Where are the Questioning Minds?

Any kind of offensive statement about icons of any religion draws angry protests from followers of that religion.

But Muslim reaction to ANY slight to Muhammad is exceptionally virulent.

There is a reason why Muslim reaction is so rabid.

It is because, once criticism of this excellent individual is allowed, the floodgates will open, and people will feel free to start openly discussing and criticizing his MANY heinous actions.

And that would be disastrous for the Muslim society, because they would be fighting a losing battle, trying to justify his many wonderful actions.

So it is self-preservation for the Muslims. Hence the furore.

But as Europe has shown, that day is coming.

All the signs are there - oil losing importance slowly but steadily, the West waking up to the true picture of Islam, and defending it`s cultural heritage for intellectual openness etc, and people finally strating to discuss this incomparable man.




There`s hope yet.

#197 by tahmek32

[- who cry wolf at every opportunity, and then when the real wolf arrives (as in indian occupation of kashmir, as in the form of milosovic in the balkans, or more subtle forms like tightening of immigration quotas, discrimination in the job market) no one takes it seriously. as i said, ``muslim`` are their own worst enemies.]

This is funny. Pakis do not allow free elections in AJK (fearing ascendancy of pro-independence parties) by making it mandatory for candidates to sign an undertaking promising full support to J&K`s accession to Pakistan, gift away a part of Kashmir to China, and then shed crocodile tears for Kashmiris.

Sridhar,

Why don`t you follow your own admonition that you imparted to me a while ago, and stop abusing Islam?

#155 by rashid_s

[My friend if you mean the later, let us join hands in stacking all such books that retard this maxim and set them ablaze. I will start with the Hadis corpus for that makes me ashmed!! ]


Okay. Could you start with the Quran instead of the Hadith?

Re: #130 by Urstruly

[So a question is why Islam did not leave them alone - to us our belief and to them theirs. I explain it through an example. Lets assume that New York city today announces that from now on all rides in the subway system are free, however, there is a $2.00 purely voluntary tickect if anyone wishes to buy. You can gues that no one will buy the ticket. Similarly, when Islam came it made very clear to Jews and Christians that this message was nothing new. It was only a reform movement within their religions that was promised to them in their books. So when all evidence and arguments were made and done with, Islam divided Jews and christians into two groups. One group was that who still believed in Oneness of God, belived in the Day of Final Judgement, refrained from the prohibitions, in other words these were the jews and christians who beileved in the true essence of their religion. They were exempt from any persecution. However, those among them who clearly defied the above mentioned four attributes, they were given two choices:

1. Either pay a special tax and keep whatever they beleieve in.

2. Or they would have to get ready for a war.

In other words, in a state only one of the competing ideologies can survive. Jews and Christians had their chance which they used best in their capacity to make Islam extinct. In the end only the strongest ideology survived. ]


This post by this guy clearly illustrates what I have been saying about Islam all along. It is canniballistic in nature, not humanistic. It believes in a dog-eat-dog world, where the strongest survive by force. And Islam advises Muslims to achieve this by hook or by crook (quotations, anyone?).

An inhuman philosophy, which converts normal people into zombies, and subservient to the cause. I saw a movie somewhere, where normal people were fighting zombies, and once someone fell fighting, is converted into another zombie.

So it is with Muslims and converts.

However, people like Urstruly are far less dangerous than people like Salim or Tahmed32. They all share the same goal, but Urstruly is foolish enough to state it openly. It is people like Salim and Tahmed32 who use the Trojan horse of the Left Liberals to infiltrate our human societies, and start the rot from within. It is they who are following Muhammed`s advice to his followers of using stealth and deception to destroy the enemy, instead of honorable and direct confrontation.


Here`s a quote from an article on the role of deception in islam:


Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries

According to Al-Taqiyah, Muslims were granted the Shar`iyee right (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy`s cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition. These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not considered as lying against or denouncing the tenants of Islam.

