Arabic/Muslim Paladins?
davids...@my-deja.com
Realms (using supplements from 2nd Edition, at least until the new
Realms hardcover comes out).
One of my players wants to be a paladin based somewhat on the moor from
Kevin Costner's Robin Hood movie. Is there anything in any source
material that goes into such a character? I don't have any of the Al-
Qadim stuff, but that seems a likely place. I glanced through my
Empires of the Shining Sea boxed set and also the Calimport book (since
that area has an arabic flavor too), but didn't see anything detailing
how various classes might differ in that region.
Any suggestions?
David
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Rune Christensen
news:94ms64$6sf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
In the Al-Qadim setting, all characters have kits. The Arabian
Adventures sourcebook, available for $3 at WOTC's website, details
these kits. I recommend the Askar (civilized Warrior), Faris (Holy
Warrior), or Mamluk (Slave-Soldier) kits. The Land of Fate campaign
setting box, also available for $3, goes into some detail about
mamluks.
The mamluk is a slave-soldier to the state, who is also trained in the
affairs of state. Each order of mamluks has a distinct set of
elaborate facial tatoos to signify rank, with new tatoos added as they
advance in the ranks.
Rune Christensen
Blake
davids...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Any suggestions?
Just superficially, I think a ranger/paladin, with a good ride skill, a
fast light warhorse, composite long bow, chain shirt, spiked shield,
and scimitar - would be visually right and pretty effective... Focus
the ranger skills on desert/plains rather than forest...
Is it just middle-eastern 'flavor' or do you want to actually go into
Islam? They chaste Galahad ideal wouldn't be particularly apropriate.
And, do you want a Paladin who boasts about how the enemies he has
slain will be his slaves in Paradise?
Strife
the player might take inspirations from the movie and religious practices
such as: abstaining from alcohol, praying to a holy city three times a day,
etc.
You might also download the FR 3e teaser from the WotC website.
Feats should focus on horses and light armor, although I seem to recall the
Moors in Charlemaigne (pardon my horrible spelling) wore something similar
to heavy armor while battling in Spain.
Cheers,
Trevor
<davids...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94ms64$6sf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Bokman7757
Kevin Costner's Robin Hood movie. Is there anything in any source
material that goes into such a character? I don't have any of the Al-
Qadim stuff, but that seems a likely place. >>
Yep. A lot of the fighter kits in the main "Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures" could
make for good paladins.
Zimri
news:94n69t$hch$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <94ms64$6sf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> davids...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Any suggestions?
>
> Just superficially, I think a ranger/paladin, with a good ride
skill, a
> fast light warhorse, composite long bow, chain shirt, spiked shield,
> and scimitar - would be visually right and pretty effective...
Focus
> the ranger skills on desert/plains rather than forest...
>
> Is it just middle-eastern 'flavor' or do you want to actually go
into
> Islam? They chaste Galahad ideal wouldn't be particularly
apropriate.
True, but nothing in the Paladin class demands celibacy either...
> And, do you want a Paladin who boasts about how the enemies he has
> slain will be his slaves in Paradise?
How well did the Knights Templar behave?
This Is A Game. Just as D&D holds the Paladin class up to modern
morality*, the game can demand that its Arab-based Paladins practice
humility and humanity** also.
--
-- Zimri
***********
*I happen to think that morality holds true over all times and all
places. But I recognise that the mediaeval orders of the church
militant defined morality differently, that is, as it suited their
aims. The Muslims and Jews living in the Near East at the time (albeit
not for long) had cause not to think of them as particularly moral
beings.
**That is, that they not follow those sections of their holy book
which advocate slavery, polygamy, stoning, torture, the ritual
humiliations of "dhimmi" (Jews and Christians) etc. etc. Or take up
Muhammad's challenge, and provide a sura like it, but without all the
aforementioned nasty bits.
Douglas Muir
> > And, do you want a Paladin who boasts about how the enemies he has
> > slain will be his slaves in Paradise?
>
> How well did the Knights Templar behave?
>
> This Is A Game.
Yep. Very good point... really, almost the end of the discussion AFAIK.
Still, FWIW, there were plenty of Islamic orders of religious fighters,
scattered widely in space and time. Some were very unpleasant indeed; others
came quite close to a "modern" code of morality.
The bit about slaves in paradise was a Central Asian gloss on the Quran IIRC,
though I could be wrong.
Doug M.
Tumart
Does your character actually want to play a Muslim Paladin, and if so,
is Islam a religion in your campaign? I'll hazard a guess that it's
not, since you're using Forgotten Realms.
Keep in mind that Muslims worship the same God that Jews and
Christians do, but we do so in a different way. Going with this idea,
your player could run a character who worships a known FR deity but
belongs to a society or religious group who worships this deity in a
particularly different way. The adherents of this society/group pray
multiple times per day toward a direction sacred to the deity (perhaps
towards a holy site as in Islam), refuse to eat certain foods because
they are unclean, reject alcohol since it clouds the mind, etc., etc.
--
If you can walk on water, you are no better than a blade of grass.
If you can rise up in the air, you are no better than a fly.
Conquer your heart if you want to become somebody.
-Ansari
Beau Yarbrough
one I'm going to toss in the face of anyone who thinks that paladins are
boring or all Sir Galahad.
I've tried doing that with Red Sonja, but I never win those fights, as
impassioned as I may be. (Plus, she squirms a lot and threatens to kick
my ass when I toss her at people.)
William K. McCarthy
>**That is, that they not follow those sections of their holy book
>which advocate slavery
I've got a Koran around here, can you cite the line that advocates slavery? Or
is that in the Hadith?
>polygamy
What's wrong with polygamy? Or polyandry for that matter? In our modern
world, if consenting adults want to engage in this then why should they be
prohibited? As for the historical practice there were good reasons why Muslims
sanctioned polygamy (fallen warriors needed someone to take care of their wives
and children), and polyandry (societies that had few women like Tibet needed it
so almost every man had a woman).
>stoning,
the electrical chair, lethal injection, firing squad, etc. All the same result
with different means.
> torture
I don't believe anything in the Koran sanctions torture unless you can provide
the cite.
>the ritual
>humiliations of "dhimmi" (Jews and Christians)
It can be considered ritual humiliation by the standards of 21st century
western liberalism, but in the 7th century, the concept of dhimmi was downright
revolutionary. "Dhimmi" means protected people which was pretty progessive at
a time when minority faiths often suffered forced conversions, exile or death
in non-Islamic societies of the time.
William
Blake
> into
> > Islam? They chaste Galahad ideal wouldn't be particularly
> apropriate.
>
> True, but nothing in the Paladin class demands celibacy either...
Of course not. Galahad is only one Palading stereotype...
> > And, do you want a Paladin who boasts about how the enemies he has
> > slain will be his slaves in Paradise?
>
> How well did the Knights Templar behave?
Heh. It's not like they worshiped Satan or anyth-... oh, um,
nevermind...
> This Is A Game. Just as D&D holds the Paladin class up to modern
> morality*, the game can demand that its Arab-based Paladins practice
> humility and humanity** also.
Actually, I always thought Paradise sounded like a pretty good deal
compared to Heaven... ;) And, I don't see anything wrong with having
Paladins cleave to less modern standards of 'morality' the harsh
attitudes of the past against percieved 'evil' become positively
reasonable when Evil is a real palpable force in the setting...
John Rudd
>
> In article <E5Nb6.7098$KJ3.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Zimri" <zim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Blake" <blak...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> > > And, do you want a Paladin who boasts about how the enemies he has
> > > slain will be his slaves in Paradise?
> >
> > How well did the Knights Templar behave?
>
> Heh. It's not like they worshiped Satan or anyth-... oh, um,
> nevermind...
>
Depending on what version of the Templar myth you want to go with, they
might make a good model, actually.
Sure, the authorities accused them of worshipping the devil, and some of
them were tortured into confessing such, but that's not the only version
the story*.
One is merely that they rejected the crucifiction of Christ (as one
account puts it "they spit upon the cross, telling their initiates not
to believe in that lie"(summarized, not quoted)). Even though they
faught against the Muslims, they also had a good relationship with them
for most of their time in Palestine. Some have suggested that the
Templars adopted the Quran's teaching that it wasn't Christ who died
upon the cross, but one of the apostles who took his place. Could the
Templars have adopted other aspects of Islam? Maybe even becoming
Muslim in all but name?
(* actually, that's not even really the actual version ... it's not that
they worshipped the devil, the popular account is that they worshipped a
particular demon, baphomet)
--
John "kzin" Rudd http://www.domain.org/users/kzin
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last. (Physics of Quarks)
-----===== Kein Mitleid Fu:r MicroSoft (www.kmfms.com) ======-----
Quentin Stephens
>One of my players wants to be a paladin based somewhat on the moor from
>Kevin Costner's Robin Hood movie.
Trade the armour skills for riding et al.
Doug
Well, this is from the "NPC Manual" for my Septentrionalis 17th century
historical AD&D campaign. I don't know if the ghazi shows up in Al-Qadim
or not, but it is based on a historical model. Just for reference, spahis
are Islamic feudal cavalry, and janissaries are Ottoman soldier-slaves.
Sorry it's 2e rather than 3e, but I haven't had time to update my web site.
Ghazi
Distribution: Ottoman Empire/Arabic States
Nationality: Arab
Number Appearing: 1 or 2-12
Class/Level: Paladin 2
2d10 hp
Thaco 18
AC 5 (chainmail + shield)
Move 12 foot 21 mounted
Weapons: lance d8+1/3d6 , scimitar d8/d8, composite bow d6/d6, mace d6/d4
Gear: 2d6 L silver coin
Special Abilities: specialized with scimitar, lance, or mace (+1 to hit,
+2 damage), all standard paladin abilities (see player零 handbook),
+1 to hit against Christian knights
Proficiencies: 2 languages, read and write Turkish or Arabic, religion,
etiquette, + 2 of the following: animal handling, singing, healing,
survival (desert)
Appearance: Ghazis wear burnooses of white silk over their gleaming but
unardorned armor. They ride white Arab horses. As devout
Muslims, they wear head coverings appropriate to their place of origin and
status. Any ghazi encountered is 50% likely to be mistaken as
a spahi (qv.) by non-Muslim PCs.
Background: The ghazi is a holy warrior sworn to fight the enemies of
Islam. He possesses a special fervor when battling members of
any Christian order of knighthood, such as the Knights of St. John; when
facing such an enemy, a ghazi receives a +1 to hit. Ghazi are
fierce, steady fighters, but not foolhardy; their discipline allows them
to fight effectively both as skirmishers and medium cavalry.
A ghazi is expected to maintain the highest standards of behavior, at
least as strict as any other order of paladins. He is expected to
show mercy to any prisoners taken on the field, especially those of good
character and honor. When not fighting, a ghazi spends most of
his time in religious study, in prayer, or in doing good works.
Since their ranks are restricted to those who meet the rigorous standards
of paladinhood, ghazis are always few in number. Most often,
a single ghazi will be encountered as a leader of a group of spahi or
janissaries. Each group of 2d6 ghazi will be accompanied by a senior
ghazi of level 3 or higher, although to encounter them en masse is rare
outside the battlefield.
Game On,
Doug
Septentrionalis Web Site:
http://members.aol.com/cpcomics/Septmain.html
davids...@my-deja.com
by the Catholic church (the Pope) because the Templars had fallen out
of favor with him...either they were getting too powerful or out of
hand or something. I can't remember the reason, but I thought it was
basically a (successful) scheme by the Pope to undermine them.
David
John Rudd
>
> My understanding was that the Templar thing was completely fabricated
> by the Catholic church (the Pope) because the Templars had fallen out
> of favor with him...either they were getting too powerful or out of
> hand or something. I can't remember the reason, but I thought it was
> basically a (successful) scheme by the Pope to undermine them.
>
Not so much fallen out of favor, as gotten too rich and independant. Both
the Pope and the King of France were jealous and greedy, and decided they'd
try to steal all of the wealth that the Templars had gotten together. But
there's so little real information on what really happened to really make a
conclusive statement. Lots of people have lots of theories, but the only
recorded "facts" are the things that were tortured out of people.
Jeremy Reaban
John Rudd wrote in message <3A708E67...@cats.ucsc.edu>...
<snip>
>One is merely that they rejected the crucifiction of Christ (as one
>account puts it "they spit upon the cross, telling their initiates
not
>to believe in that lie"(summarized, not quoted)). Even though they
>faught against the Muslims, they also had a good relationship with
them
>for most of their time in Palestine. Some have suggested that the
>Templars adopted the Quran's teaching that it wasn't Christ who died
>upon the cross, but one of the apostles who took his place. Could
the
>Templars have adopted other aspects of Islam? Maybe even becoming
>Muslim in all but name?
Not exactly. The Templars were probably Cathars, or something close to
it. At least some of them definitely were Cathars (since some of them
came from known Cathar families, including some early grand masters of
the Templars), although it hasn't been proved that the whole order
was.
Catharism was a somewhat mystical form of dualist christianity that
was prominent in the south of France, although they didn't think Jesus
actually died on the cross, but used a surrogate. While that premise
might have seemed shocking in the middle ages, it was a belief of many
early Christians, most notably the Gnostics, which is pretty similar
to Catharism (and is probably the progenitor of it, although not
directly, by way of the Manicheans).
The Templars (at least some of them) were friendly and respectful to
the muslims in the holy land (and jews, too), but they apparently had
their closest ties to the Assassins. The Assassins were Sufis, at
least in general beliefs (though not actions), which is sort of
mystical type of Islam, which is not unlike Catharism and is even
closer to Gnosticism. Although much much more violent.
There are a lot of other links between the Cathars and Templars, but
it would take a book to describe them all in detail.
But anyway, the main reason they were condemned and tried as heretics
wasn't so much that they were heretics (though they probably were), so
much as they had tons of money, and weren't subservient to the Pope.
So the King of France and the Pope came up with the plan to break the
order and take the money.
It's also interesting, while the head of the order (Jacque de Molay)
actually confessed, he recanted publically right before his execution.
Which might have cost him his life (he might have gotten a reprieve,
since he was old), and definitely made his death much much much more
pain, as he was roasted alive on a fire made from dry wood...(no
smoke, which means you die from the wounds, not smoke inhalation...)
Bryan J. Maloney
>davids...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> My understanding was that the Templar thing was completely fabricated
>> by the Catholic church (the Pope) because the Templars had fallen out
>> of favor with him...either they were getting too powerful or out of
>> hand or something. I can't remember the reason, but I thought it was
>> basically a (successful) scheme by the Pope to undermine them.
