RFD: talk.religion.islam
Basalat Ali Raja
Rationale: Over time, there have been different views held amongst
various members of the Islamic community about the creation of an
unmoderated newsgroup about Islam. Some people hold that it is a
good idea because Muslims don't really have anything that needs
defending - and that the purpose of a moderated newsgroup in this
context is to make a fort that will allow its creators the ability
to defend it. There are others who feel that it is necessary to
create a moderated newsgroup that will cut down the flames that
arise because of the fact that everyone seems to have a very firm
opinion about Islam.
My own predilection leads to the former; I feel that it is necessary
to have an unmoderated forum about Islam. I agree that flames will
inevitably rise, every now and then. However, it does not seem that
there is anything that one can do about these flames anyway. These
already exist on several other newsgroups, so it is impossible to
use moderation as a tool to cut down on all flammage. If one wishes
to have a moderated forum, then soc.religion.islam already exists
and can be used.
A couple of months ago, or so, a newsgroup was created in the alt
hierarchy, alt.religion.islam. Its purpose was to provide an
unmoderated forum for discussions about Islam and serve as a testbed
to prove or disprove the viability of talk.religion.islam. I would
argue that it has been very successful in this regard. The traffic
there easily rivals that of soc.religion.islam. There are some
articles that are posted there that are definitely not relevant and
are off the subject; nonetheless, the majority are quite pertinent.
For this reason, I think we should create a newsgroup in the Big
Seven hierarchy.
Proposal: For an unmoderated newsgroup, called talk.religion.islam.
Recommended Charter: For the discussion pertaining to the theological
aspects of Islam as a religion, as opposed to the cultural or
sociological aspects. It should serve as a forum for:
[1] To increase the understanding of the readers about the Quran, the
Hadith and the Sunnah of the Prophet.
[2] As a base for discussions about comparitive religions with
regards to Islam.
[3] As a forum for discussions of various mystical systems pertaining
to Islam and the validity (or lack thereof) of such systems.
Although this newsgroup is unmoderated, it is hoped that the participants
will carry out discussions in a scholarly and civilized tone.
Farhan Shaikh
Salaaam Alaikum
I can not understand how many news groups you guys need
to fight. I guess there are lways people ready to divide
rather collectively make one good forum,
We already have soc.religion.islam
and an unmoderated alt.religion.islam
which is target of abuses and now we have to defen another
newsgroup.
I guess you guys want to create a 100 news groups
islam.food islam.clothes islam.fools islam.terrorist islam.maulana
Now Basalat Asim and family of moderators like nauman
etc. what do you guys want
Farhan Shaikh
and an unmoderated alt.religion.islam which is target of abuses and
I guess you guys want to create a 100 news groups islam.food
islam.asim islam.nauman islam.right islam.wrong ....
Now Basalat Asim and family of moderators like nauman etc. what do you
by making or going crazy on network. You are like a new baby on net
where you want 100 newsgroups. Do you have 100 contributions a day.
Infact you remind me of my childhood where I would cry to eat
everything but could I digest. ( Only a analogy not that i did)
See even you would deny this the craving for attention. like I do today
Regards
A Sample from Basalats Asim and others orphaned baby. alt.religion.islam
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.6.2)
>DATE: Wed, 04 May 94 16:58:24 GMT
>FROM: Dick Gray [e] <di...@sickbay.bull.com>
>
>Salaam,
>
>Am I in the wrong newsgroup? I thought this group was for the discussion of
>Islam and Islamic culture. It seems to have become an irrelevant slugfest.
>Where's the enlightenment I expected? Has everyone with something pertinent
>to say left in disgust?
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
as...@tntvax.ntrs.com
> For this reason, I think we should create a newsgroup in the Big
> Seven hierarchy.
>
************************************************************************
This is definitely not a good reason. Please look for something else or just
live with the SRI. It is too sad that some people are making every effort to
scatter discussions/Dawah about Islam over a variety of group. Islam provides
code of conduct for every aspect of life and it is not appropriate to divide it
into different aspects. As far as irrelevent postings are concerned, any
unmoderated group is prone to these.
Thanx.................................................arfan
>
Basalat Ali Raja
BAR> For this reason, I think we should create a newsgroup in the Big
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BAR> Seven hierarchy.
>This is definitely not a good reason.
Can you explain to me how the success of alt.religion.islam is _not_ a
good reason for moving it into the Big Seven hierarchy? I do not follow
your reasoning.
