A Guantanomized Age

'Only Islam, it appears, is on the dining menu, and it is cooked to order.'

Very apt description now that Communism has been left alone. But this treatment of Islam using the neo-colonial carving knife will eventually give them a sour mouth and fill the bellies with hell-fire.

Peace.

Re #96 Posted by MatloobZaman on,

well, you can ignore it, if you want...but it is truth so you will have to face it again soon, either from me or from somebody else..

#95
Stop pressing your insanity plea.

Re #94 Posted by MatloobZaman on,
Good.. so you get them everywhere and then you stuff them into Islam? Then you filter it out again to say that basics are this and this??? Why you need to stuff them into Islam if they are already everywhere???

And where do you get that political Islam?? At Baniye ki Dukaan or Halwaai of Kuran??

Re: # 90
Where do we get those "basics"
At all the good places other than baniye key dukan.

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

Re: # 81
Laddu...
"...moslems as inferior.."
Special rights, minority commission... so many sops, that for the arab slave barbarians...what purpose it serves for the country?

further on #89 Posted by MatloobZaman on

In such nonesensical purest and most basic sense everybody lives for just "happiness" and not for killing or giving pain to others, so how do you get so many problems between problem.

So how come this "living for happiness" seems to be so different?

Because, if your idea of "happiness", "peace" or "submission" is stupid, or say involve making more and more money or getting all the comforts in the world (for happiness) or converting/removing kafirs (for peace and submission), then it is not what you say. It needs much detailed statements to describe what it is.

#89 Posted by MatloobZaman on

[[When I speak of Islam & Muslim I only refer to the basic which is Peace and Submission to Almighty in its purest and most basic sense propagated by the message of Islam and to be followed by believers of the given faith.]]

Where do we get those "basics" and if that is the case who gave the "political" basis of Islam? muslims???

"in its purest and most basic sense", how did you filter this purest sense???

======

Eklavya is now a days reading hindu books (he told me somewhere in some other post) and so is quite confused about what Islam is. He may agree to almost anything.

===

Eklavya,

that "not too happy, not too unhapppy" thing was originally "not to be happy and not to be unhappy" as per hinduism (and was for self not for others), but don't read too much of that stuff. Hinduism has too many scriptures and too much is writen in them, you may end up living in jungle or in himalayas.

Re: # 78
Eklavya

I hear your point and agree with it, which comes back to re-narrate what I meant to relay without bringing in the Bin-Forgotten.

The Bin-Forgotten's mention by the US is another method of the given entity to first demonize a figure and label him/her and then to keep on chewing on that figure's redundant demonized mention until, if not the entire world at least the US public is totally brainwashed to the extent of accepting the theory they are being made to drink day in and day out while the US media provides a positive and wide-spread exposure to such crafty theories.

When I speak of Islam & Muslim I only refer to the basic which is Peace and Submission to Almighty in its purest and most basic sense propagated by the message of Islam and to be followed by believers of the given faith.

But of course if what US and cronies insist upon telling the entire world over and again regarding Bin-Forgotten, and, 'IF' it is true then that does not represent the true Islam or Muslim in any proportion.

Thanks & regards.

Zardari should first close these punjabi madarasas that support violent jehad and take on the punjabi mullahs who are creating programmed robots out of small and innocent children who would be ready to die and detonate themselves for jehad when they grow up.

Muslims (esp pakistanis) should pause for a minute today in the wake of the islamabad bombings and think! why is it that the terrorism america and uk are so scared of is actually not unfolding there but in pakistan and other muslim countries. the taliban and al-qaeda who the west think are terrorists and hell bent on destroying kafirs ; why is it that they are actually killing fellow muslims and not them, apart from the WTC and pentagon we have not seen anything happen in ameirca since 9/11 or in uk. its rather strange the muslims terrorists are actually killing muslims! this my fellow muslims is just a media game to exloit and defame islam, the real hands behind these are elsewhere and their motives are also becoming clear.. make pakistan sound like an unsafe region then prance in and take charge so you can keep an eye on china (which is the next big super power, and india which is no.2) islam is no threat to america ; china and india are!
plus i ask and please everyone just think, if al-qaeda and taliban were against kafirs in general and wanted to destroy them all and create a muslim world would they not target china or south america where larger populations live? or would it not attack france or italy (but it never has because france and italy are civilized nations that do not interfere in other ppl's houses, they are content with what they have and are happy producing luxury goods for us!) lots of things for you guys to think about.. dont believe what you see on tele! and iam ashamed of the PPP govt they dont have the brains to think this but actually think it can be taliban... tch tch

So the Americans have sent a message through their suicide bomber in the heart of Islamabad to remove glitches in establishing a large scale base near Islamabad, and to give a clear message to Zardari before his upcoming US trip (Tuesday), isn't it a 'self fulfilling prophecy' of some months back which said that if they Pakistanis didn't follow the US line, including the punctuation and what not that similar attacks like the one that killed BB could follow!:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-mullen19- 2008sep19,0,1310930.story

U.S. military advisors may soon head to Pakistan

The U.S. and Pakistan have cleared remaining obstacles, so the long-delayed team may arrive within weeks, Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen says.

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 19, 2008

A long-delayed plan to send dozens of U.S. military advisors to Pakistan to train its army in counterinsurgency could begin in a matter of weeks under a new agreement on a training base, according to the top U.S. military officer.

Washington for months has urged the Pakistani military to accept the training team. Pakistan has resisted, asking for additional weaponry and equipment some U.S. officials believe is best suited for its standoff with regional rival India.

But Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the primary stumbling block had been the fact that Pakistan could not build the training site, near the western town of Peshawar, quickly enough. The two sides have agreed to use an alternative base north of the capital.

"We're still going through some administrative delays, but I do see it happening," Mullen said in an interview en route from Washington to his hometown of Los Angeles, where he plans a series of talks in coming days. "I think it's in the next few weeks."

Some interesting insights into the idea of the "moderate" muslim:

Kafir Dreams
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you Jamie.

FP: I’d like to talk to you today about how many of the names, words and phrases we use about Islam are muddled and incorrect. Many non-Muslims create certain terms about Islam to try to make the world seem safer and to feel good about themselves. But many of these terms have no actual basis in Islamic theology or culture and have no real meaning in an Islamic context.

I think the best way to start this discussion is to begin with the term “moderate Muslim."

Warner: “Moderate Muslim� is a perfect example of the muddle and incorrect terminology that kafirs (unbelievers) use.

This term is intended to describe a Muslim who doesn’t seem dangerous or advocate violence. But “moderate Muslim� is a non-Muslim name, one that kafirs made up.

The doctrine of Islam does talk about the different kinds of Muslims. The measure of a Muslim is the Koran and the Sunna. Anyone who follows these teachings is a moderate Muslim, by definition.

Islamic doctrine defines what is moderate and not moderate. Since we are dealing with Islam, we need to know that the doctrine is dualistic. Islam can have two doctrines about any issue. This follows from the Koran. The early Koran, which was written in Mecca is generally religious. The Koran written in Medina is very political and includes jihad. The two Korans are not only very different, but they also contradict each other in major ways.

So we have the possibility of two kinds of moderate Muslims, since we have two doctrines. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim, who follows the Koran of Medina, the Koran of jihad. Kafirs call him an extremist or radical Muslim. Actually, Osama obeys the Koran of Medina and the Sunna of Mohammed, so he is a moderate, pious Medinan Muslim.

The jihadists on September 11, 2001 were all moderate Medinan Muslims. They were not extremists or radicals.

The other kind of moderate Muslim follows the Koran of Mecca and he is more generally what kafirs mean when they say “moderate Muslim�. But how moderate is a Meccan Muslim? A moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir, but he isn’t violent, just antagonistic.

FP: So tell us exactly what “kafir� means. We take it to mean unbeliever but I presume it is more complicated than that.

Warner: The usual translation of this Arabic word is unbeliever, but unbeliever is only a very small part of its meaning. It is the Koran that defines the word “kafir� and it says the most terrible things can happen to them. The Koranic doctrine about kafirs says they are hated and are Satan’s friends. Kafirs can be robbed, killed, tortured, raped, mocked, cursed, condemned and plotted against. The Koran does not have one good thing to say about kafirs. (There are some psuedo-good words, but more about them later.)

For over the last 1400 years, 270 million kafirs have died as a result of the political doctrine of Islam. It is the biggest single source of suffering in the history of the world.

The word kafir is the worst word in the human language. It is far worse than the n-word, because the n-word is a personal opinion, whereas, kafir is Allah’s decree. Nearly two thirds of the Koran is devoted to the kafir. Islam is fixated on the kafir and the moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir. How moderate is that?