>>
>
>
>Not so much fallen out of favor, as gotten too rich and independant.
>Both the Pope and the King of France were jealous and greedy, and
>decided they'd try to steal all of the wealth that the Templars had
Plus the fact that the Templars had become international bankers who had
extended a LOT of loans to the French throne...
Bryan J. Maloney
<t72eq3h...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Catharism was a somewhat mystical form of dualist christianity that
It was flat-out gnosticism and probably a revival of Bogomilism.
>was prominent in the south of France, although they didn't think Jesus
>actually died on the cross, but used a surrogate. While that premise
The specific doctrine is that Jesus was never actually human, since they taught
that all material existence is inherently evil and the only true existence is
purely spiritual.
>might have seemed shocking in the middle ages, it was a belief of many
>early Christians, most notably the Gnostics, which is pretty similar
Gnosticism is older than Christianity, Gnostic Christianity is a fusion of the
two doctrines. Gnostic Islam also existed.
Saqib Virk
"Zimri" <zim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> **That is, that they not follow those sections of their holy book
> which advocate slavery,
The Quran does not advocate slavery.
> polygamy,
The Quran restricts polygamy but does not ban it. It is necessary
at times.
> stoning,
Stoning is a Biblical punishment and is not found in the Quran.
> torture, the ritual humiliations of "dhimmi"
You are clearly ignorant of the Quran and appear to be relying
on little more than Western propaganda.
--
Saqib Virk
John Rudd
>
> Catharism was a somewhat mystical form of dualist christianity that
> was prominent in the south of France, although they didn't think Jesus
> actually died on the cross, but used a surrogate.
As someone else pointed out, the Cathar's actually believed that Jesus
wasn't a physical being. While I'm not sure how exactly that plays into
their view of the crucifiction, I've never come across any statement
that they believed there had been an surrogate (except yours). The only
place I've really come across that was in some reference to how the
Quran talks about the crucifiction.
>
> There are a lot of other links between the Cathars and Templars, but
> it would take a book to describe them all in detail.
>
I'm in the middle of reading a book about the Cathars and their
supression right now, called "The Perfect Heresy". Talks about them
both in terms of theology and the history of the Albegnsian Crusade.
But it would be nice to read more about any connections they have to the
Templars.
Zimri
news:94s0uq$mq4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <E5Nb6.7098$KJ3.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Zimri" <zim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > **That is, that they not follow those sections of their holy book
> > which advocate slavery,
>
> The Quran does not advocate slavery.
Codswallop. Sura 4.3, 4.28 allow the believer to sleep with his female
slaves and to take a married woman if she is a slave. Sura 16.77 takes
an assumption on the "proper" role of the slave, and extrapolates it
to the false god before Allah.
Yes, the Qur'an advocates slavery: by assuming it exists, by saying
nothing to ban it, and by legislating on the assumption that slaves
are the right of the master.
> > polygamy,
>
> The Quran restricts polygamy but does not ban it. It is necessary
> at times.
HAHAHAHAHAH! what a joke. I hope your wife reads this and asks you,
when will you deem it necessary to get a spare?
> > stoning,
>
> Stoning is a Biblical punishment and is not found in the Quran.
Sorry. You are half right in that this verse is -no longer- found in
the Qur'an. The early caliphs meted out this punishment, and there's
an isnad (chain of tradition) leading back to Aisha that this verse
existed, and shari'a as practiced in Afghanistan mandates this today.
Instead I should have cited "amputation" ("as for the thief... cut off
his or her hands, a punishment by way of example from Allah" - sura
5.38) "crucifixion", "mutilation" ("The punishment for those who wage
war against God and His Apostle... is execution, or crucifixion, or
the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides" - sura 5.23).
That last one is particularly disgusting, considering that one does
not execute or mutilate a soldier in battle; this must occur after the
war is over. If we even look at this as "war"; what I do now in this
email may be "war" to some.
> > torture, the ritual humiliations of "dhimmi"
>
> You are clearly ignorant of the Quran and appear to be relying
> on little more than Western propaganda.
I'm ignorant of the Qur'an? More like: I've read it and don't like it.
If one comments on the genocide and slavery deliniated and glorified
in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures (Numbers 31, Joshua 6 and 8, etc),
no-one complains that one is relying on Eastern propaganda. But raise
a voice against a Muslim scripture and suddenly one is relying on
Western propaganda or is anti-Arab or some such nonsense. (Even when
one is using a book written by an ex-Muslim. The minute one renounces
that pack of lies known as the Qur'an, you see, one immediately
transforms into a Westerner. Blond hair, blue eyes and all. It's
magical. Hell, you'd probably call a Coptic Egyptian a Westerner.)
I wipe my nether regions on the Qur'an and call your prophet a silly
thing! Actually I call him a superstitious liar and murderer. A
breaker of his own commandments and a blasphemer. A mediaeval Joseph
Smith who invented polygamy to give cover to his own adulterous
affairs. Inspiration to genocidal maniacs the world over. And all I
have to do is quote the Qur'an and mediaeval *Muslim* biographies of
the Prophet to prove it.
That would be enough in Algeria - where I once had the misfortune to
live - to get me killed. Some of what we'd call Muslim Paladins cut up
a village of *two hundred fifty* people during the week that Concorde
crashed into a hotel last year. Crime? The (Muslim) villagers were
minding their own business as law-abiding citizens, and to these
crazed fanatics that marked them as complicit tools of a government
that had "made war on God and His Apostle" as per Sura 5.23, by not
letting them take the government. It all depends on what your
definition of "war" is.
How much of a dent did THAT make in the news in comparison? My own
boss sent out mail that week bemoaning the hundred-odd good, rich,
white Christians who died on that plane. No mention of double that
number of innocent Algerians slain in cold blood by Islamists. Maybe
among them were the women who fed me when I was lost on the beach in
Algiers. Maybe there were those whom we visited when we drove to the
Sahara. I have no idea what the death toll is in Algeria by now; the
news has entirely stopped reporting on it. There may not be any
reporters left.
But guess what? I live in the good ol' U.S. of fuckin' A now. No
mujahedin can touch me here. (But I'm sure I'll get the usual tiresome
flames from the self-described "tolerant" sort in this NG who don't
like it when someone attacks what another "sincerely believes". They
may be naive and weak, but by their naivete and weakness I know they
can't hurt me.) So, er, tough luck and if you don't like it, go bend
over in the direction of The Desert Rock Which Has Absolutely Nothing
Whatever To Do With Idolatry.
But, we do agree that the Judaeo-Christian scriptures are little
better. Scant consolation, I'm sure.
Challenge for you, Saqib. Just repeat after me: I, Saqib Virk, do not
believe that Allah the All-Powerful, the All-Merciful ordered His
followers to lop off the hands and feet of thieves as per Sura 5; nor
could Allah allow the Muslim to cohabit with his slaves as per Sura 4,
because Allah does not condone slavery; nor does Allah countenance the
mutilation and execution of prisoners of war as per Sura 5.
Because the Qur'an sure as hell does.
--
-- Zimri
***********
"No adult human really knows anyplace. You have to crawl everywhere
you can crawl, lick anything interesting, trace all the smells to
their sources, listen to ants trooping across walls, and eat a few
spiders before you really know a place."
-- Corey the Cat ("All Too Familiar", J Robert King, Dragon #259)
Blackthorne
"Zimri" <zim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:U0Pc6.1954$pS3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Codswallop. Sura 4.3, 4.28 allow the believer to sleep with his female
> slaves and to take a married woman if she is a slave. Sura 16.77 takes
> an assumption on the "proper" role of the slave, and extrapolates it
> to the false god before Allah.
>
> Yes, the Qur'an advocates slavery: by assuming it exists, by saying
> nothing to ban it, and by legislating on the assumption that slaves
> are the right of the master.
Then by the same token the Bible also advocates slavery by admonishing
slaves to, "submit to their masters." Not being a Muslim at all, I still
think you are taking this particular passage seriously out of context. How?
In my not-so-humble-at-times opinion, there is a lot of ageless truth in the
Koran and the Bible but there is also much that was written with respect to
"the times" of the people who lived then. Issues of the day were addressed.
Slavery was a reality then, and the author addresses it. Just because we
don't have slavery here (ok, while except for G.W. Bushes Secretary of Labor
Wannabe) doesn't mean we should ever forget that it was commonplace then,
and accepted. What I think this does also show is that people in that time
DID wonder about slavery and had concerns about it, both in the Bible and
the Koran it is addressed so obviously Muslims and Christians and Jews were
all very much concerned about this issue.
Tumart
newsgroup, so I apologize right off the bat for that. I'm also not
entirely convinced this message isn't a troll. But I am a Muslim, and
yes, it does hurt when I see such bitterness and venom directed against
us. This post is more aimed at those who don't know much about us rather
than Zimri, as I fear his/her mind is quite shut on the subject. Again,
apologies for the off-topic post.
Zimri wrote:
>
> "Saqib Virk" <sv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:94s0uq$mq4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <E5Nb6.7098$KJ3.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Zimri" <zim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > **That is, that they not follow those sections of their holy book
> > > which advocate slavery,
> >
> > The Quran does not advocate slavery.
>
> Codswallop. Sura 4.3, 4.28 allow the believer to sleep with his female
> slaves and to take a married woman if she is a slave. Sura 16.77 takes
> an assumption on the "proper" role of the slave, and extrapolates it
> to the false god before Allah.
>
> Yes, the Qur'an advocates slavery: by assuming it exists, by saying
> nothing to ban it, and by legislating on the assumption that slaves
> are the right of the master.
This is a particularly weak argument. Acknowledging the existence of
something without declaring against it in no stretch of the imagination
can be called advocating anything.
Moreover, you are aware that this text was revealed in a particular time
and place to a particular society, right? In other words, the Qur'an
was revealed in a *context*. Are you aware how much the Qur'an
restricted slavery among the pagan Arabs of Muhammad's time? Or in fact
how many basic rights the Qur'an gave to those who before had none?
> > > polygamy,
> >
> > The Quran restricts polygamy but does not ban it. It is necessary
> > at times.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAH! what a joke. I hope your wife reads this and asks you,
> when will you deem it necessary to get a spare?
There's actually some debate as to whether polygamy is allowed at all,
but judging from your sarcastic tone, I doubt you would be interested in
following that chain of reasoning. I will say here that originally in
pagan Arabia polygamy was unlimited (i.e., a man could marry as many
wives as he wanted) and that furthermore, he could divorce a wife
without restriction and treat her pretty much as he wanted. The Qur'an
includes not only a limit to four, but the warning that every wife must
be given equal attention and respect and that no man can treat more than
one wife in this way (this being the argument that polygamy is thus
entirely forbidden) as well as limiting the man's ability to divorce and
ensuring that a divorcee receives alimony rather than be cast adrift
into the world. That might not seem like much to a modern American, but
in seventh century Arabia this was a *huge* step forward.
> > Stoning is a Biblical punishment and is not found in the Quran.
>
> Sorry. You are half right in that this verse is -no longer- found in
> the Qur'an. The early caliphs meted out this punishment, and there's
> an isnad (chain of tradition) leading back to Aisha that this verse
> existed, and shari'a as practiced in Afghanistan mandates this today.
Are you aware that just because an isnad is claimed doesn't mean that
it's authentic? A hadith must be of a particular strength to be
accepted, and only the most well-attested are accepted by all. Which
hadith do you refer to in this instance?
> Instead I should have cited "amputation" ("as for the thief... cut off
> his or her hands, a punishment by way of example from Allah" - sura
> 5.38) "crucifixion", "mutilation" ("The punishment for those who wage
> war against God and His Apostle... is execution, or crucifixion, or
> the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides" - sura 5.23).
> That last one is particularly disgusting, considering that one does
> not execute or mutilate a soldier in battle; this must occur after the
> war is over. If we even look at this as "war"; what I do now in this
> email may be "war" to some.
Surah 5, al-Ma'idat ("The Food") does say this, though in verse *33*,
not 23. Note that the verse mentions those who make war AND strive to
create discord in the land. This is understood to mean criminal
discord, i.e., loss of life and damage to property. Note also that the
besides the death penalty, crucifixion, and mutilation is the option of
imprisonment. But most importantly, note the following verse which
reads in translation "Except those who repent before you overpower them;
so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Also of importance is the
fact that this is a Medinan verse, which means that Muhammad and his
followers fled Mecca in fear of their lives some years previous to this
surah's revelation. These early Muslims had very good reason to fear
for loss of life and property as they had many powerful enemies. Islam
does not advocate defenselessness.
Yet for all that, this very surah contains one of the verses I find most
powerful: "And whoever saves a life, it as if he saved the lives of all
men" (5: 32). And if you still think Islam is too harsh, consider this
verse: "And We prescribed to them in it [the Torah] a life for a life,
and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and ear for an ear, and a
tooth for a tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoes it, it
shall be an expiation for him" (5: 45).
You seem to sift through the Qur'an and find only what you believe to be
cruel or evil, and this by your standards living in a 21st century
Western society where you have the privilege of living in security and
wealth no sixth or seventh century Arab (or any ethnic group) could have
ever conceived of. Your last line makes especially clear how much
mental effort you're willing to expend in your assault on the Qur'an and
Muslims in general when you say that e-mail can be considered war, thus
implying that in a Muslim state you would be mutilated or crucified.
But you have the gall earlier to proclaim that
> > > torture, the ritual humiliations of "dhimmi"
> >
> > You are clearly ignorant of the Quran and appear to be relying
> > on little more than Western propaganda.
>
> I'm ignorant of the Qur'an? More like: I've read it and don't like it.
To read it is not to be learned in it. You don't seem to have the
background to appreciate the historical context of the revelation and
you certainly don't seem to be able to apprehend the Qur'an as a whole.
Do you know which verses abrogate others? Do you know the specific
situations certain verses were revealed to answer? Do you know anything
of exegesis, Arabic grammar, ahadith, or have you at least looked at
numerous translations to figure out the real meaning of any verse?
It would be utter hubris to believe that I could pick up even one book
of the Bible (New or Old Testament), read it, and then proclaim 2000+
years of interpretation and soul-searching be damned, I don't like it
and I know enough about it to declare it devoid of morality or use. You
seem to be doing this with the Qur'an.
