Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[tatar-l] few statements in response to Azat

Expand Messages
  • Rustam Yumash
    1. I am not psychologist and not registered in Australia.( Many psychotherapists don t have degree in Psychology, many psychologists don t do
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 30, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      1. I am not psychologist and not registered in Australia.( Many
      psychotherapists don't have degree in Psychology, many psychologists don't
      do psychotherapy).One doesn't need to be psychologist to see how Patriarchy
      makes men miserable.How it makes men grandiose through their narcissistic
      upbringing in the patriarchial families. How unrealistic expectations fail
      them first in school and playgrounds, then in life, families, work, health
      and etc. Whole bulk of research does reveals this. If you ask politely I
      might mention references, but I don't think you are prepared to open your
      mind to them. But who knows.I hope you will one day reexaimine your self.

      By the way I do work in professional counseling center and have my
      psychological Guru, who is highly educated and well trained. I did have
      numerous conversations with numerous psychologists on gender related
      issues. I have conducted quite a few workshops on holistic medicine , and
      work with people with stress related health problems. Psychologist refer
      their clients to me because they appreciate my body centered hands-on
      therapy.




      2.I haven't been diagnosing you, Azat. I only suggested, assumed in general
      that defendant of cruel barbaric traditions should have some psychological
      reason to do so. Your credentials have been jeopardized by you accepting
      dogmatically a religious antiscientific believe system. You are the enemy of
      science with all the consequences. I dismiss all the bla bla bla.
      By the way emotional intelligence regarded by psychologist even more
      significant than IQ-the intellectual one.
      1. I considered you my pen-pal, a friend.
      > 2. Friends never PUBLICLY confront their friends without trying to
      > understand what is happening in private first. I have been shocked by
      discovering from your public revelations who you truly are( male-shauvinist
      attitude
      > 3. If they disagree with this opinion to such a strong degree that it
      > requires public expression of this disagreement, decent people at least
      > notify their correspondents first.

      Well may be you right in general. I had too strong emotions by then. My
      situation was somewhat dramatic. I just lost my beloved father and was
      looking for somebody to share my grief with.I was very lonely and
      vulnerable. Thank you for trying to help me. I appreciate your attempt. Even
      if your religious preaching wasn't helpful, our conversations laid another
      stone to my recovery. Thank you very much for being there for me in your own
      way. Others tried to be there for me in their own ways but ultimately I
      found my way to heal the wound. I am OK now. My father was a typical muslim
      men grown up in patriachial system where boys behave accordingly to their
      surrounding culture, where men do specific things in a specific way,
      dominating and controling women. So he was doing it too. But I was growing
      up with romantic cultural influences and democratic values. I learned to
      admire women and respect their potential for independant thinking.One day I
      had to stand up to my beloved father and protect my mother. Consequences
      were dramatic.I won't go into details now. But in general this can explain
      my behavoir regarding you, Azat. I was in a conflict. I was stressed.
      So I am sorry I didn't warn you.


      > This is a morale code in the places I've grown up. And you have a nerve
      > to request an apology.

      Well I did apologised now.

      > Well, there is nothing to argue about. As a Muslim in a predominantly
      > Muslim group (see the poll), I am saying: stop Western-oriented
      > anti-Afghani, anti-Muslim mind-boggling in this group.

      > Yes, it is very confrontational. All Muslims are very confrontational
      > with their enemies. And you are the enemy of Islam. If you will stop
      > being an enemy, I will stop confrontation.

      I prefer the public to speak for themselves.I don't trust validity of your
      poll. Statistical research in Humanities is very different from Physics.
      Here is another example of dishonest or ignorant approach).

      This group is at least not anti-democratic as you are. As a Tatar I have a
      right to speak about anythink I consider as important to my nation. I don't
      think that Islam, this semitic religion is so drastically important for our
      nation.In some ways it's even harmful, at least in your interpratation
      (square thinking). I won't stop being your opponent and never consider you
      as my enemy. I think you are a very valuable human being and a great Tatar.
      I do like many things about you and hope one day we will find a peace
      despite differencies.

      Best regards
      Rustam Yumash
    • Azat Badretdinov
      Replying... ... What you would say if you would try to be not so blatant is: There is rather wide-spread stereotype in the West that it is not easy to be a
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 30, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Replying...

        Rustam Yumash wrote:
        >
        > [snip about your personal background].
        > One doesn't need to be psychologist to see how Patriarchy
        > makes men miserable.