FP: I guess not very moderate.

Warner: Well the moderation does not stop there. A moderate Muslim follows Islamic ethics. Not only is the Koran a dualistic document, but also Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs. A Muslim does not lie, cheat, kill, or harm another Muslim. But, if it will advance Islam, a kafir may be cheated, deceived, murdered, tortured and raped. Or a Muslim may treat a kafir like a brother.

It is the dualism of Islam that gives it such power. It has the entire good cop/bad cop psychology built into its very DNA. There have been other groups with dualistic ethics, the KKK for instance. But a member of the KKK hates all blacks all the time. There is a certain bald-faced honesty in the hatred of the KKK. But Islam has the good cop face to the world most of the time. The bad cop is held in reserve the same way that a police detective carries a hidden weapon.

The ethical dualism means that Islam does not take part in the shared reciprocity of altruism. As an example, Islam is very big on charity, but Islamic charity only goes to Muslims. When Saudi Arabia sent money to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, the money only went to Muslims, not to suffering kafirs.

FP: Can you expand a bit on reciprocity of altruism?

Warner: Reciprocity of altruism[1] is the very basis of civilization. Islam does not share this trait. This is one of the reasons that Islam is not a part, nor can it be, of kafir civilization. Islam is built on different ethics and logic than the kafirs. Islam’s dualistic ethics prohibit reciprocity of altruism. Islamic civilization and kafir civilization do not share similar values.

So a moderate non-violent Muslim thinks that you are a kafir and that a kafir does not have to be treated the same as another Muslim. The moderate Muslim (Islamic meaning) thinks that you are Allah’s scum and you can be treated like trash. Or not (dualism always has options).

How can such a person be a true friend, if he believes the Koran. In some 14 verses, the Koran says that the Muslim is not the friend of a kafir. But what if the person actually is your friend? We can deal with this very important question if you wish.

In any case, the term moderate Muslim has two totally different meanings. The kafir meaning is warm, fuzzy and incorrect. The Islamic meaning is cruel, precise and correct.

FP: What are some other false kafir names?

Warner: Radical Muslim. Extremist Muslim. Reformed Islam.

What is a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim is capable of harming kafirs. A radical Muslim is a Medinan Muslim, but a Medinan Muslim follows Mohammed’s actions. So killing kafirs is not radical. Harming kafirs follows Mohammed’s example and is pure Islam, not a radical interpretation.

FP: So, overall, what is the real issue here?

Warner: Islam.

These false names used by kafirs are an attempt to humanize Islam. The kafirized naming tries to put the violence (radical, extremist) outside of Islam or suggest that violence is a bizarre interpretation of Islamic doctrine. But Mohammed was involved in a violent episode on the average of every six weeks for his last nine years. Again, Mohammed defines moderation, and the violence is integral to Islam.

The doctrine of both religious and political Islam is based on dualism and submission. The religious doctrine is of no concern to a kafir. It is the politics that concerns kafirs.

Political Islam is based upon dualism and submission. All of humanity is divided into kafirs and Muslims, with not one good word for the kafirs.

Names like “moderate� and “good� are an attempt to link goodness and Islam. But there is no goodness in Islam for the kafir, only for another Muslim. This is extremely harsh, but it is a consequence of the doctrine of political Islam.

If you are well-read in the Islamic political doctrine, you may jump in and say that the Korans says a positive things about Christians and Jews. These few good things are a very few sentences. It is sad to see how Muslims and apologists drag the pitiful few sentences out of the Koran to show the good in Islam for the kafirs. First, compared to the massive amount of hateful, hurtful and evil things said about the kafirs, the few good sentences are statistically insignificant.

But worst of all is that the good verses are contradicted by later doctrine. This is another aspect of dualism.

The doctrine of Islam is not static since it is based upon the life of Mohammed. The doctrine describes a process. The conclusion of that process was annihilation of the native Arab culture with not a single enemy of Mohammed left standing. In the end, there is no good in Islam for the kafir, nothing. That is the conclusion to the process of political Islam. Those “nice, tolerant� verses are temporary tactics to be used while Islam is weak.

Most kafirs treat the doctrine of Islam like a box of those magnetic words you can put on the refrigerator. By choosing the right words, they can make any sentence and any thought. But the doctrine of Islam is a very coherent story. It has a beginning, middle and an end. Islamic doctrine is taken from the life of Mohammed, not from a dictionary of unrelated facts. Indeed, the remarkable thing about Islamic doctrine is how systematic and logical it is. You can’t just reach in and take a sentence or verse here and there.

What is the most important thing about a story is its conclusion.

FP: And the conclusion is?

Warner: The conclusion is that political Islam is always bad for the kafir. In the end, all Christians and Jews must submit to Islam. That is the goodness of Islam for kafirs. As long as the kafirs submit to Islam’s demands, then Islam is good to them.

Dualism is the key to understanding Islam. On the surface many parts of the Koran contradict each other. The usual explanation is that the older, nicer verses are abrogated by the later verses. But in reality all of the Koran is true since it comes from the only god, Allah. Allah is perfection, and therefore, the contradictory statements in the Koran are all true. This violates Aristotelian kafir logic, but it defines the Islamic dualistic logic. In Islam two contradictory things can both be true at the same time. So for every one of those statistically insignificant “good� verses, each one is weak, and the stronger harsh and violent verses are stronger. Contradictions are integral to Islamic logic.

To put a fine point on the previous claim—the only good for kafirs in the doctrine of political Islam is negated somewhere else.

FP: So what is the good of Islam?

Warner: Islam is the cause; Muslims are the effect. So if there is no good in Islam for a kafir, how is there any good in a Muslim for a kafir? There is not any good in a Muslim for kafirs. Cause and effect. But there can be good in people who call themselves Muslims.

Now we get to our central problem. There are some nice people who are Muslims, how do we explain this?

The doctrinal problem here is that a Muslim cannot be the friend of a kafir. The Koran says this 14 times. So if a friend is a Muslim, then that friendship has to be based on something other than Islam.

Notice that Islam has a strong core doctrine of mutual Muslims friendship; indeed the Koran says that Muslims are brothers and sisters to each other. And why can Muslims be friends? Because they are equal.

But a Muslim is not the political equal to a kafir because the Koran says that a Muslim is superior. So where does the good person who is a Muslim get his basis for friendship? The same place as everyone else does—from equality, the same equality that is inferred from the Golden Rule.

Treat others as you want to be treated.

Which others? All others, without exception. The Golden Rule implies the unity of humanity. There are no limits to its application.

The Golden Rule does not apply to Islam. Indeed, Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule. The duality of Islam divides all humanity into Muslims and kafirs. There are no two groups more unequal than kafirs and Muslims.

FP: So what do we call the Muslim that is a friend of a non-believer?

Warner: The goodness in your Muslim friend comes from the kafir civilization, not Islam. Your friend is a kafirized Muslim, but he is not a good or a moderate Muslim. Remember, Osama bin Laden is a good and moderate Muslim.

FP: A kafirized Muslim. This is interesting. Expand for us please.

Warner: A kafirized Muslim is a new naming, but an old reality. For some reason, every analysis of Muslims assumes that they are completely Muslim, without any kafir in them. But Islam does not drive all Muslims in all aspects of their life. Kafir culture has some very appealing ideals and people who call themselves Muslims are attracted to the benevolence in it. A true Muslim has absolutely no attraction to any aspect of kafir culture. The Koran and Sunna condemn 100% of kafir culture, so no Muslim has any desire to emulate kafirs. As soon as a person has any attraction to any aspect of kafir culture, they cease to be a Muslim and become kafir. That is the way the doctrine of Islam works.

The name kafirized Muslim is analytic and fits the data. But kafirized Muslim is more than a name; it is a new concept with some very profound consequences.

What are its advantages? It is better than any of the alternatives such as a “good Muslim�, a “moderate Muslim� or my “Muslim friend�. All of these names are an attempt to bring some good out of Islam. But, there is no good in Islam for kafirs, only for Muslims.

The name kafirized Muslim acknowledges a bridge between Islam and kafirs. It is bigoted to assume that every Muslim has all of their behavior based upon Islam. Islam may demand that a person be 100% governed by Islam, but the truth is that Muslims are people and as people they are capable of picking and choosing. What is wrong with acknowledging that Muslims can be part kafir? What is wrong by acknowledging that the Golden Rule attracts Muslims?