>Please look for something else or just
>live with the SRI. It is too sad that some people are making every effort to
>scatter discussions/Dawah about Islam over a variety of group.
There are currently over 15 newsgroups that relate to
cultures/countries where Islam is a majority or a large minority religion.
What alt.religion.islam did was help consolidate many of these
discussions.
>Islam provides
>code of conduct for every aspect of life and it is not appropriate to divide
>it
>into different aspects.
This is unquestionably true. However, I do not think that it is
appropriate to equate SRI or ARI with Islam. These are generic
newsgroups, and creation of other newsgroups does not at all imply
that we are dividing Islam into anything. If it you think it does,
please explain why.
>As far as irrelevent postings are concerned, any
>unmoderated group is prone to these.
Unfortunate, but true.
Jan Isley
Basalat Ali Raja <gwy...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>This is a call for discussion for the newsgroup talk.religion.islam.
I fail to see why this proposal is sufficiently different from the
recently failed attempt to create soc.culture.muslim to not require
waiting six months.
--
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us>
A. M. Mughal
Farhan Shaikh <far...@rhea.ctr.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Salaaam Alaikum
>
>
>I can not understand how many news groups you guys need
>to fight. I guess there are lways people ready to divide
>rather collectively make one good forum,
>We already have soc.religion.islam
>and an unmoderated alt.religion.islam
Clearly, you have misunderstood RFD. The RFD is for _moving_
alt.religion.islam to talk.religion.islam.
The proponent has cited the popularity of alt.religion.islam
as basis for making a request to have it available under 'big 7'
Any objections to this requested move?
A. Mughal
[Standard Disclaimer] Flames:/dev/null
A. M. Mughal
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> wrote:
>In article <talk.religion...@uunet.uu.net>,
>Basalat Ali Raja <gwy...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>>This is a call for discussion for the newsgroup talk.religion.islam.
>I fail to see why this proposal is sufficiently different from the
>recently failed attempt to create soc.culture.muslim to not require
>waiting six months.
Jan, I proposed soc.culture.Muslim. It was supposed to be for
unmoderated discussion of Cultural backgrounds/history/news &
announcements of Muslims.
Alt.religion.islam is an newsgroup for discussion of Islam as
a religion.
The RFD for talk.religion.islam calls for 'alt.religion.islam'
(an unmoderated newsgroups for discussion of Islam as a religion)
to be moved under 'big 7'.
The rationale: In just three months, the readership (as published
in April '94 USENET statistics) is estimated to be 14,000.
talk.religion.islam & soc.culture.muslim are mutually exclusive.
The proposal for creation of soc.culture.muslim should be back on
the board in about 6 months irrespective of status on RFD for
talk.religion.islam.
A. Mughal
[Standard Disclaimer] Flames:/dev/null
>--
>Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us>
Jawad Ali
A. M. Mughal <mug...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>In article <CpM0r...@bagend.atl.ga.us>,
>Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> wrote:
>
>>I fail to see why this proposal is sufficiently different from the
>>recently failed attempt to create soc.culture.muslim to not require
>>waiting six months.
>
Asim, my guess is that not very many Muslims would share your
distinction between topics that are Islamic and those that are
Muslim.
I voted for soc.culture.muslim, but was surprised by that large
tunout of (seemingly) Muslim votes against it. I haven't see many
explainations, do you have any? and could you be making the
same mistakes again?
j n a
Paul O. Bartlett
> The proponent has cited the popularity of alt.religion.islam
> as basis for making a request to have it available under 'big 7'
> Any objections to this requested move?
>
> A. Mughal
Yeah. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Paul
Jan Isley
Jawad Ali <ja...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>In article <2qr1ev$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>A. M. Mughal <mug...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>I fail to see why this proposal is sufficiently different from the
>>>recently failed attempt to create soc.culture.muslim to not require
>>>waiting six months.
>> talk.religion.islam & soc.culture.muslim are mutually exclusive.
I don't think so and I submit that I am not of a minority opinion on
this point. Nor do I think that you answered my question, you listed
IMHO, a number of distinctions without a difference.
>Asim, my guess is that not very many Muslims would share your
>distinction between topics that are Islamic and those that are
>Muslim.
This non-Muslim does not share that distinction.
>I voted for soc.culture.muslim, but was surprised by that large
>tunout of (seemingly) Muslim votes against it. I haven't see many
>explainations, do you have any? and could you be making the
>same mistakes again?