        What you would say if you would try to be not so blatant is:

        There is rather wide-spread stereotype in the West that it is not easy
        to be a leader in the family for a man. In that way I am oK with that.

        If a man takes responsibility for his family, then he suffers most in
        the family from the attacks of unfavorable external conditions. He can
        lose a job, he can lose his health in the accident (he spends more time
        out because he has to communicate with people). That is how it makes him
        suffer. But this is the nature of the male even on physiological level -
        men have higher level of testosterone which constantly pushes them into
        the terra incognito - literally or figuratively. They always need to
        explore something unknown, to try something new. Again - this is on
        biological level.

        Of course, this is the way with risk and some men fail. Who said that
        everyone should be happy? We leave in the ruthless world of competition
        which is kept form falling apart because society accepts norms that
        prevent it from doing that. Islamic society have a advantage because the
        rules are given from Allah and kept for more than thousand years intact
        and unchanged.

        I saw completely happy people only once - when I visited a friend in
        psychiatric hospital. This lasted only couple of hours after regular
        medication hour. Then the action of medication stopped for some of the
        inhabitants and so did the happiness.

        Happiness is not the purpose of human existence. People exist to do
        something in their lives for other people so the latter will remember
        them after their deaths. Do you care if Rudolf Nureev was a happy person
        or not? It does not matter now.

        Inevitably some men will fail during their lives - either completely or
        temporarily.
        This happens regardless of what society he is living, but Islam helps a
        human to make every failure temporary. It gives hope.

        > How it makes men grandiose through their narcissistic
        > upbringing in the patriarchial families.

        How it patriarchic families men are taught not to fear responsibility
        and believe in their own abilities. Why are you, male, are so hateful
        about your gender? You are reminding me some feminist who are also very
        hateful about women.

        That is saying the same thing as you said before in other words. Again -
        key here is the responsibility. This responsibility was not intended by
        Allah for men to be higher than women and dominate them, though it is
        true that Allah-given role for men is to lead the family. Allah will
        judge people according to their deeds, not gender.

        Besides, being responsible for the prosperity of the family does not
        mean that women do not have their own responsibilities. Their
        responsibilities are even higher. Men work in the best case with with
        mature people, but more often with inanimate world - from software to
        construction industry, women, in contrary, work with the most cherished
        and important human product - kids. Is there any more important job than
        raising a human?

        > How unrealistic expectations fail
        > them first in school and playgrounds, then in life, families, work, health
        > and etc.

        How men are trained during their childhood to fight the outer world
        which very often is rather hostile to the newborn human. And those
        expectations are absolutely realistic because some men indeed are
        achieving them. One of the purposes of this training is natural
        selection of stronger smarter men.

        > [skipping again the personal staff envoked to show up your authority in psychology]
        >
        > I only suggested, assumed in general
        > that defendant of cruel barbaric traditions should have some psychological
        > reason to do so.

        Trust me - there is no psychological reason. I was just reminding people
        some axioms of international relations and shariah.

        > Your credentials have been jeopardized by you accepting
        > dogmatically a religious antiscientific believe system.

        What is exactly anti-scientific in my reasoning if you are talking about
        something sensible, 'cause "antiscientific believe system" sounds like
        absurd mumbo-jumbo.

        > You are the enemy of
        > science with all the consequences.

        Oh, yeah. I would say more - I am the fifth column in the science right
        now and the fact that my position is called "scientist" should not
        disillusion you, my alert readers. I use my scientific position in my
        company to secretly undermine scientific approach adopted here in
        States. I also believe in witches and in Santa Claus.

        > By the way emotional intelligence regarded by psychologist even more
        > significant than IQ-the intellectual one.

        Significant for exactly what? And what do you mean "emotional
        intelligence"? If you are talking about awareness of what other people
        think or feel by their appearance or body language it is really strange,
        because in the previous letters you showed your zero knowledge of what
        the Afghani people want. If you are talking here about how person is
        aware of his own emotional state, then your argumentation works exactly
        against you, 'cause it is you who admitted wrongdoing in the emotionally
        disturbed state.

        Then follows citation from "earlier me".

        > > 1. I considered you my pen-pal, a friend.
        > > 2. Friends never PUBLICLY confront their friends without trying to
        > > understand what is happening in private first. I have been shocked by
        > discovering from your public revelations who you truly are( male-shauvinist
        > attitude
        > > 3. If they disagree with this opinion to such a strong degree that it
        > > requires public expression of this disagreement, decent people at least
        > > notify their correspondents first.
        >
        > Well may be you right in general. I had too strong emotions by then.

        Well, finally something makes sense.

        > [skipping personal stuff which is probably is not interesting for readers]

        > > This is a morale code in the places I've grown up. And you have a nerve
        > > to request an apology.
        >
        > Well I did apologised now.

        Apologies accepted.

        >
        > I prefer the public to speak for themselves.

        Well, that is the impression I am having from personal correspondence
        with majority of my correspondents from TMG.

        > I don't trust validity of your
        > poll. Statistical research in Humanities is very different from Physics.

        Are you challenging the fact that majority of the readers of this group
        are Muslims?

        > Here is another example of dishonest or ignorant approach).

        Prove the opposite. I am taking Bayesian approach. I know that majority
        of Tatars are Muslims (though may be they do not observe all the 5
        pillars because of their ignorance or atheistic propaganda, but majority
        do believe in Allah). And those Tatars I am talking about are not
        uneducated people (uneducated Tatar sounds like an oxymoron to me) -
        they are mainly Moscow or American Tatars - middle class people.

        >
        > This group is at least not anti-democratic as you are.

        Democracy is a method of selecting the government - nothing more. What
        on earth are you talking about?

        > As a Tatar I have a
        > right to speak about anythink I consider as important to my nation.

        Hey! I recognize you! That is exactly what most women say when they are
        emotionally disturbed! "I do want I want to do", "I am free person",
        blah, blah, blah...

        Well, REAL responsibility is responsibility for your own words, when you
        first think what you have written and only then press "Send" button in
        your mailer menu.

        To invoke the wrath of world powers upon the heads of independent nation
        is not exactly MY notion of what is important for Tatars.

        About the usage of stoning:

        Did I ever suggested introduction of stoning in Tatarstan?

        > I don't
        > think that Islam, this semitic religion is so drastically important for our
        > nation.

        Well, without this "semitic" religion Tatars would be now in the same
        miserable state as Mari, Chuvash, Mordva, Udmurt people. It was our
        religion that helped us immensely. Without Islam there would not be
        Tatars as we know them.

        The apostate Tatars who changed Islam for Christianity are very small
        and isolated minority in Tatarstan. The fact that they survived without
        being assimilated is a miracle explainable only by peculiarities of
        Russian imperialistic policy.

        The majority of Tatars who accepted Christianity were dissolved among
        Russians leaving behind only fancy second names like Rakhmaninov or
        Turgenev.

        Islam gave Tatars strength to withstand eons of Russian occupation
        without losing their ethnical and cultural identity. I am sure you know
        that. Again you are just wrote the first thing that came to your mind.

        > In some ways it's even harmful, at least in your interpratation
        > (square thinking).

        I would not pretend my absolute knowledge of Islam. That would be an
        insult to many of the readers of this group.

        Without Islam there would not be not only past but also future of
        Tatars. Atheistic Tatars in States are much more susceptible to
        interethnical marriages and dissolve in average American environment.

        According to recent scientific study on the ethnical origins of
        Americans the largest genetic input was surprisingly made by Germans
        (not Englishmen or Dutch).

        We do not know about German parades in States while everybody knows the
        St.Patrick days and color of Irish. Strange, isn't it?

        What did help Irish people to keep their cultural identity? One of the
        things was their different religion.

        Same thing about French in Quebec or cajuns in Louisiana (which is
        almost the same people anyway).

        Either Abu Talib or Suleiman Stalsky said: "Esli ti vistrelish v
        proshloe is pistoleta, buduschee vistrelit v tebja is pushki".
        Forgetting Islam for a Tatar is exactly the same thing.

        > I won't stop being your opponent and never consider you
        > as my enemy. I think you are a very valuable human being and a great Tatar.

        Those words may sound sarcastic. The adjective "great" in the context of
        ethnicity is used only in direct sense unlike it's usage in "I am great"
        as a synonym of "I am fine". Great Russian poet Pushkin, e.g.

        I would like to consider them true but I suspect that there is nothing
        substantial standing behind your words.

        > I do like many things about you and hope one day we will find a peace
        > despite differencies.

        I am not a teenage girl to sweaten my mood with compliments.

        May Allah help you to find a straight way despite you being far astray
        right now. Your last words only confirm that you are a person without a
        backbone.

        Again - there will be no piece if anti-Islamic posts will appear in this
        group. People who are fighting Islam in TMG and posting anti-Islamic
        messages are Tatar enemies.