The word “Muslim� entraps a person into a small box. What we need to be able to do is recognize the person, not the Muslim. We live in a multicultural age where the majority culture is defined as oppressive. In order to distinguish yourself, you should be separated from the main body. Hence, a name like African-American exists. But these names come with a box. If you are African-American, you are supposed to have certain political and social views. Similarly, the name Muslim can become a narrow category for a person. A Muslim should only have certain views, or you are not a “real� Muslim.

The name kafirized Muslim acknowledges that we are dealing with a person, not a category.

The usual names, (good Muslim, moderate Muslim), attempt to credit the good found in Muslims to the doctrine of Islam. The term kafirized Muslim clearly states that the good comes from the kafirs, not Islam.

Now we get to the crux of the politics of the made-up naming. These names represent a desperate attempt to deal with the problem of Islamic threats, violence and destruction of kafir civilization. Very few people know much about either the doctrine or history of political Islam. So they think of Islam as only a religion and believe since Islam has so many members, it must be one of the great religions. And all religions are good, so Islam must be good. But there is a nagging dark feeling about the violence in Islam. Since Islam has been defined good, there must be an explanation. Those Muslims who kill must be “extremist� Muslims. That leaves Islam as good with a few rotten apples.

In Islam, Mohammed, Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr and all of the rest of the founding Muslims were “extremist� Muslims since they were killers over and over again. What kafirs call extremism is only Islam.

FP: In the context of everything you are saying, what is the hope, or point, of trying to “reform� Islam?

Warner: Some come up with the thinking that if Islam has nothing good for kafirs, then why not reform it? This idea comes from making an analogy to Christianity. However, Islam’s claims aside, there are almost no points of comparison between Islam and Christianity. On the issue of ethics, for instance, there is absolutely no analogy.

The religion of Islam needs no reform. Who cares about how Muslims worship? All kafirs must be concerned with Islamic politics or how Islam defines them. The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith determine the treatment of kafirs.

To reform the Koran, all of the hateful, cruel, and bigoted references to kafirs would have to be removed. If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs.

The Sira (the life of Mohammed) has about 75% of its material devoted to jihad.

The Hadith has 20% of its material devoted to jihad. There is no one positive reference to kafirs.

If you delete 61% of the Koran, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith, you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it. There is a very good reason that Islam has never been reformed. It is impossible.

Is it so hard to believe that a political system with the name “submission� (that is what Islam means) is violent and can't be reformed? To submit is a demand of force.

Why would Islam want to reform? It works. You don’t fix a system that works.

The other objection to Islamic reform is that there is no central hierarchy that makes decision for Muslims. Anyone can read the doctrine and decide what to do. No one has the authority to decide what every Muslim can do. In that way, Islam is like the Internet; it is a distributed system with no central doctrinal authority. Who speaks for Islam? Mohammed. Who interprets Mohammed? Any Muslim.

You can have a kafirized Muslim, but there is no such thing as kafirized Islam. Islam cannot be reformed. Hence, the name reformed Islam is only a kafir dream.

FP: So we need to start using the right names and terms.

Warner: Of course. The right names help to think right thoughts. Muddled names lead to muddled thoughts. If we are serious, we must start using the right names to describe Islam. Our terms must be based upon Islam, not kafir dreams.

If we want to refer to the more peaceful Muslims, call them Meccan Muslims. The jihadists are Medinan Muslims.

Wrong names include: moderate Muslim, extremist Muslim, good Muslim, radical Muslim.

Right names include: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim, kafirized Muslim.

We must take control of the language. Incorrect names lead to incorrect thinking. We have to use the right names to defeat political Islam.

FP: So what point of view is your argument and outlook based on?

Warner: All of this analysis is based upon a kafir-centric view. There are three ways to examine Islam—believer, kafir and dhimmi. The believer-centric view is the standard Islamic viewpoint. For the believer, the Koran is the perfect word of the only god of the universe and Mohammed is the prefect pattern for all human life and all times.

Kafir-centric analysis looks at Islam from the viewpoint of the kafir; how does this affect us?

Kafir-centric analysis is the view of the victim. As an example, in the Sira, Mohammed’s triumph over the Meccan polytheists is told as a wonderful victory. From the view of the kafir, it represents the annihilation of a tolerant society and the creation of the modern apartheid state of Arabia. As a result of Islam, the Arabs went from being a tolerant people to being the most bigoted and biased society on earth.

The kafir-centric school is skeptical and analytic.

The dhimmi-centric viewpoint is the academic school and is neither fish nor fowl. It is marked by political correctness and never refers to the deaths of the 270 million kafirs, never talks about the suffering of the dhimmis. The dhimmi-centric school is actually believer-centric lite. It rarely applies skepticism. The dhimmi-centric school is the predominate school in the universities, military, law enforcement, government and the media. The dhimmi-centric school is very fond of using modern political science to analyze Islam.

One of the marks of the dhimmi-centric school is to ignore Islamic political theory. For instance, jihad is never used to explain violence. Or Israel is seen only as a modern political state and the Palestinians are just another political group. Reading the Israelis news stories, you would never know that Islam had a doctrine of war. But when you read the communications of the Palestinian leaders, it is crystal clear that it is jihad against the kafirs in Israel. From the standpoint of Islam, if every Jew in Israel were a Hindu, nothing would change.

Multiculturalism is all the rage these days. What is strange is that only the believer-centric school and the kafir-centric theory explain Islam by its doctrine. The dhimmi-centric academic school avoids this at all costs. This is ironic since it was the academics who created multiculturalism. So the dhimmi-centric school is bigoted and euro-centric by its own standards of multiculturalism.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for this fascinating and eye-opening discussion.

Warner: You are welcome Jamie.

Notes:

[1] Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, Chapter 8, Sociality, pgs. 130-180, Nicholas Wade, Penguin Press, NY, 2006.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles

harimau #83 {"If you checked fatwa-online (or in the original Arabic), you will find that it is perfectly permissible for a Muslim to beat his wife in case of disobedience.
Don't be a kaffir and advocate not beating one's wife. "}

Harimau,
I can direct you to some Dalit websites where you can go and defend the the injunction to kill, maim, and suppress fellow human beings without the sin of touching them. I can quote from the Bible where menstruating women are not to go near the temple.
Whether factual or manufactured for insidious reasons, such relics of the past need to be researched, refuted, and eradicated from our modern systems - including religious, economic, social, legal, or political.
The current effort in Turkey to discard irrelevant, obscure, and divisive "Hadiths" and perceptions is to be commended. Thank you for your genuine interest in improving Islamic institutions.

Sincerely,
Salim

Ref pakiturk #76

[Your assertion that America treats its Muslims better than the treatment they receive in most Muslim countries does not hold water. It's analogous to saying that a husband who beats his wife once a week is a better husband than the one who beats his wife several times a week. The correct position should be that domestic violence is evil - regardless of the frequency or intensity.]

If you checked fatwa-online (or in the original Arabic), you will find that it is perfectly permissible for a Muslim to beat his wife in case of disobedience.

Don't be a kaffir and advocate not beating one's wife.

"herald a new age of Guantanomized discourse ..."

Since Islamists have ushered in a new age of "Jehadized-discourse" where every non-muslim is to be terrorized into submission - it is time such a counter discourse where every Islamist is presumed guilty of accepting the "discourse of Jehad" until he publically recants and criticizes it.

"....Muslim life does not occupy the same plane as American life....."

Go to a shariah state like Saudi Arabia that every Pakistani wants to emulate and see what is the blood value of an idolator kafir as compared to a full bloodied muslim male....

at least America and other liberal states in Europe (and India) do not legislate to make muslim blood inferior to non-muslims like Islam does in its occupied land.........

"....Only Islam, it appears, is on the dining menu, and it is cooked to order.........."

Hey, now that we idolators have been on the dining menu of Islam since it's beginning......it is our time to question the genocidal agenda of Islam against idolators like me in the free world....

"We are, after all, ceaselessly reminded that terrorists subscribe to totalitarianism ....."

Please answer whether the program of Islam includes establishment of Shariah based state and Sunnat conforming submitters or not??

Matloob Zaman

The concept of a Muslim moderate is not entirely useless in practical terms (although, theoretically, given that Islam itself is moderation, moderate moderation may make no sense). The practical implication is that a 'moderate' Muslim differs, in some ways, from a Muslim like Osama Bin Laden who is labeled an 'extremist' by many people, especially non-Muslims.

The important thing is to understand, as HP suggested, what 'moderate Muslim' means. How does such a person differ from say Osama, and what does he or she share (simply being a Muslim)?

...i remember reading somewhere that obl wanted oil to be priced at $300/barrell....i thought it was ridiculous at that time.....however, the way it shot up, it seemed like it would hit $200/barell.....

