steve@CAS.ORST.EDU (Steve Dodd UUCP) (02/08/90)
Assalam Alaykum, I am writing you in concern with the difficulty I have had posting to the soc.religion.islam news group. I have sent four postings so far. None have appeared. This is in spite of your having responded to me personally. You replied that since I was using UUCP it might be slow. However, my UUCP link is only between my home PC and our DEC running UNIX. I am able to post to other groups as a matter of routine. I have commented on the nature of the Qur'an and Bible. I have discussed several translations of the Qur'an. I have discussed my own translations which cover over 20 juza. And none have appeared in the group. While I am American I have been a Muslim for many years. I have been upset by the postings which appear here of non-Islamic nature. This has prompted me to post in response. My postings have been calm and directed at common misconceptions demonstrated by others. However, the moderated nature of this group makes it difficult to reply. I am most concerned that those who wish to make trouble for Islam are getting through. If you are to moderate an Islamic posting group you must meet Islamic criterion. This is your responsibility before God. In addition you cannot censor Muslim opinion. You cannot censor muslim opinion even by accident. Certainly you cannot favor non-Muslim opinion over Muslim opinion. I think you should abandon the moderated nature of this posting group. Then anyone posting would be responsible to Allah and you would be free of criticism. In effect I am saying if you cannot do a good job then you should not try to do the job at all. I hope this gets posted unlike my four other attempts.
shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/08/90)
I assume the readers of the net are wondering why I posted this last article. Since Mr. Dodd feels that he is being censored, this should prove to him once and for all that he is not, but that there is a problem with his being able to post to this group. He approached me with this concern a few days back, and I replied to him almost immediately, this he cannot deny. I explained to him that several people had this trouble, in fact it was posted in soc.culture.arabic that this was happening, and that his best solution was to mail his articles directly to me, and I would post them. The previous letter was what I got in reponse to my efforts. Maybe Mr. Dodd also didn't receive the articles in soc.culture.arabic and talk.politics.mideast where I was the only non-Muslim to defend Islam in a few occasions when the religion was attacked (as so frequently is) by Joachim Martillo. And maybe he forgets that the reason that I agreed to take on co-moderatorship of this group is because of my respect for Islam and its followers. I may not be a Muslim, but that does not mean that I am automatically going to be an attacker. I think my past actions have proven the opposite to be true. If Mr. Dodd still feels the same about my actions as moderator of this group after Behnam and I have explained to him that he is not being censored, then I shall leave it up to you, the readers of the group, to decide.
shari@wpi.edu (02/09/90)
________________________________________________________________________
To be sure this gets out, i am posting this as if it came from me. For
some reason Mr. Dodd is not receiving the articles I post from him.
shari
_______________________________________________________________________
>I assume the readers of the net are wondering why I posted this last article.
>Since Mr. Dodd feels that he is being censored, this should prove to him once
>and for all that he is not, but that there is a problem with his being able
>to post to this group. He approached me with this concern a few days back,
What article ... I never saw it? You are still forcing me to reply
through email. Why do I have to post through you? It isn't fair
that you can post about me but I cannot!
>and I replied to him almost immediately, this he cannot deny. I explained
Yes you are very busy doing the wrong thing!
>to him that several people had this trouble, in fact it was posted in
>soc.culture.arabic that this was happening, and that his best solution was
>to mail his articles directly to me, and I would post them. The previous
>letter was what I got in reponse to my efforts.
This is the first I've heard of them going to s.c.arabic. Why am I obliged
to worry about s.c.arabic. I abandoned it as un-Islamic some time ago.
>Maybe Mr. Dodd also didn't receive the articles in soc.culture.arabic
>and talk.politics.mideast where I was the only non-Muslim to defend Islam
A non-Mulsim is not qualified to defend Islam. Certainly not in prefrence to
Muslims. As long as you chose to sit in the middle you will catch the
cross-fire. The Muslims are well aquainted with groups who be-friend them
to police their interactions with others. I don't question your intentions.
It just won't work with a Muslim.
