’Moderate’ vs ’Severe’ Muslims

True spirit of Islam is that of peace, tolerance and that of civic responsibility. and pigs fly and the Gooran sez we have the mountains to pegged the Earth.

Belive this my fellow non moozalim human beings and you`ll believe anything. BTW non moozalim human being is an oxymoron everyone who is non moozalim is automatically a human being as opposed to a moozallim who is a vermin and virus combined into one.

F***k u u liar. The gas chambers of the nazis are too god for the like of vermin like you.

No Regards
Sanatani

Asad Ali

You are right 100%. In fact the West spearheaded by the mad Bush and his New World Order are interested only in subjugating the entire world without any regard for their religion or its severity. Saddam, a moderate and liberal Muslim and the communist North Korea are both their enemies but Saudi Arabia, an archaic Muslim Extremist (Jaahiliyya) country and the secular India are their friends. But what they got by removing a liberal regime of Saddam? Only the extremism of the worst kind in Iraq.

Re: # 2
we ourselves have to find true islam before we expect the west to do so. In our own muslim lands, Islam has been highjacked by the uneducated mullahs. I wish we muslims could take our religion back and understand the real spirit of Islam which emphasizes social virtue and hardwork instead of being obsessed only with the rituals and old conventions. Weakness leads to exploitation and the west is obliging.

Re: # 3 drsyedasad

Actually, currently Islam is in the process of being hijacked by the likes of Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz, Ghamdi, Khalid Zaheer, Babar Chaudhry etc. from the clutches of 2-faced Qazis and Fazalus.

[...follow Islam in the ‘severe’ or pure form and have not incorporated the modern, Western or scientific concepts- hence they are potentially dangerous to the West.]

The West does not want the scientific concepts embedded in the Muslim scocities. The former just wants the latter to be dependant on her in this matter. On the other hand, it wants the Muslims to incorporate the Western morals yesterday.

Unfortunately, many a Muslims, particularly the ones with Western residence inside or outside the West, oblige the West hand and foot (in this respect) like the willing concubines.

Momin`s Islam will always remain dangerous to people who wish to commercialize everything the 5 human faculties deem tangible, especially if it`s sexual in nature.

:-)~~

Re: # 1 sanatani

I`m convinced that it was this vulgar ignorance that forced the Truks to conquer India and teach the native some manners. Unfortunately the Farangi undid the 1000 years of hard work in just 250 years.

Having said that, I think people with mentality demonstrated in #1 are begging to be forced into submission again...perhaps for eternity this time around. They`ve clearly demonstrated that can not be anything but slaves to whoever can smack them upside the head.

``The gas chambers of the nazis are too god for the like of vermin like you. ``

May be, but these seem perfect for sewer dwellers like you.

:-)~~

A question for you..

If you do not like the clutches of mullahs, and you donot like the western model and you donot like the forced liberalism of our society by the Musharraf group, then what is your vision for us to turn the corner? We clearly need to do some thing to turn the corner, right?

Re: # 6

Its a million dollar question indeed. But the Quranic Allah says, ``Jinko Allah gumrah kare unko koi hidaayat nahein de sakta`` (Those who are lead astray by God Himself cannot be guided to the right path). So is qoum ka `Allah Haafiz?`. Salfi mulla, jinhoon ne hamare Khuda ko bhi des nikala de dia he, Allah ke nam par hamein gumrah karne pih kamar basta hein.

It isn`t what real Islam is that bothers a non-muslim but what is perceived generally practiced Islam that scares him. Moderate and Hardcore Islam classification is made just for the sake of convenience. Why would anyone want to learn what real Islam is? Most will simply ignore it, if it doesn’t touch them like Budhism or any other exotic religions etc.

Greetings and salutations to all the Muslims. First of All People like ``Sanatani`` should be banned from the Chowk. I will have his account banned from the site and his ID revoked. Second, last thing we need is an apologetic attitude for our religion. We should care least about what Western world think of us. Did prophet of Allah (PBUH)cared when Kafirs of Mecca called him Mujnoon and Sorcerer? He is our shining example and we are the masters of our Destiny not these secular European who have thrown everything related to religion out of their lives. Understand this very well whether you are moderate, or severe, they will never ever consider you an equivalent and a progressive person of the greatest Abrahamic Faith. You know why? because they are afraid of Islam and out of fear they don’t want to know about true Islam and it is their fear that brings hatred for Islam. Case and point “Sanatani”. To understand it you have to read the entire history of Islam beginning with Crusades. All religions have had their extremists, Christian had their Crusaders and inquisitions too, Yet they conveniently brush aside the atrocities Crusaders have committed on the name of Jesus. Extremist groups like Talibans and Al-Qaeda were not formed over night they are a result of series of injustices that have been served to Muslims since the turn of the century after the break up of Ottoman Empire. These extremist groups are more of a symptom of what can happen to group of people when they are between the rock and the hard place where you fight and you fight with all you might and you use everything at your disposal. Hypocrisy of western world is they want to blame Islam of the symptoms it is displaying for the injustices that has been meted out to it rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms. So it is load of Crap that we should hang our heads and get down on your knees and grovel in front of these people who will hate you no matter what. Just be a good Muslim and take pride in the greatest gift of Islam that Allah has given you. Always be Just and ask am I doing what Allah and Prophet of Allah (PBUH) has commanded me to do. Rest is secondary.

Regards

Could you/anyone tell me what is the [b]true vision of Islam[/b]?
Why the confusion?

I think the problem is that out of 1.2 billion muslims, there are 1.2 billion visions.
Each and every one of it`s followers, follows or thinks of it differently.
Each and every person, will accuse the others of not following it correctly.
When I became of an age to start questioning, I was given answers which seemed absurd. Nearly everyone I asked, had not even read the Koran, or even understood it, or followed it.
Once I had spent enough time with muslims and non-muslims and then compared to see which ones were more `racist` or `greedy` or `corrupt` or `immoral` ... it would point to the muslims.

When I argued these points with them, the typical answer is:
``Yes, Allah will forgive us, for we are muslim. We are weak. We are human.``

What is the point of following any religion, if you don`t beleive in it 100%
and do even worse acts than the non-believers?

I have also spent a lot of time in Pakistan, and saw nothing different there as well. If anything, they were worse.

I genuinely believe that there are hardly ANY muslims in the world. All/most are non believers, but they do not speak out, because it would cause trouble for them. Maybe even get killed. So why rock the boat?

It only requires this taboo to be broken, then you watch the floodgates!

Re: # 10
Kamran, let me refer you to a book titled ``Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam`` by Allama Iqbal. I agree with Iqbal`s version of applying the ``principles`` of Islam in the current society.

I agree with what you said though. I will offer a reply to Nadeem as well. Muslim societies of today are not ideal. My understanding is that islamic social principles are actually very close to western principles. These are the same principles acting on which muslims dominated in early part of islam and now the west is dominating. This is nothing to get offended by. The difference is in theology and I think one should be able to accept difference of opinion there. I donot think it serves our purpose to highlight how different we are from the west. It takes us no where. Why not both be good human beings, learn fron each other instead of accusing each other of all the wrong doings that our forefathers may have done before we were even borne.

In my humble opinion, there is nothing wrong in learning from the successful western model, which in a sense is Islamic model.