....i also remember reading american analysts that the ultimate aim of al-qaeda is to destabilize the american system and way of life.....no one could explain how and when, but that was the chatter.....

....i also couldn't figure out how that could happen.....other than ira kind of threats.....however if the current financial wipe-out in the usa is any indication, perhaps al-qaeda has, knowingly or unknowingly succeeded.....

....the usa's financial system is getting wiped out...no one knows the extent of it, since the govt. is taking over one financial institution after another....but i assume it must be much bigger than what we can see.....

....so much so, that the usa is begging arabs and chinese to buy out its institutions, and even they are refusing....and if the chinese stop being the visa and mastercard for usa's economy, things will turly unravel....

....so has al-qaeda succeeded - perhaps concidentally - in its mission....one would have to say yes....

america was the sole feared powerful superpower till 9/11.....

since then, america is caught up and being defeated in two major wars - afghanistan and iraq.....these wars are costing it $100 billion a year, with no end in sight

.....its currency has depreciating around 40%.....and may continue to go down.....

....its financial institutions have, literally, been wiped out.....and are now surviving totally on govt. support.....the govt., itself, is surviving on chinese support.....

....its military budget is $515(?) billion........yet it cannot win any war.....

....iran is now the most influential player in the gulf.....while russia is again spreading its wings, having defeated a us ally in georgia......in addition, us supported leaders are falling like bowling pins in the region.....

so, did al-qaeda plan all this out....hmmm.....or is it just the results of an obnoxious and arrogant us foreign policy.....i.e. a country, whose citizens are spending beyond their means and which is still inovled foreign conflicts, requiring huge amounts of money......

....i would have to say the later.....

what is still interesting, is that the republicans are, despite all of the above, still neck to neck with the democrats in the presidential race........and the usa is planning to attack another country....iran!.......

apparently, there are a huge amounts of hamidm's in the usa, who think all is well, as long as the stage is set for jesus to return to the promised land......this huge group could actually bring in the republicans again!!.....another eight years of republicans, and even citibank, boa and wells fargo may have been renamed saudi commercial, abu dhabi islamic bank and the int'l bank of chinese commerce.....

one would have to say al-qaeda 1 - usa 0 seems to be the score, at the moment......

cliftonbridge #8 {"However if you think there is a country that treats its immigrants better than america (for the most part) then youve obviously never travelled outside of disney world.

The nuanced argument is that americans could do a better job with international human rights..... o.k but they are already far superior to any muslim country in the whole world in terms of domestic human rights so lets keep that in mind while laying out utopian conditions for them to satisfy.

cliftonbridge #65 {"However i think american society has treated muslims very well and for the most part i think american muslims are very pro america in general which they should be and they have every right to be against american foreign policy like countless nonmuslim americans."}

Cliftonbridge,
If I were a jingoistic American, I would applaud your justification of our diminishing regard for our own high ideals as embodied in our constitution. In your zest to be more Catholic than the Pope, you are obviously ignoring the fact that to most Americans our freedoms, including those of our fellow citizens, are absolute and not subject to some obscure scale that compares our standards to those of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, or, for that matter, India.

One of the important traits of responsible citizenship is to not drink our own bathwater. Insisting that blacks have a far better life and more rights in the US than in most of Africa cannot justify or even excuse the real discrimination that exists in our country against African Americans. This line of reasoning was long used by racists and the KKK in their persecution of minorities and suppression of any attempts at rectifying the injustice.

Your assertion that America treats its Muslims better than the treatment they receive in most Muslim countries does not hold water. It's analogous to saying that a husband who beats his wife once a week is a better husband than the one who beats his wife several times a week. The correct position should be that domestic violence is evil - regardless of the frequency or intensity.

The current state of draconian measures against people who have "Muslim-sounding" names, "Muslim" features, or "Muslim" garb cannot be justified and must be eradicated. Your defense of this treatment is neither helpful nor foresighted. In ancient Japan, people suspected of being Christians had to stomp on the crucifix to prove that they were not followers of hated western foreigners. After the Reconquista in Spain, new Muslim converts to Catholicism had to eat pork to prove their sincerity. It won't be long before each one of us will have to have disposable Korans to, God forbid, flush down the toilet to prove our loyalties. Please reconsider your viewpoint.

Sincerely,
Salim

Moderate Muslims! what does this term refer to anyway? (Those who chose to submit to the will of others than Allah SWT even if it is for worldly gain?)

There is only one original Islam and it's followers; where in the scripture it refers to a variety of Muslims of given degrees of temperament? and how does it classify them?

You are, either with us(if you follow Islam)or against us(if you follow anything less than prescribed Islamic scripture as revealed, i.e. The Quran-e-Kareem).

Anything that falls in any other category and yet identifies with Islam &/or Muslim is a corrupt attempt to hogwash for purposes of seeking personal gains, luxury & comfort and the label of being American Muslim which as also described by others on this forum equals to nothing else but submission to slavery, after all it keeps everyone at home happy that their people are being treated well in America specially since they label themselves as "moderate American Muslims".

No better way to be an apologist for being a card carrying member of the followers of Islamic faith, while denouncing people of the same faith and wrapping oneself in the star spangled banner!

Be an original, since nothing in the world can compare or compete with the original Modesty and Humility Islam offers, provided one learns and follows the basics without the contamination of corrupt innuendos.

The faith of Islam was not delivered by the extremists or terrorist nor was it revealed to them for their exclusive misinterpretation.

Masadi Sahib:

Does it mean that you are a first rate Elite in Pakistan. Your elitist parents sent you to the elitist of the elite school in Pakistan then they sent you the elitist of the university in buckle of the bible belt. Now America return claiming to know more. There is a saying in Hindi "aapke ki tou sari ungalian ghee mein hain".

Please give a break those who have done well or are trying to do well in what you call "third rate slaves" and
second class citizens".

Anil mian, I know they didn't teach you critical thinking skills at HBS, but come on, the third rate is in reference to slave, the second class is in reference to "citizen", now I know the modern citizen is a slave to the capitalist but the slavery I talk about it more explicit than the slavery of the modern citizen.

Have a nice day,

TNI Masadi

Masadi sahib:

"...a third rate slave to the West..."

or

"...'second class' citizens ..."

Please make up your mind. Seriously.

["What is it about Islam that produces terrorists?"]

Al-Quran.

["Why aren't more moderate Muslims condemning terrorism?"]

Because moderation is merely a diversionary tactic.

Shoresh** writes "The author must be given credit for hiding his fundamentalist Muslim diatribe well within this scholarly sounding article."

These kinds of comments, unjustified and deliberately detracting, trying to diss an article by associating it with a well developed stereotype, coming from a rank racist who has sold his soul as a third rate slave to the West, is what is most demeaning to read coming from any human being.

Cliftonbridge writes "However i think american society has treated muslims very well and for the most part i think american muslims are very pro america in general which they should be and they have every right to be against american foreign policy like countless nonmuslim americans."

Very well as 'second class' citizens that know how to fit in their place. Let them resist and then you'll notice how the polite hypocrisy turns to old time southern racism....

HP sahib there is no comparison between the propaganda of the U.S in a U.S dominated world and the propaganda of the Al-Qaeda types. Such is the difference between the two that the latter's propaganda merely provides legitimation for the former's and tries to prove its farce correct and its stereotypes accurate. Further, it is not a real war, the war wouldn't last a day were the US to lose interest in it.

Re: # 65

this was for rabia

HP its animal farm all over again. Orwell lives!

i agree with HP the whole idea of moderate muslims coming forward is a little meaningless given their is zero dialogue btw international muslims and anyone else and the number of muslims in the us is pretty small.

American muslims are offered stupid choices by mainstream media being "with them or against them" when the whole world is alot more nuanced than that.

However i think american society has treated muslims very well and for the most part i think american muslims are very pro america in general which they should be and they have every right to be against american foreign policy like countless nonmuslim americans.

cobes bhrata, not sure what "words of wisdom" I uttered but thanks for agreeing. Since we often disagree, I take that as a real compliment. Cheers. :)

#50
cliftonbridge:
"(putting a diff premium on MUSLIM life that american muslims should recognize because it impacts their own lives in america). "

No, that's not what he's saying at all. This article is not about the erosion of civil rights of Muslims in the US, it is about how they and other "moderate" muslims are perceived and about why more moderate muslims aren't coming forward and condemning terrorism.