> If one comments on the genocide and slavery deliniated and glorified
> in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures (Numbers 31, Joshua 6 and 8, etc),
> no-one complains that one is relying on Eastern propaganda. But raise
> a voice against a Muslim scripture and suddenly one is relying on
> Western propaganda or is anti-Arab or some such nonsense. (Even when
> one is using a book written by an ex-Muslim. The minute one renounces
> that pack of lies known as the Qur'an, you see, one immediately
> transforms into a Westerner. Blond hair, blue eyes and all. It's
> magical. Hell, you'd probably call a Coptic Egyptian a Westerner.)
When one encounters attitudes such as yours with such frequency (and we
do, by the way, speaking both as a Muslim and a graduate student in
Middle Eastern Studies), such hatred, and such an obvious agenda, it is
surprising that in fact most responses to such vitriol is actually civil
and well-researched. Have you read Orientalism by Said? Better yet,
have you read al-Afghani's response to Ernst Renan? Have you in fact
bothered to read any intellectual response to what was a very real
threat of Western imperialism and propaganda, or do you only bother
reading the works of the obviously fanatic, the Jack Chicks of the
Muslim world if you will?
> I wipe my nether regions on the Qur'an and call your prophet a silly
> thing! Actually I call him a superstitious liar and murderer. A
> breaker of his own commandments and a blasphemer. A mediaeval Joseph
> Smith who invented polygamy to give cover to his own adulterous
> affairs. Inspiration to genocidal maniacs the world over. And all I
> have to do is quote the Qur'an and mediaeval *Muslim* biographies of
> the Prophet to prove it.
Sigh. Not a *word* of truth here. Obviously, Muhammad did *not* invent
polygamy, either in Arabia or elsewhere. He did not break "his" own
commandments (Muslims of course believe that they were God's
commandments). And you have shown yourself not too good at quoting the
Qur'an... I'm curious which medieval biographies prove any of these
points you made, though, especially since my focus happens to be
medieval Islam.
> That would be enough in Algeria - where I once had the misfortune to
> live - to get me killed. Some of what we'd call Muslim Paladins cut up
> a village of *two hundred fifty* people during the week that Concorde
> crashed into a hotel last year. Crime? The (Muslim) villagers were
> minding their own business as law-abiding citizens, and to these
> crazed fanatics that marked them as complicit tools of a government
> that had "made war on God and His Apostle" as per Sura 5.23, by not
> letting them take the government. It all depends on what your
> definition of "war" is.
Who are the "we" who would consider killing villagers Muslim Paladins?
Do you even realize how absurd your statements become at this point?
Are you aware that fanaticism is *forbidden* in the Qur'an, and that in
no case is the punishment mentioned in 5:23 sanctioned against innocent
villagers or indeed the innocent at all? You are right when you speak
of these vigilantes as fanatics, as you are with the Taliban, but guess
what? Their acts are UNISLAMIC, just as it is unChristian when an
overzealous pro-lifer kills an abortion clinic doctor.
> But guess what? I live in the good ol' U.S. of fuckin' A now. No
> mujahedin can touch me here. (But I'm sure I'll get the usual tiresome
> flames from the self-described "tolerant" sort in this NG who don't
> like it when someone attacks what another "sincerely believes". They
> may be naive and weak, but by their naivete and weakness I know they
> can't hurt me.) So, er, tough luck and if you don't like it, go bend
> over in the direction of The Desert Rock Which Has Absolutely Nothing
> Whatever To Do With Idolatry.
You may consider this a flame (or an outright declaration of war,
judging by your earlier comment). You may consider me naive and weak if
you want as well, since I sincerely believe. I am not naive, and if I
had the power, I wouldn't do a thing to stop you from posting your
message or any subsequent one here. I will pray for you to let go of
your hatred, mind you; I'm sure that will annoy you, but you'll get over
it.
But I write all these words in the chance that someone will read this
and understand that Muslims are people just like Christians, Jews,
Hindus, or any other religion for that matter, and moreover that the
Qur'an is not "inspiration to genocidal maniacs the world over." I know
that most people are not as hate-filled as this Zimri. Muslims live in
the US as well, we drink coffee in the morning, go to school, work, and
worry about taxes just like non-Muslims without once thinking about
committing a terrorist act or crucifying infidels, all fact that my
non-Muslim friends, classmates, and co-workers have learned to accept
without any problem.
> But, we do agree that the Judaeo-Christian scriptures are little
> better. Scant consolation, I'm sure.
They have truth in them for those who are willing to look. It's
certainly better than cynicism, Zimri.
My thanks to those who bore with me this far. I hope I managed not to
be sarcastic or hurtful in my response, which all things considered, was
not easy to avoid.
Tumart
Thank you for restoring faith in my own words about non-Muslims and
Muslims being able to accept each other with your message. And thanks
also for your incidental remark on Bush's Secretary of Labor
choice---being in a state full of Bush supporters makes it hard to get
much criticism of my own in.
Vermilion
>My thanks to those who bore with me this far. I hope I managed not to
>be sarcastic or hurtful in my response, which all things considered, was
>not easy to avoid.
Thanks, that was a very interesting post, you handled it quite well. I wish I
had someone as well-versed in Islam around to discuss these kinds of things
with - finding someone who is informed and willing to discuss something as
controversial as religion in an open manner is often a very hard thing to find
:)
William K. McCarthy
>My thanks to those who bore with me this far. I hope I managed not to
>be sarcastic or hurtful in my response, which all things considered, was
>not easy to avoid.
Thank you for your insightful and lucid post. You just saved me a couple hours
of research to rebut Zimri's post by doing it much more eloquently than I could
have. Cheers...
William
Bryan J. Maloney
Here's the thing.
Supposed that one is living in a village in eastern Egypt in the 12th century.
What would be one's likely attitudes regarding the Ferengi? The truth of what
their religion might actually teach, questions of context and exegesis mean
nothing. All that matters is that the Ferengi that one has most likely heard
of and seen in living memory are invaders, pirates, thieves, and murderers.
Now, what individual Muslims have most people in the USA likely heard of? Any
complexity is drowned in the behavior of such people, which is made all the
worse by the outright and obvious unwillingness of other Muslims to condemn
these people and their acts. When the center refuses to condemn the atrocities
of the extremes, the center should EXPECT to be painted as being of the
extreme. Muslim, Christian, Isreali, and all other groups--it applies.
Tumart
There is a serious difference here. Let us not forget that Crusaders
actually were a real and physically present threat to the Muslim world
in the 12th century. An eastern Egyptian hearing the atrocities
committed by European Christian knights in Jerusalem had understandable
reason to fear the Ferenghi.
But *not* Christians as a whole, mind you. The medieval Muslim was
perfectly aware of Christians and Jews since both religions existed in
much of the Islamic world, and did not fear either. It was the European
that the Arab, Turk, and other primarily Muslim ethnic groups feared and
thought of as barbarian marauders.
Let's look at the USA now. Do you remember the big scare that Muslim
terrorists were going to blow up something to "celebrate" New Year's in
America? For no reason, mind you, and certainly nothing ever happened.
Or let's look at the Timothy McVeigh bombing. What was the first
theory, mind you without *any* evidence? Muslim terrorists at it again.
We are painted as the "bad guys" as a reflex action. In fact, how often
have Muslims committed terrorist actions on US soil or US territories?
Keeping in mind that your point relies on a comparison between 12th
century Egypt, where there was a very real military threat from European
Christians (and again, I stress the European factor), and then
transposing the idea to 21st century America where the threat of Muslim
invasion is nil, and terrorist activity committed primarily by
non-Muslims like McVeigh or Kazinsky.
Now, if you're talking about the Middle East, then yes, terrorism does
happen and violence certainly occurs. Do not for a moment pretend that
it is one-sided, however. You mention Israeli in your final sentence,
oddly the only time you refuse to use a religious label. Why not say
Palestinians instead of Muslims, if you want to move the discussion away
from religion to nationalism? Or use Jews if you insist on making only
religious distinctions? Of course, it's a different picture you paint
when you say Israelis vs. Muslims as opposed to Israelis vs.
Palestinians. Keep in mind that a substantial majority of Palestinians
live in refugee camps in what just a few generations ago was their
country---keep in mind that until very recently, no one in the
international community cared about their condition and in fact, funded
Israel---keep in mind that Israel has broken numerous treaty agreements
concerning expanding settlement and returning any land to Palestinian
use---what do you think the Palestinians would do? Roll over and die?
Lacking an army, they resorted to terrorist acts. I don't condone it,
but I understand why they did.
Let's move briefly to Iran. Do you know Iran was a democracy?
Briefly, mind you. The US decided it much more wanted a pliable Shah
and conducted Operation: Ajax to overthrow the democracy. It was the
CIA's first time (though not the last; look at Guatemala for instance)
to overthrow a legitimately elected government in favor of a
dictatorship. We later funded the training of the Shah's secret police,
SAVAK. All this is declassified CIA information should you want to
research this yourself.
We could move to Lebanon and examine the violence there. Keep in mind
of course that there are differences among Muslims, just like
Christians. Shi'ites formed Hezbollah and fought the Phalangists, a
group every bit as bent on mayhem and terror to achieve their aims as
Hezbollah. The difference? Phalangists are *Christians*. This under
constant shelling from Israel and the threat of (Sunni) Syrian
invasion. Muslims are no more prone to violence or terrorism as any
other group caught in a desperate situation. Look at the Basques, look
at Northern Ireland, or even Quebec.
Most of the Muslim world (including the US population of Muslims) is
actually composed of peaceful citizens. It is also, and this is the most
important point, composed of many different groups, nations, and
ethnicities. You imagine some amorphous Muslim mass of society, then
decry Muslims as a whole when acts of terrorism occur. Well, let me
tell you that the fellah working in Tanta has as much to do with Osama
bin Laden's bombings as my Catholic sister does with bombings in
Belfast. Or are only Muslims responsible for policing every last member
of the faith and keeping stock of every last act so that they can
publicly denounce it for the satisfaction of the suspicious? Is it only
the Muslims that bear the guilt for every last act committed by any
member, and only Muslims that can be villified for not telling the West
how sorry they are?
Furthermore, where would you even go to hear our outrage at excesses? I
and many other Muslims I know do in fact decry terrorist activities.
Most of us recognize that when it occurs, it is most often the work of
fanatics. You haven't heard our outrage, though. Do you pay any
attention to Muslim newsletters, newsgroups, or community activities, or
perhaps a national organization such as CAIR? Or do you listen only to
the news, which is after all American and concerned only when our
interests are threatened or some big newsworthy (and thus commercial)
event occurs like the earthquake in Turkey?
(By the way, bin Laden was exiled from Saudi Arabia for his views and
suspected terrorism, and terrorists are regularly caught and executed
for committing murder---but you'd have to read Arab newspapers for
that.)
Tumart
Thank you for the support! You're right that it is difficult to
discuss religion openly a lot of the time. Didn't think
rec.games.frp.dnd would end up being the forum I chose. :)
William K. McCarthy
>Any
>> complexity is drowned in the behavior of such people, which is made all the
>> worse by the outright and obvious unwillingness of other Muslims to condemn
>> these people and their acts. When the center refuses to condemn the
>atrocities
>> of the extremes, the center should EXPECT to be painted as being of the
>> extreme. Muslim, Christian, Isreali, and all other groups--it applies.
>Tumart madm...@mail.utexas.edu wrote:
>Furthermore, where would you even go to hear our outrage at excesses? I
>and many other Muslims I know do in fact decry terrorist activities.
>Most of us recognize that when it occurs, it is most often the work of
>fanatics. You haven't heard our outrage, though. Do you pay any
>attention to Muslim newsletters, newsgroups, or community activities, or
>perhaps a national organization such as CAIR? Or do you listen only to
>the news, which is after all American and concerned only when our
>interests are threatened or some big newsworthy (and thus commercial)
>event occurs like the earthquake in Turkey?
>(By the way, bin Laden was exiled from Saudi Arabia for his views and
>suspected terrorism, and terrorists are regularly caught and executed
>for committing murder---but you'd have to read Arab newspapers for
>that.)
You took the words right out of my mouth... er, keyboard. Just because the
western media does not report on the condemnation of terrorist acts by Muslim
leaders does not mean that it does not occur. Furthermore, in Islam, there is
a clear delineation between non-combatants and combatants in war. Killing
non-combatants, ie. civilians, is considered haram (not kosher) in the extreme.
These terrrorists are operating outside Islamic law, though they justify it to
themselves in a convoluted manner.
Thanks, once again, for the well-reasoned post, and saving me the time of
having to write a less well-informed response than you have already done.
William
Tumart
"William K. McCarthy" wrote:
>
> You took the words right out of my mouth... er, keyboard. Just because the
> western media does not report on the condemnation of terrorist acts by Muslim
> leaders does not mean that it does not occur. Furthermore, in Islam, there is
> a clear delineation between non-combatants and combatants in war. Killing
> non-combatants, ie. civilians, is considered haram (not kosher) in the extreme.
> These terrrorists are operating outside Islamic law, though they justify it to
> themselves in a convoluted manner.
> Thanks, once again, for the well-reasoned post, and saving me the time of
> having to write a less well-informed response than you have already done.
>
> William
And I must thank you for pointing this principle out, which I
neglected to do myself. Non-combatants and combatants are indeed
strictly separated in war, with the former being off-limits entirely.
You seem to be well-informed yourself, by the way; thank you for jumping
into this thread.
RtF
wrote:
<snip>
Hello,
I have a few questions for you, since you are a muslim and well
educated in respects to your religion.
1) What exactly does the Qur'an say about homosexuality?
2) Does the Qur'an mandate the creation of a religiously based state?
(and, since this is a D&D forum...)
3) Could you give me some information about the pre-Islamic Arabic
deities? I'd like to create an Arab influenced area in my campaign,
and I'd like to do something different than the typical let's-pattern-
the-arab-like-states-after-islamic-nations type of deal.
RtF
---
"If there's been a way to build it,
there'll be a way to destroy it,
things aren't all that out of control." Stereolab
Finrod
(madm...@mail.utexas.edu) penned in one fell swoop:
> > Supposed that one is living in a village in eastern Egypt in the 12th century.
> > What would be one's likely attitudes regarding the Ferengi?
>
> [...]
>
> An eastern Egyptian hearing the atrocities
> committed by European Christian knights in Jerusalem had understandable
> reason to fear the Ferenghi.
These wouldn't be the Ferengi of Star Trek, I guess. What
does the word mean? Is it some sort of term for Crusaders,
Christians, Europeans, what?
--
Jasin Zujovic
ja...@bigfoot.com
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Finrod <ja...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>These wouldn't be the Ferengi of Star Trek, I guess. What
>does the word mean? Is it some sort of term for Crusaders,
>Christians, Europeans, what?
