A Challenge to My Co-religionists

re: pmishra2

++
[The FBI is doing exactly that in the USA and the british are sure to follow. A group that believes in the use of violence to settle all problems should also be dealt with violently. ]
++

This policy will hurt America more than the Muslim world. Since 9/11, Arabs have moved $60 billion from U.S. banks to European and Middle East banks. Pakistani remittances have increased because people feel their money is unsafe in American banks.

Apparently hard-nosed military action has led to a global backlash against America. Anti-America sentiment has swept France, UK, Germany, Middle East, China, Russia, the non-Arab Muslim world... Many Indians too are protesting the war in Iraq.

Look at the mess that America has created for itself in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai`s goverment is facing consistent resistance in South Afghanistan and Paktai sectors. The Pashtun majority feels isolated in this Tajik-Uzbek dominated government.

Thanks to America`s orgy of destruction in Afghanistan, the MMA has grabbed power in two Pakistani provinces. The rise of neo-conservatists and Christian fundamentalists in Washington has simply alienated America from Muslim masses. Today no American civilian can safely walk on a Muslim street in Karachi, Cairo, Baghdad, Ramallah, Yemen, Damascus, Dhaka and Peshawar.

Consider the war against Iraq itself. No WMDs have been found yet. The credibility of America has hit rock bottom. The Shiite majority welcomed America during the 4th week of war. This welcome turned into indifference during the 5th week. Now it is turning into opposition.

There are 2 problems with America`s angry & violent approach to terrorism:
a) for each terrorist killed, 40 more are born. Ultimately, somebody will succeed in hitting America hard again (perhaps with WMDs). Israel has exterminated thousands of Palestinians since 1970. Has Israel become more secure because of this policy??

b) America lumps all fundamentalists into one basket and calls them all terrorists. This simply unites the mullahs and converts them into a serious political threat.

Occupation IS the disease. Fundamentalism is just its symptom.

Just want to wish all the Muslims on here Rabi al Awwal (aka as Rabi al Noor) Mubarak. Today is the first of Rabi I--the month in which Allah`s Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam honoured the Universe with his Presence!

Alhamdulillah, today in our mosque this new blessed month was greeted with a poignant and beautiful naat session by Sabir Sardar sahib from Faisalabad, a special guest who had the audience in ecstasy with his beautiful voice and wonderful lyrics. Subhan Allah! Such spiritually moving mehfils are what real Islam is...wah! The Love in this gathering was tangible!

Mahboob ki mehfil ko mahboob sajaatay hain
Aatay hain wohi jinko Sarkaar bulaatay hain!

Hisexcellency asks

``Why do Islamic fundamentalists attack only Israel, India, Russia and USA``

..... they also attack people they don`t agree with in indonesia, phillipines, egypt, algeria, nigeria, malaysia and pakistan ......... they kill shias and ahmedis in karachi, they butcher christians and animists in sudan and nigeria, they attack jews in france and belgium, they plot to blow up buildings in italy, they are lying in wait in china ............ you name the place, and this vermin is out there - waiting to kill innocent people...... they are driven by a sick ideology and are consumed by hatred for the infidel, the woman, the kafir and anyone who does not share their perverse beliefs ............. it is an ill wind..........

............ it must be stopped ..........

Excellency Sahib,

Stop making excuses.

``Islamic fundamentalism is a problem for those countries that are occupying Muslim lands ``

How about all those Pakistanis deported to Pakistan from the US, isn`t Islamic fundamentalism a problem for them? How about those from Muslim countries who donot get visas to study and travel, the Africans who died in the embassy bombings, the Shias who were shot dead in Pakistan, the women in Afghanistan.

``Muslim lands`` : what the heck is this? Let me guess. Does a land become a `Muslim land` when the Muslim percentage becomes > 50%? Then it becomes OK to call a place a `Muslim land` and justify the driving out all others like Pakistan and Bangladesh have done and continue to do? Or like Egypt is doing with Coptic Christians, or Iran did with Parsis earlier and Bahais more recently. And etc. How convenient.

People like HisExcellency are BJP`s mother lode.

re: pmishra2

I am amazed at your lack of reading comprehension skills.

First of all, you make the nonsensical assertion that ``whenever there is perceived injustice against muslims then it is OK to use suicide bombing, murder of civilians, and all possible forms of terrorism to express protest``.

An Islamic fundamentalist would argue that violent resistance to violence is perfectly moral form of resistance. Peaceful resistence is a means to an end, not the end in itself. In many cases, peaceful resistence fails to deliver. (That is a long debate in itself).

When somebody enters your home, seizes your property and refuses to leave, you have a natural, universal right to resist with whatever means necessary. Such resistance is self-defense and self-preservation, not terrorism.

Bhagat Singh`s campaign against the British, Zionist freedom struggle against British in Palestine, and French Resistance to German troops in World War II were deemed terrorism by the occupying force. But to the Indian, French and Jewish peoples, this was a freedom struggle.