{"When Serbian forces massacred 8,000 Muslim Bosnian men and boys as the world idly stood by in 1995, or when Christian militia given a green light by the Israeli military killed 1,000 Palestinians in refugee camps during the 1982 Lebanon war, no media personalities pored over the Bible to see what scriptures "caused" these incidents."}

Junaid,
What a masterpiece! One of the most convincing and best written articles that I have read anywhere. If it were not for the wonderful organization of the article, the captivating set of examples, and the logical evolution of conclusions, I would mistake it as an expression of my own views.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Salim Chauhan and yes, my real Chowk nick is, let's say, at the cleaners. LOL

Junaid, you have meticulously presented almost every point that any number of Muslims have wished to scream out loud at one time or another.

Don't let the detractors affect you in any negative way. You have done a superior job and please continue writing on this subject using this extremely effective style. God bless you, my friend.

The article makes a clear point. And I disagree with HP ... the author is not questioning.

The article takes up the question:

"Why aren't more moderate Muslims condemning terrorism?"

Our author points out that this is a difficult question to answer because the question is loaded/unfair. Why? Because: (i) "in a poisoned media atmosphere ... the terms "Muslim" and "terrorism" are (being portrayed) as inseparable"; (ii) SO "...denouncing terrorism seems to be the (same as) as renouncing or apologizing..." for being a terrorist or a Muslim; (iii) finally, such questions are being posed to Muslims while terrorists through history (as well as in the present) have come from all religions.

I find the above reasons legit. They make sense. However, I do find the article loaded up with bells and whistles. These addenda seem to have distracted readers.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26778065
Stop Trading!: Financial Terrorism?
The damage being done to stocks through short selling, where Wall Street’s most legendary institutions are losing value at alarming rates, could be the work of financial terrorism.

Cramer’s been talking to the short sellers he knows, and that’s the theory they’ve been putting forward. His sources said that it’s doubtful that the market’s traditional short sellers are behind the negative action we’ve seen lately. So there is the possibility that someone else has been trying to wreak havoc in the markets rather than just profit from the problems of Goldman Sachs , Morgan Stanley and others.

Cramer, who was merely relaying what he heard, did say that, given the fact that the U.S. is in a “financial nationally emergency,� the “financial terrorism thing, to me, has to be put on the table just because the regular short sellers are not doing this.�

The Mad Money host urged the U.K.’s Financial Services Authority, which just banned short selling in financial stocks and now requires stricter disclosure from short sellers, to find out who’s on the other side of these trades.

In the U.S., though, the Securities and Exchange Commission should bring back the uptick rule, Cramer said. That rule requires a stock to tick up in price before it can be sold short.

Cramer’s against the outright banning of short selling, unless the threat of financial terrorism is real. He applauded New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for launching a probe into illegal short-selling practices, but said, “You can’t ban the stuff. That’s wrong.�

“Just bring back the old rules,� Cramer said. “They worked for a long time.�



He's not taken seriously by anyone, and he's widely despised I doubt he believes for a second that Al-Qaeda is trying to usher in the Caliphate by shorting Morgan Stanley, but the conceit does its duty: the "short-seller" is now the designated Nu-Jew of the present crisis, the parasitic parody of capitalism, the foreign ("unpatriotic") body that mimics its host only to corrupt it.

Which can only be expelled by going long on Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - that is to say, by going long on America itself. Perfect symbiosis of Nationalism and capitalist interests: what's that called again?

Bhrata Ekalavya, there is truth in what you say. I have begun to see the light. Thanks for being the shining beacon of wisdom for us.

All I am going to say:

If Cramer isn't kicked off the CNBC for being a nut job, then the terrorists have won. Sounds like he thinks Bin Laden is calling in orders on a walkie talkie. Short sellers are financial.....oops... Islamic terrorist!

I thought the news about Khalid that I posted was a joke but here listen to what Jim Cramer of CNBC talking about:

"The financial terrorism thing has to be put on the table because the regular short sellers are not doing this"

http://www.cnbc.com//id/15840232?video=860056933&play=1

Wat ch him here too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVl9SQ-KVmE

he he, glad you liked the story :)

HP now if AQ would just admit they do hurricaines too!

kaal

" one expects most Muslims to argue just as Junaid does" not really ...but kaal expects that !

nice story about the donkey hell paved with good intentions.

Array, rabia, where did you notice hypocrisy? Did you disagree with my broad generalizations: it is reasonable for Junaid to think as he does, and much harder to support tahmed ji's views (even though tahmedji ji is a most excellent individual, personally).

Except for a few Muslims like tahmedji and cliftonbridge (not including ahmedis here), one expects most Muslims to argue just as Junaid does, and some non-Muslims like marshakala too. The exact same way, one expect most non-Muslims to reject/ridicule such thinking, except again, for people like marshakala.

Now we all wish that clear divide did not exist, but was that generalization wrong?

Well this belongs here.

Breaking News....
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Self-Confessed Mastermind of Evil, has just told investigators that Al Quaida plotted the destruction of the Western financial system and is behind its current difficulties."

I knew it!

hamzoo chacha may have supported the war before he opposed it but we are all wrong sometimes - after all you are currently supporting zardari ;) main yaad rakhoun gee !

Rabia maybe you should read the para in context. He is talking about muslims IN AMERICA and claiming american society has practically embraced apartheid by their foreign policy (putting a diff premium on MUSLIM life that american muslims should recognize because it impacts their own lives in america).

America has actually got a great human rights record on muslim americans by the standards of the world we live in. Where they dont have a great record is their FOREIGN POLICY. Yes they do put a diff. premium on iraqi afghani pakistani life but every country does that and how is that news?

The more intelligent way to present that would be to say that americans need to recognise that 1000 iraqis lives are not less important than one american life. By addressing the statement exclsuively to muslims in america he made it pretty obvious that he was deliberating suggesting that shitty american foreign policy (against muslims) has in some way translated to a shitty domestic policy (against muslims) which is untrue.

"But this banal observation cannot suffice. In light of the vast gap in casualties and carnage, the insistence on grilling American Muslims can only be understood as a decoy, a way of avoiding uncomfortable questions about unseen others.

It is, in short, the extraordinary rendition of reality.

This is a painful but clear reminder to Muslims here and elsewhere that Muslim life does not occupy the same plane as American life"

Hamza yaar, tahmed isn't that bad. I mean, his thinking is all muddled but he is a good guy at heart. I am worried about you tho...will you be joining the lakshar e detroit or will you be sending care packages to the marines as they land in islamabad?

chacha's issue is that he is on social security n medicaid n he appreciates it to the point where he will sell his offsprings to ensure the perks. he is extremly paranoid that even though in real life he has formally changed his last name to schtinkinbaum...but they'll still deport him back to chakwal if he deosnt proove his patriotism by being a complacent uncle tom 24-7...its a typical qadiyani syndrome...no need to dwell on it too much

"all it does is make some subjective generalizations, and then repeat them over and over again"

tahmed32: no, that's all you do.

rabia #44: this is a badly written article even by chowk standards - all it does is make some subjective generalizations, and then repeat them over and over again.

HP #39 you are right that there is a difference between UK (and indeed european) vs US muslims. The former seem to have a bigger problem adjusting to the country they came running to than the latter.

These differences are not new - they were apparent from day 1, in the 1960's. While this is a subject for a PhD thesis, suffice it to say that the big gap in education levels in UK vs US muslims has to be a major factor in all this, imho.

Cheers.

HP: The ironic thing is that it's supposed to be muslims whose worldview dehumanizes huge chunks of humanity. Eklavya's and Ajeya's comments really expose the hypocrisy of their own claims. To them, the author is just a brainwashed enabler of jihad, so brainwashed that he doesn't even realize it. Of course the liberal US publications in which an article like this would have no problem being published are also enablers of jihad. Everyone's an enabler of Jihad!

Good Heavens and bahatar hooraN! so many posts on this subect. Must be friday...

Papa kehtain hai..baRa kaam karega..but pappu can't be civilized sala!! from BBC.

Computer terror teenager jailed

The court heard Munshi had a guide to making napalm on his computer
The youngest person in Britain arrested and convicted under the Terrorism Act has been sentenced to two years in a young offenders' institution.

Hammaad Munshi, from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, 18, was 16 when he was arrested in 2006. Police found a guide to making napalm on his computer.

The Old Bailey judge said he had been influenced by "fanatical extremists".

His family backed the sentence, but said the case showed how easily a teenager could be groomed.

Al-Qaeda propaganda

Munshi was convicted last month of making a record of information likely to be used for terrorist purposes, but cleared of possessing terrorist material.

During his trial at Blackfriars Crown Court, the jury heard that he had spent many hours viewing jihadist websites and had downloaded guides to making napalm, detonators and explosives.