This is my first comment on your site as I have just registered and I thank you all for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

I am a westerner and an atheist so I have a very particular views of this issue of ``moderate`` versus`` extreme Islam.

My views are of two sorts. First my personal views and beliefs regarding religion generally and Islam in particlur and secondly my views as a member of a largely secular western society regarding the place of religious believers and how they, and non believers like myself should conduct ourselves in respect of each other.

Let me address the second of these issues first. What is ``moderate`` and ``extreme`` in the context of living in a western largely secular society? In my view the difference between moderate and extreme in this context starts with the willingness of the person or group to accept that others have different views and beliefs and that no one view or belief can dictate to others. However, this ``tolerance`` has to be in the context that in allowing each other to practice our views and beliefs we all accept that we do so in the context of the overall laws of the land which attempt to set some minimum set of acceptable behaviours.

Take the row over the Danish Cartoons ( or the Iranian Cartoons). We must be tolerant of both the wish of some to criticise ( by way of visual satirical cartoons) religious beliefs and the wish of others to safeguard their cherished beliefs ( not to have their religion made fun of or oouictires of their prophets published). Neither view can be allowed to completely submerge the other in a free western society. So there is a right to publish such material but there is also a right to protest against it. Protesting against it does not make someone an ``extreme`` muslim. I may not agree with muslims views on this but they have every right to express anger and concern. What they do not have the right to do, and what in my view is ``extreme``, is to call for the death of the cartoonists or publishers etc. In a civic society based on tolerance that is the difference between ``moderate`` and extreme``.

Now let me turn to the other way in which I would distinguish ``moderate`` and ``extreme``. This is from a more personal standpoint. Personally I have no time for religious belief and as far as I can see it has brought only misery and strife to this world, whatever ibelievers say about the ``true`` messages of their ``holy books``. All religions claim ``divine`` authority so on what basis am I to choose one from the other? From this perspective I personally believe that all religious devotees are extreme when they insist on the ``divine authority`` of their own belief and in particular when they try to dictate what I can and can`t do based on this. However being a moderate`` atheist I accept that I have no more right to insist that they desist in believeing than they have a right to insist that I believe.

In short ``moderates`` are those who live by their own beliefs but accept the right of others to live by theirs and accept that both must live by the ``law of the land`` if all are to live in tolerance and freedom. ``Extremists`` do not accept this and react with extreme anger and threats of violence ( and actual violence ) to others who do not share their beliefs.

@ nadeem_shahzad,
``You know why? because they are afraid of Islam and out of fear they don’t want to know about true Islam and it is their fear that brings hatred for Islam.``

I, and many many muslims I know, are also afraid of Islams followers. We fear for our children.

``Hypocrisy of western world is they want to blame Islam of the symptoms it is displaying for the injustices that has been meted out to it rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms``

That is true. But why should they address the injustices? No one does that, unless its to their advantage. Muslims/Humans everywhere are no different. My father bought some land from his brother in Pakistan 40 years ago. My father died recently, and our dear uncle, a very good `muslim`, decides to take the land back by going to the court and swearing on the Koran that the Land papers in my posession were fake and the signature upon it, were not his. After a year, we eventually got the land back.
If your own flesh and blood (and `muslim`) can do this, do you expect the west to be better than you?
If all the `muslim` leaders in the world are more corrupt than the west, shouldn`t you or the `militants` sort them out first?

Pehle apne ghar ko sumbhalo. (Manage your own house first).

@ drsyedasad,
``Weakness leads to exploitation``

Very true.

@ Asad Ali,
``The current Western policy of dividing muslims into ‘moderate’ or ‘non-pure’ and ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘pure’ muslims is counterproductive and is never going to work``

No need for the west to divide us. We are already divided.

1.2 billion muslims:
0.2 muslims = ‘severe’
1.0 billion muslims = ‘moderate’ (not muslims at all, but pretending because it`s in their interest to do so).

Re: # 12

Hi billdunc. Greetings.

Being a hybrid of both cultures I can understand both views and the situation.

Not many years ago in USA, if a Negro so much as looked at a white woman, he would get flogged, possibly killed. Slavery was accepted.
Now, in USA, it is accepted that Negroes can marry/have sex with white women.
Were white people not humans a few years ago?
And in a few years they evolved to becoming humans?
What brought this change?
And did it happen overnight?
If all the white people now, could travel back in time and meet their grandparents,
would they be able to reason with them and get them to accept their moderate views?

Whats needed my friend, for the change to happen, is lots of wealth, which buys the:
education,
understanding,
freedom,
tolerance,
etc, etc.

And most importantly, you need time. Time to evolve. Time for new generations to be born. Who are more able and willing to embrace new ideas. Who are strong enough to reject their peers rigid thinking.

You, in the west, can help these people to evolve quicker.
By not supporting supressive regimes.
By not stealing their wealth/resources.
By not selling them arms, so that they murder each other more quickly.
By not destabilising governments that you think may reduce your profits.
Add another 786 ``Thou Shall not`` things here....

The day that I see a shop in Islamabad selling sexy clothes for monkeys with a state of the art hospital for cats next door... I will think ``Yes, the west no longer exploits the east``
:)

re#14
Hello to you KamranISS and I hope your life is good to you and yours.

You are certainly right that we must hope that with time and education and wealth ( I dont mean flashy wealth I mean people having the basic wealth to live a decent life) hopefully comes tolerance and greater understanding. This applies of course as much to western attiitudes as it does to muslim attitudes ( I single them out only in the context of this particular debate.)
My grandmother was an white average fairly uneducated woman of a working class background who died at a ripe old age some years ago. I recall visiting her and her talking about Africans as ``monkeys`` !!! I of course remonstrated with her but couldnt get her to understand how wrong this was. She had heard of evolution and darwin ( at a very basic level!!) and to her simplistic view as Africans were dark skinned and so were monkeys then they must be more closely related to monkeys than we were! What does one do about such determined and ingrained ignorance? It reminds me of the attitudes of some ( a minority I believe) in the Muslim community who think of jews and Christians as inferior. I have even heard Muslims describe Jews as ``pigs``. I think Holocaust denial falls into the same category of ignorance ( willfull sometimes).

Such attitudes can only be challenged by debate and continuing dialogue I think and as you point out such attitudes may pass with the passing of generations.

There are many shameful things that some of our white ancestors did - the african slave trade being one of the worst. I wonder what Muslims, looking back from the future, will make of the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues, of them bombing schools because girls are being educated, of the Shia/sunni slaughter going on in Iraq, of the beheadings on video tape `` in the name of Allah`` ! I know many Muslims are ashamed of such things now, how much more so as the generations pass.

I agree with your list of things that we in the west can do and that you could add to this list. What do you think those of you not living in the west should do?
Heres my list;
Stop blaming everything on the west.
Get rid of your victim mentality.
Tolerate other religions and beliefs and people who change religion and belief.
Stop seeing religion as the answer to everything (many americans should learn that one!)
And another 768 to you ;-)

We are all Human beings whatever our beliefs.

@KamranISS
“I, and many many muslims I know, are also afraid of Islams followers. We fear for our children”.

