Answering "who are you?" <G>

> As far as I know there are no restrictions on what is discussed in
> this forum except that the focus must be Islam.

That, and must contain no abusive language or personal attacks.
I'll post the FAQ as a separate message since you apparently
haven't read it.

This is a moderated newsgroup, as are most of the soc.religion.*
newsgroups, so your posts are reviewed by a moderator for relevance
and lack of abusive language before they appear. I happen to be
the moderator on duty at the moment. The other moderator is
Fariddudien Rice.

> In making points about reasons for belief I was not asking about
> personal reasons but considering the case quite generally, in the
> abstract.

I don't think that's a subject that can be discussed in the
abstract, certainly not profitably. From what I've seen in today's
moderation run, others here feel the same way about it.

> I'm not an authority and make no pronouncements; I merely try to
> make my case as unanswerable and as clear as possible.

Which sounds amazingly like someone who thinks h is an
authority and is making pronouncements. Hello....

> This makes for efficient discussion.

Like dictatorship makes for efficient government. <wry grin> A
discussion is certainly more efficient if you offend enough people
that you are ignored and your posts unanswered. I'm beginning to
think that's what you want, perhaps because you think lurkers and
others will believe that you are unanswered because you're
unanswerable. :/

> I've read enough about Islam to feel I am in a
> position to make my points; of course I will make mistakes and suffer
> under misapprehensions. Then I will welcome correction. Have you got
> any? I suspect you are American; if so, I will say that robust debate
> is quite acceptable in the UK.

Yes, I'm American. I've also, in the academic part of my life,
debated a number of subjects with colleagues in the UK. Robust
debate is pretty much the norm in academia both places. What you
have been doing and the way you have been posting would not have
been acceptable, as far as I can tell, there any more than here.

> One doesn't need to have read the whole of the Koran to make points
> about it.

It isn't the points you've made about specific messages in the
Qur'an that I find objectionable. It is the lack of quotes to
back your points, your inability or unwillingness to cite your
sources, and (frankly) what appears to be abysmal intellectual
laziness in not doing your basic homework. I wouldn't presume to
discuss Papal infallibility with you, for example, before I read
the documents from the Council of Trent and other basic Catholic
documents on the subject. I certainly wouldn't expect you to take
any criticisms I made seriously if I did.

> No issue that I have raised has depended on a knowledge of
> the different Muslim schools of theology or the teachings of Muslim
> leaders.

Several have. You just didn't realize it. For example, "Muslims"
certainly don't believe that it is acceptable to rape one's female
slaves any more than "Jews" believe it is acceptable to force a
rape victim who lacks a witness to the crime to marry her attacker.
Both of these interpretations can be made from the relevant scriptures,
and some religious teachers and schools within both groups (generally
the extreme ones) do make those interpretations. Others (the majority,
in both cases) reject those interpretations and have explained, in
considerable detail, why in the relevant commentaries and rulings by
religious scholars.

> Not to know these is not to be abysmally ignorant and does not
> disqualify me from having opinions about Islam.

We disagree on that, obviously. From what I've seen, most of the
Muslims here also disagree with you on that subject. They don't
appear prepared to hold a serious conversation about Islam with
someone who isn't willing to do the necessary reading and learn the
necessary background material.

> The question "Why do you believe?" is not addressed to you; the
> "you" is equivalent to "one".

> You seem to have difficulties in judging tone and intention.

Possibly. And possibly I was spot on about your tone and intention,
and you are not willing to see it or admit it.

> Again you misread "preach"; it's possible to use it in British
> English in a non-ecclesiastical negative sense.

And in American English. You appear to have misunderstood the reply,
to no surprise of mine.

> Please show me where my postings have conveyed a sense that I feel I
> am better than others. I've never been accused of this.

If you really want to know, email me in private. My email address
is in the signature. (The address in the From: header is a spamtrap;
don't just hit "reply" or your reply will end up in the spam collection
for spambouncer.org.)

> I have just realised the significance of your signing yourself
> "Interim Moderator", but I don't know what is implied by "Posting
> privately." I take it that you have administered an official rebuke.
> Perhaps your mail came only to me.

No. Everything I've posted here has been public.

> soc.religion.islam ought to come out into the open. Who are you and
> how are you constituted?

That's the first time in the fifteen-plus years this newsgroup
has been around that anyone has thought it was somehow not in
the open. It's an ordinary, moderated Usenet newsgroup. I'm
one of the two moderators; the other is Fariduddien Rice, who
also posts here. (More than I do.) No secrets here.

I add 'posting privately" below my signature when I'm responding
to an individual, not posting an administrative post. You'll
see the difference when I post the FAQ in a few minutes.

> I suspect from the style and tone of your
> postings to me, and your strictures on me, that you belong to an
> American university: you seem to require genteel American academicism.
> Am I right? Let us see a statement of your aims and guiding principles;
> then we will know where we are.

See the FAQ for the last.

I'm American. I'm not associated with an American university at this
time; I work for a living. <G> I was at one point, but never as a
professor or post-doc.

> It seems that I am going to be censored or banned. If so you are
> infringing free speech on a topic of the most urgent importance: how we
> are to understand resurgent Islam? Islam sorely needs to be challenged
> in articulate terms.

It does need to be challenged, just as Christianity and other religions
do. More to the point, Muslims need to be challenged about how they
view their religion, what behavior they are prepared to engage in or
sanction in others because of their religion, and how they're prepared
to live with non-Muslims. These are questions any religious believer
needs to ask himself/herself.

So far, you have completely failed to challenge Islam or Muslims, however,
because you won't do the homework necessary to do so.

As to "censored or banned", some of your posts have failed to pass
moderation because they've been off-topic, but that happens with all
of us. (Topic drift is a fact of life on Usenet.) If you start
using abusive language or personal attacks, that will get those
posts rejected, as well. And if your posting volume increases to
the point that you're drowning out other conversation in the newsgroup,
I'll do what the moderators did when that last happened in the mid-
1990s -- start moderating only the first five or ten posts a day from
each poster. Flooding a newsgroup interferes with the freedom of
speech of others, and also wastes the time of the moderators, who
aren't paid a cent for their work. (We're all volunteers.)

Nobody has ever been banned from posting, however. The newsgroup
guidelines do not even allow for that. And, although I've found
your posts annoying, you aren't even remotely in the category of
someone I'd want to ban. (The pill, mortgate, and porn spammers
are at the top of that list; thank goodness for spam filters.)

I'm not just a moderator here, though. I'm a constant reader, and
occasional participant as well. As one of the regular non-Muslim
participants, I had something to say that I thought you needed to
hear how your posts were sounding to an outsider familiar with
Islam, but not invested in it as a believing Muslim would be.
What you do with that information is up to you. At this point, I
suspect I was wasting my words with you, but perhaps not with some
others who read this newsgroup. In any event, I've said what I had
to say.


--
Catherine Hampton <ariel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Interim Moderator, soc.religion.islam

(Posting privately.)

.

Relevant Pages