They were ``legitimate`` mujahedeen, whose mission was to undermine the enemy`s resistance and level of mobilization. One of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy`s camp while downplaying the issues related to Islam (``Oh, I am not religious.`` ``Oh, that is not Islam, you are mistaken, there is so much misinformation.`` ``Oh, it is in the interpretation.`` ``Brother, Islam is all about peace and love and music just like in the 60s.``) In many instances, they convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them, that indigenous people are not targeted. Meanwhile the (allegedly) ``un Islamic`` Muslims continued their attacks on the target`s property and life (e.g. Lashkar-e Toyiba, Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden`s
declaration of war against innocent American civilians).


http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch8.html#ch8-7

These are examples of a practice known as taqiyya, which essentially means to lie for the sake of Islam. The intention is to deceive unbelievers about Islam, for the explicit purpose of assuaging doubts and concerns about Islam, and encouraging conversion. Taqiyya underlies the whole gamut of Muslim propaganda which is disseminated in the West, from the claim that Islam promotes equal rights for women, to the attempts at inflating the perceived number of Muslims. All are designed to draw people to Islam, by hook or by crook. The example given before of the Durham imam who went so far as to claim that he would be compelled by his religion to prevent a vandal from destroying the property of a church or synagogue is a typical example of taqiyya. It was said in a public forum for the express purpose of giving an appearance to the Islamic religion which does not reflect reality. Certainly, as has been seen, the historical attitudes of Muslims toward churches and synagogues has NOT been to protect them from vandalism, just the opposite is in fact the case. But, the lie must be told in the public forum so as to present Islam in a positive and tolerant light which will appeal to Westerners, which will cause them to believe that the image of Islam as an intolerant and violent religion are just myths created by Islam`s enemies to defame the True Faith.

This sort of sanctified dishonesty is also justified in the minds of many Muslims on the basis that everyone else who opposes Islam is lying. For many Muslims, it is absolutely inconceivable that anyone could ever reject Islam on logical or rational grounds, therefore to claim to do so indicates a failing in intelligence or morality on the part of the infidel. Schuon quite insightfully illuminates us to the attitude of the Muslim mind,


``The intellectual - and thereby the rational - foundation of Islam results in the average Muslim having a curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslim`s imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things.``27
This insight elucidates many things which those who deal with Muslims on a regular basis can readily observe. It explains why Muslim apologetic defense of Islam is so often very elementary, even childish, in its presentation, and often quickly breaks down into name-calling against the infidel who has refuted Islamic arguments. It enlightens us as to why Muslims will loudly trumpet the ``logic`` and ``rationality`` of Islam while simultaneously defending their faith with circular reasoning and other errors of logic. This is why Muslims can, without any apparent irony, claim that Islam is a ``religion of peace``, even when the testimony of both history and current events bellows the opposite. For most Muslims, the idea that an infidel could reject Islam because of a sincere concern for knowing the truth is absolutely inconceivable. Hence, the infidel must be lying when he or she present facts and arguments against Islam, and the infidel must be an especially tricky liar when the facts and arguments cannot be answered by the Muslim. Hence, the resort to taqiyya to turn aside infidel lies so that the logic of truth, a priori defined as anything Islamic, will stand firm.

Taqiyya goes beyond mere lying for propaganda purposes. The word comes from a root meaning ``to guard against, to keep (oneself)``. It thus also includes dissimulation by the Muslim to give the appearance of not being religious, so as not to arouse suspicion. In this vein, a Muslim, if necessary, may eat pork, drink alcohol, and even verbally deny the Islamic faith, as long as he does not ``mean it in his heart``. If the end result of the lie is perceived by the Muslim to be good for Islam or useful to bringing someone to ``submission`` to Allah, then the lie can be sanctioned through taqiyya. As al-Tabbarah writes,


``Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: `He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.``28
The taqiyya concept is also found in the Qur`an,


``Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.`` (Surah 3:2
Here, the Muslims are warned against taking unbelievers as friends, except if it will be beneficial to the Muslims as a way of defending Islam against its perceived enemies or preventing loss or danger from coming upon the Muslim because of his faith. In other words, the end justifies the means. If a Muslim must give the outward appearance of not being a Muslim, or must go against the general principle of not befriending infidels, then this is acceptable under the taqiyya doctrine. Keep in mind also that what is defined as ``good`` by the serious Muslim will be anything that aids the spread and eventual triumph of Islam over competing religions and ideologies. As such, this would tend to encourage infiltration of non-Muslim countries and institutions by Muslims who might pretend to support the organisations they join, but who are really working to undermine these for the greater goal of establishing Islam as supreme. Obvious recent examples of this sort of activity would be the misuse of their positions and access to information by Muslim members of America`s armed forces, several of whom have been caught and arrested while attempting to pass information along to al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic terrorist organisations.

