http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/islamic-concepts-misunderstood-by
-westerners/
Islamic concepts misunderstood by Westerners.
6/5/2011
Islamic concepts misunderstood by Westerners.
jonmc
Freedom
The Western viewpoint.
In the West "freedom" is used to describe a whole range of things
encompassed in civil, political and individual rights.
Perhaps the most succinct definition of "freedom" is that of Thomas
Jefferson: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will
within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
He went on to say: "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law
is often [nothing] but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the
rights of the individual."
Quite explicit in Jefferson's definition is that all people have equal
rights and that all (non-tyrannical) laws must apply equally to all people
without exception. (This idea was put in British law as the law acting
indifferently -as in "without difference" - towards all people.)
The Islamic viewpoint.
The entry on freedom, or "hurriyya", in the "Encyclopedia of Islam"
describes a state of divine enthralment that bears no resemblance to any
Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the
individual conscience. According to the encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is
"the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and
His human slaves who are completely dependent on Him."
Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as
"being perfect slavery to Allah".
To put it another way, Islamic-style "freedom" is freedom from unbelief (
"Khufr") in Islam.
Is this cause for concern?
According to the Pew report (2010) 84% of Egyptians favour the death penalty
for apostates from Islam and a slightly greater percentage (90%) favour
religious freedom.
To the Western mind this is "double-think". If you favour killing those who
leave your religion, then you don't believe in religious freedom.
Conversely, if you believe in religious freedom you don't kill those who
leave your religion.
To the Islamic mind there is no contradiction because "religious freedom" is
understood to mean the freedom to practice only Islam, in other words
"freedom from Khufr" (unbelief in Islam).
Thus, whereas to the Western mind freedom means basically the right to "do
what you want", to the Muslim mind freedom means "the right to fully
practice Islam" which in turn means the full implementation of Sharia law
(including all its discriminatory elements against the non-Muslim, women
etc).
Note: many Muslims may well want freedom from their dictatorial rulers too
(who often are not very "Islamic" themselves) as seen in the recent unrest
(2011) in the Mid. East. But this is not to say that what they mean by
freedom is what we would naturally assume it to be.
Peace
Apart from obvious definition of peace being "an absence of conflict [war]",
this is a surprisingly difficult concept to truly pin down from any
perspective.
The Western perspective:
The English word "peace" means tranquillity or serenity, silence, freedom
from war, freedom from anxiety, a state of harmony and tolerance between
people etc.
Tolerance, in its original incarnation was putting up with stuff with which
you did not agree, but - and here's the rub - implicit was that all parties
shared fundamental attitudes to society.
Thus all Americans (irrespective of their roots) would support "truth,
justice and the American way" (and who could argue with Superman!), all
Frenchmen would accept the principles of "Liberty, equality and fraternity".
Britain has no such catchy slogan, but perhaps the parallel would be "for
Crown and Country".
Today, however, this view has become altered, though perhaps distorted might
be a better choice of word, by the multi-cultural paradigm, which sees
plurality in all things as worthy of toleration and even celebration - even
if what we are supposed to tolerate and celebrate is an ideology dedicated
to the destruction of the Western way of life.
Despite this, I suspect that all people would fundamentally agree that
"peace" means people of different races, colours and creeds getting along
with each other, with (fundamentally) shared goals and, crucially perhaps,
in a state of tranquillity -ie a lack of (mutual) fear.
The Islamic viewpoint.
Ibrahim Sulaiman says, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary
violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and
enhanced by the rule of [Sharia] law."
Prof. Dr. Mahmoud Zakzouk in his book "On Philosophy Culture and Peace in
Islam" (available as pdf) devotes an entire chapter to the "The Islamic
concept of Peace". Clearly I cannot reproduce that here, but he talks about
the "path to peace" and the "straight path to peace". Both are allusions to
the prayer said in every Rakat of Salah (Islamic ritual prayer) "Guide us to
the straight path. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace,"
(the Muslims) "not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger" (the Jews) "or
of those who went astray" (the Christians). Therefore, underpinning the
Professor's view is that 'peace' is only found by following Islam.
MohammedIslam.org states: "In Islam peace is advocated as a divine quality
to be pursued in order to achieve the state of felicity that we were in
paradise, man's former dwelling ." Thus peace comes from Allah who, so the
Koran tells us "is the enemy of unbelievers" K2:98:99 and whose "hatred of
you [non-Muslims] is greater than your hatred of yourselves." K 4:10. Also'
K3:85: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah),
never will it be accepted [by Allah] of him ."
This begs the question: If Allah hates and is an enemy of non-Muslims and
will not accept a religion other than Islam, will he give "peace" to
non-Muslims?