I was the vote taker for soc.culture.muslim and therefore I am in a
rather unique position to comment on the outcome. The typical vote
has a very large number of votes in the first few days and a steadily
decreasing number of daily votes with a small spike when the second
CFV is posted. The soc.culture.muslim vote statistics looked more
like an inverse bell curve... with quite a lot of votes at the end.
I do not usually get much mail about a vote but this too was not
the norm with the soc.culture.muslim vote. I got a *lot* of mail.
If one takes the bulk of this mail at face value, soc.culture.muslim
failed (and it only failed in the last two days, btw) because a
large number of people voted no in response to what they felt was
inappropriate campaigning by various proponents of the group. From a
vote taker's perspective, it was completely obvious that massive
campaigning was going on from both sides. It is my personal opinion
that campaigning was excessive in the extreme.
I think any proposal that *needs* that much vote trolling should not
pass. Having said all of that, I remain surprised at what I thought
was a low voter turnout and submit that without such campaigning the
group would not have received enough yes votes to pass anyway.
And... I still think that the current proposal is not sufficiently
different from soc.culture.muslim to get by the six month rule.
Jihad Khattab
"I have no moral compunctions against playing the tyrant
or the blackmailer, if it gets me what I think is important.
Quite simply, this is war, and I will not tolerate any
insubordination."
Basalat Ali Raja (proponent of t.r.i)
January 29, 1994
(Source: document of official statement made by SRI Ex-moderator
Raja to SRI Ex-moderators, SRI Ex-Coordinator, and the Leader of
SRI "Quality Panel" explaining Raja's official policies.)
--
Basalat Ali Raja
#
# "I have no moral compunctions against playing the tyrant
# or the blackmailer, if it gets me what I think is important.
# Quite simply, this is war, and I will not tolerate any
# insubordination."
#
# Basalat Ali Raja (proponent of t.r.i)
# January 29, 1994
#
# (Source: document of official statement made by SRI Ex-moderator
# Raja to SRI Ex-moderators, SRI Ex-Coordinator, and the Leader of
# SRI "Quality Panel" explaining Raja's official policies.)
No such document exists, nor was any such official statement made.
I recommend you stay off the marijuana. :-)
Basalat Ali Raja
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> wrote:
>I was the vote taker for soc.culture.muslim and therefore I am in a
>rather unique position to comment on the outcome. The typical vote
>has a very large number of votes in the first few days and a steadily
>decreasing number of daily votes with a small spike when the second
>CFV is posted. The soc.culture.muslim vote statistics looked more
>like an inverse bell curve... with quite a lot of votes at the end.
>
>I do not usually get much mail about a vote but this too was not
>the norm with the soc.culture.muslim vote. I got a *lot* of mail.
>If one takes the bulk of this mail at face value, soc.culture.muslim
>failed (and it only failed in the last two days, btw) because a
>large number of people voted no in response to what they felt was
>inappropriate campaigning by various proponents of the group.
This is incorrect. I am on the mailing list where this campaigning
was conducted. It is the msa-list (Muslim Student's Assciation). Two
days before the voting ended, a massive anti-SCM campaign was
initiated by the opponents of the newsgroup. This particular list had
not been exposed to any campaigning previously, and the messages that
were sent were taken to be at face value. Before the proponents of
the group could explain their motivations for proposing this
newsgroup, voting had ended.
You are incorrect in your statement that the votes in the last two
days were because people responded negatively to inappropriate
campaigning by the proponents of the newsgroup. The anti-SCM
campaigning had nothing to do with the actual merit (or lack thereof)
of the newsgroup - it was done purely out of spite because some people
have a personal vendetta against the group proponent.
>From a
>vote taker's perspective, it was completely obvious that massive
>campaigning was going on from both sides. It is my personal opinion
>that campaigning was excessive in the extreme.
>I think any proposal that *needs* that much vote trolling should not
>pass. Having said all of that, I remain surprised at what I thought
>was a low voter turnout and submit that without such campaigning the
>group would not have received enough yes votes to pass anyway.
It is my personal opinion that people should not solicit others for
votes. I have never asked anyone to specifically vote one way or the
other on any issue, and my campaigning is limited to forwarding copies
of CFVs to people who I am very close to, and who I think might be
interested in the newsgroup (eg., forwarding a CFV for sci.med.nursing
to a friend who is a nurse).
