed that there is a 
distinct lack of 'soc.religion.islam.sunni,' 'soc.religion.islam.shi'i,' 
'soc.religion.islam.whatever.'  Why?  Apparently because the needs 
of the various identities are satisfied by the existing group.

>The example you give is irrelevant; although majority of Kashmiris are
>Muslims, they are fighting for NATIONAL recognition, not to establish
>their own religon or sect etc.

Perhaps my example is irrelevant, but I don't think it is.  The
Kashmiris are fighting for their SURVIVAL, and that of their
faith.  My understanding of what you said is that this is also 
what you are striving for....

>: Arguments made against the creation of 'soc.religion.islam.ahmadi' 
>: seem to include:
>: 
>: -Naming the group S.R.I.Ahmadi would defeat the reasons for creating it;
>
>what does this mean?

If your purpose is to present the Ahmadiyyan beliefs as the only
correct way of life, presenting it as a subset of Islam defeats
your purpose.  Instead of appearing as 'THE Way,' you appear as
an 'offshoot,' 'digression,' or 'sect.'  That is what I meant.

>: -Ahmadi beliefs contradict mainstream Islam;
>
>A real classic this one!
>
>The natural answer is that *mainstream* Islam contradicts Islam :-)
>(By the way by mainstream, do you mean Sunni mainstream, Shia 
>mainstream, or some other mainstream :-) )

I don't really think I need to define 'mainstream' for you, as
you're an educated individual....  I will note for the reader,
however, that the above quote from a previous article was my
determination of one of the reasons given (by others) of why SRIA
should not be created.

I also mentioned, later, that this statement was supported by
strong evidence.  To be specific, the Ahmadis have beliefs
contradictory to those of ALL other muslims, and they are
currently a minority.  They are not, therefore, in the
'mainstream' of Islam.

The point can be made that only the Ahmadis really follow Islam,
in which case it would be best for them to distance themselves
from what the rest of the world sees as Islam and muslims.

>: -SRI is an open forum for everyone, including Ahmadis;
>: -That a newsgroup with this name would be nonsensical.
>: (A similar example would be 'soc.religion.christianity.condoms.')
>
>What a load of rubbish!
>You are actually doing yourself a lot of damage by comming up with such
>self-evident non-sense. To the neutral it only demonstrates that
>you have a deep hatred for Ahmadi Muslims which is clouding your thoughts;

I will gladly leave that to the other neutrals to decide.  If you
really think what I say is 'rubbish,' then so be it.  I still
think your interests would be better served by creating
'soc.culture.ahmadi,' but I can only offer advice, not force you
to follow it.

>: The above reasons are supported by strong evidence.
>
>The above (your) reasons are not supported by any reasons at all!

:-)

[my understanding of the reasons to create SRIA deleted]
> You are entitled to have your opinion as to why s.r.i.a. should be set-up;
>actually you haven't done a bad job with the four above reasons. I would 
>actually re-arrange the ordering and make stronger statements about them. 
>Here is my (ordered) list of needs and justification for s.r.i.a., which I 
>can assure you is shared by most (if not all) of the Ahmadis on the net:

I'll have to take your word for it, as I only know some of the
Ahmadis on the net....

>(1) unique status in Islam -- this at least is acknowledged even by those
>    who are opposing us.
>(2) Ahmadi Muslims have the true version of Islam;
>(3) freedom of speech and representation includes right to choose own name.

Well, if the other Ahmadis on the net are aware of this list, and
if they agree with it, then shall we accept it as 'The List'?

>(1) above id the most obvious and I don't think anyone now denies that we have
>a unique and separate identity to `mainstream' Muslims. The point about Ahmadis
>being killed, persecuted by mainstream is evidence that this is true (since
>STRONG proof has been demanded). (See one of my earlier articles on this issue
>or I can post it on request to individuals.)

I wouldn't mind seeing this article you refer to, as I only know
of the Bangladesh incident you described.  I would prefer to know
of widespread persecution and killing all over the world, by most
of the muslims before I accept a statement condemning them.

>(2) is off course a matter of debate between mainstream Muslims and us;
>but the point is that this is our very genuine and sincere faith -- just as
>sincere as the other Muslims. Since they justify themselves using Islam in 
>their name on this basis, it is only right that we should also be given this 
>right with equal force and rigor.

Umm...  I think you're missing the fact that everybody else
defines the religion as Islam, not just the muslims.  If the
world decides tomorrow to declare only Ahmadis as muslim, then
SRI automatically defaults to Ahmadiyyan beliefs.  (And the rest
of the muslims would be considered nothing more than sects.)

>(3) again again obvious. 

Well, the statement is obvious, but the validity is questionable.
There is much made in the U.S. about 'freedom of speech,' but the
question of where to draw the line has raged for ages.  Take
pornography, for example.  Some call it art, others call it an
abomination.  What about Neo-Nazis giving talks in the
auditorium?  Don't they have the right to free speech?

As I said, the question is where one draws the line.  I doubt
that we could justify the existence of a group name simply by
calling for 'freedom of speech.'  Just try to argue the point for
soc.religion.christian.satanic and you'll see what I mean....

>The real impact of (3) is that it turns the table
>180 degrees; the Muslims have been demanding that we justify our position wiht
>strong proofs; in reality if one reflects over (3) the defacto situation should
>be that since freedom of name is a natural right, 

A 'natural right'?

>it is they who should produce
>exceptionally strong arguments and proofs to justify why this basic human right
>should be denied to us! 

Now it's a 'basic human right'....

>(This in itself strengthens (1) above even more.) I 
>should think that a neutral should vote in favour of our right to name our 
>own group unless such strong arguments are forth-comming.

We can only ask the neutrals to vote according to their best
judgement.  Just because we may think one position or another is
right doesn't mean that it is.  I trust them to wade through
all this dialogue to arrive at the best solution for everyone
involved.

I only wish there were more people involved in this discussion.

>But to this point I have yet to come across a single substantial argument 
>against the name of our group as s.r.i.a. other than that the mainstream Muslim>simply FEEL that their version of Islam is being slighted by using such a name.

:-)  That was only one of the four I reviewed....  What happened
to the others?  Or would you rather I list MY reasons for
suggesting an alternative group name?

>But
>since this [the case of causing offense] is a matter of opinion, and holds 
>equally well the other way round with us, then I cannot see that they have 
>significant case against the establishment of s.r.i.a.

Well, I can't force you to see....

Anyways, we'll see what happens, inshallah.

-AQ

[I beg Allah's forgiveness for my weakness and insufficiency in ]
['His' service, and I ask for his protection from Shaitan and   ]
[from my own Desires.  None can protect me except Allah.  If I  ]
[have made any errors, I beg Allah to bring them to my attention]
[so that they may be corrected.  If I have made none, then it is]
[only through the Grace of Allah and all praise is due only to  ]
['Him.'                                                         ]

Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth