NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/culture/arabic/6977

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 5.3 KB | 102 lines

Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!cunews!isis.sce.carleton.ca!nabeel
From: [e-mail] (Bulbul)
Subject: Re: Saddam
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:23:30 GMT
Lines: 92

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Shaqeeqa) writes:

" In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
" >
" >Is that relevant to the discussion about Saddam and the gulf crisis ?
" >
" >I was trying to find some good analysis to the whole situation, but
" >unfortunately the whole talk was concluded by those final statements,
" >given above. Was there a need for all that ?  Is it common among

" Well, why you are trying to figure it out, it is pretty obvious (to me,
" anyway) that this was initiated by the pro-Saddam Hussein supporters
" as a way of offsetting the subject matter to their convenience and
" personal biasedness of the situation.

   Using the same rules that you use (if any), a few months ago, you were
one of those "pro-Saddam ..." supporters. Anyway, Mr. Habbash asked whether
"disclosing" that I am sick had anything to do with the topic. The answer
is no. You answer that "we" started that; did I say anyone was sick? Did I
say anyone was a liar? Did I say anyone did not know what he/she is talking
about? I did not, but for good measures, if I did, I am sorry. I might have
been drunk--an insult you yet have not used. Consider this an invitation.
We started what, Anisa? Was it our fault that we did not share your
opinions, and, therefore, we "started" your insulting us? At least, tell us
how your opinions change, so that we can share them if we want to. If you
are tempted to start a flame war, then the readership here all know who I
am. Can I be declared the winner without causing much damage before arriving
at this same conclusion? (You once testified for that, do you remember?)

" >Arabs that they respond and react when it is not needed, while they stay
" >dumb, blind and deaf when they are required to respond.

" And it seems that you follow your own theories.

   So you think that Arabs are on the contrary? May I draw your attention
that we here are Arabs, and we kindly ask you to give us our due credit.

" What I see is how you conveniently let the other flammatory posts by
" Samir ("thank God some Muslims still use COMMON sense") and Nabeel pass.

   You mean it was flammatory that we explicitly expressed our disagreement
with you? Do you consider that Samir meant that you did not use common sense
and so you are insulted? Well, forgive him, no one could figure out what
you base your conclusions on. As you know, _common_ sense is the minimum
amount of sense shared among people. Since Samir did not share that sense
with you (no offense) then sure your sense is not common with him and hence
is not common sense. What insult is there? Was my offense that I do not
take Dr. Carts as a shoepolisher? That is my personal choice, I think he
would be lousy at polishing shoes. What offense is there to you?

" Are you using your own inclination when stepping into arguments, or do
" you practice impartiality as a rule of thumb?

   Do you want him to use _your_ inclination when stepping in arguments?
That would be very funny! Since you are a party in the argument, you can't
be the judge at the same time:
   "'anta al-^s^suhUdu wa 'anta al-.ka.smu wa al-.hakamu"
It is not yours to judge what is partial and what is not.

" I've always made my political and religious point of view very clear and
" tried what was in my power to post clear-cut and legitimate postings here
" (especially with regard to this thread), but I will not tolerate personal
" attacks and prejudices based on what I say.  That is, I will respond *and*
" react whether some like it or not.
"
   Your point of view--insulting your opponent is halal--is very clear, but
may I intrude and ask what verse or Hadith is it based on? Sure it is not:
   "wa lA tanAbazU bi-al-'alqAbi, bi'sa al-ismu al-fusUqu ba`da al-'ImAni"
nor on the Hadith about a Muslim: "sibAbuhu fusUq wa qitAluhu kufr."

   I think it would be very nice if you cite reference for your points of
view because, we here can cite references against you, and we may or may
not save you. We reserve this right. [This is not the `royal we.']

" Anisa

** `afat-i al-.kalI^gu wa nAfaqa  al-'a`rAbu
           `amalu al-munAfiqi  fi al-.hayATi  sarAbu
   ka_dabU faqultu  la`alla  fIhim  .sAdiqaN
           fa'i_da al-.s.sadUqu  munAfiquN ka_d_dAbu
   fa.karU ka'annahumU 'a`azzu bani al-ddunY
           lakin   la`amriya    _dulluhum   .gallAbu
   'in kAna _dullaN 'an  talIka  .dayA.gimun
           kayfa  al-ma_dallaTu 'in  walatka  kilAbu
   ra.hima al-'ilAhu 'akArimaN wa .harA'iraN
           sakanU al-^gazIraTa wa al-zzamAnu ^sabAbu
   yA .sA.hi 'in zurta al-madInaTa balli.gan
           minnI   salAman   wa   al-ssalAmu  kitAbu
                                            --Nabeel Ghuzlaan