I don’t know where you are coming from, but I know where you are going. First of all you are an exception. “Many many muslims are afraid of Islam Followers”, Correction Many Many muslims are afraid of Islamic extremist followers! When you say Islamic follower that statement negates the identity of Muslim. You may be an exception and I am sure there are Muslim you are talking about who are ashamed with the weak Iman and faith and changed their name from Mohammed to Moe after 911 and probably dyed their hair blond with the fake blue contact but that does not represent the majority of Muslim as you say “Many Many”. I am sure the there are faithless muslim amongst us who cursed themselves everyday for being born under Islamic faith but please don’t say that they are “many many” . Understand this today war on Islam is through a strategy of creating and sense of inferiority among muslims by portraying islam as a militant and violent religion and I am sure the muslims weak in faith will fall for this and blame islam and muslims for whatever is happening to this world. But you know KamranISS , It does not really matter, Allah has decided to protect this religion and Allah shall protect it. I am also an enlightened muslim and believe in moderation and believe that there is no compulsion in religion. But I know when my faith is being insulted, annihilated and ridiculed.

“My father bought some land from his brother in Pakistan 40 years ago. My father died recently, and our dear uncle, a very good `muslim`, decides to take the land back by going to the court and swearing on the Koran that the Land papers in my posession were fake and the signature upon it, were not his. After a year, we eventually got the land back.
If your own flesh and blood (and `muslim`) can do this, do you expect the west to be better than you?
If all the `muslim` leaders in the world are more corrupt than the west, shouldn`t you or the `militants` sort them out first?”

Second what ever your Uncle did has nothing to do with Islamic religion. Tell me if your Uncles cheated someone how is that Islam’s Fault? With all logical perspectives somebody explain it to me where does in Quran and in what verse Islam condone cheating people out of their legal possessions? The fact that your uncle was born under a muslim name to muslim parents does not automatically makes him a Momin and True Muslim. Even Allah (SWT) has not absolved muslim and gave them the “free get out of hell card”, whatever they are going to do in this world they will be punished accordingly in hereafter. To be a Muslim it requires a Constant effort on our Part and it is system of constantly questioning you deeds . You on the other hand broad brushed the entire ummah of Islam with the example of your Uncle and implied Hypocrisy on their part. No doubt there is great deal of work that needs to made on the ailments Islam is suffering, but who is going to do it? (if you are stout and I am stout, who is going to carry the dirt out?) You cannot Judge Islam by the Muslims, We are talking about Islam in its essence and Today’s Muslims do not represent Islam. That responsibility lies with us and it requires an on going effort.


“If all the `muslim` leaders in the world are more corrupt than the west, shouldn`t you or the `militants` sort them out first?”

I don’t know what made you put me in the same line as Islamic militant. But I guess if standing up and defending my faith makes me sound like a Militant, I say so be it. It is true that there is Corruption in The Social system but you are confusing the Social system with the Religious system. But tell me what gives west the right attack and insult my Faith if there is a corruption in our Pakistani social system?

I understand that there is a lot of secular talk that is going on here, which is all good. Some of you are very enlightened people and secular or agnostic or whatever you want to call yourself and probably want to slice and dice Islam with a western made scalpel but that is your personal view, just like whatever I say is my personal view. I know that there is inherent belief in all of you that things have to physically manifest itself to be understood. And there are tangible remedies that needs to be applied to cure Muslims suffering like some of you said

education,
understanding,
freedom,
tolerance,

All these remedies are an integral part of Islamic ideology. But there are bigger things that are happening behind the scene that will not manifest itself to you unless you are ready to take a leap of faith. You will be just wrangled up in the things and events that western media only wants you to see. Billdunc who is a self professed atheist has his own theory and want to promote tolerance and stopping the blame game. Which is fine and I respect that. But the only thing wrong with it is billdunc is formulating his opinion just by feeling the tip of the iceberg. He is watching Islam and Muslims from the eyes of the west and saying things based on western values. That is just an example of the physical laws I mentioned above, he observes and formulates his opinion.

But Billdunc do you know what Muslims felt like when the Cartoon of Mohammed (PBUH) were published in the Danish newspaper?....I will tell you how it feels like to Muslims…just imagine that someone takes the naked picture of your mother with another man and put it out on the billboard on the main thoroughfare and write the words underneath “This Bitch is having fun” imagine the anger it evokes inside of you and then multiply it by 100 folds and then some. But since West has already made the mockery of the Christianity and even Jesus (PBUH) was the butt of most crude and crass jokes and I don’t expect any westerner to understand the anger that cartoon evoked inside the Muslims. And your response had an underlying message, “So what? It was a Joke. just be tolerant, no need to get violent”. Can’t blame you , because many before you have failed to understand the inherent true spirit of islam and kind of feeling it evokes inside Muslims. Why put a blame on Westerners only, Most of the muslims who are of Secular belief does not understand the way muslims feel and understand the true inherent spirit of islam, otherwise they wouldn’t be secular.

Billdunc, ask yourself why the cartoon was published in the paper when the tension between the west and Muslims are all time high and you know the radical elements of Islam will have a field day with it, so why add more fuel to the fire? Again, I don’t understand the western people to understand it. But there are things going on behind the scene that westerners will never see in the media.

Billdunc, ask yourself why did the pope Benedict opened up the book from 15th Century in the Christian heartland of the Vatican and made a direct quote Insulting Islam and Mohammed ? A Man of God who suppose to bring harmony and peace between two faith stood up and insulted islam. Why did he do it? when the tension between the west and Muslims are all time high. But I understand and westerner would say “So what? Just be tolerant, what’s the big deal?

So what hidden hands are pulling the strings of these people and prompting them to do and say these things? Ask yourself am I seeing the complete picture or am I seeing a warped image of islam and Muslims?

I too believe on peace and harmony and I do believe respect only begets respect. So there is a need for enlighten Westerners to come forward and see the Islam in its true light and educate other people.

Re: # 9

Nadeem_shehzad

``Just be a good Muslim and take pride in the greatest gift of Islam that Allah has given you``.

But in the Pakland, also called `Islam ka qillah`, this gift is dispensed by the Mullah, the self-styled successors of the prophet. To be eligible for this gift one has to submit a `Hallaf Naamah` (Affidavit) rejecting the claim of a section of compatriots to call themselves Muslims and assigning hateful epithets to the founder of their faith, thus creating a new variety of Muslims, called `Halfi Musalman`, like Hanfi, Munfi, etc., etc..

Re: # 16

NS

`Allah has decided to protect this religion and Allah shall protect it`.

May be; but what about the self-styled `Umma`? Allah had even warned the original Umma that He would replace it by another people if it went astray. Seeing the `lachhan` (doings) of the Mullah-ridden Umma He might have already done so but we can`t know as the Mullah, who has hijacked Islam has, to perpetuate his hold, blocked all communication with Allah to prevent any guidance from Him. So we don`t know which is the true Umma now, what to say of a true Muslim.

Re: # 17

Hi Nadeem - it`s good to be able to debate these things with you and others. I am sure there are many things we would agree on but the nature of such debate is to explore areas of difference so I will concentrate my few thoughts on those - but I hope you take this in the spirit it is intended - constructively.

