Hijacking of Islam

zeemax,

Fuethermore, you have accused Ahmadis of being british-implated agents who work againt interests of Pakistan and Muslims.

It is fair to ask ... from where are you getting this information? Do you have firm sources, or is this a vague, warm feeling you get when you talk to like-minded people?

Re: # 132 by zeemax:

Zee:

Either, you make it very easy to hate Muslims; or, your definition of muslim haters is incomplete. You say:

A Muslim-hater is anyone who:

-opposes unity of Muslims (Ummah);

-opposes Muslim militancy against oppresion;

Yet you conviniently leave out who is to define the Ummah and ``militancy against oppression`` and how. If I oppose my Muslim neighbor`s desire to blow up the subway because of US oppresion in Iraq then am I a Muslim hater? If yes, then it is very easy to hate ``muslims``. If no, then you got more to define. The same goes for the Ummah. If I oppose my muslim neighbor`s desire to unite the rules of social behavior in mumbai and taliban controlled afganistan, then am I a muslim hater? If not, then you got to define ``unity of muslims``.

I would be interested in your answer.

zeemax (#124),

Granted, you may be more of a “religious/political” fanatic, but admittedly the two are much intertwined.

You once wrote … ``If you kill our women and children as fair game in war, we will kill your women and children as fair game in war``.

In this quote, who is “our” and who is “your” …?

This may clarify the issue if I misunderstood you.

And you can cut out your “Muslim hater” crap. I consider myself a Muslim, use Quran as my guide, pray to Allah, and hold Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in utmost respect. I believein jihad, concept of ``khattam-un-nabiyeen``, articles of faith outlined in Quran, fast in ramadan (and more, sometimes), pay zakat, do jumma on Friday, and more.

If you still think I am a non-Muslim, well … that’s the point about fanaticism I am making here … got it?

Re: # 142

Tahmed32 its a question of perceptions of reality. think Zeemax recognises it, or is on the track to see the reality. He did mention something about the northies and southies in an earlier interact. Ranjit, somewhere in 143, suggested that the southies have shrugged of old history and are willing to move on. The northern half of India is also ding the same - and are slowly gearing themselves towards the twin issues of Education and economy. This in Zeemax`s books is a cowardly thing to do. Since education makesthem slaves of the west (he is following Masadia`s line of reasoning), and economy fulfils his desire that the whole of India is made up of banias.

The fact that the northern half of India has started to consider people like him as someone they could fraternise with - should have made him sell the coffee that the northies are moving away from his perceptions of the world. They are no longer interested in fighting his kind. They are moving onto the same page as the southies.

In this environment, and changes of attitudes, anything external which causes a pertubation will be considered an irritant and something to be put down. Hence the South Indians rather increased disdain and vehemency about the relationships with Pakistan. As far as I know, most south Indians really are not bothered with Pakistan, it exists and at best you say hi. This attitude is come to the N.Indians as well - this zeemax thinks is ``fraternisation``. fair enuf, each to his interpretation.

When he talks of slaves etc and code coollies - that is the ingrained sense of superiority within zeemax. Only the long term will tell if he is superior or not.

(a personalisation here:
as I have said before, on chowk and else where there are many who have a longer list of accomplishments to their credit than, perhaps, zeemax could list for himself. If he has such, then its a pity that these have not made him more modest but have made him to be a bore!)

DM (#120):

I have engaged extensively with Urstruly over blasphemy laws, killing adulterers, executing blasphemers, prophethood, view of Ahmadi-Muslims, and much more. In all these discussions it became clear that he is not interested in finding truth.

He has misquoted Quran, made up facts, invoked Allah’s curse on the liar (assuming I was lying), falsely accused Mirza Sahib of writing filth, falsely accused Ahmadis of hating Muslims, and more. When I show him how his views are incorrect, he drops the issue, becomes dodgy, and becomes silent. Then he goes on to invoke same arguments on another board at a later time with someone else.

These tactics are not a mark of a man who has “done deep study of their religion”. Rather, this is a mark of man who has adopted a deliberate, hateful ideology, and is no longer interested in finding truth.

On several occasions he has tacitly supported violence against Ahmadi-Muslims. If a news organization reports this violence, he calls them Ahmadi mouthpiece. If a human rights group reports this persecution, he calls them western propaganda machines. At some point a person has a social, intellectual, moral responsibility to be forthright in his views and not to play games as he advocates killing others on basis of religious differences.

He once wrote an article defending blasphemy laws. As he quoted Quran in order to validate his views, he omitted a verse when quoting a full passage. This missing verse turned the context around and invalidated his view. When I pointed this out to him, he did not respond and totally ignored this blatant dishonesty. Is this “deep study” or “deliberate deception”?