Perhaps related to its false presentation of itself is the Islamic tendency towards discouraging open inquiry about itself, by which is meant inquiry that is not shepherded by some sort of Muslim religious authority or a Muslim already well-versed in Islamic dogma. This is most plainly seen in the Islamic teaching that the Qur`an cannot be translated out of Arabic. Per strict Islamic traditional teaching, when the Qur`an is translated into some other language, it instantly ceases to be the true Qur`an, becoming instead a document which has had the admixture of man`s thoughts and words interjected into it (presumably as a result of the translation process). Only the Qur`an in Arabic, according to Islam, is the true word of Allah. As a result, there are millions of Muslims all over the world who do not know Arabic, and who, when they respond to the muezzin call and hear the Qur`an chanted in Arabic, have not the slightest idea what is really being said. These people have to rely upon an imam or other religious leader to tell them what the Qur`an says, and what it means. Through this means, Islam maintains and enforces the submission of millions of non-Arab Muslims who have to rely upon the Arabic-speakers for knowledge of what their religion teaches and what their holy book says. Because of this teaching, Islam can be said to take on a role as a knowledge control cult much like the Jehovah`s Witnesses (who are ``encouraged`` to read only what the Watchtower Society publishes) or other cults where independent examination of the religion`s doctrines are discouraged or prohibited.

This sort of attitude is exactly what is presented in the Muslim traditions, too. In the Qur`an, we find that Muslims are encouraged not to ask hard questions about their own religion, and the reason is because they might lose their faith in Islam if they do,


``O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.`` (Surah 5:102-103)
This discouragement to open questioning is also seen in the ahadith, one of which records that Mohammed was asked about some matters which he did not want to have to answer, and got so angry when the questioner persisted that he grew enraged, red in the face29. Other statements in the ahadith also record Mohammed`s adverse reaction to being challenged on the things he taught30. Maududi, one of the most prominent theologians of Islam in the modern age, likewise encourages Muslims to leave off asking the difficult to answer questions about their faith31. The tendency against open questioning and willingness to examine the beliefs of Islam suggests to us that Islam is not really interested in people investigating Islam for the truth`s sake (despite what many a Muslim making dawah might say). Rather, it tells us that Islam seeks to suppress its internal inconsistencies and embarrassing teachings, things which might cause the Muslim to doubt his faith and even apostasise if he were to dwell on them.

#211 by Mantolives

[In any event this is going in circles and it is clear that you have no logical argument and you are merely obfuscating as is your wont. So please keep on believing what you wish.. I see it is very hard defending Gandhi so you have to resort to such arguments indeed.]

YOU Yasser have no argument left, which is why you`ve left Gandhi aside and latched on to Nehru. Tomorrow, you`ll tell us that the Hudood Ordinance is okay because Pakistan allows its women to vote and even become the PM. You see the absurdity of your argument? Jinnah for all his apparent liberalism was at the core a fundamentalist Muslim, which is why first he converted his wife to Islam, then opposed his daugher`s wedding to a non-Muslim, and finally engineered the break-up of India.

[The dietary regulations i.e. Ham Sandwiches and Whisky for your information is not a big deal for Ismaili Muslims- infact almost all Ismaili Muslims I know eat pork and drink. There are no such taboos in Ismaili Islam. However in Islam, in all sects, it is absolutely forbidden and a grave sin as per Islamic doctrine for the woman to marry outside the faith- the current Agha Khan has allowed recently for first time in history to marry his daughter outside the faith- it is still not clear if this means a general permission.]

Well I cannot comment on the specifics of Ismaili Islam, but let me check with my own Ismaili friends before making a comment.