Having said that, I must add that I have no way or intent to force
this upon anyone. Addressing the issue of SCM in particular, it seems
to me that it would have passed except for the negative campaigning of
the last two days. Therefore, it does not really look like it needed
vote-trolling in order to pass.
>And... I still think that the current proposal is not sufficiently
>different from soc.culture.muslim to get by the six month rule.
The current proposal is an attempt to move alt.religion.islam into the
main hierarchy. In order to prove the validity of this attempt, I
believe it is sufficient to note that ARI is a fairly active
newsgroup, and as of this moment, it is less subject to flame wars
than is SRI.
Basalat Ali Raja
Paul O. Bartlett <p00...@psilink.com> wrote:
# The proponent has cited the popularity of alt.religion.islam
# as basis for making a request to have it available under 'big 7'
# Any objections to this requested move?
> Yeah. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The current "broke-ness" lies in the fact that ARI has a distribution
that is significantly inferior to that of the proposed newsgroup TRI.
Jay Maynard
Is this group intended to interfere with the Ahmadi Muslims' intention to have
a group of their own with a name they do not find offensive -
soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
To Sarah Brady, Howard Metzenbaum, Dianne Feinstein, and Charles Schumer:
Thanks. Without you, I would be neither a gun owner nor an NRA life member.
Jan Isley
Basalat Ali Raja <gwy...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>The current "broke-ness" lies in the fact that ARI has a distribution
>that is significantly inferior to that of the proposed newsgroup TRI.
An existing alt group has a significantly inferior distribution than a
group that does not exist? If I may quote you from a different post:
*> I recommend you stay off the marijuana. :-)
unless of course, you brought enough to share. 8)
Jan Isley
Basalat Ali Raja <gwy...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>This is incorrect. I am on the mailing list where this campaigning
>was conducted. It is the msa-list (Muslim Student's Assciation).
> ... etc ... deletia
No sir, what I said was precisely correct. Please do not misquote me
and do not presume to know the content of my mail. Consider that you
may be making invalid assumptions about the methods and motives of
those who would solicit votes. Yes, that is as specific as I am going
to get and no, no one is going to see my mail. Please do not ask.
Before people start getting defensive, please note that the only value
judgement I have made on this issue is that I think that in general if
a proposal is worthy of passing, it will pass without *any* solicitation
beyond two appropriately posted offical CFVs. This is just one
person's opinion.
I have *not* and I do *not* infer or imply that any wrong was done with
respect to the soc.culture.muslim vote. I have pointed no fingers nor
mentioned any names, and I am not going to. I am simply sharing a few
observations that future proponenets, campaigners and voters would be
advised to consider.
[ agreement that vote trolling should be avoided deleted ... ]
> Addressing the issue of SCM in particular, it seems
>to me that it would have passed except for the negative campaigning of
>the last two days. Therefore, it does not really look like it needed
>vote-trolling in order to pass.
Perhaps I was not clear enough before... one more time, and probably
*only* one more time because I am *not* going to get in a protracted
discussion on this. So again, please do not ask.
Fact: There was considerable campaigning done during the recent
soc.culture.muslim vote, both for and against.
Opinion: In my analysis of the vote, even if I totally discount all
no votes received in the last days of the voting period, I
remain convinced that soc.culture.muslim would have failed
to get a sufficient margin of votes without the campaigning.
>The current proposal is an attempt to move alt.religion.islam into the
>main hierarchy. In order to prove the validity of this attempt, I
>believe it is sufficient to note that ARI is a fairly active
>newsgroup, and as of this moment, it is less subject to flame wars
>than is SRI.
My sympathies, really. However, I do not accept this proposal to
be sufficiently different from the one for soc.culture.muslim and
therefore I still believe that the six month rule should apply.
Probably there are many who are glad that I am not *the* moderator. :)
I believe that a change in the guidelines to prevent what I would call
the "prejudicial blocking" of proposals is desperately needed. But
then I tend to ignore people who use the phrase "desperately needed"
with respect to USENET... :)
Jihad Khattab
"I have no moral compunctions against playing the tyrant
or the blackmailer, if it gets me what I think is important.
Quite simply, this is war, and I will not tolerate any
insubordination."
Basalat Ali Raja (proponent of t.r.i)
January 29, 1994
(Source: document of official statement made by SRI Ex-moderator
Raja to SRI Ex-moderators, SRI Ex-Coordinator, and the Leader of
SRI "Quality Panel" explaining Raja's official policies.)