>by Joachim Martillo. And maybe he forgets that the reason that I agreed
>to take on co-moderatorship of this group is because of my respect for
>Islam and its followers. I may not be a Muslim, but that does not mean that
>I am automatically going to be an attacker. I think my past actions
>have proven the opposite to be true.
You are attacking me for defending Islam. The prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an
leave no room for non-Muslims over Muslims. The Qur'an holds all of the acts
of non-Muslims as vain. You cannot earn anything by being a so-called
friend to Muslims. If you wish to make input you must first accept Islam!
>If Mr. Dodd still feels the same about my actions as moderator of this group
>after Behnam and I have explained to him that he is not being censored, then
>I shall leave it up to you, the readers of the group, to decide.
The readers may be able to vote about the net but Islamic issues are
not resolved by a vote of unbelievers and muslims. I still am unable
to respond in soc.religion.islam without first going through you. You
are surpressing the message of Islam. Only Allah may decide!
Omar
nyevax 1005% bye shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/09/90)
In article <7978@wpi.wpi.edu> nyevax!steve@CAS.ORST.EDU writes: > > >What article ... I never saw it? You are still forcing me to reply >through email. Why do I have to post through you? It isn't fair >that you can post about me but I cannot! Your having to reply through e-mail, as I have explained, is not deliberate. I will write to the news administrators in Denver to see what the problem is. >Yes you are very busy doing the wrong thing! Pray tell me what is the wrong thing? Trying to help you? > >This is the first I've heard of them going to s.c.arabic. Why am I obliged >to worry about s.c.arabic. I abandoned it as un-Islamic some time ago. Fine. If you don't want to read it, it's your business. I believe that it was posted in this group also. > > >A non-Mulsim is not qualified to defend Islam. Certainly not in prefrence to >Muslims. As long as you chose to sit in the middle you will catch the >cross-fire. The Muslims are well aquainted with groups who be-friend them >to police their interactions with others. I don't question your intentions. >It just won't work with a Muslim. You may feel this way, yet a vote was taken on the creation of this group with me as one of the three moderators, and the vote passed. I assume the people who voted yes don't feel as you do. >You are attacking me for defending Islam. The prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an >leave no room for non-Muslims over Muslims. The Qur'an holds all of the acts >of non-Muslims as vain. You cannot earn anything by being a so-called >friend to Muslims. If you wish to make input you must first accept Islam! > I never attacked you. You attacked my intentions in your first letter. You seem to want to make me doubt the friendship i have with several Muslims. Sorry Mr. Dodd, but you can't do that. I realize that you are quite different from the people I have encountered, and I thank God for that. >The readers may be able to vote about the net but Islamic issues are >not resolved by a vote of unbelievers and muslims. I still am unable >to respond in soc.religion.islam without first going through you. You >are surpressing the message of Islam. Only Allah may decide! > >Omar Censoring the message of Islam. Funny, I remember denying only one article which contained an inflammatory remark. That article was rewritten and posted the same day. I habitually post things I receive the same day I get them. If this is censorship, then I must have the wrong definition in my dictionary. ********************************************************************* Shari Deiana VanderSpek, College Computer Center, Fuller Laboratories Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609 shari@wpi.edu, shari@wpi.bitnet
shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/09/90)
In article <7978@wpi.wpi.edu> nyevax!steve@CAS.ORST.EDU writes: [stuff deleted] >>Maybe Mr. Dodd also didn't receive the articles in soc.culture.arabic >>and talk.politics.mideast where I was the only non-Muslim to defend Islam > >A non-Mulsim is not qualified to defend Islam. Certainly not in prefrence to >Muslims. As long as you chose to sit in the middle you will catch the >cross-fire. The Muslims are well aquainted with groups who be-friend them >to police their interactions with others. I don't question your intentions. >It just won't work with a Muslim. I don't know how this "defending Islam" bussiness would work. It seems to me that every person is defending (if at all that is) his/her understanding of Islam. I don't see why a non-Muslim wouldn't be qualified to talk about (or "defend") Islam, one could know quite a lot about what the Quran is saying without necessarily declaring himself to be a Muslim. >>by Joachim Martillo. And maybe he forgets that the reason that I agreed >>to take on co-moderatorship of this group is because of my respect for >>Islam and its followers. I may not be a Muslim, but