Munshi was convicted alongside two other men, Aabid Khan and Sultan Muhammad.

Khan, 23, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, was said to be a "key player" in radicalisation via the internet. You have brought very great shame upon yourself, your family and your religion

Judge Timothy Pontius

He was accused by prosecutors of "inciting others to take part in [jihad] and arranging for himself and others to attend military training in Pakistan in preparation for going to fight and, inevitably, to kill".

Munshi was said to have been recruited by Khan when he was just 15.

His barrister had told the court he had shown "curiosity" rather than any kind of malicious intent.

However, on Friday Detective Chief Superintendent John Parkinson from the West Yorkshire counter-terrorism unit said all three were dangerous individuals who were not just curious about extremist material.

"They'd gone out of their way to possess information about how to construct explosive devices, information about how to carry out acts of terrorism," he told the BBC's Asian Network.

"They were pieces of information that had to be specifically sought out, and has therefore definitely stepped over that criminal threshold."

The trial heard that Munshi was desperate to go and fight and went by the online name of "fidadee", meaning a "person ready to sacrifice himself".

He also had a discussion with Khan, via an internet messaging service, about how someone might smuggle a sword through airport security.

Police said they found al-Qaeda propaganda on his computer and notes on martyrdom hidden under his bed.

'Shame'


Judge Timothy Pontius said: "There is no doubt that you knew what you were doing."

He said the nature of what was downloaded made it a "particularly serious offence".

"You have brought very great shame upon yourself, your family and your religion," he told Munshi.
Aabid Khan and Sultan Muhammad were jailed last month

"However, in the light of the evidence, I have no doubt at all that you, amongst others of similar immaturity and vulnerability, fell under the spell of fanatical extremists, and your co-defendant Aabid Khan in particular.

"They took advantage of your youthful naivety in order to indoctrinate you with pernicious and warped ideas masquerading as altruistic religious zeal.

"Were it not for Aabid Khan's malign influence, I doubt this offence would ever have been committed."

Khan was sentenced in August to 12 years for possessing or making documents promoting terrorism. His cousin Muhammad, 23, also from Bradford, was sentenced to 10 years for similar offences under the Terrorism Act.

'Lessons to learn'

In a statement, Munshi's grandfather Sheikh Yakub Munshi, who is a well-known Islamic scholar, said the family respected the court's judgment.

"But like any other family in this country, we are deeply upset by the situation in which Hammaad finds himself," he said.


Labour MP Shahid Malik says it's a wake-up call for many Muslim parents
"All of us feel there are lessons to be learnt, not only for us but also for the whole Muslim community in this country.

"This case demonstrates how a young, impressionable teenager can be groomed so easily through the internet to associate with those whose views run contrary to true Muslim beliefs and values."

Shahid Malik, Munshi's local MP, said the teenager's family had been left "shocked and bewildered" by what had happened.

"It is a real wake-up call for parents because there is a real need to be vigilant, especially when their kids are on the internet," he said.

"It is a real wake-up call to how older jihadists can prey on vulnerable young people.

"Mosques have done a lot but they need to do more in terms of telling young people what is acceptable and what is not in Islam."

Hamza

Whine all you can, my paki brother... the problem is rooted within yourselves... solution will also be found within yourselves...

mohar..yarr u didnt even object when they were burning ur ammi alive...u didnt blink when ur abboo shoved a coat hanger in ur ammi's vagene n aborted the lil paraswati n u have the audacity to inquire muslims...the only inquiry i appreciate from hindus is...'helloo sir would you like coffe with the dozen glazed'..but just for the record...in majority mosques hate-speech is not allowed by the mgmt...i m personally privy to some imams being banned by the mgmt of the mosques to ever give a lecture again because they went overboard. But we should be able to whine as much as the rest of the anti-war crowd.

I beg to differ with people who are just calling it a silly article. Mostly are not following the writer’s train of thought. I don’t think he is writing an apology or a justification, he is asking questions and there are many out there that need answers. He clearly is trying to figure out what is the correct answer and why the witch-hunt, if there is any.

Tahemd is correct that this may not be a big problem in the US, but it is a major issue in UK, especially with the Pakistani Muslims. The best way is to discuss the issue rather than making fun of the writer or abusing him. This abuse only shows that people deriding him are clueless. He has presented his thoughts seriously and clearly made an effort to show his true feelings. At least he is trying to think about the issues but others because they can’t think, are abusing the writer to keep their popularity going among some folks. I can understand why Indians would behave in a certain way but Pakistani need to discus this issue threadbare.

When you have a war going on the enemies are invariably dehumanized from both sides. (I have a long post on Dr. Sohail’s article about dehumanizing; I will repost it, if people can’t look it up.)

Communication Media is one big weapon in fighting a war. Media is a front in this war like any other war and both sides are using it. While the Western media is propagating against the Muslims, the Muslims in their own countries are using various methods to retaliate for counter propaganda. The issue is not what media says is right or wrong but how you deal with it. It is like selling a product. You glorify it and the competition points to the deficiencies.

If the west is attacking Muslim beliefs and cultures, the Muslims are attacking the western beliefs and culture. The west is asking for moderate Muslims and the Muslims are showing western hypocrisy.


The issue here is really minor. A bunch of immigrants from the Muslims countries who live in the West are caught in the middle of it. It does not matter to people living in Pakistan, Indonesia or Malaysia one bit about what the western media is saying in the west. They can deal with that by using their own propaganda machine against the West.
Remember propaganda is mainly bound for your own people.

The issue is how should the Muslims living in Europe and North America deal with this?
They need to figure out how to answer questions and ponder over what the heck is moderate Muslim.

Think about this and I will post more later.

Excellent article. Haters will hate..keep representin my brother

Pakis, Pakis

Did Junaid, or any other pakis for that matter, stood up in his mosque and denounce the preacher who just finished a hate speech against kafirs?... this happens every friday, all the time... Did any paki ever stood up against jihadis anywhere any time?...

Junaid can continue his randi rona till camels come into his a## - until pakis confront their own evil, nothing going to change... The reaction from the west will escalate, it's not going to go down - no matter how much crocodile tears you cry....

chalta, you can ridicule me anytime :)

----------

pinku, hey, doesn't it say somewhere in one of your Hindoo books - neither too happy nor too unhappy, neither too detached, nor too attached....?

#8
cliftonbridge did you even read the rest of the paragraph that you were quoting from? This is the whole thing:
"

This is a painful but clear reminder to Muslims here and elsewhere that Muslim life does not occupy the same plane as American life: that if ten, twenty, or even one hundred Muslims die for every fallen American civilian, it is not sufficient cause for introspection; and that if a Muslim plays no role in attacks on Americans, he is still subject to a harsher judgment than an American who cheers policies that leave tens of thousands of Muslims dead."

The author was talking about the attitude towards loss of civilian life in MUSLIM COUNTRIES as a result of the war on terror. NOT about the civil rights of US Muslims.

I havent read the article so i dont know what he wrote. most of u r certifiably nutts as its obvious from your interactions..some of u n ur ancestors have been wronged by abduls n abdalis n ghauris..so ur constapation is understandable...

however bhai mian bhatti sahib n clifton bibi...most of what u r sayin has merit...after all the randi rona (thanks stuka) muslims still have more rights in america than lets say yemen or saudi arabia...but the diff my dear friends is that those 2 countries never claim to be the champions of decency n human rights. There barabarism is naked no ifs n buts about it. America is suppose to be the flag-bearer of everything noble n holy...n for the most part it is...but when u kill a million ppl on a mere whim than at the least chacha tahmed the bigot shouldnt get his senior-diapers in a knot...wat is this paranoia...no one is going to cancel ur citizenship chacha n shove u back in mian-chunnoon where the raging nutsoos will whip u like a bitch for being qadiyani..take a chil pill....

junaid is not alone in questioning the recent human rights violations of our dearest ms. usa...ACLU, Sean Penn, Susan sarandon, Tim Robbins, Jenen girafflo and millions more are not apologetic muslims last i checked...there r just ppl with consience who call a sped a sped (thanks cobra)

Yep, It's all hanood's fault... pakis are turning up as terrorists all over the globe - all because indians are abusing islam...

Mullah32 is spot on.... Ha ha...

Eklavya, where did I ridicule Junaid? I ridiculed tahmed. Doesn't everyone? even silly cartoonish characters like Masadi make fun of him. But if you want me to stop, then fine, I will. But I will not stop making fun of you though!!

The author writes "The demand to denounce is, in short, a demand for an a prior admission of guilt."