        Azat Badretdinov.
      • Antero Leitzinger
        ... I strongly disapprove this ethical anti-utilitarianism, which even sounds anti-Islamic to me. Happiness is indeed the ultimate purpose in life, and God has
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Azat Badretdinov wrote:
          >
          > Happiness is not the purpose of human existence. People exist to do
          > something in their lives for other people so the latter will remember

          I strongly disapprove this ethical anti-utilitarianism, which even
          sounds anti-Islamic to me. Happiness is indeed the ultimate purpose in
          life, and God has created in men the capability to feel the happiness of
          themselves and others (by empathy) as guidelines for a better life. Thus
          the "pursuit of happiness" is truly islamic policy, which is also
          testified by certain Hadiths. Of course, many people do find greatest
          happiness in fame, memory, service for common good, etc. which is just
          fine if it serves to make the universe a happier place.

          On the other hand, I can partly accept what Azad has been writing. It is
          certainly somewhat different in a country like Afghanistan, but in a
          modern western society, the "female liberation" debate is very much out
          of date. Just consider the following points:

          1. Women live longer. Should men get compensated?

          2. Women are usually not required to do military service, nor drafted in
          case of a war. A couple of years ago, Finnish women activists received
          the RIGHT to make a military career if they wanted to, while men still
          have the DUTY to spend at least half a year of their life in the army.
          Does it sound equal? Women can but are not forced to play war, if they
          choose to, but a female majority of the electorate could in theory elect
          a parliament and president who would send men to die for the country.

          3. Women give birth and get easier custody of children. A man is forced
          to submit to a paternal test if a woman claims he is the father of her
          child, but he has no right to claim paternity against the will of the
          mother. Nor has a man much to say about abortion. In a modern society,
          single mothers are financially secured and socially acceptable.

          It is customary today to trace remnants of the wicked patriarchy in
          every institution, society, and religion, but I believe, that some day,
          such a feminist approach will be out of fashion. Perhaps then men will
          burn their ties and blaim Islam for putting too much social burden on
          their shoulders?

          Meanwhile, I would like to turn the discussion toward something closer
          to Tatars.

          A newspaper article claimed, that one of the suspects of Moscow bombings
          is a Tatar. This, of course, is no wonder after the police had rounded
          up all the usual 40 000 suspects. Nevertheless, since the Russian police
          is renowned for its efficiency in solving crimes, it took only a couple
          of days for Kremlin to decide on bombing Groznyi instead of Kazan. Will
          the anti-Chechen hystery now be satisfied with the letting of innocent
          blood and further US support for "anti-terrorist actions", or will it be
          developed further into general anti-Islamic pogroms, and be eventually
          directed against the hundreds of thousands Tatars too living in Moscow?
          After all, a mass purge would empty apartments, ease the unemployment,
          and give every neighbour a little booty - just enough to assure Putin or
          Luzhkov enough popular support to succeed Jeltsin...

          Tatarstan president Shaimiyev made some lines in the media, but there
          appears to be no public indignation among Russian Tatars about what is
          happening. Are they scared to silence, or do they share the typical
          Russian popular impotence and ideological naivety? It would be of great
          interest to hear the thoughts of our Russian list members. But please,
          spare us of the "Wahhabism" fairy tales and the funny stories of Osama
          bin Laden & Co. having been sighted here and there - I am quite sure,
          that both the Snowman and Elvis Presley have been seen in Daghestan, if
          that would make Clinton happy!

          Of course, this is strictly speaking neither an Islamic/feminist, nor a
          Caucasian discussion list, but I am afraid that the last weeks news may
          eventually have historic significance for Tatars too.

          With best regarards,

          Antero Leitzinger
        • Azat Badretdinov
          ... I think you mean by happiness what I mean by satisfaction . What I meant by happiness was purely individualistic (not UTILITARIAN, as you guessed)
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Antero Leitzinger wrote:
            >
            > Azat Badretdinov wrote:
            > >
            > > Happiness is not the purpose of human existence. People exist to do
            > > something in their lives for other people so the latter will remember
            >
            > I strongly disapprove this ethical anti-utilitarianism, which even
            > sounds anti-Islamic to me. Happiness is indeed the ultimate purpose in
            > life, and God has created in men the capability to feel the happiness of
            > themselves and others (by empathy) as guidelines for a better life. Thus
            > the "pursuit of happiness" is truly islamic policy, which is also
            > testified by certain Hadiths. Of course, many people do find greatest
            > happiness in fame, memory, service for common good, etc. which is just
            > fine if it serves to make the universe a happier place.

