A Challenge to My Co-religionists

hisexcellency:

russians also invaded hungary and czechkoslovakia (i forget in which order) and yet those countries survived russian occupation and indeed began to prosper after withdrawl of red army. what happened in afghanistan after russian withdrawl and who do we blame for that?

re: arjun_m

quote

[How many terrorist attacks did hindu/christian/zionist fundamentalist carry out in this century? Compare that to the number of terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists. How many people in Oklahoma think McVeigh is a hero? How many people in Pakiland think Osama bin Laden is a freedom fighter and not a terrorist? hint..its more than 80%. ]

endquote

Hahahaha.. According to CNN, Israeli forces have killed more than 2200 Palestinians since September 2000. In the same period, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have claimed responsibility for only 730 Israeli deaths. In Kashmir, Indian occupation forces have killed between 38,000 (Indian official figure) to 80,000 Kashmiris. In contrast, the number of pilgrims, Hindu pandits, and security personnel killed is not even 10% of that number. In Bosnia, Serbian troops massacred 155,000 Bosnian Muslims.

Osama Bin Laden`s masterpiece attack on WTC killed 2,000. In retaliation, America decimated thrice that many Afghans, many of whom didn`t even know what had happened on 9/11.

Hindu, Christian and Zionist fundamentalist may not be a problem from the Hindu, Christian and Zionist point of view. But for Muslims, this means oppression in Kashmir, occupation in Palestine and genocide in Serbia.

Condemning Islamic fundamentalism and encouraging other fundamentalism is a policy doomed to failure.. because it smacks of self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

Even-handedness and resolution of the root causes of terrorism... is a better way of curbing fundamentalism. Hate begets hate. Only by encouraging tolerance and freedom ``across the board`` can we break this vicious cycle.

re: pmishra2

[What does this gibberish mean? How is it any different from the poisonous ultra-nationalism found in Serbia or our own home grown VHP`s promotion of a rambo-like bhagwan ram who is ``strong`` and ``manly`` and authoritarian. ]

You are jumping to hasty conclusions about Iqbal. Perhaps this is due to confusion or lack of knowledge. I suggest you read Iqbal ``Reconstruction of Muslim Thought`` and his concept of ``Khudi`` (Self) to understand Iqbal`s philosophy.

As far as I understood Iqbal, he professed the following:

a) Instead of lamenting the loss of their glory, Muslims should proactively strive for that lost power. To do this, they must return to the essence of Islam and not its form/rituals. The essence of Islam, as Iqbal explained, is faith in one God, equality of all human beings, character, and self-belief. He expressed this in the following verses:

Jahan-e-Taaza Ki Afkaar-e-Taaza se hai namood
Ke Sang-o-Khisht se hotay nahin jahan paida
(A new world requires new ideas/knowledge
Stones and Mountains cannot create new worlds)

b) Muslims should embrace Western education but not Western culture. Western culture breeds isolation, confusion, alienation and degradation of humans into material objects.

Na tu zameen ke liye hai, na Aasman keliye
Jahan hai tere liye, Tu naheen Jahan keliye
(You are not meant to bow before the sky or the earth.
The World is meant to bow to You, not vice versa)

c) Self-belief/willpower coupled with wisdom/virtue make an invincible combination. A Mard-e-Momin is a virtuous, wise person who embodies the will of God by striving for virtue, tolerance, justice and purity. However, the Mard-e-Momin is free, independent. He doesn`t subjugate himself to materialism or other human beings.

Ghairat hai badi cheez, Jahan e Tagg-o-Dau mein
Pehnaati hai darvaish ko Taaj-e-Sar-e-Daraa
(Honor is the greatest thing in this world of struggle..
It bestows the Crown of Darius upon the sage.)

Nowhere in Iqbal`s philosophy does he teach about hatred of non-Muslims. He wanted Muslims to love their faith and history, without berating the faith and history of other nations.

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

12 head,

Suheir Hammad can write from ALL her identities under her ONE name...and doesnt resort to matlabi baathimeezi in order to annoy everyone else...now, shoo!

Rasheed Talib

Your discourse reveals `zehni intishaar` and a very shallow knowledge of Islam and the Qura`an. Its understandable as you`re probably a kid. But you`ll learn as you`re inquisitive.

Its a great misfortune that people take religion lightly and balance it against Stalinism, Communism and so forth as you do. All these disciplines don`t even count. But it`s fair that one must `discover`. I suggest you study disciplines like Physics, Astrology, Astronomy, Archaeology and Anthropology, instead of spreading misconceived opinions and asking stupid questions about heirship rights without an inkling of what it`s all about.

Rgds

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

Mr. Urstruly,

You dismiss the author’s contentions that under Islamic Law women have not been given equal rights and privileges (in this material world).

One of the common assertions by orthodox apologists is that women in Islam have been given equal rights and privileges or something close to it. You seem to be saying the same. So I`ll ask you, how, in the name of truth, can you explain the fact that, dispersed through its text, the Quran clearly contains the following things:

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

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

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

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.

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

These are clear indications that the privileges granted to men out weigh those given to women.