You said;
``Do you know what Muslims felt like when the Cartoon of Mohammed (PBUH) were published in the Danish newspaper?....I will tell you how it feels like to Muslims…just imagine that someone takes the naked picture of your mother with another man and put it out on the billboard on the main thoroughfare and write the words underneath “This Bitch is having fun” imagine the anger it evokes inside of you and then multiply it by 100 folds and then some. ``

I understand what you are saying here but I am unable to connect with it either emotionally or rationally. First - they werent pictures of anyones mother or anyone else like that and they were not pornographic or obscene. They did not insult the prophet - they were satirical and if they insulted anyone it was the fanatics who bomb and murder in the name of your prophet and those in the Muslim community who stand idly by giving passive or active support to the idiots who are hijacking your great religion. ( I say great religion even though I am an atheist because I do think that religions have some potential for good and they are one of the starting points for our human societies to evolve positive ethical codes).
In short I dont think , from my perspective, that your coparison holds water. The cartoons were critical of an ideology and not of any individual. If they used a picture of the prophet it was simply as a symbol of Islamic thinking ( sorry I mean a particular strand of Islamic thinking - it is clear to me that many Muslims abhor what is happening in the name of their religion).

You said;
``But since West has already made the mockery of the Christianity and even Jesus (PBUH) was the butt of most crude and crass jokes and I don’t expect any westerner to understand the anger that cartoon evoked inside the Muslims. And your response had an underlying message, “So what? It was a Joke. just be tolerant, no need to get violent”. Can’t blame you , because many before you have failed to understand the inherent true spirit of islam and kind of feeling it evokes inside Muslims. Why put a blame on Westerners only, Most of the muslims who are of Secular belief does not understand the way muslims feel and understand the true inherent spirit of islam, otherwise they wouldn’t be secular. ``

I accept your anger. can you accept that as a secular westerner ( or any type of westerner) that we hold as much store by protecting freedom of speech as you do about your prophet? I was enraged at the attempts by Muslims to dictate what can and cannot be printed ( the Rusdie affaiir, the cartoons). I suppose in this there is to some extent an element of ``clash of civilisations``.
But these cartoons were printed in the western media not in your country and I think we have as much right to run our countries by our beliefs as you do by yours- is that not so?

Anyone living in a western society must accept that the reason we have open , tolerant and dynamic societies is exactly because we do tolerate robust debate over ideas - and that robust debate has historically included barbed and pointed visual satirical images. We sometimes make each other angry with these things - but we dont resort to calling for beheadings or shoot people in the street over it.

You said:
``Billdunc, ask yourself why did the pope Benedict opened up the book from 15th Century in the Christian heartland of the Vatican and made a direct quote Insulting Islam and Mohammed ? A Man of God who suppose to bring harmony and peace between two faith stood up and insulted islam. Why did he do it? when the tension between the west and Muslims are all time high. But I understand and westerner would say “So what? Just be tolerant, what’s the big deal? ``

My view is that we in the West need to speak up and say what we think about Islamic culture - as practised in reality rather than its ``aspirations``. All round the world there is violence taking place in the name of Islam. The Popes attempt was to engage with were the roots of this are. I see plenty of criticism of the west in Islamic media - soime of it very insulting - are we not entitiled to express our views? I hold no candle for the Pope - Christianity in its day was just as backward in its practice as what we see in some Islamic societies. Indeed talk to an American redneck christian and its like talking to a mirror image of a ``redneck`` Islamist. The fanaticism, medieval ways of thinking, restricted view of the role of women, anti-semitism etc etc are all mirrored.

You said:
``So what hidden hands are pulling the strings of these people and prompting them to do and say these things? Ask yourself am I seeing the complete picture or am I seeing a warped image of islam and Muslims? ``

I dont think any hidden hands are pulling the strings. Thats your victim thinking showing through again. What you are seeing is genuinely the way that Islam is appearing to Western eyes ( and many others). What we see is Muslims claiming to have a religion of peace and in reality all around the world barbarity and murder committed in its name. The danger of course is that on both sides we fall into simplistic stereotyping of each other. the truth is that on both sides there are truths and faults. One of the reasons I was so glad to find this site was that I want to personally take responsibility for engaging in constructive debate about differences and seek greater understanding. If you have the time I have written a slightly longer version of my views at http://ayrshireblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/state-of-world-good-guys-and-bad-guys.html and you are most welcome to leave a comment there also.

Anyway as I said at the start - I beg your forgiveness for concentrating on the differences in our views - there are many areas I am sure we would also agree about.

Finally I consider myself a member of the Church of All - surprising you may think for an atheist to claim membership of a church. I suggest you have a look at their very brief statement at http://thechurchofall.blogspot.com/ :-)

My regards to you and yours.

Re: # 20

Well done dear billdunc, but no avail at least in case of the Paky Halfi Muslims. What to expect from them whose very pretension to call themselves as Muslims is allowed officially only after they submit a `Halaf Naama` (Affidavit) debunking the claim of certain fellow citizens to call them as Muslims. What a pity when the people all over the world can choose their faith-label as a matter of right only the Paky Muslims are denied this right.

Re: # 20

I tried to open both of the two web-sites quoted in your post but failed. I wonder if these are blocked in Pakistan.

Re: # 22

Hi Tesha, Both sites are google blog sites. I cant see why either would be blocked in Pakistan as there is nothing outrageous on either of them. I hadnt posted them as ``live`` links because I wasnt sure how to do that in these comments posts.

I have just tried copying and pasting the links from my comments into my browser and both sites come up fine for me. Does Pakistan ban web-sites? I didnt realise that it did that. I knew China and some other countries did.

Here are the links again if you have the time to try again:

http://ayrshireblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/state-of-world-good-guys-and-bad-guys.html

http://thechurchofall.blogspot.com

Re: # 21
Tesha - I followed the link to your profile and was really interested reading your last ilog post. It started me thinking again about comparisons between the history of church and state relations in the west (europe specifically) and some apparent trends in the relationship between Islam and the state. This is something that has struck me before. For example I thinkthat there are comparisons which can be drawn between for example the mind set of those involved in the Inquisition and the reformation and things that are going on in the Christian world.

Interestingly there was a time when people in Europe would have thought of themselves as part of the Christian world and Christianity would have been a very central influence on the conduct of states and their rulers. Those times have long gone for us and hopefully consigned to our history. In the United States the separation comes and goes and without doubt the Christian Right has had much success in dictating the political agenda ( although there are nnow signs that this may have passed it`s peak).
I am no expert on these matters but I think I may try to explore this comparison in more detail and post something about this.
Historical trends and patterns of events never repeat themselves precisely and I am not suggesting that the comparisons are absolute. Nevertheless if such compraisons throw light on only 20 or 30% of what is happending in Muslim society then they are worth exploring.
What is your take on the validity of such comparisons?

Re: # 24

billdunc

Thank you for the kind interest shown by you in my ilog.

Yes, they do ban websites in Pakistan. I tried to open the sites you quoted again but failed. I suspect these sites have been blocked in Pakistan as an aftermath of the `Danish Cartoons`. I wanted to see these before offering any further comments on the subject. I wonder if these can be pasted here on `chowk`; but then afraid too that they may not ban the chowk also. Is it not an indication enough where we are heading to? God forbid, it may be worst than inquisition with the law of blasphemy in Pakistan.

Re: # 25

Teshah - I only posted one of the Danish cartoons on my blog, and also one of the ``holocaust`` cartoons. In both case it was to try to illustrate what the arguments were about and as part of commenting on the different cultural reactions to them rather than to try to add to the furore by fully republishing them. I am sorry you cant access it - not that I make any great claims for my blog. I am not sure that I would want to post them here even if I could because I think the context is very different on this site. The other site has nothing like that at all on it so why it should be banned is beyond my understanding.