that does not mean that >>I am automatically going to be an attacker. I think my past actions >>have proven the opposite to be true. > >You are attacking me for defending Islam. The prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an >leave no room for non-Muslims over Muslims. The Qur'an holds all of the acts >of non-Muslims as vain. You cannot earn anything by being a so-called >friend to Muslims. If you wish to make input you must first accept Islam! It depends on the way you read it I suppose. I personally would hate to see the equivalent of Christian exclusivism being advocated as _the_ way Islam should be interpreted. >>If Mr. Dodd still feels the same about my actions as moderator of this group >>after Behnam and I have explained to him that he is not being censored, then >>I shall leave it up to you, the readers of the group, to decide. > >The readers may be able to vote about the net but Islamic issues are >not resolved by a vote of unbelievers and muslims. I still am unable >to respond in soc.religion.islam without first going through you. You >are surpressing the message of Islam. Only Allah may decide! I don't see why taking a vote would be a problem. I don't think "Islamic issues" should be settled by a vote even if only the Muslims would vote. If the readers of this newsgroup are unhappy with the way it is moderated, the only way I can think of to settle the matter is a vote of the _readers_. I don't think anybody should claim to be absolutely sure that what he wants to say is the message of Islam. Of course only God may decide. And only God knows what the "right" set of beliefs are. That is why we pray to have true faith. Here's an idea that might help prevent misunderstandings: Why don't the moderators post the statistics about the number of articles they received and the proportion they chose not to post at the end of every month? A promise to notify the authors if their postings don't get posted also would be nice. I seem to remember replying to an article and never seeing it posted, maybe it was a glitch of some sort. If we have the assurance that we will get notified, it would be easy to tell why the postings don't appear. -B.M.
shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/09/90)
In article <7978@wpi.wpi.edu> nyevax!steve@CAS.ORST.EDU writes: [...complains that his articles are being censored out of s.r.i. by Shari] > >A non-Mulsim is not qualified to defend Islam. Certainly not in prefrence to >Muslims. As long as you chose to sit in the middle you will catch the >cross-fire. The Muslims are well aquainted with groups who be-friend them >to police their interactions with others. I don't question your intentions. >It just won't work with a Muslim. > >................ >You are attacking me for defending Islam. The prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an >leave no room for non-Muslims over Muslims. The Qur'an holds all of the acts >of non-Muslims as vain. You cannot earn anything by being a so-called >friend to Muslims. If you wish to make input you must first accept Islam! > After reading this I feel that Mr. Dodd is writing this just to hurt the feelings of all non-Muslim readers of this net, although his comments are directed at Shari. I wonder if he is really a Muslim. From the looks of his statements it seems to me that he is only trying to stir up ill feelings. I have excellent Muslim friends and I believe Dodd's statements to the effect that a non-muslim cannot associate with Muslims are silly. Shari said: >>If Mr. Dodd still feels the same about my actions as moderator of this group >>after Behnam and I have explained to him that he is not being censored, then >>I shall leave it up to you, the readers of the group, to decide. > I feel that Mr. Dodd is just provoking Shari into getting mad with him. I fully support Shari being a moderator, and I hope moderator's previlege will be exercised to keep off useless postings (I place Mr. Dodd's posting in that category) from the net. >The readers may be able to vote about the net but Islamic issues are >not resolved by a vote of unbelievers and muslims. I still am unable >to respond in soc.religion.islam without first going through you. You >are surpressing the message of Islam. Only Allah may decide! > >Omar > - Maruti bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu
shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/10/90)
The posting troubles have been relayed to the people involved in Denver,
where all replies are sent before being mailed to a moderator. Until this
problem is rectified, I will be posting articles in my name, with the
Reply-To field containing the name of the author. So far this method
has been successful. Thanks for your patience, and hopefully this problem
will be taken care of very soon. In addition, if any of the readers of this
group are having trouble posting, you can mail your articles directly to
one of the moderators. The addresses are:
sadeghi@oxy.edu
naim@eecs.nwu.edu
shari@wpi.edu
Thanks again to all of you who wrote to me about the problem, it is a lot
more widespread than was originally thought.