One man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter. There is no universal definition of terrorism, but there IS a universal definition of freedom and liberation. The UN resolutions demanding Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands and holding of plebiscite in Kashmir.. were passed by the entire world, not just Pakistan and Arabs. In contrast, UN has yet to pass one resolution declaring Palestinian and Kashmiri struggle as terrorism.

Lets stick to issue that are universally accepted, instead of narrow nationalist prejudices.

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

re: #48 by SR

You should not jump to such conclusions without understanding the context of each verse and other verses from the Quran. From my little understanding of Islam, I will try to answer some of your objections:

``1) Muslim women cannot marry a non-muslim man, while the man can marry a Christian or a Jewish woman. ``

Muslim man is permitted to marry a non-Muslim woman only if she converts to Islam after marriage. In a tribal patriarchial society, the children take their family name and religion from their father, not their mother. Thereby, if a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man, the children will end up adopting the religion of their non-Muslim father. However, if the non-Muslim man agrees to convert, a Muslim woman is permitted to marry him.

This restriction is borne out of pragmatic considerations of a tribal society, not discrimination against women. In nontribal societies, this restriction could be relaxed provided the non-Muslim man agrees to convert.

``2) A daughter inherits only one half as much property as does a son``

This Quranic law makes a lot of sense..

A woman gets a share of property from her husband (as his widow) and her father (as his surviving daughter). In contrast, the man only gets a share of property from his father (as his surviving son).

The woman`s wealth belongs to her alone. She is not obliged to spend it on her family or home. In contrast, the man MUST spend his wealth on his family. Since a man`s responsibilities are greater and his sole source of inheritance is through his father, he should get twice the share of his sisters.

``3) It takes two women`s testimony to equal that of one man (of course, they all have to be muslims in good standing). ``

This is a misconception. This restriction was only placed in financial transactions. For testimony in criminal/civil lawsuits, the woman`s testimony is equal to that of a man. In ancient Arabia, women hardly participated in business. Because of their inexperience and naivette, they were considered half as competent as a man in financial transactions.

There are several Islamic injunctions that can be revised by the government/ulema as social conditions change. As women enter the workforce and become more professionally savvy, this injunction can be revised. God permits that.

``4) A pious man has been promised beautiful virgin girls for his harem in Paradise and also young boys (optional, I presume!) whereas no such promise has been made to women. ``

The Quranic descriptions of Heaven and Virgins are metaphorical, not literal. Throughout the Quran, God is referred to as ``He``. But that does not mean that God is a male. God has no sex. There is no word for a ``nonsexual Omnipresent entity`` in the Arabic language. Therefore, we can`t deduce that such promises were made only to Men.

``5) Men are allowed multiple wives (not to mention concubines) while women are not.``

Allowing polyandry (multiple husbands) is socially unacceptable because it casts doubt about the parentage of children. No religion of the world allows it.

As for polygamy, it was allowed only for social reasons in Arabia. Slavery existed in Arabia before Muhammad`s mission. As a result, countless men and women were uprooted from their homes and mistreated by the racist Arab society.

To address this problem, Arabs were first discouraged from taking more prisoners/slaves during war. Later, they were encouraged to free their slaves. Polygamy was one way of legitimizing slave women.

Another reason for polygamy was the large number of divorced and widowed women in Arab society. Polygamy provided economic security and emotional companionship for widows and divorcees.

To ensure that polygamy is not abused, God placed strict conditions. The man must spend exactly the same amount of money and time with each of his wives. The man must not have the slightest preference for one wife, but must esteem and love them all equally. It has been widely agreed in the Islamic world that mere human beings cannot fulfill this Quranic requirement: it is impossible to show such impartiality and as a result Muhammad`s qualification, which he need not have made, means no Muslim should really have more than one wife.

A Muslim government can ban polygamy if a sufficiently strong case is presented that the ban will improve social conditions instead of harming them.

Here is a link to Fahmeeda Rehman`s analysis of the debate in Bangladesh about banning polygamy:
http://www.e-mela.com/lekha/article/Fahmida_polygamy_03Mar01.pdf

re: arjun_m

``[This coming from people who claim to fight for the rights of Kashmir and yet are silent about giving away part of Kashmir to China.... ]``

How come no Kashmir groups are demonstrating in Azad Kashmir and Indian Occupied Kashmir about Pakistan`s ceding of uninhabited land which constitutes only 7% of total Kashmir to China??

India is holding the other 66% that faces continuous resentment. Even the Prime Minister cannot hold a public rally in Srinagar without filling buses with policemen in plain clothes and residents whisked away from places 70-80 miles away. India`s state terrorism has resulted in the deaths of 80,000 Kashmiris. How many Kashmiris have been killed by security forces in Azad Kashmir??