Re: # 26

billdunc,

``The other site has nothing like that at all on it so why it should be banned is beyond my understanding``

I`ll try to explain. Let me turn my good muslim switch `on`

Since the site has the word `church` in it... that in itself is offensive.

Then also, it asks anyone and everyone to join. You are INCITING good muslims to start dialogues with people with other beliefs. That COULD make them question their beliefs. This could CORRUPT good muslims. Why allow the temptations of the DEVIL into the hearts of pure and good muslims?

Be happy that only the site is banned, and you are not rotting in prison!

I won`t mention your other site. That requires you to be stoned to death, which is a topic in itself.

Switch `off`

Re: # 27

Kamran - if that indeed is the level of control over peoples freedom to think and express themselves then this it is truly a terrible oppression that is being exerted.

Re: # 28

The people of Pakistan are in fact caught between the deep see and the devil: on one side is the martialian law of enlightenment and on the other the lynch laws of the extremist fanatics. One demolishes (martyr?) a mosque and the others get it reconstructed, or demartyr it in mullaistic terminology, all at public cost. The Mush-writ fails miserably against the mullah and his madrissa girls.

billdunc

If you happen to see this post, let me extend to you a personal welcome.

Some of us have been afraid recently that there is a total breakdown of communication between the world of Islam and the world inhabited by the rest of us (nonbelievers in Islam in particular, but nonbelievers in general). And that this breakdown is rooted in a general failure to understand our mutual differences.

If that is true, then the single greatest service one can offer to both the followers of Islam and the rest of mankind is to engage in constructive and open discussions of those group-level and ideological differences. In undertaking this endeavor, you deserve everyone`s best wishes.

While democracy has been spreading and taking root in the rest of the world, most Muslim countries continue to be ruled by dictators, autocrats , despots or mullahs. Is this phenomenon related to the faith of Islam? Do we take it that the vast majority of Muslims in the world accept this state of affairs because they believe that Western concepts of democratic life is not in consonence with the Islam`s tenets and they think that now is how they should continue to live? It is strongly believed that if democracy is allowed to take root and flourish in the Muslim populated countries, this Islamic fanaticism that is so evident today might just dissipate, because the Muslims then would learn to coexist peacefully with the rest of the world.

(Point by Point)

“The Western world divides the muslim population into either ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’ muslims.”
[At least we bifurcate. You portray the “West” as monolithic. Why do you capitalize Western and not Muslim? Both should be capitalized. Parapraxis or Freudian slip? Your essay reeks of self-hatred.]

“The general impression in the West is that the civilized world can deal with ‘moderate’ muslims so they need to be encouraged and supported as opposed to the savage fundamentalists and extremists. This approach has some fundamental flaws and I think is bound to fail.”
[One can deal with rational human beings (of whatever religion). Extremists are by definition irrational and uncompromising. ‘Savage’? Are you being sarcastic or descriptive? Actually, we do deal with cut-throats and thugs and murderers; with courts and armies.]

“The Western use of the word ‘moderate’ is based on the comparison between mild, moderate and severe. This is not mere semantics but the implication here is that ‘moderate’ muslims do not follow Islam in its ‘severe’ or pure form and have rather incorporated many ‘modernized’ or ‘Western’ concepts-hence these people are more acceptable. On the other hand, ‘extremist’ muslims according to the Western view, follow Islam in the ‘severe’ or pure form and have not incorporated the modern, Western or scientific concepts- hence they are potentially dangerous to the West.”
[Pick up a newspaper, extremists are ‘actually’ dangerous, not just ‘potentially’ dangerous. I honestly do not know what a ‘Western’ concept is, but the political liberalism found in Europe and North America (and in all free and open societies) could not care less about how many times a day a person prays or what foods they choose to eat. Our concern is with criminality and political violence.]

“The underlying Western concept is that ‘pure’ Islam in its complete form without Western influences is a problem.”
[Only if it includes harassment, criminality, and violence! Governments, in the West, concern themselves with criminality not orthodoxy.]
“The reason that the West will not be able to win muslim hearts and minds with this approach is that it attacks the religion of Islam.”
[The ‘West’ is an intellectual construct so fail to comprehend how something that does not exist in reality can attack anything. True enough though, any ideology of misogyny, sexism, homophobia, cynophobia (I live in a ‘nation of dog lovers’), paedophilia, nepotism, anti-semitism, political absolutism, intolerance, and criminality will find a cool reception in liberal societies. Wife-beaters and child abusers are hated outright.]
“Muslims sooner or later realize this Western vision and of course they cannot imagine being traitors to their religion.”
[How is being a law-abiding citizen treason to a person’s religion?]
“They do not want to be ‘half muslims’ or the so called ‘moderate muslims of the West’ so they turn into hardliners which they think is the opposite of the ‘moderate’ vision of Islam.”
[This of course is a fallacy of ‘false dichotomy’. Also, being a ‘hardliner’ in the ‘West’ is not a crime. Problems only arise when a ‘true’ Muslim engages in harassment, criminality, and violence.]
“Western efforts to apparently make them ‘semi-muslims’ just fuel their conviction to be ‘pure’ muslims.”
[There are no ‘Western’ efforts against Muslims. This is probably guilt transfer. Who are you to decide what constitutes a ‘pure’ Muslim? If a ‘pure’ Muslim engages in harassment, criminality, and violence they will find no respite in the West.]

“Instead of focusing on encouragement of ‘moderate’ or ‘semi-pure’ muslims, the Western world should encourage and support muslims to find the true vision of Islam-just like they support other scientific initiatives all over the world.”
[Your religion is strictly your business. If Muslims cannot decide upon a “true vision of Islam” what good could we possibly do. Science benefits all humankind, what interest do we have in your theological debates. What if we decide the Shi’a possessed the “true vision of Islam”? Where would that leave you? Also, I find it interesting that you describe ‘moderate’ Muslims as ‘semi-pure’ and separate from Muslims in general. You are basically agreeing with islamophobes that Muslims are not moderate.]
“The fact which the Western world is yet to accept is that Islam is not a hostile or dangerous religion.”
[Actually, historically speaking, Islam was very hostile and belligerent especially against the West (and the East and all parts in between). THIS IS KEY: Islam was spread by the sword. Until you accept that historical reality dialogue is pointless. Islam was spread by ‘amirs’ not missionaries. From Tours to Vienna, Islam was the aggressor. This is an historical fact. Europe was eventually able to beat the Muslims at their own game, but to portray Islam as peaceful is to ignore history.]
“It has been deformed by the uneducated leadership and masses over the past few centuries and hence we see an aggressive, confrontational side now.”
[Islam has always had an aggressive, confrontational side.]
“True spirit of Islam is that of peace, tolerance and that of civic responsibility.”
[The reality is something else, isn’t it? Peace through conquest, tolerance by submission, civic responsibility ignoring corruption.]
“It actively stimulates scientific research and is very progressive.”
[“Very progressive?” There must be a semantic shift in the word progressive. Take an “Islamic” republic like Pakistan with female illiteracy at over 60%, and try to convince me this is progressive.]
“I think that the way for the West to deal with the muslim world is to support the muslims in the in depth study of Islam.”
[Any interference by the West in your dogma would be resented. And fruitless.]
“They need to help the muslims in finding themselves. This should be done both in the West by supporting Islamic think tanks like Zaytuna Institute in US and also by scholarships for studying Islam in the muslim countries themselves.”
[No. I mean, obviously you hold your birth religion in great esteem, but we are not going to support it. The only relevance Islam has in the West is that it has followers that are perceived as trying to kill us. Rightly or wrongly. There are a billion Hindus but we have the luxury to ignore them because they are not blowing up tube stations. This is incredibly harsh, but the unfortunate truth. If Islam was simply a faith, it would be ignored like any of the other great religions. We are secular which means we are out of the religion business.]