The answer must be "no".
Therefore, the Islamic concept of peace revolves, like freedom, around the
practice of Islam and, as a logical corollary, in the Islamic world-view,
world-peace can only be achieved when Islam is the only religion in the
World: "Say to those who disbelieve, if they cease (from unbelief), their
past shall be forgiven; but if they return (to unbelief) [i.e. become
apostate], the examples of those (punished) [killed for apostasy] before
them have already preceded (as a warning). And fight with them [apostates,
non-muslims] until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism) and
religion will all be for Allah alone, (in the whole of the world)." 8:38-39
(HILALI/KHAN). Translators interpolations (based on Tafseer) are given in
(), mine for clarity in [].
Is this cause for concern?
Given that the concepts articulated by the word "peace" are so different, I
believe so. It is not that Muslims are (necessarily) being deceptive when
they speak of "peace", it is simply that their conception of what "peace"
means and the western concept differ so radically as to be incongruent.
Nevertheless, it also means that a Muslim can speak of peace and truthfully
say from his/her perspective, that "Islam is a religion of peace", whilst
meaning that Islam seeks to bring all people under its dominion and that by
violent means.
Put another way: a Muslim can be a sincere "seeker after peace" whilst
trying to undermine and overthrow Western Countries that are not fully
governed by Sharia Law, even if s/he employs violence to do so.
Tolerance
The Western viewpoint.
This has already been covered in the section on "peace" since I regard it as
a prerequisite for peace. But to summarise, western tolerance could be taken
as a "live and let live" attitude, coupled with political/legal equality for
all.
The Islamic viewpoint.
Despite the claims of some that Islam is "intolerant", this is not strictly
true.
Throughout history Islam has tolerated minority groups within its domain.
Indeed, Islam defines a tolerated (or, in its own choice of words, a
protected) minority within its society as "dhimmis" who are tolerated under
a "dhimmah" (also spelt "dhimma") which is the treaty that emplaces the
conditions of "dhimmitude" on the minority. Historically, this contract was
an explicit document between the minority and the leaders of the Islamic
community.
As originally conceived, the concept of dhimmitude was only applicable to
Jews and Christians (also called "people of the book"), and possibly to
Zoroastrians according to some sources, but for pragmatic reasons over time
the concept was extended to other non-Muslim groups also.
Latterly, it seems that many non-Muslims existing in Muslim Countries are
regarded as "dhimmis" even without a contract - in other words the "dhimmah"
is implicit rather than explicit, but the consequences of it still apply. It
should be said that being a dhimmi is an improvement over the alternative,
that of being a "harbi"[1].
Thus to understand what tolerance means within Islam, we have to study
examples of dhimmah treaties.
The archetypal dhimmah is the "Pact of Umar"[2].
I do not intend to reproduce it here; but apart from a number of
discriminatory conditions, aimed at enforcing the superiority of the muslims
over the dhimmis, or as the Pact preface words it "conditions that ensured
their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace" it includes a
"hostage" clause, this I do reproduce below:
"If we [the non-Muslims] break any of these promises that we set for your
benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah [promise of protection] is
broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of
defiance and rebellion."
This clause exists in several versions, but the key point is the principle
that if any dhimmi breaks the rules, all dhimmis become liable for
retaliation. Thus all dhimmis are "hostage" for each others' behaviour[3].
It is also worth noting that "people of defiance and rebellion" are 'fair
game' for Muslims and can be killed, raped, enslaved and despoiled with
impunity[4].
Although in theory the breach of any of the conditions of the dhimmah could
put a person outside the law, in practice not many of the clauses were so
used and the rigorousness with which they were enforced depended on the
attitude of the various rulers. Thus at times, very few rules were enforced,
at others all the rules were.
A consequence of this was that, in practical terms, the "law" for dhimmis
could change with a change in government or even depending on how dyspeptic
a ruler felt on the day. Inevitably this led to great uncertainty and fear
within dhimmi communities since they could never be sure how the authorities
(or the Muslim mob) would react to a breach (putative or otherwise) of a
dhimmah.
Within the schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) the consensus was that
any criticism of Islam, the Koran and Mohammed or having a sexual relation
with a Muslim woman[5] or killing a Muslim (merely harming in some examples)
broke the dhimmah and rendered the whole dhimmi population liable to being
treated as "people of defiance and rebellion".
Furthermore, the dhimmi was expected to pay the "Jizya" (variously
translated as a "poll-tax" though the dhimmi has no political rights, or as
a head tax). Much has been written about it and whether it was a fair tax or
not, on the grounds that non-Muslims are not required to pay "zakat" (the
Islamic charitable wealth-tax).