Re: # 125

Salim

``Thank you for sharing your views about this gross violation of individual rights by the so-called scholars of God`s word. ``Maulana Dr. Israr Ahmed`` did make a brief visit to Chowk UP and I found him to be the filthiest of interactors with a mouth so profane that it had to be Atif2 masquerading as the evil bearded know-it-all.``

I had been a a class-fellow for a while of Dr. Israr in the K.E. Medical College, Lahore. He represented Jamiat as a student and I the leftists at that time. He used to have altercations with me on ideological and political matters in a usual Jamiat fashion. I wonder how he became a `scholar of God`s words` and started practicing religion instead of practicing medicine afterwards. Can anybody enlighten me in this respect?

re: MF Hussain faces flak from VHP
It is religious loonies again, preventing MF Hussain from exhibiting his art.
http://www.samachar.com/showurl.htm?rurl=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060208/asp/nation/story_5819358.asp?headline=Husain~sorry~for~%E2%80%98nude%E2%80%99~painting
(Husain sorry for ‘nude’ painting

Mumbai / New Delhi (PTI): Under attack from Hindu organisations for allegedly painting Bharatmata in an obscene manner, M.F. Husain apologised on Tuesday. The painting was withdrawn from a Delhi auction.

The Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and the VHP had attacked him after the painting was displayed on many websites.

Sharan Apparao, curator of Apparao Galleries in Delhi where the painting was to go under the hammer on Wednesday, said she had been receiving numerous calls demanding its withdrawal.

“There were many calls, mostly from Maharashtra. Some of them were using abusive language which I think is not acceptable.

“But, basically some of them were saying remove the nude painting. ‘Don’t sell India, why is Mother India being shown nude?’ ” she said.)
Sridhar

re: Cartoon and Islami imperialism
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21192
(Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 7, 2006

The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise; Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.

More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy an immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones; are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?

Germany’s Die Welt newspaper hinted at this issue in an editorial: “The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet.” Nor, by the way, have imams protested the stomping on the Christian cross embedded in the Danish flag.

The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, … they`re asking for my submission.”

Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly calls on the free world to stand “resolutely with Denmark.” The informative Brussels Journal asserts, “We are all Danes now.”

Some governments get it:

· Norway: “we will not apologize because in a country like Norway, which guarantees freedom of expression, we cannot apologize for what the newspapers print,” commented Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.

· Germany: “Why should the German government apologize [for German papers publishing the cartoons]? This is an expression of press freedom,” said Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble.

· France: “Political cartoons are by nature excessive. And I prefer an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship,” commented Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

Other governments wrongly apologized:

· Poland: “the bounds of properly conceived freedom of expression have been overstepped,” stated Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz.

· United Kingdom: “the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong,” said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

· New Zealand: “gratuitously offensive,” Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton called the cartoons.

· United States: “``Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable,” said State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus.

Strangely, as “Old Europe” finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the U.S. government reaction, it actually won the endorsement of the country’s leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This should come as no great surprise, however, for Washington has a history of treating Islam preferentially; and on two earlier occasions it also faltered in cases of insults concerning Muhammad.
(my comments: this is Oil money talking or, shall i say: not talking!)

In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realism novel, The Satanic Verses. Rather than stand up for the novelist’s life, President George H.W. Bush equated The Satanic Verses and the death edict, calling both “offensive.” Secretary of State James A. Baker III termed the edict merely “regrettable.”

Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster of Muhammad as a pig, the U.S. government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Bill Clinton, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns called the woman in question “either sick or … evil” and stated that “She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam.” The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst; as I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I “found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic.”

Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).

Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark.)
Sridhar

re: cartoons in some muslim press
Just go to this link and see how abusive (to other religions) some cartoons published in some Arab newspapers are.
Sridhar

re:#199 by Inquirer
We are talking about the possibility of inquiring minds in Islam. How many muslims in chowk can answer as to why there is such global and violent reaction to some innocuous cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper.
Is there any introspection going on in the muslim world about these cartoons? Does anybody pause and think as to why such freedom of expression does not exist in his own country?
Sridhar

re:#169 by Mantolives
If one were to believe your present dictator, women in Pakistan are actually doing good. They are getting raped and collecting a cool million dollars migrating to the West!
Sridhar

re:#162 by Mantolives
Manto,
Any pearls on the cartoons of Mohammad or you prefer to continue masturbating on Gandhi?
Sridhar

Azra rashid:

This is my last entry on this thread. It is highly irresponsible to write an article be totally withdrawn and not provide any response to the people who bother to write to you. Unless you publically, on this thread, make amends I will never even read your write-ups let alone respond to you.

Inquirer

Re: # 219

I do not understand your point that you are trying to make through 3:5. Please elaborate.

Netizen #217: Please explain what part of my post #212 you did not understand. (Since if you did, you would not be coming back with the usual gratuitous hindu chowkie ``suggestions`` to muslims).