“Currently Islamic study is not financially feasible for the youth but if there is a market for this skill, then I am sure true spirit of Islam will come out in the society.”
[Why not a “true spirit” of humanity? We share a common humanity, not religion.]
“I think this investment will lead to long term harmony and peace between Islamic and Western civilizations.”
[Peace will only come through self-criticism on both sides. Indoctrinating impressionable youths with empty dogma is a dead end.]
“The current Western policy of dividing muslims into ‘moderate’ or ‘non-pure’ and ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘pure’ muslims is counterproductive and is never going to work.”
[We are not the ones yelling takfir.]

Thank you for taking time and writing in such detail.

I probably should not have capitalised ``West``.

I think your vision (as I understand it) would work if the west could just keep on going by isolating it self from the muslim world. I donot think it can (or should). Like it or not, we all share the same world which is becoming smaller with time. This is why America ended up in Iraq because it could not leave Iraq to its fate in this era of advanced nuclear weapons. I think the western world and the muslim world both need to live with each other in the long run.

My article is an effort to bridge this gap. I believe muslims need to do their part and saying this is not self-hatred. First step in solving a problem is to acknowledge it. I expect more out of the western world though because I believe that due to centuries of more advanced education, they are kind of ``bigger brothers`` in this relationship. If the west wants to do its part in bridging the mutual mistrust, then I have mentioned some avenues for it. You can disagree with the avenues; you can also disagree with the whole vision that muslims and west NEED to bridge the mutual mistrust. I will be interested in your thoughts.

Thank you for your comments. I knew my response was harsh when I posted it, but I thought it would at least approximate the feelings that many Americans have. In the future I will speak only for myself. We live in a divided world. Bush has polarized the international community the same way he has divided the American electorate. Republicans choose “wedge” issues and voters have to take sides. I can feel this polarization emerging on a global level. It is frightening. But when I see video footage of angry Muslims giving the Nazi salute shouting “death to America” with one harmonious voice which side am I left with? Political violence does not scare me, but this group-think, single-minded, mob psychology (whatever you want to call it) is unnerving to say the least. This may be impressive in some parts of the world, but Americans are reminded of past enemies: Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communists of every stripe. If they goose-step they are the bad guys. I am only speaking of perceptions. Obviously the myth of American moral authority has evaporated. But those of us who never believed in the myth, and are truly outraged by any injustice done in our name, are still confronted with the hateful “other”. One could argue they have every reason to hate. Fine. But the mentality of “if you kill one of our tribe, we’ll kill one of yours” will get us no where. The atrocities committed against Mukhtar Mai unfortunately illustrates this tribal mentality all-too-well. This is not justice. If a person commits a crime, they should be the one punished for that crime (including presidents, PMs, generals, whoever). My position is less bombs, more international institutions. I sincerely want all humans to work together for a better future. But (and here is where I step on toes) religion is by its nature divisive. Let me quote Ibn Khaldun in the Muqaddimah: “In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” Ibn Khaldun was not alone in this opinion. In fact this was/is the consensus opinion. To quote you again: “The fact which the Western world is yet to accept is that Islam is not a hostile or dangerous religion.” I think the truer fact is that Muslims are unwilling to accept that (at least historically) Islam was “a hostile [and] dangerous religion.” Muslims seem to love empire if it is their own. I hate empires in any form, my own NOT excluded. Death to empire; death to imperialism. Muslims still take pride in the 711 CE invasion of Hispania. You remember the words. “The sea is behind you, and the enemy is ahead of you…” That sounds romantic, unless you are on the business end of a sword. I will not recount the history of Islamic foreign relations with Europe, but suffice it to say it was neither peaceful nor tolerant. Islam was spread by the sword. Christianity (originally) was spread by conversion, one believer at a time. That of course changed when Christianity became an empire. My belabored point is that, until Muslims accept and reject their own imperial past, we are at an impasse. Humanity will not tolerate a revitalized, exclusivist, belligerent, political Islam. Islam as a personal faith is totally acceptable. I will fight and die for your right to worship and believe as you see fit. But that right has to be granted to me and everybody else as well. American imperialism/militarism is unacceptable as well, and I recognize this is a real and present danger (THE real and present danger). Maybe the division of ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ Muslims is more accurately between ‘religious’ and ‘political’ Muslims. There are American Muslims who want to replace the US constitution with “shariah”. This is sedition (and pure fantasy). How is this helpful? This is where Muslims and non-Muslims talk past each other. Why not work for a just and equitable legal system, instead of imposing this chimera on a society? What is shariah? Shariah means a ‘path’. When did the ‘path’ become a codified body of law? Yes there are Qur’anic injunctions, but where did the rest come from? Sunnah? What did Muslims do for those two or three centuries before Bukhari put pen to paper? Is fiqh the same as shariah? Why are the four schools different? If shariah is God’s law, who is a mortal to claim a perfect knowledge of the mind of God? Shariah claims to be justice incarnate. In what sense is making a rape victim produce four witnesses to the act of coitus (and barring that rule of evidence conviction is made impossible) justice? [These are real cases!] The rest of the world is pursuing a progressive jurisprudence, and Muslims want to return to a 7th century tribal code where hands are hacked off and people are stoned to death. Again this is an area where Islam and the rest of us part ways. These are irreconcilable differences.

Let me end on a more positive note. If Islam is hated, the religion will die. If Islam is loved and respected, the religion will grow. The days of Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha marching on Vienna are over. In the future, religious belief must be sincere and not imposed (and this includes society to individual, parent to child). ‘True Muslims’ like Omar Bakri Muhammad or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are not protecting Islam, they are destroying Islam. If there is universal contempt for Islam, your children will abandon Islam, or your grand-children, or your great-grand-children. Islam will eventually die. Even today, many Muslims are ‘practical’ apostates. Who wants to be associated with something that is hated? On the other hand, if Islam is loved people will be drawn to it, people will want to be Muslim. Muslims have ignorance/illiteracy and cultural/political authoritarianism on their side for now, but you understand where humanity is heading. Freedom is on the march. Information technology has erased boarders. May the best ideas win. You would claim the unity of God as your most precious doctrine; would you exchange that belief for a headless corpse? A mutilated thief? A battered women? The imperial glory of the Ottomans? The flexible tree will bend with the wind, the rigid tree will break. The winds of change are in full gale.

(These are just my opinions; subject to change without written notice. My intentions are pure. “There can be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions” - Hans Kung.)

Re: # 34

David

A wonderful analysis indeed, albeit from American point of view. In fact the severest sufferers from this `savage fundamentalism` are the people of Pakistan, the epicentre of this savagery, where it rules the roost, with the horrible loudspeaker and the law of blasphemy plus free-for-all-lynchings and carnage in the name of religion. You could not appreciate the `sarcasm and self-hatred` of Asad, but one who is subject to this savagery, both in the name of fundamentalism and enlightenment can understand it well.