Pretty much an Egyptian/general North African term for "European", yes.
Derived from "Frank", I believe.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Tumart
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.14e002565...@news.iskon.hr>,
> Finrod <ja...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >These wouldn't be the Ferengi of Star Trek, I guess. What
> >does the word mean? Is it some sort of term for Crusaders,
> >Christians, Europeans, what?
>
> Pretty much an Egyptian/general North African term for "European", yes.
> Derived from "Frank", I believe.
It wasn't just North Africa, being the general term in Arabic for
Europeans in the Middle Ages, but yes, you're right, it is derived from
"Frank". Al-Franj is another version used. I've seen "Frank" used
interchangeably with barbar ("barbarian") in some medieval texts. It
refers only to Christian Europeans. Rumi was used to signify Byzantine
Greeks (rumi coming from "Roman"). Crusaders themselves were called
salibiyun, or literally, the "crossers."
mark edward hardwidge
> In fact, how often have Muslims committed terrorist actions on US
> soil or US territories?
World Trade Center?
USS Cole?
> transposing the idea to 21st century America where the threat of
> Muslim invasion is nil,
Well, a lot of people aren't -particularly- fond of Muslims
because many of them try to move into areas and displace the current
people and culture. By it's very nature, Islam is a religion that
tries to convert other people to it. White people have our own
religion and culture, and many of us don't appreciate people trying to
displace our culture.
Which, of course, isn't to say that -all- Muslims are bad. I
know a handful who are really good guys who neither tell me why I need
to abandon my own culture nor who try to 'save' our women by trying to
marry them and convert them. (I find it amazing that a religion could
have a stated goal to be marrying white Christian women to convert
them to Islam...and not realize why a lot of white guys aren't too
happy with it!) But, the ones who mind their own business seem fine
to me. I'm sure you'd feel the same way about Christians if a huge
number of them moved to your area. (Actually, that's just about
exactly how you feel about the Jews in Israel...)
> Why not say Palestinians instead of Muslims, if you want to move the
> discussion away from religion to nationalism?
Well, many groups of Muslims hate and repeatedly attack
America, Americans, and our allies. Lockerbie bombing? Saddam
Husain? USS Cole?
> Keep in mind that a substantial majority of Palestinians live in
> refugee camps in what just a few generations ago was their country
Before WW1, the area was controlled by the Ottoman empire.
When has there been an Arab/Muslim country of Palestine?
> keep in mind that Israel has broken numerous treaty agreements
> concerning expanding settlement and returning any land to
> Palestinian use
I'm by no means pro-Israel, but what I've read is that after
one of the wars, the UN decided that Israel should give back all the
land and the Arab countries had to promise not to attack again. The
Arab countries wouldn't promise (or even lie) to not attack again, so
the Israelis kept a bunch of the land.
Now, I don't appreciate the Israelis thumbing their noses at
us, especially since they owe us so much, but the issue here seems to
be far from one sided.
> Muslims are no more prone to violence or terrorism as any other
> group caught in a desperate situation. Look at the Basques, look at
> Northern Ireland, or even Quebec.
I find it amazing that anyone could compare Northern Ireland
to Israel in terms of magnitude of problems. Sure, the situation
is/was largely similar, but the outcome is -vastly- different.
> Most of the Muslim world (including the US population of Muslims) is
> actually composed of peaceful citizens. It is also, and this is the most
[...]
> Or are only Muslims responsible for policing every last member
> of the faith and keeping stock of every last act so that they can
> publicly denounce it for the satisfaction of the suspicious?
The difference, as a lot of people see it, is that if, say,
white people commit crimes, we say "those people are bad". The
-impression- a lot of people get is from Muslims saying "oh, the
Palestinians have no other option". I think maybe if Muslims said
"the Palestinians are bad for xyz", people might feel differently.
> fanatics. You haven't heard our outrage, though. Do you pay any
That is a good point. But we -do- hear about it when Muslims
approve of things that hurt us. I don't really know why this is.
--
Mark E. Hardwidge
hard...@uiuc.edu
Peter Seebach
mark edward hardwidge <hard...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Well, a lot of people aren't -particularly- fond of Muslims
>because many of them try to move into areas and displace the current
>people and culture.
Just like Christians.
>By it's very nature, Islam is a religion that
>tries to convert other people to it.
Just like Christianity.
>White people have our own
>religion and culture,
No, "we" have a couple dozen of them, some of them probably borrowed.
>and many of us don't appreciate people trying to
>displace our culture.
Could you please put in a clear disclaimer that not all palefaces agree
with this racist bullshit? I'm probably "white folks" as much as you are,
and I have no problem at all with people trying to "displace" my culture.
If their culture is better, I want it. I speak a language which has words
imported directly from French, German, Hebrew, and Japanese. I have been
exposed to a good number of religions, and they're all interesting. I use
a mathematical system that was developed by Arabs, some basic philosophy
developed by Greeks, and computers invented by Californians.
Anyway, if you want to play the "displacing culture" card, you first have
to acknowledge that, if it's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when white
guys go to random places to spread the Gospel.
> Which, of course, isn't to say that -all- Muslims are bad.
Trying to conceive of a group whose members are all bad, without resorting
to truisms (such as WebTV), beggars the imagination.
>I know a handful who are really good guys who neither tell me why I need
>to abandon my own culture nor who try to 'save' our women by trying to
>marry them and convert them.
Wow! That's amazing, I've met a couple WASPs who are the same way. Not
many; most of them feel that their culture is basically superior, and at
least some of them put a lot of time and effort into trying to "save" people
from other cultures.
>(I find it amazing that a religion could
>have a stated goal to be marrying white Christian women to convert
>them to Islam...and not realize why a lot of white guys aren't too
>happy with it!)
I don't see this as a "stated goal of the religion".
>But, the ones who mind their own business seem fine
>to me. I'm sure you'd feel the same way about Christians if a huge
>number of them moved to your area.
How about if it were just a few, over and over, and they spent years trying
to convert everything under the sun?
> Well, many groups of Muslims hate and repeatedly attack
>America, Americans, and our allies. Lockerbie bombing? Saddam
>Husain? USS Cole?
And a hundred years ago, or two hundred, groups of Christians hated us
and repeatedly attacked us.
I suspect you'll find that the reasons for which Hussein is an asshole have
very little to do with his religion; indeed, I'd be much happier if the man
settled down and *READ* his holy book, because it might mellow him a little.
> I find it amazing that anyone could compare Northern Ireland
>to Israel in terms of magnitude of problems.
I don't. People of different religions living in the same space use bombs
and guns to argue the point.
>Sure, the situation
>is/was largely similar, but the outcome is -vastly- different.
Let's wait until the middle east has had a few more years to work on this,
before we talk about "outcomes".
> The difference, as a lot of people see it, is that if, say,
>white people commit crimes, we say "those people are bad".
Unless it's the president, in which case, half of us say he's bad, and
the other half say it's none of our business. :)
>The
>-impression- a lot of people get is from Muslims saying "oh, the
>Palestinians have no other option". I think maybe if Muslims said
>"the Palestinians are bad for xyz", people might feel differently.
Muslims do say that. Some of them. I've also met Jews who believe that
Israel is handling things better.
> That is a good point. But we -do- hear about it when Muslims
>approve of things that hurt us. I don't really know why this is.
Because it's good sound bites. And I still don't buy into this "we".
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Rune Christensen
meddelelse news:_Mxd6.15$H51...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> Well, a lot of people aren't -particularly- fond of Muslims
> because many of them try to move into areas and displace the current
> people and culture. By it's very nature, Islam is a religion that
> tries to convert other people to it. White people have our own
> religion and culture, and many of us don't appreciate people trying
to
> displace our culture.
"Our culture"? "White people"?
Just how many cultures do you think we pasty-faced people who
originated in Europe are presently part of? I can tell you right now
it's more than one.
I'll remind you that the Middle-East Muslims of the 7th century AD
were very much "white people" if we're referring to the old "negroid,
europoid, and mongoloid" racial divisions.
> Mark E. Hardwidge
> hard...@uiuc.edu
By your e-mail I can see you're an academican. So, as one academican
to another, please explain your one-eyed references to "our [white?]
culture" and "white people". Presently, the above text is a load of
racist bull.
Rune Christensen
William K. McCarthy
>> In fact, how often have Muslims committed terrorist actions on US
>> soil or US territories?
>
> World Trade Center?
> USS Cole?
WTC is one. The hit of the USS Cole was act of war, I wouldn't classify it as
terrorism as the hit was on a military target, not a civilian one.
>Well, a lot of people aren't -particularly- fond of Muslims
>because many of them try to move into areas and displace the current
>people and culture. By it's very nature, Islam is a religion that
>tries to convert other people to it.
Most religions have a strong proselytizing element.
>White people have our own
>religion and culture,
Wouldn't Arabs be considered white? Turks look white to me. Most Arabs could
pass for southern Europeans in Greece, Italy or Spain quite easily.
>and many of us don't appreciate people trying to
>displace our culture.
Islam is a part of Western culture.
>
> Well, many groups of Muslims hate and repeatedly attack
>America, Americans, and our allies. Lockerbie bombing?
Political terrorism by Libya, nothing to do with Islam.
>Saddam
>Husain?
Muslim in name only. Hussein is probably the most secular Arab leader. He
only allows Christians to clean his palaces because he deems Muslims dirty
(this was from the New York Times magazine a few months back).
>USS Cole?
Military target.
>But we -do- hear about it when Muslims
>approve of things that hurt us. I don't really know why this is.
Hehe... look at who the gatekeepes of the American media are and their agenda,
and then you shall find the answer. Another hint: 10 media conglomerates
control practically all the mainstream media in the US.
William
mark edward hardwidge
>> In fact, how often have Muslims committed terrorist actions on US
>> soil or US territories?
Misters Peter Seebach and Rune Christensen did not like my
post. I thought it was clear I was just trying to explain the reasons
behind why Islam is not terribly popular in America. I am not
evaluating those views as wrong or right.
If you'd rather, though, I can just say "I have no idea why
people don't like Islam. It is a big mystery to me, so I can't shed
any light on the subject!"
Sorry if anyone was offended.
mark edward hardwidge
> WTC is one. The hit of the USS Cole was act of war, I wouldn't
> classify it as terrorism as the hit was on a military target, not a
> civilian one.
If it was an act of war, we should retaliate with lethal
force. Also, I didn't realize we were at war right now.
> Most religions have a strong proselytizing element.
Right. That is why many of them aren't popular by
non-members.
>> Well, many groups of Muslims hate and repeatedly attack
>>America, Americans, and our allies. Lockerbie bombing?
> Political terrorism by Libya, nothing to do with Islam.
Right. I realize that if people actually obeyed the rules of
Islam, they wouldn't attack us, because murder is prohibited.
Likewise, no 'actual Christians' murder anyone. But there are a lot
of groups of people who were Muslims (or Christians) RIGHT UNTIL they
murdered people.
>>USS Cole?
> Military target.
I still don't see why it would be 'okay' to attack it then.
Can we attack any ships we want and just say "oh, those are military
targets, so it's fine"?
> Hehe... look at who the gatekeepes of the American media are and
> their agenda, and then you shall find the answer. Another hint: 10
Well, that's a good point. The people who control the media
have the great power to play groups against each other, and make sure
they come out ahead in the end.
mark edward hardwidge
> Just like Christians.
I -think- I actually mentioned this in my post.
>>By it's very nature, Islam is a religion that
>>tries to convert other people to it.
> Just like Christianity.
Yep, and other people don't like it.
>>White people have our own religion and culture,
> No, "we" have a couple dozen of them, some of them probably borrowed.
I was speaking primarily of white American culture.
> I'm probably "white folks" as much as you are, and I have no problem
> at all with people trying to "displace" my culture.
I didn't realize that when I write "many people feel this way"
I need a disclaimer that says "OH BUT WAIT< REMEMBER THAT THIS DOES
NOT INCLUDE EVERYONE!!" I thought people could figure that out on
their own.
> Anyway, if you want to play the "displacing culture" card, you first
> have to acknowledge that, if it's wrong when they do it, it's wrong
> when white guys go to random places to spread the Gospel.
I'm not saying it is right or wrong. I am saying that other
people don't like it when white guys spread the Gospel. Remember a
few years ago when those Australians were in India spreading the
Gospel, so some locals killed them all? I think it's pretty clear
those people didn't want them around.
>> (I find it amazing that a religion could have a stated goal to be
>> marrying white Christian women to convert them to Islam...and not
>> realize why a lot of white guys aren't too happy with it!)
> I don't see this as a "stated goal of the religion".
Check into the reasons why a Muslim man is encouraged to marry
a Jewish or Christian woman if he wants, and why a Muslim woman can
-only- marry a Muslim man, and get back to me on that.
> How about if it were just a few, over and over, and they spent years
> trying to convert everything under the sun?
I bet a lot of those people would get killed. Oh wait, a lot
of them have been killed!
>> The difference, as a lot of people see it, is that if, say,
>>white people commit crimes, we say "those people are bad".
> Unless it's the president, in which case, half of us say he's bad, and
> the other half say it's none of our business. :)
The amazing (and sad) thing is that I have no idea which
president or presidential candidate you have in mind, and it is still
true.
mark edward hardwidge
> "Our culture"? "White people"?
In America, we have a somewhat homogeneous culture.
> Just how many cultures do you think we pasty-faced people who
> originated in Europe are presently part of? I can tell you right now
> it's more than one.
Of course, you are welcome to replace my references to
'culture' with 'cultures'.
> I'll remind you that the Middle-East Muslims of the 7th century AD
> were very much "white people" if we're referring to the old
> "negroid, europoid, and mongoloid" racial divisions.
I wasn't the one who brought up the "Ferangi" being a "very
real threat to Muslims".
> By your e-mail I can see you're an academican. So, as one academican
> to another, please explain your one-eyed references to "our [white?]
> culture" and "white people". Presently, the above text is a load of
academician
^
Again, feel free to replace 'culture' with 'cultures'. My
main point was that Europe, until recently, was unified by religion,
in that it was all one form of Christian or another. We do have a
single culture, of a sort, in America.
Also, I was mainly trying to explain the reasons behind
certain phenomena. Perhaps you would care to either voice your ideas,
or explain how this phenomena does not exist.
Peter Seebach
mark edward hardwidge <hard...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I was speaking primarily of white American culture.
I don't think this is a single culture.