Here are some Muslim views on the issue:
"They [Jews and Christians] should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put
an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain
rulers and sovereigns in the land." (Mawdudi, S. Abul A'la, The Meaning of
the Qur'an, 1993 edition), vol 2, page 183. )
Thus Mawdudi, a modern scholar, sees the purpose of the jizya as being to
impoverish non-Muslims; thus the tax, according to Maududi, is clearly
inherently unfair and onerous.
According to AL-HEDAYA Vol. II a Hanafi Sharia manual, the jizya "must be
exacted in a mortifying and humiliating manner . [as] a substitute for
destruction". The first part is in accordance with K9:29 [6]. The second
makes clear that not paying the jizya was also a breach of the dhimmah. In
fact, if the jizya was not paid those not paying it were regarded as
(active) "harbis"[7].
Thus we find Ghevond, an 8th century Armenian Christian writing about the
jizya levied by the Abbasid rulers as follows: "the whole population of the
country, smitten with enormous taxes. some suffered flagellation for being
unable to pay exorbitant taxes; others were hanged on gibbets, or crushed
under presses; and others were stripped of their clothing."
Had he been writing in the 14th century he might have spoken about the
Janissaries and the dervishim system whereby Christian boys were "levied" as
a form of jizya to form the Ottoman Sultan's army, just as their sisters
were "levied" to form harems.
Although alluded to earlier it is worth pointing out that dhimmis had no
political rights in the Muslim state and few legal rights against Muslims
(in some periods no legal rights at all).
All of that said, it must be stated that provided the dhimmis abided by the
dhimmah (this is sometimes expressed as "obeyed the laws of Islam") and paid
the jizya, then his/her person, property and freedom to practice religion
(provided no "song and dance" was made about it - another condition of the
Pact of Umar) was guaranteed.
Thus Islam is "tolerant" - provided that the non-Muslim community
(theoretically world-wide) abides by the conditions set out by Islam.
Is this cause for concern?
Given that the concepts articulated by "tolerance" are so different (the
modern Western understanding: a "live and let live" attitude along with
equal rights in society (legal, political etc); compared to the Islamic
concept that non-Muslims are only tolerated within the "body-Islamic" if
they obey strict rules curtailing freedom of speech and expression[8], pay a
special and often punitive tax and have few or no legal, political and
general social rights) then at least we need to be clear about what is meant
by "tolerance" when this is spoken of by a Muslim. Again we find
incongruence between the concepts expressed by "tolerance" between the
Islamic and non-Islamic way of thinking, which can lead to misunderstanding.
This also means that those Muslims who advocate Sharia law for Western
Countries are actually advocating that the indegens of those Countries be
reduced to a second/third-class status, as well as expressing continued
support for the continuation of that state of affairs within the Islamic
world[9],[15].
Equality
The Western viewpoint.
In recent years the West has made great strides in the promotion of
equality. The idea that laws and rights should apply to all people
regardless (or in the way old English law put it "indifferently") to all
people, regardless of sex, race, colour, religion, sexual-orientation etc.
We are trying to reach a point where skin-tone, gonads (and how you employ
them) etc. are irrelevant to your position in and value to society.
It is certainly true that this is "a work in progress" and there are the
inevitable difficulties with balancing different "rights" in particular, but
that this is a worthy goal to attain is not disputed (in general) within
western society.
The Islamic position.
Islam does not believe in societal equality, one the contrary it is a
hierarchical system with the Muslim male at the top, the Muslim female as a
second class citizen who, according to Sharia has no political voice[10], is
subservient to men[11] and who is, legally speaking, only half a person[11].
Next in the hierarchy comes Muslim slaves, with the same sexual divisions,
though it is debatable as to whether a male slave has more rights in some
respects than a free-woman. Below that come dhimmis and then non-muslim
slaves.
Thus Sheikh Muhammed al-Munajjid in the "Islam Q and A forum" writes:
"Those who say that Islam is the religion of equality are lying against
Islam. Rather Islam is the religion of justice which means treating equally
those who are equal and differentiating between those who are different.
Islam does not regard men and women as equal in matters where regarding them
as equal would result in injustice to one of them." Note that an "injustice"
is something that Islam would consider "unlawful" rather than any concept of
natural justice, let alone equality, which is why women are obliged to wear
hijab/burkha[12] and gays face much discrimination/persecution[13].
Despite this, some Muslim apologists claim that Islam promotes equality.
However, what seems to be really meant is an (assumed) equity of roles,
rights, responsibilities etc.