PS. Document appeared February 9th-13th on 20 USENET newsgroups,
MSA network, etc. For over 3 months Basalat Ali Raja did not
deny he said the above.
--
Basalat Ali Raja
>PS. Document appeared February 9th-13th on many USENET newsgroups,
>MSA network, etc. For over 3 months Basalat Ali Raja did not
>deny he said the above.
And what did he say on the 92nd day?
Jihad Khattab
"This means that I will need to be removed from my position of
moderator as SRI...[But] if such a situation should arise, I
will destroy as much of it as I possibly can before I go. And
I think it should be obvious to all of you that the damage I
can cause will probably be cataclysmic."
Basalat Ali Raja (proponent of t.r.i)
January 29, 1994
------------------------------------------
(Source: document of official statement made by SRI Ex-moderator
Raja to SRI Ex-moderators, SRI Ex-Coordinator, and the Leader of
SRI "Quality Panel", explaining Raja's official policies.)
kazizeeshan hasan
talk.religion.islam. Please folks, bear in mind this has _no
relevance_ whatsoever to the current moderator squabbles going on.
This isn't even going to be a moderated group, and lack of moderation
is in fact the best way to avoid the power struggles that we have been
subject to for the past several months.
It should be obvious to anyone that I have my share of
disagreements with Basalat and Asim. But voting against a valid
proposal just because they are supporting it is completely irrational
and counterproductive.
farewell,
zeeshan
--
"I love mankind... it's people I can't stand!" - Linus van Pelt
kaa...@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca
kazizeeshan hasan <ha...@husc7.harvard.edu> wrote:
> I support the moving of alt.religion.islam to
>talk.religion.islam. Please folks, bear in mind this has _no
>relevance_ whatsoever to the current moderator squabbles going on.
>This isn't even going to be a moderated group, and lack of moderation
>is in fact the best way to avoid the power struggles that we have been
>subject to for the past several months.
> It should be obvious to anyone that I have my share of
>disagreements with Basalat and Asim. But voting against a valid
>proposal just because they are supporting it is completely irrational
>and counterproductive.
>
>farewell,
>zeeshan
Nup!
You may be right or wrong. I do not care if any is wrong or right. As
I pointed several times, these incidents are damaging SRI and its
readers, specially muslims. I do not see any immediate official way to
tell these two gentlemen (Asim Mughal and Ali Basalat) that they must
leave us alone. The only possible AND immediate official way to inform
these two (that we are tired of this) is to vote NO to TRI. Such vote
will certainly give them a little advice that they must stop whatever
they are doing, right or wrong.
I ask readers once again. If this proposal gets passed, you have, in
fact, supported these two gentlmen. You would have told them that they
are welcomed, and you have given them your warm greetings over the
crisis on SRI. I do not have any personal problems with Ali Basalat,
or Asim Mughal. But I am really tired that they do not care even a bit
to take steps toward a better SRI. All they care is to find a trash,
make an article out of it, defeat those whom they do not want on SRI,
remove those who are not in agreement with them, and they do not care
whether the method they are using is harmful or not. The only thing
they want is their own wishes, and nothing else, or no one else.
If they do not stop, I will try my best for every single official RFD
and CFV in which their names are included, or they have proposed it
themselves, as long as I can. This means that almost every six months,
I will bring up every effort to different newsgroups that these two
gentlmen are not welcomed here. This means that they have to live
with it. However, if I see some improvement that they really want to
solve SRI's problem, for example, they include readers' vote in the
charter, or they respect readers vote on SRI,then, I will certainly
reconsider my policy. Human begings have the right to change.
(In fact, they wanted to respect readers' vote in their opinion poll,
but they found it to be against them. Now that they are sure the
readers' vote would be against them, they know they should not
acknowledge readers' right.)
Basalat Ali Raja
<kaa...@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>(In fact, they wanted to respect readers' vote in their opinion poll,
>but they found it to be against them. Now that they are sure the
>readers' vote would be against them, they know they should not
>acknowledge readers' right.)
I have ignored th rest of your innuendos in this article, but this
particular part caught my attention. Could you provide some more
information about the reader's vote we found to be against us? This
is certainly news to me.
Basalat Ali Raja
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> wrote:
>
>No sir, what I said was precisely correct. Please do not misquote me
>and do not presume to know the content of my mail. Consider that you
>may be making invalid assumptions about the methods and motives of
>those who would solicit votes. Yes, that is as specific as I am going
>to get and no, no one is going to see my mail. Please do not ask.