I think the underlying concern here is simply that you seem to be treating
large groups as if they are organized wholes.
mark edward hardwidge
> I think the underlying concern here is simply that you seem to be
> treating large groups as if they are organized wholes.
If so, that is a fault of my lack of eloquence, not because I
believe large groups are entirely homogeneous.
Chris Pierson
William K. McCarthy <kebe...@aol.compass> wrote:
>
>>White people have our own
>>religion and culture,
>
>Wouldn't Arabs be considered white?
But they're not the right _kind_ of white, don't you see? You know,
proper corn-fed American boys who don't take kindly to none o' that
foreign stuff round these here parts, and don't want them Arabs carrying
off their women-folk.*
There are good Muslims, and bad people who purport to be Muslim. Same for
Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists,
Unitarians, Wiccans, atheists, agnostics, and on and on. And then there
are the xenophobes and bigots, who can't tell the difference between the
one and the other, so they just lump them together.
* Note for the irony-impaired: that first paragraph was sarcasm.
--
Chris Pierson ** 12 favorite films of 2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
** Traffic, Blood Simple (dir. cut), Chuck & Buck, Best in
Author ** Show, You Can Count On Me, High Fidelity, Almost Famous,
Game Designer ** Quills, Ghost Dog, Mr. Death, Requiem for a Dream
Tumart
mark edward hardwidge wrote:
>
> Rune Christensen <run...@wanadoo.dk> wrote:
> > "Our culture"? "White people"?
>
> In America, we have a somewhat homogeneous culture.
>
> > Just how many cultures do you think we pasty-faced people who
> > originated in Europe are presently part of? I can tell you right now
> > it's more than one.
>
> Of course, you are welcome to replace my references to
> 'culture' with 'cultures'.
So which is it, then? There's a white culture, white cultures, or
just plain cultures? Of course, expressing a plurality makes it clear
that there is no one culture and makes it rather hard to argue that
Muslim culture is at odd with white American culture since there would
be several competing cultures.
Your best bet would be to drop the rascist qualified "white" in my
opinion. There are substantial black, Hispanic (of which I am part of by
the way), Asian, and other ethnic groups in this country. If America is
a homogeneous culture---even if only somewhat as you qualified---then
such a large non-white section would surely be part of it, making it not
a culture qualified by race or color.
> I wasn't the one who brought up the "Ferangi" being a "very
> real threat to Muslims".
Clever manipulation of words there. Of course, your use of the gerund
"being" makes it easy to ignore the fact that what actually was said was
that the Crusaders *were* a very real threat to Muslims. In fact, I
know I clearly stated this to be true of the 11th and 12th centuries (I
believe the other poster also gave a date range). I also quite clearly
stated that this was Arabic usage in the Middle Ages.
So I have to wonder what your point is here. Are you arguing that
there was no Christian European threat to 11th-12th century Muslims? Or
are you implying that someone here argued that Muslims still use the
word ferenghi (the word used in Arabic for some time now is urubiyan,
BTW, which literally is "European;" most Muslims don't use Arabic as a
native or conversational language, though) and moreoever, that Muslims
perceive a conglomerate mass known as the ferenghi to be a very real
threat? This is an argument I certainly did not make and one I did not
notice anyone else put forth.
> Again, feel free to replace 'culture' with 'cultures'. My
> main point was that Europe, until recently, was unified by religion,
> in that it was all one form of Christian or another. We do have a
> single culture, of a sort, in America.
> Also, I was mainly trying to explain the reasons behind
> certain phenomena. Perhaps you would care to either voice your ideas,
> or explain how this phenomena does not exist.
Unified by religion? Remember the Reformation? All those nasty wars
between Catholic and Protestant European states? Come to think of it,
before the Reformation, Europe wasn't exactly peaceful either. You
could say they at least all had a common religion. Oh, except for those
Jewish communities that struggled all those centuries. Groups targeted
by pogroms probably didn't feel too unified by religion, wouldn't you
say?
In any case, Muslims are part of American culture. We participate in
mass or pop culture. Some of us are Turkish, have a Turkish community
we participate in, and thus could be said to have a Turkish subculture.
Some of us are Pakistani and have our Pakistani communities and
subculture. I myself am of Irish-American and Mexican descent. I have
suffered no exclusion and no problem in continuing to partake in
American culture and any subcultures I participated in the past.
But this talk is getting rather vague. You mentioned that white
people have their own culture, and I sense now you would probably
substitute American culture at large for white. All right. Your
original point was that Muslims are somehow displacing this culture or
attempting to do so. Please explain this to me. It's certainly not
through proselytizing. We don't have TV commercials like the Church of
Latter Day Saints and our dawa programs are usually extremely threadbare
compared to the work of Roman Catholics or pentecostal churches. How are
we subverting whatever culture it is we're allegedly subverting?
mark edward hardwidge
> So which is it, then? There's a white culture, white cultures, or
> just plain cultures? Of course, expressing a plurality makes it clear
> that there is no one culture and makes it rather hard to argue that
> Muslim culture is at odd with white American culture since there would
> be several competing cultures.
I was just trying to explain to you the causes of animosity.
In the future, I'll just tell you "I have no idea why this happens!
In fact, it is so unbelievable, I don't even believe it does happen!"
> Unified by religion? Remember the Reformation? All those nasty wars
The differences between different sects of Christianity are
vastly smaller than the differences between Christianity and Islam.
> mass or pop culture. Some of us are Turkish, have a Turkish community
> we participate in, and thus could be said to have a Turkish subculture.
> Some of us are Pakistani and have our Pakistani communities and
> subculture.
That is why many people feel threatened. I'm not telling you
that it's great people feel threatened, but I am telling you that many
people do feel that way.
> Your original point was that Muslims are somehow displacing this
> culture or attempting to do so.
Was it? My original point was that many people felt that way.
I don't recall commenting one way or another one the factual nature
of that belief.
> Please explain this to me.
I think I already have. What do you think about the ideas
presented at: http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/
?
I get a lot of ideas about Islam from that site, and many of
them aren't good. Feel free to direct me to a different site if you
feel this guy doesn't represent your religion properly.
Tumart
>
> Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > In fact, how often have Muslims committed terrorist actions on US
> > soil or US territories?
>
> World Trade Center?
> USS Cole?
The USS Cole is a military vessel. It was stationed in a foreign
country. Thus, it neither is US territory nor was it on US soil. So
you're left with one example. Do you have any others? Building a case
on one fanatic's actions is a far cry from painting us as any danger.
You're still left with umpteen more Christians and atheists who have
committed countless heinous acts.
> Well, a lot of people aren't -particularly- fond of Muslims
> because many of them try to move into areas and displace the current
> people and culture. By it's very nature, Islam is a religion that
> tries to convert other people to it. White people have our own
> religion and culture, and many of us don't appreciate people trying to
> displace our culture.
The bit about "white" religion and culture has been taken to task in
several other posts, and since I agree with the counterarguments and
make one of my own in the previous post, I'll not discuss that here. I
do take issue with your portrayal of Muslims as a manically proselytic
religious group. Keeping in mind we have been talking about America,
tell me where this mass attempt at conversion has taken place. I don't
see where American culture has been threatened by displacement.
Or are you talking about Islam in general through all time and space?
If so, just compare it to Christianity and see how Christianity fares.
And for further clarification, Islam can't convert anyone. Muslims
convert. Islam does urge us to share the message. So does
Christianity. This is a common maxim in religion. But take a good look
at which religion engages heavily in proselytism in your community.
It's Baptists and charismatic churches in my community, with the
occasional Mormon. Not *once* have I encountered a Muslim going
door-to-door or taking out a newspaper ad. I had to go to the mosque
myself to find out more, and I was not *allowed* to recite the shahada
(declaration of faith) until a couple of weeks later after the Muslims I
spoke to were assured that I knew about Islam, that I had seriously
thought about it for some time previously, and knew what I was getting
into, in short.
> Which, of course, isn't to say that -all- Muslims are bad. I
> know a handful who are really good guys who neither tell me why I need
> to abandon my own culture nor who try to 'save' our women by trying to
> marry them and convert them. (I find it amazing that a religion could
> have a stated goal to be marrying white Christian women to convert
> them to Islam...and not realize why a lot of white guys aren't too
> happy with it!) But, the ones who mind their own business seem fine
> to me. I'm sure you'd feel the same way about Christians if a huge
> number of them moved to your area. (Actually, that's just about
> exactly how you feel about the Jews in Israel...)
First, let me say the poster who wrote in response something to the
effect "So what? I know a handful of WASPS who are really good guys" hit
the mark (and much more wittily than I could have!). Saying there's a
couple of good ones in a group does not make you innocent of prejudice.
Second, (and I'm restraining myself from using the language I feel
this drivel deserves) why don't you tell me where we're encouraged to
marry white Christian women? Go on. Show me the Quranic verse. It's
that simple. I know it doesn't exist. And I know which verses you plan
on twisting around to try to prove otherwise. So go on. While you're at
it, why don't you tell me what right *any* man has on telling women
Christian or otherwise who she can marry or get involved with, or what
religion she's allowed to have?
Third, in case you haven't notice, I'm in *Texas.* What do you think
the majority religion is here?
Fourth, you have no idea how I feel about Jews in Israel. I'm not a
2D caricature. I am fully able to recognize nuances and shades of
grey. I'm in fact capable enough intellectually to be writing a thesis
for a Master's degree at a highly-regarded public university. I
understand the concept of Realpolitik and the struggle to balance
humanitarian and economic policies. Moreoever, I have studied Jewish
communities in Spain, Morocco, the Ottoman Empire, Italy, and Egypt from
time periods ranging as early as the Roman Empire to as recently as this
century. So here's another challenge: tell me my position on the Jews
in Israel. You imply knowledge of it; let's see what you come up with.
> Well, many groups of Muslims hate and repeatedly attack
> America, Americans, and our allies. Lockerbie bombing? Saddam
> Husain? USS Cole?
The USS Cole again? Run out of examples so quickly? Well, I'll take
care of the other two for you. Saddam Hussein is a Bathi. He is a
ruthless dictator of a self-interested nationalist in name only secularl
political party. Another poster hit the nail on the head: he should
read the Qur'an and try to live out its precepts. Quite a few Iraqis,
Iranians, and Kuwaitis would sleep better at night.
Now, the Lockerbie bombing was a result of a Muslim fanatic group. A
group. You claim many groups of Muslims (in fact, you seem to rely a
lot on such nebulous amounts and terms) repeatedly attack America,
Americans, and then you throw in our allies. Okay. I'll get to
Lockerbie in a moment, but first, what about the flip side? Ever notice
how often *America* works against the Middle Eastern countries, most of
which are Muslim majority? Do you know for instance that the US
conducted acts of war on a regular basis against Iran in the 80s? We
didn't declare war, mind you; we just sold arms to Iraq and Israel and
sent in a couple of cruisers. We destroyed oil platforms in 1987 and
shot down an airbus. An airbus! A civilian passenger aircraft with
absolutely *no* combat capabilities.
I do not deny that the Iranian-backed Hezbollah is a fanatic group and
has committed many atrocities. I do not condone their bombing of Pan Am
flight 103 (I also do not condone our acts of aggression and our callous
disregard for human life or the sovereignty of nations merely for sake
of oil, for the record). Of course, we did the same to their country,
but I guess that doesn't count because they're Muslims and that's what
we do, right? But Hezbollah is a radical Muslim terrorist group, and a
Shi'ite one to boot which many Arab countries and Sunni Muslims (the
majority of us are) both condemned and worked against.
> > Keep in mind that a substantial majority of Palestinians live in
> > refugee camps in what just a few generations ago was their country
>
> Before WW1, the area was controlled by the Ottoman empire.
> When has there been an Arab/Muslim country of Palestine?
Sigh. All right. I've heard this argument used before. Are you
aware that there has been a region called Palestine for many many
centuries? In fact, it's mentioned in the Bible. The word we use,
Palestinian, is a corrupted pronunciation of "filisTun" (Philistine).
The Palestinians have their own dialect of Arabic, have until this
century lived in the same space Israel occupies for time out of mind (at
least since the Muslim conquest of the area in the 7th century), have a
history of living there and a corresponding similarity of culture and
lifeways, and by all rights have reason to consider where they were
living their country. Let me clarify that I don't mean a state or
nation as in a sovereign government. Wales is a country but not a
nation. So, too, is Scotland. Call it a territory if you wish.
Palestinians are the people who lived in Palestine for time out of
mind.
> > keep in mind that Israel has broken numerous treaty agreements
> > concerning expanding settlement and returning any land to
> > Palestinian use
>
> I'm by no means pro-Israel, but what I've read is that after
> one of the wars, the UN decided that Israel should give back all the
> land and the Arab countries had to promise not to attack again. The
> Arab countries wouldn't promise (or even lie) to not attack again, so
> the Israelis kept a bunch of the land.
> Now, I don't appreciate the Israelis thumbing their noses at
> us, especially since they owe us so much, but the issue here seems to
> be far from one sided.
I believe you when you say you're not pro-Israel. You seem to be for
economic gain for the US here more than anything else. I also don't
believe you're very informed on the subject and certainly not well
enough to pass judgment on *any* of the parties involved, including
Israel. "One of the wars?" The "Arab countries" (quite a few you
know)? "A bunch of land??"
There's so much ground to cover here I don't even know where I should
begin. I'll give you a few key terms and you can go over them if you
want to continue this leg of the discussion. The Balfour Declaration;
the Oslo accords; the intifada; the Yom Kippur war; the Camp David
accords; and Deir Yassin. That's a start. Michael Field gives a
readable though not particularly insightful introduction to the conflict
in his Inside the Arab World. There's better, though, should you want
other suggestions. The University of Chicago actually has a very
reputable Middle Eastern library holding, and has a reciprocal agreement
with the University of Texas, so any book I have access to here you have
access to via ILS as well and vice versa.
> I find it amazing that anyone could compare Northern Ireland
> to Israel in terms of magnitude of problems. Sure, the situation
> is/was largely similar, but the outcome is -vastly- different.
What is the outcome in either one? As far as I know, they're both
ongoing conflicts (I believe another poster had the perspicacity to
mention this already). And did you actually read the point I was trying
to make here, i.e., that no religion is more prone to turning out
terrorists than another? That it is in fact other issues that turn
people to such acts?
>
> > Most of the Muslim world (including the US population of Muslims) is
> > actually composed of peaceful citizens. It is also, and this is the most
> [...]
> > Or are only Muslims responsible for policing every last member
> > of the faith and keeping stock of every last act so that they can
> > publicly denounce it for the satisfaction of the suspicious?