Junaid sahib let me congratulate you for this fine sentence above. You have peered through the BS that describes the US mainstream media to get to the heart of the matter.

This repeated call for denunciation, even after denunciation has been done is for the prime purpose of Muslims (in the mass, who are moderate) to acknowledge the farce of the US GWOT as being based on fact and reality, when it is anything but. What the mainstream media doesn't like is the addition of the word "but" which signifies less than full submission to the US farce of the GWOT. The kind of submission they want is the kind of submission Musharraf offered the US by stating that this war was in fact Pakistan's war, and as you know these barbarians can work through dictators but they cannot work through the people. So tahmed might talk all he wants against Musharraf now when he had fallen out of favor with the Americans but know for sure that both the US and tahmed were in Musharraf's pants not too long ago.

Have a nice day,

TNI Masadi

#27 Posted by Eklavya on

Eklavya,
You should join politics:-) You can keep people guessing after a long speech, conclusion of all meetings will be equivocal and blame of a wrong decision will always go to the "other" guy:-)

Good thing will be that nobody will be too unhappy and bad will be that nobody will be too happy, that is the most conducive environment for politics.

Tahmed writes "you unable to see the efforts made by average citizens as well as government officials in the west to make sure muslims are treated as fellow citizens."

Tahmed means the efforts on CNN, Fox News and other mainstream corporate media that is fighting a war against Islamo-fascism and equating through illogical generalization the so-called terrorists with Hitler, or detaining through secret evidence anyone who might be termed a threat to the status quo, or sifting all Muslim men for special processing while giving a pass from even visa requirements to white Europeans from several lands. Muslims are a long ways away, these "average citizens" and their government haven't even come close to ensuring that African Americans get treated as citizens, they are either locked up in "Third world" like ghettos or physically in prison. Tahmed sahib spare us your Kalima, the mainstream culture has demonized the Muslims and no well advertised personal kindness can do away with the effects of this demonization that is driving the farce called the Global War on Terror. Have some decency,

and have a nice day,
TNI Masadi

Tahmed writes "As for the west - are you deaf and blind, you idiot Mr. Junaid?? Are you unable to see that muslims are going about their lives better in the US than in any muslim country? Are you unable to see the efforts made by average citizens as well as government officials in the west to make sure muslims are treated as fellow citizens. That is why the same clowns who rant against the US fall over one another to send their children to the US, away from the mess created by sectarian violence, mullah terrorism and so forth!!"


Tahmed sahib, salam and greetings of peace, how are you doing these days? Haal chaal is raazi baazi with baal bacha that are US born?

I red-flagged your post because of your unjustified personal attack on the author that you did for the prime purpose of defending your "gods", and not because the points of the author were badly made. Only a "blind person" or a religious fanatic of the church of WMW (like yourself) will not see what the West has done to( what it later described as) the "Third World". It sucked the material life out of it and reduced the vast majority of its people to the despicable condition they find themselves in these days, through sucking the material out of their land it in effect sucked the soul and humanity out of them. If someone is honest enough to point out the contradictions in the stated motive of these Western elite (thugs) and the objective consequences of their actions, the vast realm of "false consciousness" that drives this system- which for you is the Holy Bible of your religion of WMW,the entire catechism on which your worldview rests, that does not mean you call the author an idiot and what not.

Further, just because Muslims are caught up in this falsehood driven by fake imagery of an enlightened West, because they live in a Western dominated world like everyone else, does not mean you use their desire to escape Western created misery to go to a US, where a misery of a different sort awaits them- that of an ascribed identity of inferiority by the white man, that you should berate the author. Have some shame and act on your own advice of arguing not through insults but through facts, and for sure your "facts" are lacking in credibility as evidence.

Have a nice day,

TNI Masadi

Chalta, this is what I have not understood. Why would you like to ridicule Junaid, unless you wanted to change him in some ways? yaa sirf masti? :)

------------

tahmed ji, agreed. One complains against a perceived 'stronger' party, not against someone less important. :)

---------

rabia, ajeya and I differ in that I don't see that view as 'poison.'

Muslims, IMO, are raised to focus on justice. All (reasonable and self-aware) Muslims of all backgrounds wish to fight injustice in their own unique ways (liberal, less liberal, marxist, Islamist). They differ only in how or when they wish to go about fighting this injustice and which particular injustice they want to focus on (at any time). For some this injustice might be by Americans, for others, the most important injustice may be by another set of people, and so on.

This is actually a good thing and a credit to people. Asking ANY Muslim to not worry about (in)justice would probably be a very tall order. At best, one can suggest that they first become strong enough to enforce (their brand of) justice as they see it; or in each case separately, at each time in point, try to explain why what they see as an unjust situation really isn't (as some people are trying to do here).

#23 rabiawasti: that is indeed my attitude - but only towards those hindus who come to chowk with only one thing on their mind, namely how to berate islam, muslims, pakistanis.

That does not change anything I wrote in #21 though.

#20 where exactly do you see the article saying anything about hindus, eklavya bhai. Mr. Junaid is too good for mere Indians - he (like virtually every Pakistani who likes to whine like him) whines about the US. (see reasons in #21 below)

Once again kaal...you go on supposing. Do you think I am trying to convince someone? what gave you that silly idea? bhai mere...it is pure ridicule.

"This is my guess - they dont think anything of the Indians, so Indians' opinions dont matter to them. However, they look up to the US and the west, and so thrill in getting any attention from the US or the west"

tahmed32, aren't you the one who dismissed the hindu attitude towards Islam a few posts ago as being shaped by their 1000 years of slavery? So wouldn't the above quote describe your attitude rather well?

by quoting #9 I wasn't endorsing it. I was just explaining to krbhatti that #2 and #9 are saying the same thing, only #9 is a bit more clear.

#15 bhatti sahib: This obviously has to do with human psychology. And one can only guess.

This is my guess - they dont think anything of the Indians, so Indians' opinions dont matter to them. However, they look up to the US and the west, and so thrill in getting any attention from the US or the west - and so the Junaid's of Paksitan wallow in this whining about the US and the west, since it bolsters their sense of self-importance.

That, like I said, is just an educated guess, based on the "I kicked the king" syndrome.

Cliffs and rabia, somewhat beside the point here but I still want to tell you about a beautiful little story. :)

http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-folktales/hitopadesha-tales/washerman- donkey-and-dog.html

It is from an ancient book called Hitopadesha.

This hilarious little story describes a donkey who, one dark and moonless night, tries to offer some 'good and timely advice' to a dog. The only good that that 'good and timely advice' ends up doing is that the donkey get beaten to a pulp by the dog's annoyed owner. :)

"Advice" is easy to give, hard to take, and rarely does any good at all, especially if it is from a donkey to a dog.

----------

What the two of you, bhatti sahib, and tahmed ji have to say might have 'some' effect but pinku, ajeya, chalta et al, IMHO, are totally wasting breath trying to contradict Junaid bhai and good people like marshakala. The harder and more passionatey these latter try, the more convinced Junaid bhai (and good people like marshakala) will become about how Muslims are unfairly treated by non-Muslims (Hindus in this case) everywhere

No point inflicting such pain on others.

I don;t think Indians or hindus are railing against Indonesian muslims or Sri lankan muslims or azerbaijani muslims....but they are railing against Pakistanis. In fact...not a day goes by where pakistan or a pakistani is not impicated in some terrorist activity somewhere. So it is not out of thin air that such opinions are formed. If you look now..the media and the US gov't has also reached a similar conclusion...stricter scrutiny at the airports, denial of visas, rounding up of illegals in brooklyn, NY...etc etc etc..and ofcourse the venerable pakiwhackers are flying high over he pakistani skies...

so while it is typical for a closet jihadi like Tahmed to rant against injuns...all facts regarding his assertions are contrary to coventional logic.

# 13

Rabiawasti,

I think it is because of the fact that many are unaware of the boundary that is there between one's own sphere of religious identity and the things that exist outside it. If this line is blurred, then we have people like we have in Islamic world.

Well I am thinking loud, so i may be wrong.

KB

Kaal is saying that junaid is acting as foolishly as a caricature muslim is expected to. Kaal is also pointing out that junaid in his opinion is too foolish to know this is not a complement.

I think thats too harsh on junaid. He may have a lot of conflicting thoughts and maybe he just penned the ones that make him seem a little reactionary.

Earth to pinku - the world is predominantly abrahamic and abrahamic religions are all ok with violence in the way of holiness or jihad or whatevr.

As KB says the real problem is that there is no seperation of state from religion in muslim countries. Also muslim countries are poor and backwards hence they cant win conventional wars or defend their territory.

All the other points you brought up were meaningless.

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

# 14

Tahmed bhai,

Please enlighten me why it is so?

krbhatti: ever wonder why so many Junaid-types love to paint the west as treating all muslims as terrorists - all evidence to the contrary - while being blithely unconcerned by constant attempts by hindus to do exactly that on chowk?

yaar krbhatti:
#9 is the cliffsnotes version of #2. Specifically:

"The indoctrination just affects different Muslims to different degrees. Some become terrorists, some actively help the terrorists, some become terrorist sympathizers, and almost all become Islamic apologists. All these people are working towards the same cause, and the same goal, although many of them may not know it. Just like individual ants don't see the overall pattern of the activity of the entire colony of ants."

Eklavya ji,

I think I got you, but what I understood is so absurd that I am sure I got it wrong.

So, one more try.....

Or is there anyone else who can help me decipher what Eklavya ji is saying....

bhatti ji, junaid makes a very good case for why the West doesn't care for Muslim lives, how they don't see how unjust they are toward Muslims and Muslim countries, and how Muslims living in America and other 'democratic' countries have a great opportunity and solemn duty to oppose the unjust policies of their host countries toward Muslims everywhere.

Now, you and I could tell him that this is a pathetic and absurd way of thinking, but that won't allow for Junaid bhai's (and other people like him or even good people like marshakala's) very different view of what justice is, how Muslims (or any other group) are being treated, or what people's primary duties and responsibiities are.

Author bhai,

Open your eyes. Open your eyes, and again open your eyes.

Lemme tell you a simple reason why the wrongdoings of west cannot be blamed on their religion. Because of the fact the state and religion is kept separate. Have you seen any Muslim country whose constitution does not guarantee that the laws will be in line with Quran & Sunnah except perhaps Turkey.

So brother, wake up before it is too late, and i hope that as cliftonbridge said, you are young because then there is hope.

Clifton, Tahmed, and shoray... good points....

Hamidm sir, How r u? Baal bacha raazi baazi....

Sanatani, Have you ever heard the name of a medicine called 'Barnol'. I hope, I got the spellings right.

Eklavya ji, frankly, I just can't get what do you mean, and this is not the first time..... Can you come again....

I read these articles, and this one is quite well-written - so the author must be at least of average intelligence. And I think - why is it that Islam shuts off people's abilities of thinking rationally?

Consider this:

"Applying this Muslim litmus test in a different setting demonstrates the point: If a white worker was assaulted in a black neighborhood, would he march into work the next day demanding his black colleagues "denounce" the attack?"

The answer, if you are not brain-dead, is obvious: SKIN COLOR BY ITSELF DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR WAY OF THINKING. BUT BEING INDOCTRINATED IN ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY DOES.

THAT - is the difference.


You, my friend, are drinking from the same well - reading the same book, indoctrinating your children with the same poison - that the terrorists are. A good example - the recent bombings in India. The mastermind turned out to be a well-educated muslim from a middle-class background. The indoctrination just affects different Muslims to different degrees. Some become terrorists, some actively help the terrorists, some become terrorist sympathizers, and almost all become Islamic apologists. All these people are working towards the same cause, and the same goal, although many of them may not know it. Just like individual ants don't see the overall pattern of the activity of the entire colony of ants.

"This is a painful but clear reminder to Muslims here and elsewhere that Muslim life does not occupy the same plane as American life"

This is a really silly article and i hope you are very young. Its no secret that american foreign policy sucks and media is biased. Its also no secret that immigrants and minorities are treated with some bias in every corner of the globe.

However if you think there is a country that treats its immigrants better than america (for the most part) then youve obviously never travelled outside of disney world.

The nuanced argument is that americans could do a better job with international human rights..... o.k but they are already far superior to any muslim country in the whole world in terms of domestic human rights so lets keep that in mind while laying out utopian conditions for them to satisfy.

Article is good for muslims not for westerners. Even if they read 1000 such carefullly written apologetic articles, they will not be able to ignore the problems and the difference in those problems that Islam creates.

If you say that you are analyzing problem carefully and end up with conclusion "no there is nothing wrong with Islam" then problem is with you not others. You can not say "no problem" you can only suggest your list of causes/solutions for it. My later posts will show "why" and you can reason against them as always....


First the important points...

This questions is dealt ok
[["Why aren't more moderate Muslims condemning terrorism?"]]

The answer has to come from those so called moderates and they can say whatever they want.

this question:
[[
and "What is it about Islam that produces terrorists

]]

is not answered, instead it was wrapped in the answer of the above question and was quickly thrown under the bed. The smell is there for everybody, so just hiding won't help.

1. What is their that creates ISlamic states???

2. What is their that alienates muslims in all other countries many 100 years from 9/11 or since ever, what makes it intolerant of other religions?

3. What is there that gives muslims this Ummaha concept and reason to work for Islam rather than for their own country, for their own people (while they may not be capable of working for any one of them)??

4. Why only muslims have to kill in the name of religion. Christian may be killing crores of muslims, but why they don't do it in the name of Islam, why they don't say we are Christian and we are doing it for Christianity?

5. Why only Islam is being protected so violently and spread for so many centuries and not Hinduism, Buddhism (and Christianity can not at least compete in degree)???

6. Who taught Kashmiries to kill and expel Hindus? USA?

7. Who asked Pakistan to kill Hindus and Bangladeshis in the name of Islam? How come there are no Hindus left in Pakistan (close to none compared to what existed after migration)? What was done to them, who did it and why??

This is not all that is needed to beat the deception of ignoring the "uniqueness" of Islam when it comes to problems that religions create. There is lot more.

Kuran and Muhammad's life give immense support to many of the ideas of Islam that create these problems. So many Sultans were not fighting/killing in the name of Islam because they had dreams, but because they could immediatley grab this idea from Kuran and life of Muhammad. And many of them were doing it very sincerely (eliminating kafirs or converting them or raping women captured).

Sharia laws are not what USA has printed and distributed, nor the hundreds of millions of muslims (across globe) who love them were trained by USA, nor even they were always muslim. It is psychology of Islam that leads you to that path very quickly.

As always denial and deception are the best weapons of those who belie reason/intellect; and who are more for their religion than anything else (including God, so they won't even side with God, if he comes:-)).

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

The author must be given credit for hiding his fundamentalist Muslim diatribe well within this scholarly sounding article.

He almost had me fooled. I started reading the article and then lo and behold, it teetered and veered to its inevitable conclusion.

What Moderate Islam..


Has the author seen it?
Asim Javid

junaid mian,

.... please disregard sanatani's rather offensive style, but he is right about the inherent flaw in islam ..... islam falls in the same category as nazism and other totalitarian ideologies and that is why people are afraid of it ...... like the germans under nazism, muslims are victims of an isidious ideology

Junaid,

Kya naam hai same category as Mujahid and Ghazi.

Very well written and very true. It can almost move an Islam haiter like me to sympathise with you. Actually people like me are very sympathetic to Momins viewing them as the gr8st vicitms of Islam.

See the fact is Islam is not a religion but a way of life and a rabid political ideology which is etremely evil. Christianity and Judaism are almost as evil but the difference is that Xians and Yahoods are not so much in thrall of evilness as Muslais are. The evil Islam can perpetrate has to be seen from at least the Hindu POV in Sindh. I mean it takes a special brand of evil to perpetrate religous and sexual genocide on the poorest of the poor in the name of making them pure Paak.

I mean if we have riots in India always and witout exception the Muslais start them and then whine when they lose. Here in Sindh what are the Hindus trying to do. How are they trying to injure muslais or Islam except the fact that they are not muslais themselves and that islam considers and insult.

Actually in most ways u r right they (the west) do not have the right to question you but they are doing so as they have the financial and millitary muscle to do it.

Read muslai history about ur ancestors doing the same in large parts of the world.

You reap what you sow.

And you peadophile murderer was the biggest son of a sow.

Sanatani

Excellent work, Junaid.

This constant drumbeat asking conveniently-named 'moderate' Muslims to stop being Muslims is as misguided as it is unrealistic.

And you are so right: Muslims living in the so-called 'democratic' countries' have both an opportunity and a full duty to "oppose serious injustices, such as torture, occupation, collective punishment, and disproportionate use of force" by these countries.

But the heart-warming news, from Muslim pov, Junaid, is that whatever sundry outsiders (barring good people like marshakala) may say, Muslims have not forotten their duty and their opportunity (although thought leaders like you can help them do even better).

Excellent and very important article. I wish all westerners could read and ponder this.

----------------------------------
The World Is My Country -Tom Paine (1737-1809).