I did not intend to - I should point out that I was under the
assumption that you had said that the flurry of no votes toward the
end of the voting period was due to people being pissed off by
inappropriate campaigning by the proponents of the newsgroup. I
supplied data that I felt argued exactly the opposite. That was what
the "this is incorrect" referred to.
>Fact: There was considerable campaigning done during the recent
> soc.culture.muslim vote, both for and against.
>Opinion: In my analysis of the vote, even if I totally discount all
> no votes received in the last days of the voting period, I
> remain convinced that soc.culture.muslim would have failed
> to get a sufficient margin of votes without the campaigning.
Since in general, it is my feeling, that the campaigning tends to
cancel itself out, I am not sure that your hypothesis is necessarily
valid.
>My sympathies, really. However, I do not accept this proposal to
>be sufficiently different from the one for soc.culture.muslim and
>therefore I still believe that the six month rule should apply.
>Probably there are many who are glad that I am not *the* moderator. :)
:-) Well.. I think we've got a fundamental difference of opinion here,
so let us just leave it at that.
Basalat Ali Raja
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> wrote:
BAR>The current "broke-ness" lies in the fact that ARI has a distribution
BAR>that is significantly inferior to that of the proposed newsgroup TRI.
>An existing alt group has a significantly inferior distribution than a
>group that does not exist?
Blah. You know what I meant. :-)
Actually, this is a newsgroup that has Zen-perfect distribution - in
that it is the newsgroup that is distributed everywhere with an equal
perfection of non-distribution.
<standing back and taking a look>
Oh well.. That sentence will have to do. :-)
Basalat Ali Raja
Jay Maynard <jmay...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>All right, let's get this question out of the way early:
OK. Hi, Jay. :-)
>Is this group intended to interfere with the Ahmadi Muslims' intention to
>have
>a group of their own with a name they do not find offensive -
>soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?
Intended? No. It might - I cannot guarantee that it won't. as you
know, it is a totally unmoderated newsgroup, and I have no control
over it.
Despite Jan Isley's warning, I'll make the comment that I think that
the net desparately needs a newsgroup about Islam that is not
moderated, and cannot be controlled by anyone.
A. M. Mughal
Jihad, even if it is assumed that you are not misquoting Mr.Raja.
Let me highlight that talk.religion.islam was first proposed in
Novemeber 1993. That would be when Mr.Raja was a moderator and
had not made the statement you attribute to him. How do you
explain that ?
>--
Really? Can I have a copy of the document as well?
thanks.
A.Mughal
[Standard Disclaimer] Flames:/dev/null
A. M. Mughal
Jawad Ali <ja...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>In article <2qr1ev$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>A. M. Mughal <mug...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> wrote:
>>
>>>I fail to see why this proposal is sufficiently different from the
>>>recently failed attempt to create soc.culture.muslim to not require
>>>waiting six months.
>I voted for soc.culture.muslim, but was surprised by that large
>tunout of (seemingly) Muslim votes against it. I haven't see many
>explainations, do you have any? and could you be making the
>same mistakes again?
On the last two days of the voting, some people managed to change the
alias of mailing list which for those who worked on RFD for
soc.culture.muslim to include a long list of people. Mass email
messages were posted on the mailing list 'please vote no' several
times a day to three days. At least twice the mailing alias was
corrected but someone managed to use it again & again.
My guess is most people voted 'no' out of frustration on the issue.
Let me remind you that the proposal of soc.culture.muslim was not
solely mine. I was merely presenting it. It was drafted & discussed
by some other Muslims. The proposal as presented was the version
discussed and finalized a year ago.
There are those who will try to sabotage any action of the others,
soc.culture.muslim was a prime example of that. Lets see what
happens with talk.religion.islam. In any case, soc.culture.muslim
should be back on the board in about six months.
A.Mughal
[Standard Disclaimer]
>
>j n a
A. M. Mughal
>
>Is this group intended to interfere with the Ahmadi Muslims' intention to have
>a group of their own with a name they do not find offensive -
>soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?
I don't see how it can. talk.religion.islam is supposed to be
unmoderated.
Remember, soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya as proposed was a moderated
forum.