>
> The difference, as a lot of people see it, is that if, say,
> white people commit crimes, we say "those people are bad". The
> -impression- a lot of people get is from Muslims saying "oh, the
> Palestinians have no other option". I think maybe if Muslims said
> "the Palestinians are bad for xyz", people might feel differently.
Again with the "white people" and their cultural superiority. Also,
the lumping together of Muslims into one body that thinks alike. That
hasn't happened since the time of the Prophet and his small band of
believers and doubtless will not happen again until the Day of Judgment!
People in America may well get the impression that Muslims support
Palestine unquestioningly. The news media in America is loathe to ever
suggest anything damaging to US or US allies' policies, which you might
have noticed. If you listen to BBC radio news at the very least, you'll
notice quite a difference in the news stories that are covered and the
spin the rest of the world puts on our actions. I love my country, but
I'm ashamed at what this country's upper echelons consider proper
conduct in the international arena.
But this has nothing to do with Muslim opinions themselves, which
really don't get any airplay unless it's something dramatic and that
usually means violent or blatantly anti-American. A news story on
Morocco hosting American business and idea exchanges, or Egyptian
prosecution of an Islamic brotherhood terrorist don't exactly make for
typical news items in our country. Rarer still do you hear any stories
coming from the vast majority of peaceful Muslim communities. This past
year, I noticed some TV stations and newspapers run at least a blurb on
Ramadan and a token description of its meaning. The Simpsons much to my
surprise and delight has mentioned Islam without defaming it. So
there's some progress, but there's a loooong way to go if the only
impression you get is that we're all simple-minded enough to believe
"Oh, the Palestinians are right in everything they do, poor little
dispossessed guys that they are!"
> > fanatics. You haven't heard our outrage, though. Do you pay any
>
> That is a good point. But we -do- hear about it when Muslims
> approve of things that hurt us. I don't really know why this is.
See my paragraphs above. Also, please bear in mind that words such as
Zimri's earlier and stereotypical attitudes such as have been
demonstrated since this thread began are pretty common for a Muslim in
America to deal with. I've learned quite a bit of patience, and have
walked away from a lot of hurtful and derogatory statements. I
understand completely if any Muslim doesn't feel up to speaking his or
her mind at times.
William K. McCarthy
>force.
Against whom? The guys who did it are dead. It will take some time I imagine
to figure out who the sponsors were and to avoid another attack on a
pharmaceutical plant that does not produce chemical weapons.
>Also, I didn't realize we were at war right now.
Now you know.
>I still don't see why it would be 'okay' to attack it then.
>Can we attack any ships we want and just say "oh, those are military
>targets, so it's fine"?
A few fringe Muslim clerics have issued fatwas calling for war against the US.
The few that follow these clerics are at war with the US. The Cole was a
military target and hence legitimate for them to hit in their declared war. If
the US could find out who else besides the suicide bombers was behind the
attack and where they were, then the US would hit what the US perceives to be
military targets.
William
mark edward hardwidge
> The USS Cole is a military vessel. It was stationed in a foreign
> country. Thus, it neither is US territory nor was it on US soil.
It was still attacked, though, and a lot of innocent people
died. It's not a 'military target' unless we're at war.
> Or are you talking about Islam in general through all time and space?
> If so, just compare it to Christianity and see how Christianity fares.
Duh, most non-Christians don't like Christian missionaries.
In fact, a lot of them get killed.
> Second, (and I'm restraining myself from using the language I feel
> this drivel deserves) why don't you tell me where we're encouraged to
> marry white Christian women? Go on. Show me the Quranic verse. It's
> that simple.
I get a lot of information from http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/
If you don't feel he represents your religion, please let me know.
I couldn't tell if it was a joke site or not, but after a couple weeks
I decided it was real.
> Third, in case you haven't notice, I'm in *Texas.* What do you think
> the majority religion is here?
I assume Christian.
> So here's another challenge: tell me my position on the Jews in
> Israel. You imply knowledge of it; let's see what you come up with.
I bet you love them, and hope they stay in control of the
area.
> Now, the Lockerbie bombing was a result of a Muslim fanatic group. A
> group. You claim many groups of Muslims (in fact, you seem to rely a
Like I said, several groups of Muslims have attacked America.
Just because you say "well, they wouldn't kill people if they were
REALLY Muslims" doesn't change the view people have.
> Ever notice how often *America* works against the Middle Eastern
> countries, most of which are Muslim majority?
I'm not surprised the Middle Eastern countries don't like us.
I also don't remember claiming that they must love us.
> We didn't declare war, mind you; we just sold arms to Iraq and
> Israel and sent in a couple of cruisers. We destroyed oil platforms
> in 1987 and shot down an airbus. An airbus! A civilian passenger
> aircraft with absolutely *no* combat capabilities.
Way to leave out about a zillion imporant details regarding
that situation!
> Of course, we did the same to their country, but I guess that
> doesn't count because they're Muslims and that's what we do, right?
I don't remember saying we never did anything to them. I
honestly don't know what gave you that idea.
> But Hezbollah is a radical Muslim terrorist group, and a Shi'ite
Right, but since groups like that exist, people are frightened
of them. You are welcome to say they shouldn't extend that fear to
all Muslims. I didn't say they should. I'm just saying they -do-.
> Palestinians are the people who lived in Palestine for time out of
> mind.
Right, but Jews lived there too... Really, I don't personally
feel like I should decide whether Jews or Muslims should own the area.
It is their own internal dispute, and hasn't been 'my' business for
half a century.
> I believe you when you say you're not pro-Israel. You seem to be for
> economic gain for the US here more than anything else.
Well, I -am- an American. Where should my loyalties lie?
> I also don't believe you're very informed on the subject and
> certainly not well enough to pass judgment on *any* of the parties
> involved, including Israel. "One of the wars?" The "Arab countries"
> (quite a few you know)? "A bunch of land??"
Sorry, I have a lot of important stuff to learn, I can't take
the time to memorize every country's history. Could you, for
instance, give me detailed information about the Batlle of Trafalgar?
Anyway, the war was the Six Day War. The disputed areas are
the Gaza Strip which it took from Egypt, the West bank from Jordan,
and the Golan Heights from Syria.
> other suggestions. The University of Chicago actually has a very
> reputable Middle Eastern library holding, and has a reciprocal agreement
> with the University of Texas, so any book I have access to here you have
> access to via ILS as well and vice versa.
I don't know how the University of Chicago's reciprocal
agreement would do much for me... Perhaps you could enlighten me.
> If you listen to BBC radio news at the very least, you'll notice
> quite a difference in the news stories that are covered and the spin
> the rest of the world puts on our actions.
I understand that the Labour party has to be very careful not
the anger the substantial Muslim population that now exists.
> Rarer still do you hear any stories coming from the vast majority of
> peaceful Muslim communities.
I think I said that we don't hear much about 'good' activities
in the Muslim world in the media. I don't know why you are looking
for a fight, rather than saying "yeah, that's bad, because if you
did..." I guess if you get in fights a lot, you expect them.
epic_sou...@my-deja.com
> > Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >> In fact, how often have Muslims committed terrorist actions on US
> >> soil or US territories?
> [...]
>
> Misters Peter Seebach and Rune Christensen did not like my
> post. I thought it was clear I was just trying to explain the reasons
> behind why Islam is not terribly popular in America. I am not
> evaluating those views as wrong or right.
> If you'd rather, though, I can just say "I have no idea why
> people don't like Islam. It is a big mystery to me, so I can't shed
> any light on the subject!"
>
wait, so this was some sort of perfomance art? 'Many Americans don't
like Islam, because they're stupid and ignorant. To illustrate, I will
play the part of a stupid and ignorant American'? Do I have it right?
Somehow, I just don't think so.
Epic
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Hong Ooi
<hard...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> I think I already have. What do you think about the ideas
>presented at: http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/
>?
> I get a lot of ideas about Islam from that site, and many of
>them aren't good. Feel free to direct me to a different site if you
>feel this guy doesn't represent your religion properly.
That site looks like it has a fairly conservative, possibly even
fundamentalist outlook. I wouldn't expect it to appeal to anyone who
wasn't already a Muslim and who held similar opinions. Fortunately,
fundamentalism isn't the only way of interpreting religious teachings,
and not all Muslims are fundamentalist.
Half an hour of surfing around produced the following:
http://www.islam.org (impressive portal site)
http://www.discoverislam.com
http://www.islamicart.com
http://www.icna.org
http://www.ihrc.org
http://www.amaweb.org (political lobby group)
http://www.amconline.org (ditto)
http://www.muslim.org (missionary organisation)
http://users.erols.com/zenithco
http://www.msa-natl.org
--
Hong Ooi | "There are those of us who are able to
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | conduct actual analysis, rather than just
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | pose examples."
Sydney, Australia | -- tW
mark edward hardwidge
> Half an hour of surfing around produced the following:
That's quite the list. Should I accept all of these as valid
representations of the religion? I don't want to read them and then
find out that half of them 'don't count'.
Peter Seebach
Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Second, (and I'm restraining myself from using the language I feel
>this drivel deserves) why don't you tell me where we're encouraged to
>marry white Christian women?
I dunno. I know the Bible has a thing saying it's okay to marry
non-believers, because the marriage is sanctified by the believer; don't
you guys get the same "perk"?
(And no, I don't see how this leads to a "conversion ethic" of any sort.
There's a big gap between "you may" and "you should".)
Joseph Michael Bay
mark edward hardwidge <hard...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>> Half an hour of surfing around produced the following:
> That's quite the list. Should I accept all of these as valid
>representations of the religion? I don't want to read them and then
>find out that half of them 'don't count'.
Anything old and/or important will have hundreds if not thousands
of different interpretations, many of them mutually incompatible
(cf Ali, Filioque, Faith v. Works, Coke v. Pepsi, Tolkien v. Vance).
You'd first have to answer what gives a particular religion or
religious interpretation legitimacy. If you do that, please post
your answer to rec.games.frp.dnd if you would.
Thanks in advance,
--
In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul instructed them to Joe Bay
send ten copies to the Thessalonians and the Stanford University
Ephesians. But the Ephesians broke the chain, Stanford, California
and were punished by the LORD ...
Tumart
Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> In article <3A778A7E...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > Second, (and I'm restraining myself from using the language I feel
> >this drivel deserves) why don't you tell me where we're encouraged to
> >marry white Christian women?
>
> I dunno. I know the Bible has a thing saying it's okay to marry
> non-believers, because the marriage is sanctified by the believer; don't
> you guys get the same "perk"?
Right, we're allowed to marry People of the Book (Christians and Jews,
some also allow Zoroastrians into this group). The Qur'an recommends
against it, but does allow it. What I took issue with was the poster's
claim that Muslims were encouraged to go after the white man's woman (or
something similarly worded).
I actually do have a problem with this concept, though, as most Muslim
faqihs (religious scholars) believe that this right is exclusively for
men and that female Muslims are only allowed to marry other Muslims.
The verse doesn't actually prohibit Muslim women from marrying from
among the People of the Book, however... it doesn't specifically tell
them they can, but it doesn't say they can't. What is not forbidden or
harmful is allowed. Ah well, that's a point I suppose I should take up
on soc.religion.islam as this thread has gone far afield indeed of D&D!
> (And no, I don't see how this leads to a "conversion ethic" of any sort.
> There's a big gap between "you may" and "you should".)
Thank you. Despite the posts I've been responding to, most of you who
have participated in this thread have proven to be rational and capable
debaters, and have also helped ease my mind with regard to non-Muslim
perceptions of Islam and Muslims. I'll strive to remember that next
time I respond to a post and am in danger of losing my cool.
William K. McCarthy
>surprise and delight has mentioned Islam without defaming it.
Really!?!? What was the situation and the lines? Don't just leave us
hanging... ;-)
William
mark edward hardwidge
> You'd first have to answer what gives a particular religion or
> religious interpretation legitimacy.
That's a good point. Of course, I wasn't the one who
initially decided that my initial web was invalid.
Peter Seebach
Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>mark edward hardwidge <hard...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>> Half an hour of surfing around produced the following:
>> That's quite the list. Should I accept all of these as valid
>>representations of the religion? I don't want to read them and then
>>find out that half of them 'don't count'.
>Anything old and/or important will have hundreds if not thousands
>of different interpretations, many of them mutually incompatible
>(cf Ali, Filioque, Faith v. Works, Coke v. Pepsi, Tolkien v. Vance).
>You'd first have to answer what gives a particular religion or
>religious interpretation legitimacy. If you do that, please post
>your answer to rec.games.frp.dnd if you would.
Hang on. If he can do *THAT*, I think he should be posting to his own
alt.religion group. ;)
>Thanks in advance,
So... out of curiousity...
What are the big interpretations or points of schism in Kibology? Is there
some question of what's allowed? Are people named Spot allowed? Are dogs
not named spot still Not Allowed? I know that Spot's Not Allowed because he's
Just A Dog. Let's say he was a dog, but not *Just* A Dog. Would he become
Allowed?
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>I'm in the middle of reading a book about the Cathars and their
>supression right now, called "The Perfect Heresy".
Digression: In some languages (including Norwegian), the word
for "heretic" is actually derived from "Cathar".
Etymology is fun.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Kelly Ross Pedersen
>
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 05:30:29 -0600, Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu>
> wrote:
[snip]
I'm not the original poster, and don't have near enough knowledge of
Islam to answer the first two questions. OTOH, I have taken a Religious
Studies course that covered Islam, so I think I can give a bit of an
answer to your last one.
> (and, since this is a D&D forum...)
>
> 3) Could you give me some information about the pre-Islamic Arabic
> deities? I'd like to create an Arab influenced area in my campaign,
> and I'd like to do something different than the typical let's-pattern-
> the-arab-like-states-after-islamic-nations type of deal.
Before Islam, the Arabian penninsula was populated by a large number of
desert tribes, probably with lifestyles similar to the Bedoins of today.
There were also trade cities, formed at the intersection of major
trading routes. The culture here was still fairly tribal, however. From
what I've heard, the major religious beliefs seemed to be fairly close
to animism: the idea that all things have an individual spirit. Of
course, some of these spirits were more powerful than others, and got
more worship. Basically, a polytheism, with no one "ruling" god, AFAICT.
Allah was actually worshipped, incidently, although he was apparently
considered a rather distant sky and creator god, not particularly
involved with the world. Besides the local dieties, there were some
Christians and Jews, and probably a number of smaller faiths, who lived
in the Arabian area when Muhammad began his prophecy.