Thus the Islamic website womeninislam.ws writes:
"In one sense, equality between men and women is possible and reasonable
because they are both human, with similar souls, brains, hearts, lungs,
limbs, etc. In another sense, equality between men and women is impossible
and an absurdity due to their natural differences in physical, mental,
emotional and psychological qualities, inclinations and abilities."
[Emphases mine.]
Thus Islam does not regard true equality as a something to be striven for,
rather it regards it either as an impossibility in many areas of life, a lie
against Islam; or at best a concept subsumed by the Islamic concept of
lawful and unlawful (halal and haram).
Is this cause for concern?
Again, yes. Islam does not have a sense of equality that crosses gaps such
as gender or sexual orientation. On the contrary Islam has a tightly and
religiously defined hierarchy of status (Mussalman; Muslima; Muslim slaves,
male then female; dhimmi, non-Muslim slaves, harbis). It is true that within
each group Islam sees all members of that group as equals[14], but this is
the extent of equality within Islam.
Whilst the West is aware in a generalised sense of Islamic inequality -
we've all seen the dutiful, burkha'd Muslima walking 3-4 paces behind hubby
and heard the arguments about the Burkha ("Sign of slavery or sign of
liberation?" etc.), - we are not really cognisant of how thoroughly
stratified Islamic society is, or how "low on the Totem pole" non-Muslims
really are in Islamic society.
Thus the Western idea of "equality" (part of the French motto, no less) is
also incompatible with the religiously mandated social hierarchy of Islam.
Conclusion
when we consider the actual meanings of "freedom" "peace" "tolerance" and
"equality" as articulated by Islam itself, we find that all these concepts
are defined in ways that promote Islamic Supremacy: freedom is freedom from
unbelief; peace is found only in the practise of Islam including the
imposition of Sharia law, and more grandly, that on a global scale;
tolerance is found in subjugating non-Muslims and equality is only found
within the same "band" of the religiously defined social hierarchy.
Thus the next time you hear a Muslim speaker explaining how "Islam is a
religion of peace, freedom, tolerance and equality"; at least you will know
what is meant.
-------------------------
Notes/references
1. "Harbi" is a person/group/Country that is considered to be a member
of the Dar-ul-Harb (= world of war) and thus "at war" with Muslims and
liable to being killed on sight. Today, the non-Muslim world is, as far as
Muslim Countries are concerned, covered under the terms of Dar-al-Sulh
("house of treaty") or Dar-ul-'Ahd ("house of truce") and thus non-Muslims
are not (generally) regarded by Muslims as "Harbis". This attitude does not
apply (obviously) to those who engage in what we regard as terrorism, who do
regard us as part of the Dar-ul-Harb.
2. The authenticity of this is contested and it quite possible that
Umar I (the second Caliph) was not the author. However, in its most
important parts it mirrors other examples of dhimmahs known. Thus whilst it
may not be "authentic" in that it may not have been authored by Umar, it is
authentic in that is accurately reflects the sort of conditions imposed on
non-Muslim minorities.
3. A modern example of this "hostage mentality" was the attack on a
Baghdad Church, Iraq, (Dec. 2010) in "retaliation" for the falsely-alleged
kidnap of a Muslim woman in Cairo, Egypt. In the eyes of the Iraqi attackers
dhimmis in Egypt had broken their dhimmah and that made dhimmis in Iraq
equally liable for the "offence". Thus dhimmitude (like the Umma) has no
geo-political boundaries.
4. There are so many references in the Koran and Ahadith. See for
instance Koran 4:3, 4:24, 8:66, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, 48:18-20, Sura 8 is called
"Booty - spoils of war". Also: Bukhari, Vol.4, Bk 52, No.276; Vol.8, Bk.77,
No.600; Vol.1 Bk.8 No.387; Vol.4 Bk.52 No.196. Muslim 8:3432-34 (this hadith
says in effect that a harbi's wife can be taken as a sex-slave by a Muslim).
5. This is pure tribalism. An ancient aspect of tribal supremacy was to
make sure other tribes could have no access to your females, whilst
obtaining access to theirs. Here we have tribalism on a global scale.
6. K9:29 (part): ". pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued."
7. In many ways a dhimmi is regarded as a harbi who, by paying the
jizya "bought off" the threat of attack by the surrounding Muslims, for the
period covered by the payment. Put this way, the jizya sounds much like a
mafia style "protection racket" (or vice-versa).