            I think you mean by "happiness" what I mean by "satisfaction".
            What I meant by "happiness" was purely individualistic (not UTILITARIAN,
            as you guessed) approach. I meant "personal happiness", stemming
            exclusively from achievements and deeds of one man (which are mainly
            directed to the prosperity) - western ideal of happiness, fulfillment of
            American dream, when it is completely enough for a man if he lives
            comfortably.

            And the ultimate purpose of every Muslim is to serve Allah. Islam means
            submission to Allah's will. Pursuit of happiness (in any sense) is not
            "Truly Islamic" policy. Please, do not mix what you know and what you
            want to see.

            Muslims believe in eternal comfort they will have in Paradise. The
            difficulties and burdens of the their earthly lives mean nothing
            compared to the eternal happiness in Paradise.

            >
            > On the other hand, I can partly accept what Azat has been writing.
            > It is
            > certainly somewhat different in a country like Afghanistan, but in a
            > modern western society, the "female liberation" debate is very much out
            > of date. Just consider the following points:

            Let me comment on those points. I won't try to pretend that my comments
            are Islamic. Rather it is the opinion of a Muslim (which can or may be
            not be
            Islamic):

            >
            > 1. Women live longer. Should men get compensated?

            IMHO, it does not matter. First of all, human life is not measured in
            years. Great mathematicians Niels Abel, Ramanujan and Evariste Galois
            died very early (respectively, when they were 27, 33 and 21).

            Second, the notion of "all-embracing Equality" is a bastard child of
            atheistic French revolution, the revolution which is remembered now not
            for Robespierrre or Marat (except for Tatar name :-), but for the
            notorious marquise, who is now de facto the symbol of this revolution
            (and whose name should be forgotten)

            Allah-tegele created all the humans equal, and they remain equal - in
            Allah's reference coordinate system.

            It does not mean that humans should try to equalize everybody, so
            everybody should live 80 years and those who are mathematically expected
            to die earlier should be compensated. Why on earth women should be
            compensated artificially for not being a man, were not they compensated
            enough for the lack of physical strength and larger emotional
            vulnerability by the Allah-given ability of childbirth - why isn't this
            truly tremendous gift compensating enough?

            Let me guess - because what those feminists want from equality is
            self-satisfaction, not a better society?

            >
            > 2. Women are usually not required to do military service, nor drafted in
            > case of a war.

            And I think that it is oK. It does not make sense to enlist women in the
            army. War requires simultaneously the physical strength and
            cold-bloodedness to kill the enemy, which women lack.

            > A couple of years ago, Finnish women activists received
            > the RIGHT to make a military career if they wanted to, while men still
            > have the DUTY to spend at least half a year of their life in the army.
            > Does it sound equal?

            No, it does not. It is a step in a wrong direction. I have my own theory
            about how feminism raised its stinky head: it is because some men in the
            past didn't want to take Allah given responsibilities. Instead they
            hoped that their "flexibility" and "tolerance" to the women's right
            issues (suffragism, etc.) will result in more favorable approach from
            their wives, more sexual pleasures.

            In short, they worshipped women instead of their God (Allah). They
            thought using their genitals, not brains.

            The other reason is alienation of women is too monetarian approach on
            the West. With the development of capitalism, people became more and
            more concentrated on personal success and abandon social institutions
            for orphaned women, who then had to find means of existence for
            themselves, become "independent" and here we are - the institutions of
            family now is downgraded to the notion of a small tax-paying company.

            Isn't it funny, that feminism is another face of libertarianism, whose
            creator was above mentioned French guy?

            > Women can but are not forced to play war, if they
            > choose to, but a female majority of the electorate could in theory elect
            > a parliament and president who would send men to die for the country.

            First of all, this is not real. I believe, that a majority of women in
            Western countries are still women and do not have stupid political
            ambitions.

            It is not women who should send men to fight for the country, but men
            who think about their women and kids decide to protect them - that is
            how it should be done in normal society.
            First men allow women to run the state, then they are reminded of their
            duties.

            The barbaric exploitation of women and feminism have the same effect on
            the society - the quality and quantity of new generations fells - in the
            first case, because women cannot bare healthy kids, in the second case,
            women do not bare kids or bare them late in their lives (with leads to
            the higher rate of childbirth defects), because they do not want to.

            I met many women here in States who accept the domination of their
            husbands in their families and enjoy their lives. Those women look
            happier (nicer, healthier) (there is no contradiction with my previous
            words about happiness because the latter were exclusively about men)
            than feministically minded ones.

            Of course, we hear much more the noisy voice of feminists with their
            absurdistic ideas (and the lack of humor).