--
The moving finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
- Omar Khayyam
Kelly Pedersen
Student, University of Saskatchewan
Melantha
jm...@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
> Anything old and/or important will have hundreds if not thousands
> of different interpretations, many of them mutually incompatible
> (cf Ali, Filioque, Faith v. Works, Coke v. Pepsi, Tolkien v. Vance).
Works, Coke, Vance (the first two by a huuuuuuge margin, the last by a
minuscule one). ;)
-Melantha, who's working on a D&D/Talislanta conversion and doesn't
think "No Elves" is the greatest selling point.
Robert Baldwin
<hard...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Rune Christensen <run...@wanadoo.dk> wrote:
>> "Our culture"? "White people"?
>
> In America, we have a somewhat homogeneous culture.
Now *that's* funny.
<snip>
> Again, feel free to replace 'culture' with 'cultures'. My
>main point was that Europe, until recently, was unified by religion,
<snip>
Yup, no religious wars or persecution in *Europe*, nosiree!
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
"Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain."
Mr. Weasley
-
"Because forgiveness, for one like you, could never be an option".
Achika Masaki, House of Jurai
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Chris Pierson
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:30:51 GMT, mark edward hardwidge
><hard...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>Rune Christensen <run...@wanadoo.dk> wrote:
>>> "Our culture"? "White people"?
>>
>> In America, we have a somewhat homogeneous culture.
>
>Now *that's* funny.
No kidding. It doesn't seem like Mr. Hardwidge has ever been outside
Illinois. Line up people from Maine, Texas, Oregon, South Carolina, and
Iowa. Even if you go by his moronic conceit that American = white, you're
not going to see much homogeneity.
>> Again, feel free to replace 'culture' with 'cultures'. My
>>main point was that Europe, until recently, was unified by religion,
><snip>
>
>Yup, no religious wars or persecution in *Europe*, nosiree!
Again, no kidding. Some subjects Mr. Hardwidge might consider looking up:
Albigensians, Sephardim, Malleus Maleficarum. Yep, that's a continent
united by religion, all right.
mark edward hardwidge
> No kidding. It doesn't seem like Mr. Hardwidge has ever been outside
> Illinois. Line up people from Maine, Texas, Oregon, South Carolina, and
> Iowa. Even if you go by his moronic conceit that American = white, you're
> not going to see much homogeneity.
Okay, if it is so easy to identify what state someone is from,
based on the extremely diverse cultures in each state, please
demonstrate that by telling us what state I live in for the first half
of my life.
Bryan J. Maloney
<3A74927D...@mail.utexas.edu>:
>
>
>"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>>
>> Here's the thing.
>>
>> Supposed that one is living in a village in eastern Egypt in the 12th
>> century. What would be one's likely attitudes regarding the Ferengi?
>> The truth of what their religion might actually teach, questions of
>> context and exegesis mean nothing. All that matters is that the
>> Ferengi that one has most likely heard of and seen in living memory
>> are invaders, pirates, thieves, and murderers.
>>
>> Now, what individual Muslims have most people in the USA likely heard
>> of? Any complexity is drowned in the behavior of such people, which
>> is made all the worse by the outright and obvious unwillingness of
>> other Muslims to condemn these people and their acts. When the center
>> refuses to condemn the atrocities of the extremes, the center should
>> EXPECT to be painted as being of the extreme. Muslim, Christian,
>> Isreali, and all other groups--it applies.
>
> There is a serious difference here. Let us not forget that Crusaders
>actually were a real and physically present threat to the Muslim world
>in the 12th century. An eastern Egyptian hearing the atrocities
New York Trade Center.
Where were the outraged condemnation by Muslim leaders worldwide? Until we see
that, the situation will still stand.
> Now, if you're talking about the Middle East, then yes, terrorism does
>happen and violence certainly occurs. Do not for a moment pretend that
>it is one-sided, however. You mention Israeli in your final sentence,
>oddly the only time you refuse to use a religious label. Why not say
That's because not all the bastard Isrealis are Jews.
>Palestinians instead of Muslims, if you want to move the discussion away
Because Khaddaffi isn't a Palestinian, but he supports violence against Israel.
>from religion to nationalism? Or use Jews if you insist on making only
>religious distinctions? Of course, it's a different picture you paint
>when you say Israelis vs. Muslims as opposed to Israelis vs.
>Palestinians. Keep in mind that a substantial majority of Palestinians
Sounds to me like you just have a personal agenda and refuse to listen to
reason altogether. You're exactly like those you oppose.
Bryan J. Maloney
<3A769DD7...@mail.utexas.edu>:
>
>
>Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y wrote:
>>
>> In article <MPG.14e002565...@news.iskon.hr>,
>> Finrod <ja...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >These wouldn't be the Ferengi of Star Trek, I guess. What
>> >does the word mean? Is it some sort of term for Crusaders,
>> >Christians, Europeans, what?
>>
>> Pretty much an Egyptian/general North African term for "European", yes.
>> Derived from "Frank", I believe.
>
>It wasn't just North Africa, being the general term in Arabic for
>Europeans in the Middle Ages, but yes, you're right, it is derived from
It's Greek. The Roman Empire referred to the new self-styled "Holy Roman
Empire" as the "Ferengi". Of course, since the Arabs and Greeks had a more
civilized attitude to their warfare, terms were borrowed both ways, but the
Greeks had to deal with the Franks before the Arabs did.
>refers only to Christian Europeans. Rumi was used to signify Byzantine
>Greeks (rumi coming from "Roman"). Crusaders themselves were called
The so-called "Byzantine Greeks" NEVER referred to themselves as such.
They were the "Rhomiosini"--Romans. "Greeks" ('Elleni) were pagans.
Bryan J. Maloney
<8RJd6.266$H51....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>:
> I was speaking primarily of white American culture.
I'm not Protestant. I don't watch football. I've even got POLLUTED blood.
Guess I don't get to live in your culture.
Bryan J. Maloney
<TtNd6.395$H51....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>:
>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>> Half an hour of surfing around produced the following:
>
> That's quite the list. Should I accept all of these as valid
>representations of the religion? I don't want to read them and then
>find out that half of them 'don't count'.
>
What I took as a valid representation of Islam was Mark. He and his wife,
Nerise. The problem is those assholes who murder in Islam's name.
Bryan J. Maloney
<20010130184407...@ng-fk1.aol.com>:
>Most religions have a strong proselytizing element.
Islam, Christianity, and their offshoots have a strong prosetylizing element.
Proselytization is actually unusual in religious history.
Crgre Jvyyneq
16:49:53 GMT]
>
>What are the big interpretations or points of schism in
>Kibology?
There are the HERETICS who willingly EAT CHEESE!
There are the APOSTATE who post to OTHER GROUPS without setting
the follow-up to ark!
There are the MILLEFEUILLE who are LAYER CAKES made with bits of
puff pastry!
--
Crgre http://www.drizzle.com/~petew
"Does your imaginary friend make you invisible too? Who
notices?" -- Ric Carter
Bryan J. Maloney
<3A778A7E...@mail.utexas.edu>:
>you're left with one example. Do you have any others? Building a case
>on one fanatic's actions is a far cry from painting us as any danger.
Shall we discuss the state of the Copts in the present day? I find it
interesting to note that you go so far as to object when somebody says that
nobody's hands are clean--not the Muslims' nor the Christians'.
Bryan J. Maloney
<958juj$1...@epic0.Stanford.EDU>:
>
>mark edward hardwidge <hard...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>> Half an hour of surfing around produced the following:
>
>> That's quite the list. Should I accept all of these as valid
>>representations of the religion? I don't want to read them and then
>>find out that half of them 'don't count'.
>
>Anything old and/or important will have hundreds if not thousands
>of different interpretations, many of them mutually incompatible
>(cf Ali, Filioque, Faith v. Works, Coke v. Pepsi, Tolkien v. Vance).
>You'd first have to answer what gives a particular religion or
>religious interpretation legitimacy. If you do that, please post
Anything that can get three Greeks to agree on something.
mark edward hardwidge
>> I was speaking primarily of white American culture.
> I'm not Protestant. I don't watch football. I've even got POLLUTED
> blood. Guess I don't get to live in your culture.
Come on, you're a smart guy. I'm sure you can realize that a
'culture' can be a representation of the most common elements in a
society, and does not have to be an exact average/sum of all members.
I can even be a representation of some element of the society that
-isn't- common. We all speak English (well, most of us) even though
only a minority of people are English anymore. In school we learn
about the history of America, and the Revolutionary War is always
shown from the 'American perspective'...even though the vast majority
of our ancestors did not live in America at that time.
mark edward hardwidge
> Islam, Christianity, and their offshoots have a strong prosetylizing
> element. Proselytization is actually unusual in religious history.
Clearly, though, there is a reason why religions that actively
recruit new members would become more popular over time.
mark edward hardwidge
> wife, Nerise.
Could you write this again, using different words? After
about five tries, I still can't figure out what you mean.
> The problem is those assholes who murder in Islam's name.
I think we can all agree on that. People who honestly follow
any of the major world religions aren't going to murder. The -vast-
majority of people of any culture, whether they really believe in
their religions tenants or not, manage to get through life without
murdering anyone. But, a few people cause trouble, and that creates a
lot of trouble for everyone.
Tumart
Oh, yeah, I guess that would only be polite! :) It was fairly recent,
around Christmas/Chanukah/Ramadan (i.e., December). Krusty was wishing a
happy holiday season to the viewers, and wished Muslims a solemn and
dignified Ramadan (something like this) along with wishing a Merry
Christmas and Happy Chanukah. Small, but gratifying!
Tumart
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
> madm...@mail.utexas.edu (Tumart) wrote in
> <3A769DD7...@mail.utexas.edu>:
>
> It's Greek. The Roman Empire referred to the new self-styled "Holy Roman
> Empire" as the "Ferengi". Of course, since the Arabs and Greeks had a more
> civilized attitude to their warfare, terms were borrowed both ways, but the
> Greeks had to deal with the Franks before the Arabs did.
Interesting. I never knew that the word from Greek.
> >refers only to Christian Europeans. Rumi was used to signify Byzantine
> >Greeks (rumi coming from "Roman"). Crusaders themselves were called
>
> The so-called "Byzantine Greeks" NEVER referred to themselves as such.
> They were the "Rhomiosini"--Romans. "Greeks" ('Elleni) were pagans.
To Arabic speakers, however, they were Rumi. I didn't know the
Byzantines referred to themselves as Romans, though, or the 'Elleni
distinction---fascinating stuff!
Tumart
Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> In article <958juj$1...@epic0.Stanford.EDU>,
> Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> What are the big interpretations or points of schism in Kibology? Is there
> some question of what's allowed? Are people named Spot allowed? Are dogs
> not named spot still Not Allowed? I know that Spot's Not Allowed because he's
> Just A Dog. Let's say he was a dog, but not *Just* A Dog. Would he become
> Allowed?
Dare I ask...? What is Kibology??
Tumart
I'm sure I got carried away in the last post, actually. I certainly
don't believe that Muslims throughout time and space are free of blood
and didn't mean to imply that I did. I just get upset that Muslims
often seem to be perceived in this country as more violent, fanatical,
or inherently dangerous than other religious groups. I'm sorry if I got
carried away in my defense.
Incidentally, if you want to share any information about the state of
the Copts in Egypt today, I would be very curious. The only time I've
actually heard them discussed at University was during a brief
presentation on 19th century non-Muslim religious groups in Egypt.
Coptic is written in a form of heiratic, isn't it? I don't know much
more than that, unfortunately.
Chris Pierson
Only after you tell me what country I was born in, what my religion is,
and what color my skin is.
mark edward hardwidge
> Only after you tell me what country I was born in, what my religion
> is, and what color my skin is.
Whoa, so you've proven that it's pretty hard to tell people
apart from one line of ASCII text.
Chris Pierson
>> Only after you tell me what country I was born in, what my religion
>> is, and what color my skin is.
>
> Whoa, so you've proven that it's pretty hard to tell people
>apart from one line of ASCII text.
Exactly. Thank you for explaining why the demand you made of me (that I
play Guess That State, based on the content of your screeds) was utterly
moronic.
Y'know, it occurs to me that you could just be a very cunning troll, and
not as ignorant as you seem. Hope springs eternal, I guess -- if you
_have_ been having us on all this time, bravo.
Ben Allard
> Dare I ask...? What is Kibology??
-NEW SUBJECT ACQUIRED-
-INOCULATION PREPARED-
::twenty dollars same as in town
-BEABLE DOIDY WOX WOX-
--ben
Tumart
You know, I suddenly felt like an idiot reading this and realizing you
may well be right---I could have been feeding a troll a very
high-protein diet. I guess I'll judge by his next responses.
Ah well, it certainly has been an educational thread for me. I hope it
hasn't put off too many people who are used to more D&D-related fare.
By the way, what is Chuck & Buck? I don't think that one ever made it
my local theaters.
Tumart
> > country. Thus, it neither is US territory nor was it on US soil.
>
> It was still attacked, though, and a lot of innocent people
> died. It's not a 'military target' unless we're at war.
Actually, you could argue that with some success. But the point I was
making was that the USS Cole was neither US territory nor was it on US
soil. We were debating whether Muslims can be justifiably viewed as a
terrorist threat within the United States.
> Duh, most non-Christians don't like Christian missionaries.
> In fact, a lot of them get killed.
I'm not sure what either one of were trying to prove in this bit. I'm
also not sure that Christian missionaries are that disliked, considering
the success Mormons and Catholics have had. In all fairness, the Mormon
missionaries I've encountered have been very nice people and ceased to
attempt conversion after I made clear I have no intention of quitting
Islam. I don't know for sure what the situation is in other countries,
though, and missionaries of Christian persuasion may be disliked and
killed often. I can't say.
> I get a lot of information from http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/
> If you don't feel he represents your religion, please let me know.
> I couldn't tell if it was a joke site or not, but after a couple weeks
> I decided it was real.
I generally don't trust on-line imams, but that's not a hard rule with
me. I'll look at this site and see what I think. But I will say that
Islam is best learned from more traditional texts, at least in my
opinion. That's a bit unclear... What I mean by more traditional texts,
I don't mean traditional in terms of ideology; rather, traditional in
terms of being books instead of on-line web pages.
> I assume Christian.
Yes, Baptist and Catholic are I *believe* the two most
well-represented denominations in the state.
> > So here's another challenge: tell me my position on the Jews in
> > Israel. You imply knowledge of it; let's see what you come up with.
>
> I bet you love them, and hope they stay in control of the
> area.