Here’s another shocking example. He quoted a hadith to show Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the last prophet. “I am the last Prophet and this mosque of mine is the last mosque”. When I asked him what does “last” here mean, as in “last mosque”, he dropped the issue. I reckon that was the first time he actually read the hadith. I have prodded him several times over this, but he has not responded. He simply had to admit that this hadith supported Ahmadi view and not his own view … and we could have moved on. But this simple admission was too much for him. “Deep study” ? … I don’t think so!

Now, my aim is not to argue in favor of one Ahmadi-Muslim views or whatever. These examples negate the “deep study” by “good men” point you have made, while showing how our mullahs engages in deliberate deception and hateful propaganda.

There is much, much more … but I’ll pause here for now.

And if Hitler believed in racial purity and was willing to commit genocide for his views, our mullah believes in ideological purity and is willing to kill those who leave his faith. I hope you see the parallel.

And about “dar-ul-Islam” and “dar-ul-harb”, I’ll give you an answer once you explain what the heck these terms mean. Yes, in a way Urstruly and I share the same faith … with a minor difference regarding the violence part … and also that little part about integrity. All else is the same, one may argue, which explains why he continues to support violence against Ahmadis. After all, he is only a good man who has studied his faith deeply. Jeeezz man … give me a break …

(Urstruly, let me know if I have misrepresented an iota on what I have written here …)

Re: # 126

Zeemax
I disagree with you. For the most part people from the South do not have any opinion of Pakistan and they don`t spend too much time in thinking about it. It is true that most of their opinions will come from Indian newspapers, (but that is true of any Pakistani either w.r.t Pakistani newspapers). e.g. the general opinion is that the ruling Pakistani class is India`s enemy. They have little opinion on the average Pakistani. Since the distance is so vast and there is not a great deal of commonality amongst the cultures most of them don`t lose any sleep over it unless there is some newsworthy item, and this unfortunately tends to be the bad variety. But then I don`t see any Pakistani newspapers lauding India either so......

Actually the vast majority of us from the south of the Vindhyas are indifferent to the Pakistanis . We may not like people who set off bombs in our cities or whatever, whoever they are. That doesn`t mean that we`ll hate every Pakistani we see or meet or hear. Most of us suffer from the same vices and virtues.

Frankly I don`t take everything on chowk too seriously.

Has the burger eaten Urstruly yet? This pursuit of conspicuous consumption has now even got to our food.-)

Hanoi Jane was applauded for her courage & spunk when she was broadcasting broadsides against her ``beloved`` America & showing to the world what a bastion of freedom & democracy the United Satan was...

but if you are Black, Brown, Yellow and red then watch out! and if you are any MUSLIM,even if white as snow, then Democracy & Civilisation are at their best.

No effort is spared to bring justice to the land (english word) of SCAR SCANDLED banner.

---

American convert to Islam faces treason charges over Qaeda support Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:22:00 GMT
| Author :
James Simpson
WASHINGTON: A federal grand jury in Santa Ana, California indicted a California-born member of al-Qaeda outfit on a treason charge for carrying out propaganda for the terrorist organization.

Adam Gadahn, 28, a convert to Islam, is the first American to be charged with treason since World War II. He is believed to be in Pakistan and when apprehended and sentenced, he can face death. Justice department sources said he has been found to be providing material support to al- Qaeda. Deputy attorney general Paul McNulty said at a news conference in Washington that a charge of treason is exceptionally severe and it is not one that us usually brought lightly. ``But this is the right case for this charge.``

Gadahn had been found to have appeared in five videotapes distributed by al-Qaeda, including two in September 2006, handing out threats against the U.S., the indictment said. He described himself as ``Azzam the American.``

McNulty said Gadahn gave himself to al Qaeda for the purpose of being a central part of their propaganda machine. ``By making this choice, we believe Gadahn committed treason -- perhaps the most serious offense for which any person can be tried under our Constitution.``

Gadahn, born Adam Pearlman in a goat ranch outside Los Angeles, and belonging to a Jewish-Christian family, had embraced Islam in the early 1990s when he was 17. Following his conversion, he had worked in a mosque in Orange County, south of Los Angeles. In the late 1990s, he left the U.S. for Pakistan to study and work among Muslims.

The FBI has been wanting him since May 2004. It has now added him to its list of most wanted terrorists and anyone offering information leading to his arrest will get a reward of $1 million.