A.Mughal
[Standard Disclaimer]
A. M. Mughal
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> wrote:
>In article <2r0ids$j...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
>Basalat Ali Raja <gwy...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>>The current "broke-ness" lies in the fact that ARI has a distribution
>>that is significantly inferior to that of the proposed newsgroup TRI.
>An existing alt group has a significantly inferior distribution than a
>group that does not exist? If I may quote you from a different post:
Jan, you missed out "proposed newsgroup TRI"
>*> I recommend you stay off the marijuana. :-)
>unless of course, you brought enough to share. 8)
The marijuana debate just gets complex here ;)
A. M. Mughal
Abdul Rehman Dankg <abd...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>Hello !
> I would just like to point out that the statistics on
> the popularity of alt.religion.islam as indicated by the
> volume of material posted to the said newsgroup [posted
> a few days ago by Mr. Asim Mughal] is pretty much invalid.
I beg to differ. The statistics I posted are from USENET
statistics of April '94. Please allow me to duplicate them.
=========
Newsgroups: news.lists
Subject: USENET Readership report for Apr 94
Date: 3 May 1994 12:06:00 -0700
Organization: DEC Network Systems Laboratory
Lines: 3203
Sender: re...@pa.dec.com
Approved: re...@decwrl.dec.com
Message-ID: <2q67ao$1...@usenet.pa.dec.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usenet.pa.dec.com
Summary: data for all groups
Keywords: arbitron, statistics, full
This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Apr 94.
Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
|
2699 14000 102 32% 529 1097.6 27% 0.03 0.2% alt.religion.islam
==========
Abdul Rehman Dankg
I would just like to point out that the statistics on
the popularity of alt.religion.islam as indicated by the
volume of material posted to the said newsgroup [posted
a few days ago by Mr. Asim Mughal] is pretty much invalid.
The large volume carried by a.r.i can be pretty much
explained away by the soc.religion.islam moderators
fracas. The articles posted on a.r.i. not related to
this fracas are few and far between.
I would also like to voice my disapproval of the
unmoderated group t.r.i., not because "one newsgroup
[s.r.i] is enough" {there may be some good reasons for
forming another newsgroup} but simply because of it's
unmoderated status. In fact, a.r.i. illustrates my point
quite well. Had it [a.r.i.] been moderated {assuming
moderators are fair...generally the case on Usenet} this
discussion would have been contained, and the large number
of postings would not have been seen. [s.r.i. is also
an exception at the moment...I am referring to "normal"
conditions]
Most people debating on religious topics tend to do so
with some "crusading zeal" [true for _all_ religions:
no one wants to readily, at first encounter, admit that
their way of life, their thinking etc etc is wrong]
Hence, these discussions, if left unchecked, will go on
forever and ever, possibly disintegrating into shouting
matches etc.
On _any_ "touchy" topic, a moderated group is necessary,
with minimal rules of moderation perhaps, but definitely
some moderation. This has been proven true on almost all
topics, religious or secular [just check out some of the
comp newsgroups]
Abdul Rehman Dankg
Dave Ratcliffe
- All right, let's get this question out of the way early:
-
- Is this group intended to interfere with the Ahmadi Muslims' intention to have
- a group of their own with a name they do not find offensive -
- soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?
Excuse me, you're blocking my way to the fallout shelter.
:)
--
Dave Ratcliffe vogon1!frackit!da...@cse.psu.edu
Harrisburg, Pa.
Basalat Ali Raja
A. M. Mughal <mug...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> Let me highlight that talk.religion.islam was first proposed in
> Novemeber 1993. That would be when Mr.Raja was a moderator and
> had not made the statement you attribute to him. How do you
> explain that ?
If I might interject for a minute. TRI was first proposed in the
spring of 1988; it predates soc.religion.islam. The second time was
in November 1993.
Jawad Ali
>All right, let's get this question out of the way early:
>Is this group intended to interfere with the Ahmadi Muslims' intention to
>have
>a group of their own with a name they do not find offensive -
>soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?
Jay, I am somebody who has an occasional interest in Ahmadiyyah
(notice the proper spellings :) issues, and I think that
comp.unix.sources.ahamdiyyah would be a great place to entertain
myself, although I am willing to settle for rec.humor.funny.ahmadiyyah
as a compromise. I hope that they net community does not interfere
with my right to pick a name and hirarchy of my choice. I further
hope that the excessive use of sarcasm in my post does not distract
from a very valid analogy :)
j n a
A. M. Mughal
I stand corrected, my apologies.