WOW! Finally a board on which there is some actual dialogue taking place! Never thought I`d see the day!

:-)

Asad Ali, there is much merit in your identification of the problem, though it would seem to me you`re a bit off the mark the analysis of its causes. Yes, the West would like Muslims to be more `modern`; but no, you often can`t blame them for having the impression that a stronger adherence to Islam leads to extremism.

Yes, there is hypocrisy on the part of the West (controlled as it is by a few vested interests -aka the military-industrial nexus); but no, their recognizing and encouraging `true Islam` is not the solution to the problem. Well, not the complete one anyway... Muslims need to get their house in order first big time!

---

drsyedasad sahib,
Great voice of moderation and balance here! I haven`t seen your handle here before. Then again, I haven`t been around FP for some time now. Welcome, and hope to read more of your thoughts.

---

billdunc,
Welcome, dude. I like your style, espeically your intellectual rigor. You`re right, the Muslim over-reaction to the Danish cartoons (witnessed here by nadeem`s incredible comparison of the same with the hypothetical scenario of a billboard of one`s mother in the nude) is ample evidence that reason does not attend many Muslims` reactions to the slightest sign of criticism from the West. This sorta reaction is in itself suggestive of one of the deeper problems vis-a-vis open dialog.
I also liked your take on Benedict`s reasons for provoking Islamic rancor. I was naive enough to assume he`d inadvertantly or uncalculatedly said what he did (which, incidentally, i still believe was stupid!) Read here if interested.

---

rgds.

Re: # 34

``At least we bifurcate. You portray the “West” as monolithic. Why do you capitalize Western and not Muslim? Both should be capitalized. Parapraxis or Freudian slip? Your essay reeks of self-hatred``

Why don`t you ``bifurcate`` amongst moderate and extremist Christians.... read the Neocons, the Basque Separatists, the IRA. Why don`t you bifurcate amongst the Moderate and Extremist Jews...i guess committing mass slaughter and holding entire populations does not fall in your definition of ``extremism``.

``Pick up a newspaper, extremists are ‘actually’ dangerous, not just ‘potentially’ dangerous. I honestly do not know what a ‘Western’ concept is, but the political liberalism found in Europe and North America (and in all free and open societies) could not care less about how many times a day a person prays or what foods they choose to eat. Our concern is with criminality and political violence``

Your concern is, and has always has been, for what furthers western imperialist agendas around the world. So although 19 Sept 11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian....the West can deal with that regime as long as it keeps the oil flowing to US industry. Democracy in Algeria and Iran is bad when ``extremist`` muslims win......military dictatorship in Pakistan is fine as long as western agendas are being met.

``Actually, historically speaking, Islam was very hostile and belligerent especially against the West (and the East and all parts in between). THIS IS KEY: Islam was spread by the sword. Until you accept that historical reality dialogue is pointless. Islam was spread by ‘amirs’ not missionaries. From Tours to Vienna, Islam was the aggressor. This is an historical fact. Europe was eventually able to beat the Muslims at their own game, but to portray Islam as peaceful is to ignore history.``

De Lacy O`Leary in the book ``Islam at the cross road`` states ``History makes it clear however, that the legend of the fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.``

When Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years, they never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims.

In the Arab world, Muslims were the lords of the land for more than 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled and for a few years the French ruled. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.


`` Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error`` (Baqarah 2:256)

Re: # 34

``At least we bifurcate. You portray the “West” as monolithic. Why do you capitalize Western and not Muslim? Both should be capitalized. Parapraxis or Freudian slip? Your essay reeks of self-hatred``

Why don`t you ``bifurcate`` amongst moderate and extremist Christians.... read the Neocons, the Basque Separatists, the IRA. Why don`t you bifurcate amongst the Moderate and Extremist Jews...i guess committing mass slaughter and holding entire populations does not fall in your definition of ``extremism``.

``Pick up a newspaper, extremists are ‘actually’ dangerous, not just ‘potentially’ dangerous. I honestly do not know what a ‘Western’ concept is, but the political liberalism found in Europe and North America (and in all free and open societies) could not care less about how many times a day a person prays or what foods they choose to eat. Our concern is with criminality and political violence``

Your concern is, and has always has been, for what furthers western imperialist agendas around the world. So although 19 Sept 11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian....the West can deal with that regime as long as it keeps the oil flowing to US industry. Democracy in Algeria and Iran is bad when ``extremist`` muslims win......military dictatorship in Pakistan is fine as long as western agendas are being met.

``Actually, historically speaking, Islam was very hostile and belligerent especially against the West (and the East and all parts in between). THIS IS KEY: Islam was spread by the sword. Until you accept that historical reality dialogue is pointless. Islam was spread by ‘amirs’ not missionaries. From Tours to Vienna, Islam was the aggressor. This is an historical fact. Europe was eventually able to beat the Muslims at their own game, but to portray Islam as peaceful is to ignore history.``

De Lacy O`Leary in the book ``Islam at the cross road`` states ``History makes it clear however, that the legend of the fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.``

When Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years, they never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims.

In the Arab world, Muslims were the lords of the land for more than 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled and for a few years the French ruled. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.


`` Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error`` (Baqarah 2:256)

Re: # 38

[“Why don`t you ``bifurcate`` amongst moderate and extremist Christians …”]
We were not talking about Christians, Neocons, Basque Separatists, the IRA or Jews. Your entire first paragraph is a giant, mixed-up fallacy. Red herring, tu quoque, ad hominem; I am unable to classify precisely. “At least we bifurcate…” was sarcasm. Bifurcation is the logical fallacy of allowing only two choices (e.g. ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’), which is better than allowing only one (e.g. the West). Personally, I am a splitter not a lumper. Mass slaughter is a crime, so however I define extremism is irrelevant. (And I will assume the small ‘i’ was a case of parapraxis.)

[“Your concern is, and has always has been…”]
My concern?!? You are obviously a lumper.
To be factual, 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. Look at the power relationships that exist in the international community. Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? Because it could. The United States is the giant power in the world, economically and militarily. Unfortunately, might still makes right. But, like you said, America needs the oil, therefore Saudi Arabia has relative power over the United States. Besides, the Saud Crime Family was not implicated in the 911 attacks (unless you have any evidence to the contrary).
[“Democracy … is bad when ``extremist`` [M]uslims win.”] Yes, in my view, absolutely. You were being sarcastic, so am I to assume you think extremists make good leaders? ‘Democracy’ can be a vacuous term. The Soviet Union claimed to be a democracy. Iran claims to be democratic. My political values are: representative and open government, due process of law, equal rights under the law, ‘no man is above the law’, civil liberties, social justice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, &c. Liberalism matches my values so I believe in liberal democracy. You have different values, and I understand that. If you want a Mawdudi-religiofascist state, then work for it. But do not delude yourself that by couching tyranny in Islamic terms a utopia will appear, justice will prevail, and you will live happily ever after.
I have not studied Algeria but let us reflect: the elections were cancelled out of fear of the Islamic parties, and what happened? To prove the point, FIS unleashed a bloodbath, or in your words: mass slaughter. How many died? 100,000? 200,000? And this was with the Islamists outside of government and without control of the army. Arab killing Arab; Muslim killing Muslim. The Algerian Civil War is a perfect example of the threat of ‘extremism’. “Democracy is not a suicide pact.” Pakistan, of all nations, is NOT fine, but that is your problem. If you don’t like it, change it. Blaming everybody else for your own problems is annoying. But if “you” elect a party that is on “our” {how I hate tribalism} FTO Foreign Terrorist Organizations list, “we” will cut all ties with “you” (e.g. Palestine e.g. Hamas). If I hated Muslims {I do not} I would wish for Islamist victories from Morocco to Indonesia. 40 to 45 Mullah Muhammed Omars as leaders? Qur’an-only education? Complete female disenfranchisement? Muslims in their ignorance would be in perpetual servitude to the “West” (and East, North and South). I don’t want this; and you certainly don’t want this.