8. Some (many?) Muslims inherently think of non-Muslims as dhimmis at
best, thus the enshrining within Dhimmahs of the "thou shalt not criticise
Islam/the Koran/Mohammed" means that we are breaking the implicit dhimma
they think have with us when we criticise Islam. This, in my opinion,
explains the element of bafflement that many Muslims seem to have about
criticism etc; the "How dare you attack." attitude which probably increases
their sense of anger, since we have committed two "offences" for the price
of one: not only have we been 'nasty' about Islam etc, we've also broken the
treaty that guarantees "harmonious" relations - our freedom from harm. The
hostage clause within Dhimmas also explains, the (apparently) "random"
attacks that often occur around the world. (eg Burn a Koran in America -
kill people in Afghanistan, 2011). However, none of this provides the
slightest excuse for the violent way in which some Muslims behave in
response to criticism levelled at Islam. Ironically, their behaviour only
provides further ammunition for such criticism.
9. It should be realised that if western Countries suggested that they
denied Muslims the right to vote, denied them legal representation and made
them pay special taxes for example, all for just being Muslim (in other
words treated them as dhimmis), that the screams of "Islamophobia" would be
shrill, unending and ear-shattering. The irony of this double-think and use
of double-standards is quite breath-taking.
10. See Reliance of the traveller: o25.3 - 25.7. The only permissible
"rulers" are men, also K4:34; Bukhari Vol.9, Bk.88, No.219;
11. See K2:282, 4:11, 4:34; Bukhari Vol.1,Bk.6:301; Muslim 1:142. Some
Muslim commentators argue that the Koran verses are "balanced" by others
stating the equality of women, but the hadith and Sharia "give the lie" to
this.
12. The same Sheikh explains why it isn't "lawful" for a women to expose
the parts of her body by saying: "A woman's 'awrah includes her entire body.
The least that can be said is that she should not uncover anything except
her face and hands, and it was said that she should not even uncover that."
The word "awrah" means "pudendum/genitals", "defect",
"weakness/vulnerability". Here the meaning is that a woman is regarded as a
walking vulva.
13. Evidence for this is widely available from Islamic preachers on the
web. All schools of fiqh regard same-sex intercourse is in violation of
Islamic law and punishment ranges up to the death penalty (see The Lawful
and the Prohibited in Islam, p. 165.), which is specified in Saudi Arabia,
Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen (ILGA World Legal Survey).
14. Even then "some are more equal than others". For example a "Hajji"
(a person who has been on the Haj) acquires a certain social cache and
status, as would a Mujahid. Indeed both Koran and Ahadith make it clear that
even amongst the believers in paradise there is still a hierarchy based on
how "pious" they have been and the greatest of all Islamic "brownie point"
earners for status in 'paradise' is to die whilst piously murdering Kaffirs.
15. Perhaps this favouring of Sharia by Muslims, both those living
within the Muslim World and those living within the Dar-ul-Harb
("house-of-war") or non-Muslim world should not surprise us. After all,
under Sharia, Muslims are elevated to "first class" citizens and non-Muslims
reduced to "second-class" citizens (at best). Further, the application of
the Jizya should lead to the impoverishment of the non-Muslims and the
concomitant enrichment of the Muslims, which, from the Muslim point of view,
must be a "Good Thing".
16. The west continually misunderstands the intentions of Islam because it
persists in its boneheaded foolhardiness of approaching Islam as one might,
say, Judaism and Christianity. Despite Christianity's early Dark Age, it was
founded upon the essence of humankindness and the spirit of enquiry
eventually reasserted itself, totally unlike Islam wgich remains stuck in
the Dark Ages. Nowhere was it written in the New Testament that it should be
taken literally by every Christian (although some Christians do so).
Learning in Judaism depends on critical thinking and is predicated on
argument and Socratic debate. Children in religion schools, yeshivot are
taught to think critically about the Tanach, and although disagreement is
discouraged, children are never beaten or ill treated by their teachers for
expressing dissent.
The sum total of all this is that Christianity and Judaism are not closed
systems. They are capable of living in, or if not comfortably alongside, the
rest of society and they contribute much to the societies in which they find
themselves not least because because their faith commands them to do so, and
they have not been reared in the spirit of mistrust and paranoia as have
Muslim unfortunates.
Islam remains stuck in the Dark Ages because of the paranoia of its prophet
and leaders, who are incapable of countenancing that others do not plan to
do them harm. Of course, because they themselves behave obnoxiously towards
kufar they call forth aggression against them, which becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy, which in turn beds in their paranoia ever more
deeply.
Songadh Lion, I believe that the mystification web woven by Islam is
deliberate, to keep its followers ensnared. Cults do this to their
unfortunate prisoners - they warp their reality until they are utterly
confused and then substitute apparent certainty (which invariably comes at a
price) to ease the cognitive discomfort..
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list,
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com
osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