*********************************************************************
Shari Deiana VanderSpek, College Computer Center, Fuller Laboratories
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609
shari@wpi.edu, shari@wpi.bitnetshari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/10/90)
I too had the problem with posting to the moderated news group. Local wisdom is that there is most likely a problem with the automatic mail-relay between the news system and forwarding to the moderators. The complexity of intervening sites can also contribute to the problem. Might I suggest that periodically one of the moderators post the direct mail addresses to send postings to so that those of us who cannot successfully post to the news group directly can still contribute? Doug Monk (bro@rice.edu) Disclaimer: These views are mine, not necessarily my organization's.
shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/13/90)
Mr. Dodd: >Benham, Behnam! > >> [Quotation from me deleted] > >Al-Imran (Family of Jesus) Chapter III, Verse 28 > > >Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help >from God: except by way of precaution, that you may guard yourselves >from them. But God cautions you to remember Him. For the final goal >is God. In a friday prayer I attended last fall, the lecturer criticized the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran for translating the word "Auwliya" to "friends and helpers" or "friends." According to him, that word has connotations of 'looking up' to the other person. So I looked in several translations and found other common translations of the same word, such as "sponsors" or "patrons." Here's a typical alternate translation of the same verse: Believers should not enlist disbelievers as patrons in preference to [other] believers. Anyone who does so will have nothing to do with God, so you should take precautions against them. God warns you about Himself; for towards God lies the Goal! (Al-Hajj Ta'lim 'Ali) Which seems fair and just. >Baqara (The Cow) Chapter II, > >verse 105 > >It is never the wish of those without faith among the People of the Book ^^^^^ ^^^^^ >(Jews & Christians), or the pagans that anything good should come down >to you from your Lord. But God will choose for His special mercy whom >He will - for God is the Lord of grace abounding. "_those_ without faith _among_ ..." doesn't imply ALL of them. It is an explicit and clear reference to those Christians and Jews who don't have faith. It doesn't include those Christians and Jews who do have faith. >verse 109 > >Quite a number of the People of the Book (J & C) wish they could turn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >you back to infidelity after you have believed, for selfish envy, after >the truth has become manifest to them: but forgive and overlook, till >God accomplish His purpose; for God has power over everything. Yes, "quite a number of ...," but not all. >verse 120 > >Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless you >follow their form of religion. Say: "The guidance of God,- that is the >only Guidance." Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge >that has reached you, then you would find no protector or helper >against God. I.e. follow God's will, not the desires of Jews and Christians. ...................................................... The following translation of a verse from chapter 5 proves that there are good and godly people amongst Christians: ^^^^^^^ And nearest among them in love To the Believers wilt thou Find those who say, "We are Christians"; Because amongst these are Men devoted to learning And men who have renounced The world, and they are not arrogant. The following translations of verses from the same chapter, again, contradicts your contentions about all Christians and Jews: Those who believe (in the Quran), Those who follow the Jewish (scripture), And the Sabians and the Christians, Any who believe in God, And the Last Day, And work righteousness On them shall be no fear, Nor shall they grieve. ... and if they would but truly observe the Torah and the Gospel and all that has been bestowed upon them by their Sustainer, they will indeed partake of all the blessings of heaven and earth. Some of them do pursue a right course; but as for most of them- vile indeed is what they do! There are other verses in chapter 2 of the Holy Quran which say the same thing. By the way, since you think that Moslems shouldn't have anything to do with Christians and Jews, how do you deal with the fact that many of the Prophet's companions took refuge with the Christian Abyssinians? How do you interpret the following translation of verse 3: 64? O People of the Book! Let us come together on a platform that is common between us, that we shall serve naught save God" ......................................................... Finally, we should all have in mind God's warning against those who twist God's words to fit their own prejudices: (Translation of 16: 116) But say not--for any false thing That your tongues may put forth,-- "This is lawful, and this Is forbidden," so as to ascribe False things to God. For those Who ascribe false things To God, will never prosper. (In such falsehood) Is but a paltry profit; But they will have A most grievous Penalty Behnam Sadeghi