[De Lacy O`Leary “fantastically absurd myth”] I repeat: Islam was spread by the sword. Muslims did not send missionaries around the world, they sent armies. Compare this with the early spread of Christianity; Paul did not take an army with him to Rome. When Christianity became the Roman Empire under Constantine that changed, without question; (I have heard Muhammad described as “his own Constantine” in this context).
Islam, unlike the primitive Christian church, was not simply a personal belief system; Islam was also a political ideology [refer once again to Ibn Khaldun]. When I use the word ‘Islam’ I take this into consideration; O`Leary is shamelessly equivocating. Islam means submission, for Muslims this means to Allah (and His representative on earth: the caliph), for everybody else, this means to the Islamic state. Obviously, collecting the jizya was more important than spreading the deen. All the poor suckers in Islamic history, told to expect their reward in the hereafter while the caliph and his cronies got theirs in this world. Die in jihad and get your 72 virgins in heaven, so I the caliph can have my virgins in this world. Suckers. Where is God in the machinations of men? As if Muslims were no longer human, and were no longer motivated by the age-old desires of greed, power and sex.

[“…they never used the sword to force the people to convert.”] This is false (or at least overstated). Just one example, when the Almohades entered Córdoba in 1148 they threatened the Jews to convert to Islam or die. This is the reason why the Jewish philosopher Maimonides left his home in Córdoba. Aren’t there any pangs of reason in your mind when imply Muslims were always the good guys? When I read history, I find what I expect to find: humans acting like humans. In India Hindus were given dhimmi status (even though Hinduism is the most idolatrous religion I can think of) because Muslims simply could not kill them all. This is about power not faith. The Islamists in India were the fiercest opponents of establishing Pakistan as a separate Muslim homeland because they wanted suzerainty over the majority Hindus. Power not faith.

[“Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims.”] Yes the Christians were complete bastards. Thankfully Christians are out of power and back in their missionary position.

[“If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.”] The Muslims did use the sword to establish their various empires, but again, this is about power not faith. Coercion can take many forms.

This is from the Indian historian Jadunath Sarkar on the dhimmi in his History of Aurangzib:

“A non-Muslim, therefore, cannot be a citizen of the State; he is a member of a depressed class; his status is a modified form of slavery.”
“He must undergo political and social disabilities, and pay commutation-money (jaziya). In short, his continued existence in the State after the conquest of his country by the Muslims is conditional upon his person and property being made subservient to the cause of Islam.”
“No non-Muslim (zimmi) can wear fine dresses, ride on horseback or carry arms; he must behave respectfully and submissively to every member of the dominant sect”
“In addition to the poll-tax and public degradation in dress and demeanour imposed on them, the non-Muslims were subjected to various hopes and fears. Rewards in the form of money and public employment were offered to apostates from Hinduism. The leaders of Hindu religion and society were systematically repressed, to deprive the sect of spiritual instruction, and their religious gatherings and processions were forbidden in order to prevent the growth of solidity and a sense of communal strength among them. No new temple was allowed to be built nor any old one to be repaired, so that the total disappearance of all places of Hindu worship was to be merely a question of time. But even this delay, this slow operation of Time, was intolerable to many of the more fiery spirits of Islam, who tried to hasten the abolition of ‘infidelity’ by anticipating the destructive hand of Time and forcibly pulling down temples.”

And this from modern Egypt; nothing has changed:

“Christians are not allowed to build or even repair their own churches without a presidential decree.”

[[Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. -- Al Bara’at 9:29]]
[[“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 600 years BH before Hegira*)]]

*H ijra is a bad word??

Just watch a new phenomenon in Paky history: The acting CJ of Pakistan (He might become actual CJ earlier if he gets rid of the incumbent CJ), Shiree Bhagwan Das, a Hindu by profession, seems to be fond of calling the name of Allah. Paradoxical and sinister does it not look; Bhagwan reciting the name of Allah.

Re: # 40
Firstly, hinduism is not a profession, its a religion. Secondly, people should not be judged on the basis of their religion since it is a personal matter. They should be judged on what they do in the society.

Dear Asad

I think your analysis is off the mark. By West, I think you mean Western media. The Western media is a very different institution from the political and state institutions. Watching CNN you`d imagine they were related but they are not. The Western media`s prime responsibility is to make Western foreign policy palatable to the local people. To make that happen, the media throws up words like `moderate` Muslims. This does not mean `unbelievers` or non-authentic muslims. It just helps local people view Muslims as threatening, scary and bad. If you examine Western foreign policy it has been supporting and encouraging religion through-out the Middle-east and satellite Muslim states like Pakistan. Religion keeps people quiescant, accomodating, ill-educated and tame. Most alliances of the West have been with non progressives in the Muslim world. Or the alliance has been short-lived.

This is why I think your analysis is off-key. You are reading too much into FOX or what have you. Media channels like this are just meant to manage the thoughts and information consumption of local people, so that local people remain wary, afraid and suspicious of Muslims and are convinced to view them as dangerous elements abroad who must be controlled using hostile means.

SOme Muslims see this as an opportunity to go out and Public and get famous. The media likes that--it plays up writers like Irshad Manji and or any others. At best it is a game to keep people confused and wasting time writing about moderate, severe et all Muslims.

There is very little difference between Muslims and other monotheistic religions. They are just the Arab versions of Christainity. The real minds behind State policies knew that before you and I were born to tell them `the grand truth` about Muslims. The idea itself that somehow Muslims are a threat to the West, is a self-pertuating fantasy of Muslims like yourself. In the meanwhile while people ponder, prevaricate and wonder, all the oil of the world is being taken by UK, US and Canada, and that is all what this drama is about--NOTHING ELSE.

Re: # 41

My god! Excuse me drsyedasad you took my post rather too seriously and critically when I had intended it to be a sarcastic remark in a lighter vein.

You said:

``Firstly, hinduism is not a profession, its a religion.``

This made me look up the dictionary. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary , the firstmost meaning of the word `profession` is given as ``declaration of a faith in a religion``.

What I had meant was that Justice Bhagwan who professes to be a Hindu by faith seems to be wary of the name of `Bhagwan`, a Hindu god` and chants the name only of `Allah`, the Islamic Bhagwan when even most of the muslims chant the name of `Khuda`, a Persian god, in their mundane talk. So Allah in the mouth of Bhagwan looked rather strange to me and somewhat hypocritical and sinister also. But sorry to say you started to teach me English, for which, no doubt, I should be thankful to you, in any case.

Btw, I guess you are a medical doctor by `profession` perhaps as I expect such a response only from a `professioanal` only.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts