The impact of "Robert" pn soc.religion.islam

John Berg

unread,

Dec 14, 2005, 1:38:00 AM12/14/05

to

Soc.religion.islam (s.r.i.) is a usenet closely monitored by believers
(non-infidels). Robert ("Robert" <robe...@onetel.com>) has shattered the
normal "business as usual" of this pro-Islamic discussion group. How? By
politely, but firmly, answering with facts the absurdities offered by the
usual denizens of s.r.i. Using Moderation, the usenet is normally highly
censored and protected from the search light of truth. Robert's facts,
firmness, and frankness has penetrated this curtain. Unfortunately, one
has to turn to an unmoderated usenet to offer Robert this compliment.

--
John Berg
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his
absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must
delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has
ceased to be a great power among men. --W. Churchill

zev

unread,

Dec 14, 2005, 9:52:57 AM12/14/05

to

"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:c5Pnf.402988$084.218035@attbi_s22...

> Soc.religion.islam (s.r.i.) is a usenet closely monitored by believers
> (non-infidels). Robert ("Robert" <robe...@onetel.com>) has shattered
> the normal "business as usual" of this pro-Islamic discussion group. How?
> By politely, but firmly, answering with facts the absurdities offered by
> the usual denizens of s.r.i. Using Moderation, the usenet is normally
> highly censored and protected from the search light of truth. Robert's
> facts, firmness, and frankness has penetrated this curtain.
> Unfortunately, one has to turn to an unmoderated usenet to offer Robert
> this compliment.

Robert is not the first person to "penetrate this curtain".
Many have done it before.

Zev

John Berg

unread,

Dec 14, 2005, 2:05:45 PM12/14/05

to

Please write more. I found that I could not in good honor continue to write
to a group that prevented the publication of my answers to the questions
then "crowed" on the list that I was unable to answer their questions.

Others may remember Christopher Heger who champion the work of scholars who
pointed to original Qur'an been written in Aramaic.

--
John Berg
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his
absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must
delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has
ceased to be a great power among men. --W. Churchill

"zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43a02f25$1...@news.bezeqint.net...

Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad (Abdul-Khinzeer al-Mushrik)

unread,

Dec 14, 2005, 2:49:38 PM12/14/05

to

John Berg wrote:
>
> "zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>

> > Robert is not the first person to "penetrate this curtain".
> > Many have done it before.
>

> Please write more. I found that I could not in good honor continue to write
> to a group that prevented the publication of my answers to the questions
> then "crowed" on the list that I was unable to answer their questions.
>
> Others may remember Christopher Heger who champion the work of scholars who
> pointed to original Qur'an been written in Aramaic.

Right, Christoph Heger is one such example of a critic of Islam who was
able to post many articles to SRI which attempted to cast doubt on the
veracity of Muslim faith. You can see his posting history to SRI here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asoc.religion.islam&scoring=d&enc_author=K4CnbxsAAABG5OjQEddhQ2EF-OQF4ZCbcAmY4-iC-29oEDcY0xen3g

You might also consider the posting histories of other various critics
(with posts numbering in the thousands):

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Ajkatz%40math.gatech.edu+gr...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Akarpov%40softhome.net+grou...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Abalboa19%40idt.net+group%3...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Alogicalproof%40yahoo.com+g...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Akaafir%40godisdead.com+gro...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Adenis_giron%40hotmail.com+...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Acebuchap%40hotmail.com+gro...

Oh, on a side note, regarding Dr. Heger's articles on Aramaic, do you
think you could, matter of factly, bring them up again in SRI? In other
words, post a few of the arguments (or refer to them) and ask the
opinions of others. I'd like to see what the current crop of SRI
posters think, and say, and I may enter the thread based on some of the
replies. I'm particularly interested in their thoughts on Dr. Heger's
furqaan argument (e.g. I want to see how well, if at all, anyone in SRI
currently understands that discussion). I want to see how they respond
when the furqaan argument is mentioned.

zev

unread,

Dec 15, 2005, 1:18:26 AM12/15/05

to

"Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad (Abdul-Khinzeer al-Mushrik)" <abuk...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:1134589778....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Why don't you post for yourself, Denis ;-)

Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz

unread,

Dec 15, 2005, 12:00:21 PM12/15/05

to

zev wrote:
> "Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad (Abdul-Khinzeer al-Mushrik)" <abuk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message
> news:1134589778....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Why don't you post for yourself, Denis ;-)

Actually I did. Of the last three listed above, two are under my name,
and the last one is when I first started posting to SRI, under the
pseudonym "Free Thought" and with an extraordinarily belligerent tone.

zev

unread,

Dec 16, 2005, 2:03:23 AM12/16/05

to

"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" <abuk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1134666021.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> zev wrote:
>> Why don't you post for yourself, Denis ;-)
>
> Actually I did. Of the last three listed above, two are under my name,
> and the last one is when I first started posting to SRI, under the
> pseudonym "Free Thought" and with an extraordinarily belligerent tone.

I know you've posted on SRI,
I was referring to the following, from your post.

"Oh, on a side note, regarding Dr. Heger's articles on Aramaic, do you
think you could, matter of factly, bring them up again in SRI? In other
words, post a few of the arguments (or refer to them) and ask the

opinions of others.".

Reading your post, I thought of the line
"Why don't you speak for yourself, John?",
and paraphrased it to match the circumstances.
That's why I ended it with a 'smiley'.

Zev

Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz

unread,

Dec 16, 2005, 2:34:43 PM12/16/05

to

zev wrote:
>
> I was referring to the following, from your post.
>
> "Oh, on a side note, regarding Dr. Heger's articles on Aramaic, do you
> think you could, matter of factly, bring them up again in SRI? In other
> words, post a few of the arguments (or refer to them) and ask the
> opinions of others.".
>
> Reading your post, I thought of the line
> "Why don't you speak for yourself, John?",
> and paraphrased it to match the circumstances.
> That's why I ended it with a 'smiley'.

Ah, okay, sorry for the mistake. To answer your question now, I am very
curious what the regulars in SRI now think about Dr. Heger's furqaan
argument. I played a role in that debate, so I don't want to be the one
to resurrect the topic if my motivation is to get the thoughts of
others. I want to see if people recommend a previous thread or post
(e.g. something written by Shibli Zaman or myself), recommend a
website, or attempt arguments of their own. Their natural response is
less disturbed if I'm not the one initiating the discussion, if that
makese sense. Of course, once the discussion was resurrected, I would
probably take part based on the answers given.

Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz

unread,

Dec 16, 2005, 2:37:45 PM12/16/05

to

zev wrote:
>
> I was referring to the following, from your post.
>
> "Oh, on a side note, regarding Dr. Heger's articles on Aramaic, do you
> think you could, matter of factly, bring them up again in SRI? In other
> words, post a few of the arguments (or refer to them) and ask the
> opinions of others.".
>
> Reading your post, I thought of the line
> "Why don't you speak for yourself, John?",
> and paraphrased it to match the circumstances.
> That's why I ended it with a 'smiley'.

Ah, okay, sorry for the mistake. To answer your question now, I am very

Fariduddien

unread,

Dec 30, 2005, 9:49:36 AM12/30/05

to

John Berg wrote:
> Soc.religion.islam (s.r.i.) is a usenet closely monitored by believers
> (non-infidels).

You forgot to mention that one of the moderators of soc.religion.islam
is an orthodox Christian.

> Robert ("Robert" <robe...@onetel.com>) has shattered the
> normal "business as usual" of this pro-Islamic discussion group.

S.R.I. has always permitted diverse views. The basic criteria for
S.R.I. are that posts be relevant to Islam, and be free from insults
and personal attacks. However, all perspectives have always been
discussed. I believe that was one of the principles on which the
newsgroup was founded.

> How? By
> politely, but firmly, answering with facts the absurdities offered by the
> usual denizens of s.r.i. Using Moderation, the usenet is normally highly
> censored and protected from the search light of truth.

You're right that many religious usenet groups do not permit any
critical viewpoints of that religion to be discussed.
(Soc.religion.christian is a notable example.) However,
Soc.religion.islam has never been like this, and has always permitted
diverse points of view.

Why would that be? Perhaps it's because many Muslims see Islam as a
more "logical" religion than most are - based on an uncompromising
monotheism - and which can be defended in discussion. Perhaps this
makes it more easily defended than religions which have a less
"logical" foundation. Anyway, that's my theory.

Fariduddien Rice
(Speaking for myself)