I'll ignore the sarcasm for now. No, I don't wish that Jews or any
particular religious group have any control of the area at all. I'd
rather see a state which doesn't pay such distinctions and allows Arab
and Jewish citizens equal rights and makes a good faith attempt at
providing the same quality of life for *all* the inhabitants therein.
This would require an abandonment of the idea of partition or giving
back land, and a very difficult process of integration. I don't believe
either the Israeli or Palestinian leaders are seriously considering the
idea, perhaps because there's so much bad blood between the two sides
right now it just doesn't seem feasible.
I'll go on the record as saying that I don't believe the Palestinian
Authority is doing a good job at all in running its territory (some
Palestinians I've heard on campus and a few columnists I've read are in
agreement, but I don't if this is representative of most Palestinians).
> > Now, the Lockerbie bombing was a result of a Muslim fanatic group. A
> > group. You claim many groups of Muslims (in fact, you seem to rely a
>
> Like I said, several groups of Muslims have attacked America.
> Just because you say "well, they wouldn't kill people if they were
> REALLY Muslims" doesn't change the view people have.
No, it doesn't change the popular view just because I try to correct
the misperception here. But what you originally said was:
> Well, many groups of Muslims hate and repeatedly attack
> America, Americans, and our allies.
I took issue with the rather nebulous statement that *many* groups of
Muslims attack America and Americans. There are some groups (Hezbollah,
for one, or the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt) that do commit violent
acts and certainly have against Americans abroad. You seemed to view it
as more endemic a situation judging by the statement above, a view I
wished to address and hopefully dispel.
> > Ever notice how often *America* works against the Middle Eastern
> > countries, most of which are Muslim majority?
>
> I'm not surprised the Middle Eastern countries don't like us.
> I also don't remember claiming that they must love us.
The argument I was making was that dislike of America's policies and
subsequent action by extremist groups against Americans is not something
that happens in a vacuum. It is unfair to paint Middle Eastern
citizens, most of whom are Muslims, as vicious or unreasoning
anti-Americanists without taking stock of why they may feel that way.
> > We didn't declare war, mind you; we just sold arms to Iraq and
> > Israel and sent in a couple of cruisers. We destroyed oil platforms
> > in 1987 and shot down an airbus. An airbus! A civilian passenger
> > aircraft with absolutely *no* combat capabilities.
>
> Way to leave out about a zillion imporant details regarding
> that situation!
You indicate in the post I'm responding to that you don't have time to
learn about all these things. You also have been extremely sparse
factually in a number of your statements previously, such as remarking
on a religiously unified Europe or your summary of the UN, Israel, and
various Arab countries' relationships.
How much detail do you want here? Which facts would make it right to
you for us to shoot down a civilian aircraft, especially against a
country which we had not declared war upon? Since that is the point I'm
making, i.e., that the American government has engaged in acts
comparable in tone and potentially greater in scale against than any
Muslim terrorist has ever achieved, I'm curious what these "zillion
important details" so crucial to obliterating my argument would be. Keep
in mind an earlier statement of yours that an act of war can only occur
duriing an actual war, so the US by your definition couldn't be engaging
in acts of war. What does that leave us with as a term? Act of
terrorism? "Police action?"
> > Of course, we did the same to their country, but I guess that
> > doesn't count because they're Muslims and that's what we do, right?
>
> I don't remember saying we never did anything to them. I
> honestly don't know what gave you that idea.
I think the problem on my part is that it's sometimes hard to tell
when you're expounding your personal belief and when you're putting
forth the general perception (which may or may not be your own). If we
are agreed that the US has acted against Middle Eastern countries in the
past without just cause, then I'm glad we concur and I apologize for
misreading your argument.
> > But Hezbollah is a radical Muslim terrorist group, and a Shi'ite
>
> Right, but since groups like that exist, people are frightened
> of them. You are welcome to say they shouldn't extend that fear to
> all Muslims. I didn't say they should. I'm just saying they -do-.
Again, it seems I misinterpreted your post in this regard. We agree a
second time then in that a lot of people are frightened of Muslims and
that they shouldn't.
> > Palestinians are the people who lived in Palestine for time out of
> > mind.
>
> Right, but Jews lived there too... Really, I don't personally
> feel like I should decide whether Jews or Muslims should own the area.
> It is their own internal dispute, and hasn't been 'my' business for
> half a century.
Yes, Jews did live there as did Christians. I don't favor any group
being displaced. I do feel that I'm entitled to my opinion as to what is
right for the area, but I do so knowing my opinion will change nothing
and that after all, I've not been to the area and can't really comment
from experience. Also, I have no experience in any government or
political position, so I keep this in mind when thinking about what I
hope for the situation.
> > I believe you when you say you're not pro-Israel. You seem to be for
> > economic gain for the US here more than anything else.
>
> Well, I -am- an American. Where should my loyalties lie?
When did I say it should be otherwise? But in your statements re:
Israel, you seemed to be concerned only with econonomic benefit for our
country without concerning moral or ethical concerns. Note that I
further qualified my statement by restricting to that specific section
of your post. I did not say and do not believe that you are concerned
only with America's economic gain no matter what the cost.
> > I also don't believe you're very informed on the subject and
> > certainly not well enough to pass judgment on *any* of the parties
> > involved, including Israel. "One of the wars?" The "Arab countries"
> > (quite a few you know)? "A bunch of land??"
>
> Sorry, I have a lot of important stuff to learn, I can't take
> the time to memorize every country's history. Could you, for
> instance, give me detailed information about the Batlle of Trafalgar?
No. But then, I'm not engaged in a debate where this battle has any
significance.
> Anyway, the war was the Six Day War. The disputed areas are
> the Gaza Strip which it took from Egypt, the West bank from Jordan,
> and the Golan Heights from Syria.
Good.
> I don't know how the University of Chicago's reciprocal
> agreement would do much for me... Perhaps you could enlighten me.
My mistake. I confused your university (Urbana-Champaign) with the
university of Chicago when writing that and didn't catch it before
sending it off.
> > If you listen to BBC radio news at the very least, you'll notice
> > quite a difference in the news stories that are covered and the spin
> > the rest of the world puts on our actions.
>
> I understand that the Labour party has to be very careful not
> the anger the substantial Muslim population that now exists.
My point isn't that the BBC represents Muslim interest stories any
better or worse. I was referring to coverage of US actions, which are
presented differently by the BBC.
> I think I said that we don't hear much about 'good' activities
> in the Muslim world in the media. I don't know why you are looking
> for a fight, rather than saying "yeah, that's bad, because if you
> did..." I guess if you get in fights a lot, you expect them.
I wasn't aware we were fighting. This has been a debate. We haven't
engaged in name-calling, spamming each other, or any other nonrational
form of argumentation thus far. We are both guilty of phrasing our words
sarcastically in various sections, but not to the point of serious
insult.
Are *you* looking for a fight? This paragraph seems to be somewhat
inflammatory, especially where you assume that I get in fights a lot (I
don't, in fact I earlier posted that I *walk away* from discussions
which could get too heated).
Let me reiterate what we've been discussing, since it seems to have
fallen by the way in this last paragraph. You wrote several posts
wherein you wrote numerous statements that I read as highly offensive
vis-a-vis Muslims, both in the US and in the world at large. I
responded, correcting what errors I believed I found, and have since
learned that while we do disagree on a number of issues, as we continue
our debate it transpires that some of your statements were meant as a
presentation of US public opinion and not meant to be viewed as your
own. A recent post you made (in reply to Bryan J. Maloney) where you
agreed that anyone who truly follows the tenets of any of the major
world religions aren't going to murder is vindication that our
viewpoints are not that divergent.
Is this a fair summary of events as you see them?
Peter Seebach
Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>> What are the big interpretations or points of schism in Kibology? Is there
>> some question of what's allowed? Are people named Spot allowed? Are dogs
>> not named spot still Not Allowed? I know that Spot's Not Allowed because he's
>> Just A Dog. Let's say he was a dog, but not *Just* A Dog. Would he become
>> Allowed?
> Dare I ask...? What is Kibology??
I hate to do this to you, but....
TWENTY BUCKS! SAME AS IN TOWN!
If you want a meaningful answer, email me directly, I can't say anything
coherent about this in public. <--- NOT A JOKE!
-s
p.s.: Well, yeah, sort of a joke.
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
David DeLaney
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>>What are the big interpretations or points of schism in Kibology? Is there
>>some question of what's allowed? Are people named Spot allowed? Are dogs
>>not named spot still Not Allowed? I know that Spot's Not Allowed because he's
>>Just A Dog. Let's say he was a dog, but not *Just* A Dog. Would he become
>>Allowed?
>
> Dare I ask...?
Mmmmmaybe.
> What is Kibology??
Oh, _good_ one, Peter. Yes, $20 same as in town, yadda yadda kibo yadda dotorg,
and I think we need to open the AntiTroll portion of the competition here.
Dave "there are other things that are Not Allowed, but there's never been
very many of them at once" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
satchi
Tumart wrote:
>
> Peter Seebach wrote:
> >
> > In article <958juj$1...@epic0.Stanford.EDU>,
> > Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > What are the big interpretations or points of schism in Kibology? Is there
> > some question of what's allowed? Are people named Spot allowed? Are dogs
> > not named spot still Not Allowed? I know that Spot's Not Allowed because he's
> > Just A Dog. Let's say he was a dog, but not *Just* A Dog. Would he become
> > Allowed?
>
> Dare I ask...? What is Kibology??
>
Dare doesn't post here
She posts in that other place
for twenty young BUCKS
same as in Plymouth town
Satchi
Dare, I did it again.
http://www.bombhumor.com
Peter Seebach
Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Actually, you could argue that with some success. But the point I was
>making was that the USS Cole was neither US territory nor was it on US
>soil. We were debating whether Muslims can be justifiably viewed as a
>terrorist threat within the United States.
And the only plausible answer is "so far as we know, nothing is justifiably
viewed as a terrorist threat within the United States". This may change,
but right now, terrorist action is *so* rare here that it's essentially
equivalent to random noise.
>This would require an abandonment of the idea of partition or giving
>back land, and a very difficult process of integration.
Does Islam require you to practice such great understatements? ;-)
-s
William K. McCarthy
>Islam, Christianity, and their offshoots have a strong prosetylizing element.
That accounts for a pretty large chunk of the world's population. Buddhism
also has a strong proselytizing element though we don't experience it
first-hand in the West. If you live in East Asia it is quite apparent. In
Chinese history, the Taoists and Buddhists had been fighting for favor from the
myriad dynasties and emperors in order to gain new converts, with the Buddhists
usually winning out. Religions that do not proselytize tend to die out over
time as they fail to attract new members.
>Proselytization is actually unusual in religious history.
Really? Which religions are you talking about? Christians, Muslims and
Buddhists have been proselytizing since the beginning of their religious
histories, hence why they have grown so widely since then.
William
Chris Pierson
What about Hinduism? I'm honestly asking, because I'm not sure what its
stance is on proselytizing, but I can't imagine it having so many
adherents without it.
Of course, the Romans had their own particular fun brand of
pseudo-proselytizing -- "Are these your gods? *Yoink* Look! They're in our
pantheon now!" Which, on balance, I prefer to the Christian stance of
"Are these your gods? *Yoink* Look! They're demons in _our_ religion!"
epic_sou...@my-deja.com
cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
> In article <20010201141925...@ng-mg1.aol.com>,
> William K. McCarthy <kebe...@aol.compass> wrote:
> >>bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
> >>Islam, Christianity, and their offshoots have a strong prosetylizing element.
> >
> >That accounts for a pretty large chunk of the world's population. Buddhism
> >also has a strong proselytizing element though we don't experience it
> >first-hand in the West. If you live in East Asia it is quite apparent. In
> >Chinese history, the Taoists and Buddhists had been fighting for favor from the
> >myriad dynasties and emperors in order to gain new converts, with the Buddhists
> >usually winning out. Religions that do not proselytize tend to die out over
> >time as they fail to attract new members.
> >
> >>Proselytization is actually unusual in religious history.
> >
> >Really? Which religions are you talking about? Christians, Muslims and
> >Buddhists have been proselytizing since the beginning of their religious
> >histories, hence why they have grown so widely since then.
>
> What about Hinduism? I'm honestly asking, because I'm not sure what its
> stance is on proselytizing, but I can't imagine it having so many
> adherents without it.
>
> Of course, the Romans had their own particular fun brand of
> pseudo-proselytizing -- "Are these your gods? *Yoink* Look! They're in our
> pantheon now!" Which, on balance, I prefer to the Christian stance of
> "Are these your gods? *Yoink* Look! They're demons in _our_ religion!"
True, very uncool. But for most of recent history, it's been more of a "are
these your gods? *Yoink* In a wild coincidence, these are also saints in
_our_ religion"
> Chris Pierson ** 12 favorite films of 2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
> ** Traffic, Blood Simple (dir. cut), Chuck & Buck, Best in
> Author ** Show, You Can Count On Me, High Fidelity, Almost Famous,
> Game Designer ** Quills, Ghost Dog, Mr. Death, Requiem for a Dream
Very cool films(er, except maybe Quills). But it does remind me how much
better movies were in '99 Epic
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Chris Pierson
True, there's that too. St. Brigid leaps to mind. So yeah, it's been more
of a mix than that.
--
Tumart
Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> In article <3A78EE4D...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> And the only plausible answer is "so far as we know, nothing is justifiably
> viewed as a terrorist threat within the United States". This may change,
> but right now, terrorist action is *so* rare here that it's essentially
> equivalent to random noise.
Exactly my feeling on the subject.
> >This would require an abandonment of the idea of partition or giving
> >back land, and a very difficult process of integration.
>
> Does Islam require you to practice such great understatements? ;-)
Nah, that's just my own bad habit. :)
Tumart
Kibology... taunting me... the nonsequitors and seemingly random
appropriation of my words into said nonsequitors... the Britney Spears
reference... must try to understand... must become initiate....
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Chris Pierson <cpie...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>What about Hinduism? I'm honestly asking, because I'm not sure what its
>stance is on proselytizing, but I can't imagine it having so many
>adherents without it.
Well, *some* sort of Hindus seem to be proselytizing around this
particular ass-end of the globe, at least to a certain extent (I
keep seeing these Krishna posters... not Hare Krishna, either).
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Peter Seebach
Tumart <madm...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Kibology... taunting me... the nonsequitors and seemingly random
>appropriation of my words into said nonsequitors... the Britney Spears
>reference... must try to understand... must become initiate....
WORST HAIKU EVER!!!!