            >
            > 3. Women give birth and get easier custody of children. A man is forced
            > to submit to a paternal test if a woman claims he is the father of her
            > child, but he has no right to claim paternity against the will of the
            > mother.

            This stems from the same evil - equality. Equality destroys family. It
            is not the question who gets the kids after divorce, it is the question,
            why there are so many divorces?

            > Nor has a man much to say about abortion. In a modern society,
            > single mothers are financially secured and socially acceptable.

            Again, it is one of the many cases, how in atheistic perverted society
            many problems are mere consequences of another problems which can be
            traced down trhoguh many layers of problems:

            The question of abortion arises in the society which considers abortion
            mainly as a contraception. In the case where abortion is a medical must,
            the last word should belong to a doctor, not to a husband and wife.
            Abortion should be prohibited as a contraceptive (it is not correct word
            here, but it were abortionists not me who equalized the right of
            abortion to the right of contraception).

            >
            > It is customary today to trace remnants of the wicked patriarchy in
            > every institution, society, and religion, but I believe, that some day,
            > such a feminist approach will be out of fashion.

            Without active participation of men it won't happen. More and more men
            in the rich Western countries are marrying Eastern women (from
            Philippines, China, Vietnam, etc.) who appreciate patriarchy and this is
            a good trend.

            There are two ways to exterminate a roach colony - first is just to kill
            every roach in sight. Second is to use a mild poison which makes them
            infertile.

            Just do not marry feminist chicks and your boys will grow up into good
            strong men able to put and achieve ambitious goals in their lives, who
            won't whine about their problems on every e-corner, your daughters will
            be very feminine and pretty. And your family will be stronger and
            happier. That is how the human reproduction works.

            Just isolate the feminists from male gonads (no sperm banks, no
            fornication).

            I think patriarchal societies will simply outnumber "progressive" ones
            by population. It is not the matter of fashion.

            Actually, radical feminism (literal equality) is indeed out of fashion
            now. Feminism becomes much more feminine, so to speak.

            The other source of feministic activity is propaganda (which is much
            more influential than biological breeding of feminists, unfortunately).
            This is a result of more general problem of Western society - the
            worshipping of "freedom".

            > Perhaps then men will
            > burn their ties and blaim Islam for putting too much social burden on
            > their shoulders?

            This happened many years ago and it is happening now too: just read
            again what Mr. Yumash have written.

            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            > Meanwhile, I would like to turn the discussion toward something closer
            > to Tatars.
            >
            > A newspaper article claimed, that one of the suspects of Moscow bombings
            > is a Tatar.

            I've never heard of that. Could you please give the reference -
            preferably on the Internet?

            > This, of course, is no wonder after the police had rounded
            > up all the usual 40 000 suspects. Nevertheless, since the Russian police
            > is renowned for its efficiency in solving crimes, it took only a couple
            > of days for Kremlin to decide on bombing Groznyi instead of Kazan. Will
            > the anti-Chechen hystery now be satisfied with the letting of innocent
            > blood and further US support for "anti-terrorist actions", or will it be
            > developed further into general anti-Islamic pogroms, and be eventually
            > directed against the hundreds of thousands Tatars too living in Moscow?

            I do not see now the situation as dramatic as you in this respect (but
            please have in mind that I am living on almost opposite point of the
            planet).

            I see much more danger coming from the personality of the Prime-Minister
            Putin. He reminds me of Stalin by his actions. His words about Chechens,
            the easiness he enjoyed when he violated and abandoned the Hasavurt
            agreement - all points to quite dangerous trend in internal Russian
            politics.

            > After all, a mass purge would empty apartments, ease the unemployment,
            > and give every neighbour a little booty - just enough to assure Putin or
            > Luzhkov enough popular support to succeed Jeltsin...

            This is quite fascist scenario. Under these circumstances Luzhkov looks
            better than Putin as a presidential candidate.

            >
            > Tatarstan president Shaimiyev made some lines in the media, but there
            > appears to be no public indignation among Russian Tatars about what is
            > happening.

            That one I do not know anything about. Unfortunately, I contact mainly
            with my relatives who does not live in Russia.

            > Are they scared to silence, or do they share the typical
            > Russian popular impotence and ideological naivety?

            I see Tatar population, in general, more conservative that Russian. That
            could explain, for example, the fact that Shaimiev is still a president.
            But, I guess, partially what you said is applicable not only to people
            living in Former U.S.S.R. but to the emigrants from U.S.S.R. too.