The indictment, mostly based on the videos, said in one of the videos, released in October 2004, Gadahn is seen announcing his joining al-Qaeda and declaring ``the streets of America shall run red with blood.``

In another video in September 2005, around the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, he referred to ``the blessed raids on New York and Washington.`` He had also talked about the recent attacks in London and Madrid and said ``Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, Allah willing.``

In the most recent video broadcast, on 2 September, he encouraged American soldiers to ``escape from the unbelieving Army and join the winning side.``

U.S. officials said Gadahn`s membership in al-Qaeda came to be known through detainees captured in Afghanistan, including Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al-Qaeda recruiter, captured in 2001.

Re:zeemax#140

[..... it has been clear since sufficient time now that there`s ` us`, and there`s `them`, and never the twain shall meet!.....]

Nonsense!! If that is the case, why do you live in the US? You have lived here and raised kids. If there is so much `us` and `them`, how did you manage to survive here?

I will tell you this much - we all come alone in this world, and we will all leave alone from here. Before your birth, you did not exist since you did not have a brain with neurons firing. Similary after your death, you will not exist. Your neurons will stop firing and your body will go back to the elements. That is the only truth, rest is all illusion and our make believe. So make the best of what you have here and enjoy life instead of propagating hatred and divisions.

Re:tahmed#142

[...The did not have train-passengers slaughtered, women killing themselves to save themselves from dishonor, brother watching brother being surrounded by sikhs and going down fighting even as he was being slashed by swords (as was also the case for one of our relatives)......]

Sorry to hear what happened to your family. My family went through pretty much the same in Pakistan.

In retrospect, doesnt it all look incredibly stupid? All the frenzy of killing, rape etc and now when people meet, they hug each other and cry, as they look wistfully at their ancestral homes. I guess basically we are nothing better than dumb macacas.

I will differ with you on the Palestinian issue though. Palestinians (before Hamas) had always offered a secular state to Israel where everyone could have lived together. Israelis rejected that as they wanted a religious state, something that I find inherently offensive, which is why I disagree with the creation of Pakistan. What was so wrong about a secular state, perhaps with some special autonomy arrangements for minorities? So palestinians have a legitimate case. In 2000, they got the chance to create their own country but they blew it, which was unfortunate. But on principle, they are right.

Re:zeemax#126

[...The way in which these opinions have changed is that zeemax has realized that while generally the northern half of india i.e. Punjab/UP regions intelligentsia as well as the middle classes acknowledge Pakistan as a possible fraternizing neighbor, the southern half i.e. maharashtra downwards middle-classes/intelligentsia generally do not. I don`t want to paint anyone with a wide brush but this has essentially been true with few exceptions....]

This is true to a large extent but you misunderstand the reason behind it. South India is evolving very differently from North India and is in fact moving in a different trajectory. There is a revolution going on there, albeit a quiet one which is focusing almost exclusively on education and economics. It is the collective wish of the people there that they do not want to waste their time and energy on useless historical issues but rather focus on the future. The IT revolution is just one manifestation of this mindset. The real change is the thought process, to shrug off the past and embrace the future - a renaissance if you will.

North India on the other hand has lagged behind and I say that being a Delhite. Socially, culturally and economically, the powerhouse in India is the South. North India still has the same decaying institutions, the mind numbing caste equations, hindu-muslim feuds, lack of interest in education, widespread mistreatment of women, you name it. The South Indian mindset has made some inroads into the North at least in the metro areas, but outside that it is the same old crap. And the results are obvious if you compare UP, MP, Bihar, Rajasthan with the 4 southern states.

Therefore, South India views North India as a baggage - a millstone to carry around their necks that slows them down and holds them back. South India would rather spend time with Europe and USA rather than North India. Interestingly the US and Europe feels equally bullish about South India. South Indians consider Pakistan as nothing more than an extension of the useless North, with an Islamic coating. At a social, cultural and economic level, it is basically the same. Therefore they have little interest in fraternizing with additional people who are equally worthless. On top of that the culture is different, but South Indians are not xenophobes. They just dont want to associate with losers.

#zeemax 138

On 1) These emotions are not reciprocated:

you write : Firstly, I support them for the principle and not for recirpocity. Support in principle is fine, even without reciprocity. and to that extent I have no problem. It is emotions that are not reciprocated that I was referring questioning - how many times have pakistanis taken to the streets to demonstrate on behalf of one arab cause or another? how many times have arabs done the same on kashmir? not once.

you add: Secondly, I don`t consider - and neither should you - the Dubai/Saudi Arabs as representative of the entire lot. What about Egyptians? Moroccans? Algerians? Lebanese? They`re Arabs too, though you`re only considering the rich ones as `Arabs`. Thirdly this is a matter of individual experience. My experience with even the richest of Arabs has been quite pleasant.

My personal experience has been very good too. In fact, I would not even say that dubai/saudis are in any way less friendly than others. I used to go to saudi arabia on work, and found a number of hard-working saudis, one of whom even joked about some saudi customs. I dont like to generalize about any people - you find fine people and lowlife among all groups, arabs or israelis, pakistanis or indians, africans or europeans.

On 2) ....what happened at around the same time 60 years ago in pakistan-india..:

you write: It was an exchange of populations, and certainly not `expulsions` as you surprisingly put it. Regardless of how disorderly, noone was compelled to leave forcibly as official policy, though many did leave solely due to riots. At the same time many hindus/sikhs chose to stay back in Pak, as did the majority of Muslims in India.

I beg to differ. Our village in India was 40% muslim. They had no choice. Those who did not leave were slaughtered (or, in case of some women, they killed themselves rather than be taken alive by marauding sikhs by throwing themselves into a well - my brother visited our village a couple of years ago, and was shown the well by an old sikh who remembered our family, and I saw the picture of that well). The palestinians did not have to go through any of the brutalities that muslims in India and Hindus and Sikhs in what became Pakistan had to go through. The did not have train-passengers slaughtered, women killing themselves to save themselves from dishonor, brother watching brother being surrounded by sikhs and going down fighting even as he was being slashed by swords (as was also the case for one of our relatives). So, please dont tell me that palestinians suffered more than Pakistanis or Indians in 1947.

you write: Now how do you draw a parallel between a politically agreed geographic division and exchange of populations with property claims settled on both sides, with a forced eviction of the indigenous landed population to being landless by an alien foreign population? This brings me to the answer the palestinans I mentioned had: they said that in the subcontinent, we had our own country to go to while they have no country. To this extent this palestinian lady was right, of course. I did not pursue this point further with the palestinians...but ask you to think about the answer they gave and ponder the implications.

#139 echoboom: it is you, not I, who is hiding in the bush behind a fake name (unless you were named ``echoboom`` when you were born). writing abuse to Pakistanis who refuse to join your arab-worshipping ways (complete with pictures of your arab gods) as ``kuttay`` and so forth.

#139 by echoboom

Yes Echo. It saddeens me though some of `ours` choose to be with `them` ....

But you`re right. That`s the question which every single Muslim needs to ask oneself ... and answer with honesty. Because one cannot ride the fence anymore ... it has been clear since sufficient time now that there`s ` us`, and there`s `them`, and never the twain shall meet!

Zeemax:
The one in the Bush is worse than two in the hand ( corollary corollary!)
So there is only one question to be asked or rather answered: `` Are you with us or with them``

and then watch the fizzle of the sizzle!

#137 by tahmed32

1) These emotions are not reciprocated:

Firstly, I support them for the principle and not for recirpocity. Secondly, I don`t consider - and neither should you - the Dubai/Saudi Arabs as representative of the entire lot. What about Egyptians? Moroccans? Algerians? Lebanese? They`re Arabs too, though you`re only considering the rich ones as `Arabs`. Thirdly this is a matter of individual experience. My experience with even the richest of Arabs has been quite pleasant.

2) ....what happened at around the same time 60 years ago in pakistan-india..:

It was an exchange of populations, and certainly not `expulsions` as you surprisingly put it. Regardless of how disorderly, noone was compelled to leave forcibly as official policy, though many did leave solely due to riots. At the same time many hindus/sikhs chose to stay back in Pak, as did the majority of Muslims in India.

Now how do you draw a parallel between a politically agreed geographic division and exchange of populations with property claims settled on both sides, with a forced eviction of the indigenous landed population to being landless by an alien foreign population?

Anyway, I await as to what your palestinian visitors had to say.

zeemax #134 Very well then, lets take that entire question of the middle east.

1. I do believe that you (and many other Pakistanis), are unduly involved emotionally in the middle east. These emotions are not reciprocated. I say this based on what I have observed over the past few decades (e.g. arab nonchalance on kashmir; arab treatment of pakistani workers who are refused even the status of immigrant, let alone full and equal treatment as arabs).

2. I consider the expulsion of palestine to be a tragedy. however, i know that it is a far smaller tragedy than what happened at around the same time 60 years ago in pakistan-india when millions were similarly expelled - and hundreds of thousands brutally killed. Pakistanis and indians who are descendants of the generation that was thus victimized have moved on and not allowed past bitternesses to linger - indian visitors to pakistan (sikhs and hindus) are welcomed as friends when they come to Lahore e.g. What makes the palestinians so special that 60 years later they refuse to get over what happened to their previous generation??

Please reflect upon these two questions before responding. Thank you.

PS: last week I attended a presentation by two palestinians who were visiting the US to describe the difficulties they face today, and asked them the same question i have for you in 2. their answer was an interesting one. but first lets see what you have to say.