Don`t delude yourself by portraying Kashmir as a terrorism issue. Neither the Muslim world nor the UN buys that argument.

re: #55 by faisaluno

The responsibility for Afghan mess lies solely with America. In 1988, when Soviets packed their bags and retreated from Afghanistan, the Americans did nothing to facilitate political reconciliation and economic rehabilitation of Afghan refugees.

Afghan war was America`s war against Communist regimes of Noor Muhammad Tarakai and Dr.Najibullah. America wanted to rollback the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. To do this, it encouraged the conservative Mullahs to rebel against the Communist government in 1978. The American-backed rebellion threatened to topple the Communist Party of Afghanistan.

Soviet Union only invaded Afghanistan to protect its communist allies in 1979. So this was basically a war between capitalism and communsim.

In 1988, when communist forces retreated, the capitalist victor (USA) packed its bags and left.
There was no effort to rehabilitate the millions of Afghan refugees.
There was no effort to reconcile the warring Mujahideen groups.
There was no ``Marshall Plan`` for Afghanistan.

Instead of being a ``fair weather friend``, if America had played a key role in reconstruction of devastated Afghanistan, we would not have such a large scale refugee and poverty problem in Afghanistan.

[quote]
Islamic fundamentalism is a problem for those countries that are occupying Muslim lands
[end-quote]

In short, whenever there is perceived injustice against muslims then it is OK to use suicide bombing, murder of civilians, and all possible forms of terrorism to express protest.

Sounds good to me. It also sounds reasonable that muslims should be profiled in every country where they live and strip-searched at every international airport. Police agents should be present in every mosques and tapes made of every discussion. The FBI is doing exactly that in the USA and the british are sure to follow. A group that believes in the use of violence to settle all problems should also be dealt with violently.

BTW, I wouldnt be so sure about omitting China, France and Germany from your list of nations afflicted by islamists. Your dearly beloved taliban were trying to export violence to China for many years. This is also one reason why the Chinese have chosen not to expand the Karokoram Highway. They realize that their neigbhor has a culture that they do not want to share.

France has had many attacks from folks associated with the Algerian and Morrocan islamists. Recently, there have been over a dozen hijackings and murders in GErmany by Islamic radicals. So your cheap attempt at justifying violence isn;t going to go very far....

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

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

satire #29 [``...prophet Mohammed clearly indicated that men could have at most 4 wives (4:3).

The argument that I had was why would ``Naqshbandi`` has any right to qualify/disqualify the author ...``]

Since the matter of a `four-wives-limit` is a secondary issue, I`d prefer not to get involved in it because it will detract from the main subject. The reference you quote, if taken in context, pertains to `protecting the property rights` of orphan (or widowed) women who are placed under your gardianship. It was an effort towards reforming a rather cruel tribal practice. What used to happen was that when young girls were orphaned or left without male `protection` someone of good standing in the clan assumed their `guardianship`. It was common that these guardians would abuse their privilege and misappropriate their inheritence. So it was ordained that instead of just robbing their inheritence and throwing them out in the cold, you should take them into your `aqad` (meaning perform `nikah` with them) so that they would have (some measure of) legal protection. In this context, you could marry one, two, three, four.... The logical inference here is that this was a manner of idiomatic speech and the number four was just rhetoric, it could mean the same as saying ``and so on and so forth``... so there is no limit. But even if for one minute we beleive that the number ``four`` is to be taken as the literal limit, a problem arises. Namely, that an unmarried man could not assume guardianship of young girls; he`d have to be a married man. Thus if we count the wife he already has at home then with this sanction of ``four`` it would still make the ``limit`` up to FIVE. It was the ``progressive`` Abbasi reformers who took the idea of equality a bit too far and tried to impliment monogamy. That, did not fly and the orthodox had a fit. Four was the number that was arrived at as a compromise because it was spicifically mentioned in the Quran. Until that time, four was never a limit. Not just for the prophet and his close associates, but for anyone who had the financial means.

Beleive me brother, Islam gives a lot of latitude to the male. I, for one, just love it and would never even dream of denouncing Islam.

As for the rest of your message (to Naqshbandi sahib), I fully agree with you.

...SR

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

re: #53 by arjun_m

[Islamic fundamentalism IS the problem. To claim otherwise is a distortion of the facts. ]

Once again you are indulging in moral relativism. Why do Islamic fundamentalists attack only Israel, India, Russia and USA? Why were there no attacks against Japan, Germany, France, China, South Africa and the 190+ other nations in the world?? Islamic fundamentalism is a problem for those countries that are occupying Muslim lands in violation of UN resolutions (in the case of India and Israel) and facing separatism (in the case of Russia). USA came under attack simply because of its encouragement of Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

Occupation IS the problem. Fundamentalism is seen as a solution to that problem (because other solutions failed). The suffering of Kashmiris and Palestinians under Indian/Israeli occupation fuels the fundamentalist engine. Only a self-deluded person would deny this fact.