            > But please,
            > spare us of the "Wahhabism" fairy tales and the funny stories of Osama
            > bin Laden & Co. having been sighted here and there - I am quite sure,
            > that both the Snowman and Elvis Presley have been seen in Daghestan, if
            > that would make Clinton happy!

            Yeah, exactly. We already know that "Elvis has left the building". It
            does not make a rocket scientist to blame him for the bombing of this
            building.

            >
            > Of course, this is strictly speaking neither an Islamic/feminist, nor a
            > Caucasian discussion list, but I am afraid that the last weeks news may
            > eventually have historic significance for Tatars too.

            Thanks for your letter. I do believe that it concerns Tatars too,
            because some participants in this group are feminists, many are Muslims
            and some are even Tatars :-)

            Best regards,

            Azat Badretdinov.
          • Antero Leitzinger
            ... Actually, the great utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham - who, by the way, drafted a constitution for Tunis in the 1820s, I think - did not make a
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Azat Badretdinov wrote:
              >
              > I think you mean by "happiness" what I mean by "satisfaction".

              Actually, the great utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham - who, by the
              way, drafted a constitution for Tunis in the 1820s, I think - did not
              make a distinction between "pleasure" and "happiness", except that the
              concept of "happiness" may be wider and include more than short-lived
              sensual satisfaction. I understand, that you criticize a way of life
              which seems to be very superficial and materialistic, but it is a fact
              that Islam, compared to Christianity, accepts more liberally many kind
              of pleasures and "wordly sins". It also accepts as a duty of men to take
              care of their own well-being and that of their family's first of all,
              before spending money for others. This healthy self-sustainment is not
              like the austerity and self-denying altruism required in Christianity.
              Of course, in real life, depending on time and place, Christans may
              appear less ascetic than Muslims, but that is already another issue.

              By the way, Bentham corresponded with persons like John Adams, second
              president of the USA, who was an Unitarian - a Christian who denied the
              doctrine of Holy Trinity. Many of Bentham's British followers were
              Unitarians too. Until the 1840s, they were known as "Philosophical
              Radicals" or Liberals, and politically quite influential.

              > western ideal of happiness, fulfillment of American dream, when it is
              > completely enough for a man if he lives comfortably.

              When I spent my vacation in Missouri last summer, I could not help
              noticing, that religion was far more important for Americans than for
              Europeans. Thus it is misleading to label Russian-style nihilism as a
              "western ideal" or an "American dream". Do the Chinese lead a "better
              life"? In fact, the USA is in many ways a semi-Islamic society compared
              to most parts of the world. It is a popular myth that the orient would
              be any less run by short-sighted financial interests.

              > And the ultimate purpose of every Muslim is to serve Allah.

              And that is not identical with the pursuit of happiness??? Come on, now
              you must be forgetting some of God's attributes? By the way, why do you
              write the word "God" in Arabic? - God is the same even if called Dios in
              Spanish or Bog in Russian, and we are writing in English now. It is a
              rather Christian fashion to stress the difference of the People of the
              Book and the ethnicity of a certain (Arab) minority among Muslims, even
              if they gave birth to Islam.

              > Pursuit of happiness (in any sense) is not "Truly Islamic" policy.
              > Please, do not mix what you know and what you want to see.

              Even if we would agree on God and Islam, we may still have a different
              notion about happiness (in many senses). A Muslim should not suppose
              automatically, that we are attempting to interprete Islam, but ask, how
              we intend to define happiness. The eternal comfort promised in Paradise
              is enough to make Islam a very utilitarian ethical system.

              > Second, the notion of "all-embracing Equality" is a bastard child of
              > atheistic French revolution, the revolution which is remembered now
              > not for Robespierrre or Marat (except for Tatar name :-), but for the
              > notorious marquise, who is now de facto the symbol of this revolution

              Have you been living too long in Russia or America? I am quite sure,
              that Europeans do not associate the French revolution with any of those
              people, but rather with Mirabeau, Lafayette, and Napoleon - both for his
              military campaigns and the Codex. The atheistic phase of the revolution
              was a short one, although it has been overestimated by communists. About
              everything else except the regime of terror and the odd atheistic phase
              affected other countries too, which made the revolution not only French
              but a universal turn of continental history. For Muslims, Europe became
              a much better place to live thanks to the Enlightenment, and the reforms
              and revolutions of the 19th century.

