Oh Dear! What next? Waiting to Exhale? =)
: farewell,
: zeeshan
R. "and I had such high hopes for you ... =)" A.
--
rafi ahmed
:
rahmed@amherst.edu
: " ... to write the rites to right my wrongs"
rahmed@unix.amherst.edu :
-- Derek William Dick
In <4ero6j$t97@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> naeem@ix.netcom.com(Naeem
Mohaiemen ) writes:
>
>tsiddiqu@marlin.ece.utexas.edu>
>
>>>Sushmita Sen..world cup..clothes..undress..etc
>
>>BiG DeaL!
>
>heh mia, big deal je bolo-- jokhon kukam ta korbe, amra thik-i
shob
>bangali chute jabo dekhar jonnyo.
>
>[thao abar roja romjan er dine, towba, towba]
>
>:-)
>--
>__________________________________
>Naeem Mohaiemen
>
>naeem@ix.netcom.com
>nmohaiemen@aol.com
>naeem_mohaiemen@sfbayguardian.com
>naeem_mohaiemen@mercermc.com
>http://www.oberlin.edu/~nmohaiem
>__________________________________
Soumitra Bose (soumitra@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Ha re Allah ! Tomra shala shuru korle ki Romjan mashe , onno
shomoi
: bhable o to hoto. Radhe kesto ! ekhon naki Kukam ar Sushmita
Sen ?
: Bangalee ar ki kichukei baki rakhbe na ?
Sh(w)opne khele kacchi biriyani khabo, lobon diye bhat ke khai?
R. "Sushmita Sen. Heh Heh. Heh Heh. =) " A.
--
rafi ahmed
:
rahmed@amherst.edu
: " ... to write the rites to right my wrongs"
rahmed@unix.amherst.edu :
-- Derek William Dick
O Captain! my
Captain! our fearful trip is done;
But it would
be done sooner and better if you for one --
Could keep your
eyes on the charts and on the rudder
In lieu of wasting
time criticizing some one other.
R. "Sheeesh. Some people have too much time on their hands." A.
--
rafi ahmed
:
rahmed@amherst.edu
: " ... to write the rites to right my wrongs"
rahmed@unix.amherst.edu :
-- Derek William Dick
[long post fuming over Maimun's supposed anti-Bangladeshi male stereotyping]
Zaed,
Maimun asked:
> Why do so many Bangladeshi men think it's ok to flirt, date
and make long
> term plans with North American Bangladeshi women, then run
back to
> Bangladesh and marry a young girl from there?
Notice her use of the term "so many" instead of aking "why
do Bangladeshi
men...." which clearly exonerates her of taking a tar brush
to _all_
Bangladeshi men. Now, what Maimun talks about and laments over,
clearly
happens. A good number of Bangladeshi men _do_ "flirt, date
and make
long term plans with North American Bangladeshi women" and then
run
back to get nubile young things from home sign on the dotted
line.
Is this lamentable? Yes. Is Maimun within her rights to point
it out
and state that such behavior is heinous, cowardly, and utterly
loathsome?
Absolutely. Especially as she refers to her own personal pains
regarding this matter.
Now, since _some_ Bangladeshi (or perhaps even "so many") men
act
in this disgustingly dastardly fashion, does it mean that _all_
Bangladeshi men act in the same fashion? Absolutely not. Does
Maimun indeed implicitly refer to _all_ Bangladeshi men when
she
talks about _some_ Bangladeshi men? I don't believe so. Thus,
are there any generalizations in her post? Yes. Are they warranted?
Absolutely. Do her generalizations fall into the category of
malicious stereotyping? No. Rather, her comments were based
on more
than a mere modicum of truth, and as such, her generalizations
are
not by any means flagrant or baseless. And you know probably
as well as any body else on SCB, generalizations form the core
of all sciences and humanities.
It's nice of you to stand up for the injured pride of all the
Bangladeshi men out there; however, if the injury itself is
ill-perceived, not much point in standing up is there?
:
: ZAEd---------------------------Oberlin-------------------------------------
R. "Patience, patience." A.
--
rafi ahmed
:
rahmed@amherst.edu
: " ... to write the rites to right my wrongs"
rahmed@unix.amherst.edu :
-- Derek William Dick
: At least you found it amusing. Although there nothing worse
then the ignorant
: who derive pleasure from wollowing in ignorance!
Save perhaps
the ignorant who feels he is wallowing in erudition.
[Zulfikar's postulations on the perfect equality for all under
Islamic
rule together with contraposing excerpts from the "Pact
of Umar" deleted]
: Pray, let me amuse you. Perhaps you would of preferred if Umar
bin Kattab (ra)
: distroyed the churches, killed the Christian priests and as
a bonus point of
: 180, rapped their women in front of their men-folk like Hindu
soldiers, Serbs,
: Christian crusaders, Spanish Inquisitors, etc.
: It may be news to you, but the Christians of Al-Quds prior
to the conquest of
: Islam were persecuted, seggregated, and generally faced much
injustice at the
: hands of the Jews or Romans at one time or another.
Whether or not
Islamic rule and the Pact of Umar was _fairer_ for
the Christians
is not the contention here. The contention is your
claim that Islamic
rule is _objectively fair_ for all, irrespective
of time and
space. How the Serbs/Romans/Jews/and-all-other-
people-who-have-ruled-at-any-given-point-in-history
treated their
religio-political
minorities/subjects is moot. You claim that Islamic
rule is "good"
and "fair" for religious minorities. And you use these
words in their
objective meanings. Thus, the Pact of Umar, which
clearly evinces
segregation, differentiation, and a blatant policy
of Islamic superiority
at the religio-political level cannot be
"fair" even
if you could stretch semantics into stating that it
might have been
"good."
Any recidivist
Islamic state would clearly be founded in the belief
that Islam is
superior. And any state that is founded upon such
beliefs is definitionally
not "fair."
: Their loyalty and
: allegience to the Khilafah was to such an extent that they
fought side by side
: with Muslims with zeal against the Christian Crusaders from
Europe. And often
: initiated battles where they alone faced their fellow Christians,
in the
: abscence of any Muslims.
Though your point
is irrelevant, I find the extent of such
involvement
questionable. Please cite your sources.
Doesn't quit fit the aggrieved people who make them
: out to be, they did gleefully sign the Umari treaty for good
reason. The terms
: of that Treaty was according to the Ijtihad of Umar (ra) in
his capacity as
: head of State. I see no injustice on the part of the Muslims.
The Christians
: for the first time enjoyed a freedom of belief never known
before, a securty of
: wealth and honour. Protection for their women and young men
who quite often
: were captured shipped off to be slaves for Romans.
Agreed that for
the time, Umar's reasoning and terms were quite
generous. However,
generousity, and equality/fairness/same-treatement
for-all are
quite distinctly seperate issues.
: If you want too attack Islam, your going to have to do better
than quote
: dubious English translations and distortions by orientalists
of certain arabic
: sources.
I did not attack
Islam, only the way Islam has (and/or can) be
interpreted.
Islam as a religion is not the contention here,
merely the concept
of Islamic state and its prospective fairness
to religious
"others".
How do you find
the translation dubious? Please cite an "acceptable"
translation
of the Pact of Umar that differs substantially from
the translation
I posted. Broad generalizations are easy to make.
It takes more
courage to sift through what the others have to say
and to still
be fair.
: --
: Zulfikar Shahnawaz
--
rafi ahmed
:
rahmed@amherst.edu
: " ... to write the rites to right my wrongs"
rahmed@unix.amherst.edu :
-- Derek William Dick
Subject:
Re: Apology For War Crimes ---- Yamin Zakaria
Date:
1996/02/10
Author:
Pati Mastan <rahmed@unix.amherst.edu>
Zulfikar Shahnawaz (zulfi@zulfi.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[diatribe differentiating between 'kufr' and 'kafir']
: you. As far as what will happen to you. Maybe your unaware
of Islamic history,
: in the lands of the Middle-East, North Africa, South East
Asia including India,
: there were always non-Muslims living within Islamic lands
amongst Muslims,
: where Islam ruled. The Jews and Christian for example prospered
very well under
: the Khilafah. To speak with the knowledge of Islam, there
will be no
: recriminations on any non-Muslim citizen, be they Christian
or Hindu, the
: Prophet (saw) said "the one who harm a Dhimmie (non-Muslim
citizen of the
: Islamic state) harms me". The property, wealth, honour, dignity,
family,
: BELIEF, of any non-Muslim is protected and secured by the
State, unlike what
: India is doing today against its Muslim citizens, then again
what should we
: Muslims expect from the kafir, Justice, Pah!!!
From your replies
to other people, I believe you will totally
disregard any
material that has overt non-Islamic connotations.
Your response
to the following should be interesting.
From the "Pact
of Umar" drawn between the Christians of Syria and
'Umar ibn al-Khattab:
". . . .
We shall not
manifest our religion, nor convert anyone to it. We
shall not prevent
any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish
it.
We shall show
respect to the Muslims and we shall rise from our seats
if they wish
it.
We shall not
seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their
garments, the
_qalansuwa_, the turban, footwear, or the parting of
the hair. We
shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their
_kunyas_.
We shall not
mount on saddles, nor shall we gird our swords nor
bear any kind
of arms nor carry them upon our persons.
. . . .
We shall always
dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we
shall bind the
_zunnar_round our waists. (The first precedent for
forcing religious
minorities to wear distinguishing and discri-
minatory clothing
to be found in history.)
We shall not
display our crosses or our books in the roads or the
markets of the
Muslims. We shall only use clappers in our churches
very softly.
We shall not raise our voices in our churchservices,
or in the presence
of Muslims, nor shall we raise our voices when
following our
dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads
of the Muslims
or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead
near the Muslims.
. . . .
We shall not
build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims."
-- Al Turtushi, _Siraj al-Muluk_, pp. 229-230.
These were forced
upon the Christians and Jews living under Muslim
rule. The Pact
of Umar came to be the definite guide of proper
Muslim treatment
of the dhimmi. Now, since you are so intent in
holding that
Islamic rule is _categorically_ beneficial to all
concerned, where
do you stand on this?
(Please don't
go so far as to amuse the life out of me by
suggesting that
these _dhimmis_ entered the pact and its
rulings of their
own accord and without any sort of external
pressure. Your
regular responses are amusing enough in and of
themselves.)
Rafi
: --
: Zulfikar Shahnawaz
--
rafi ahmed
:
rahmed@amherst.edu
: " ... to write the rites to right my wrongs"
rahmed@unix.amherst.edu :
-- Derek William Dick