              > The other reason is alienation of women is too monetarian approach on
              > the West. With the development of capitalism, people became more and
              > more concentrated on personal success and abandon social institutions
              > for orphaned women

              What institutions, those of the church? I am afraid your world history
              is upside down, too heavily influenced by Marxist history and a reaction
              to that. The freedom or trade and enterprise, among others, which were
              developed during the 19th century, did not make Europe any less Islamic.
              Nor did "capitalism" make the lot of the poor, the widows and the
              orphans, any worse than it had been before. It is a common misjudgement
              to associate the vices of modern world with the French revolution, with
              classical liberalism (in the European sense of the world), free markets,
              USA and "the west", when in fact, those factors have always defended
              moral decency against the post-feudalistic Marxistic lifestyle of "the
              east", both communist countries and Afro or Arab Socialist societies.
              The greatest statesman of the 1980s was Ronald Reagan, and that should
              be acknowledged by Muslims too.

              > Isn't it funny, that feminism is another face of libertarianism, whose
              > creator was above mentioned French guy?

              I do not know, where you get the definition of your political terms
              from, but I consider myself a libertarian - that is, a classical
              liberal, who believes in freedom. Yet I agree with your conservative
              thoughts about no compensations for every natural disadvantage, about
              women not having to go to war, about abortion, and about the value of
              raising kids. In a free world, people can make moral choices, and they
              are not regulated by an omnipotent state. The way of Islam is certainly
              easier followed through freedom than through any kind of a totalitarian
              system. An American Muslim should have enough reasons to be patriotic
              and proud of his country, if not of its current administration.

              You may have used "libertarian" instead of "libertine", which refers to
              sexual practices and is something else than political libertarianism or
              liberalism. The greatest libertines were indeed Jacobines, Bolsheviks,
              Anarchists, Hippies and members of the New Left 30 years ago.

              > First of all, this is not real. I believe, that a majority of women in
              > Western countries are still women and do not have stupid political
              > ambitions.

              Finland has three or four female candidates running for presidency next
              winter, and I am going to vote for one of them. Not because of her sex,
              but because she happens to be the best candidate. Political ambitions
              may be stupid, and not only for women, but that is the way the world is
              going, whether we like it or not. You may be completely correct in your
              assessment of this being a sign of decadence, and that western values
              will change in the future, but the blame should not be laid in too much
              liberalism, democracy, or the American way. I can not help suspecting,
              that some of the noisiest Islamists and exponents of international
              terrorism are in fact 'agent provocateur's - ex-Soviet Arab Socialists
              and their allies, who serve to turn Muslim attention away from Kosovo,
              Caucasia, Uzbekistan and China, and to pave way for western support to
              the continuation of Russian colonialism in the name of anti-terrorism
              co-operation. This includes the Taliban!

              Remember, that the Taliban is fighting Masood, who was the strongest
              enemy of Soviet occupation, and is now prevented from supporting the
              Tajik opposition. The Taliban got their air force from the communists.
              They have earned even Iran, a Russian ally de facto since 1979, an
              improved reputation, and they can always be pointed out as a warning
              example of what might follow in Turkestan. If there were no Taliban,
              Russia would need to invent them. Perhaps it did...

              >> A newspaper article claimed, that one of the suspects of Moscow
              >> bombings is a Tatar.
              >
              > I've never heard of that. Could you please give the reference -

              I had the article printed and threw it away, but I think it was in a
              Turkistan Newsletter yesterday. It also stated, that the other suspect
              was a Karachai. Of course, after having tens of thousands people
              arrested based on their looks or names, they could easily catch a couple
              of Muslim people carrying guns around or something suspectible enough.

              This would be a good time to read the history of early 1930s, including
              various versions of the Reichstag fire in 1933 and the Kristallnacht in
              1938. Russian propagandists (politicians and journalists) certainly do
              not lack behind Goebbels, and only a Russian SA is still missing from
              the picture.

              We in the west should make sure, that our media does not associate any
              Russian Muslim people with terrorism or other human rights violations,
              and Russian Tatars should feel assured, that at least in the west, if
              not within Russia, their ethnicity earns them respect rather than fear,
              suspicion or contempt. If a person visiting Europe from Russia says he
              is a Chechen, he would - as far as I know - meet spontaneous sympathy,
              and feel pride about belonging to such a brave nation. I hope this will
              be the case of Tatars as well, and that no Russian Tatar would attempt
              to conceal his heritage, at least when outside of the country or when
              corresponding with foreigners. There is no reason to feel ashamed or
              afraid of being a Tatar Muslim in a civilized place.

              With best regards,

              Antero Leitzinger
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.