Following are some references from the Holy Quran:

(Note: Some ayats are quite long and cover several things, so in the interest of brevity, I am inserting the words (…etc, etc,…) and reproducing only the relevant portion here… If the ayat is brief then it is not edited)

1) Muslim men can, but women cannot marry outside Islam

Surah al-Mumtahana (#60), Ruku # 2, ayat # 10 (place of origin: Medina)

O ye who believe! When believing women come … (etc etc) … They are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful for them. And give the disbelievers that which they have spent (upon them. …(etc, etc)…That is the judgment of Allah. …(etc, etc)…

Surah al-Maida (#5), Ruku 1, ayat #5 (origin : Medina)
…(etc, etc…) The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers but chaste women among the People of the Book revealed before your time when ye give them their due dowers and desire chastity not lewdness nor secret intrigues. …(etc, etc…)

2) a) Two Women witnesses equal to One Man.
2) b) Women inherit half as much property as men.

Surah al-Baqarah (#2), Ruku 39, ayat #282

…(etc, etc)…And get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men then a man and two women such as ye choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs the other can remind her…(etc, etc)… Note: (The context in this ayat is, regarding commercial transactions)

Surah An-Nisaa (# 4), Ruku 2, ayat 11 and 12

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children`s (inheritance): to the male a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters two or more their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one her share is a half. ..(etc, etc)…These are settled portions ordained by Allah and Allah is All-Knowing All-Wise.

In what your wives leave your share is a half if they leave no child; but if they leave a child ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave their share is a fourth if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts…(etc, etc)…

Ruku 24, ayat # 177

…(etc, etc)… If a man die childless and he have a sister, hers is half the heritage, and he would have inherited from her had she died childless. And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err not. Allah is Knower of all things.

Who cares if this discrimination is in criminal law or in civil law. Discrimination is discrimination.

In the interest of time and space I am not including Quranic references about what is preferentially promised to the male in the afterlife. I’ll just stick to this life and this world.

I would have much greater respect for you (though we would still have disagreements in our points of views) if you had been honest and courageous enough to say that this was how Allah ordered it in the Quran and therefore you don`t question it even if it is unpopular in the light of modern thinking. End of argument.

Instead, unfortunately, you have chosen the path of argument and denial. Why is it not enough to just be content with your faith’s anachronisms and ignore the modern critic? It is, after all, a matter of faith, not logic or contemporary political correctness.

Respectfully,

…SR

nazarhayatkhan:

You should think about writing an article on Sufism in Panjab and Sindh because it is intersting to discuss in detail the role of Sufis and Sufism in our part of the world. I can write it too but mine will not be supportive of it just as Naqshbandi`s would be very supportive of it.

Leaving history of Sufism and Sufis aside, at present Sufism is mostly tied to feudalism just as mullahism was tied to military during Zia`s era and jehadis are still tied to the military despite Islamists opposition to Musharaf since 9/11 and its aftermath.

A very important point to note is the contribution in kind to the people one claims to represent. None of the Sufi and mullahs have ever paid any taxes in Pakistan. All the roads, railway, infrastructure, dams and military as well owes it to the tax payers of Pakistan. You may call it the fault of taxation system but the fact remains that those wishing to milk Pakistan and force their ideology on the people have not contributed at all in building Pakistan - whatever little we have. Yet these people wish to define Pakistani identity, ideology and rule the hearts and minds by hook or by crook without laying a single brick (or paying for it) to the construction of civil structure of society.

All they carry is their brand of virus infecting whoever they can infect. People always had various identities and always will. The difference here is the desire to dominate, eliminate all other and visiously hostile to all other identities. A woman identifying as woman is not necessarily hostile to men; a scientist is not hostile to any sociologist or historian; an Asian-American is not hostile to an Arab-American and so on but an Islamist is hostile to all who disagree and wish to identify with extra-Islamic identity.

Right now there is not a single tax payer in NWFP government but they are using their democratic right to impose all kind of stupid restrictions on the society.

In fact, Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism is the best strategy to avoid any contribution in kind to the civilian infrastructure - actually trying to destroy that part which they don`t like. One can not name a single public sector developmental project in Pakistan that owes it to the contribution of any or all fundamentalists and Islamists. They worry about Kashmir/ Palestine/ Afghanistan but not their backyard, praying and performing rituals but no social services, removing music and video from the streets but not the garbage, removing cable TV but not laying any cable for electricity flow,................

The 1.5 percent Pakistanis who are paying for running the affairs of nation have absolutley no representation or say in the affairs of Pakistan.

#37 oh!Greatly!Flatulent

[quote]
The greatest transformation of Muslim mind in India came about because of Allama Iqbal. Iqbal was the true ideologue of Muslim nationalism as well modern Islam. He combined Nietszche`s concept of Superman with Islamic revivalism. The result was the concept of ``Mard-e-Momin`` symbolised by the Shaheen/Eagle.
[end-quote]

What does this gibberish mean? How is it any different from the poisonous ultra-nationalism found in Serbia or our own home grown VHP`s promotion of a rambo-like bhagwan ram who is ``strong`` and ``manly`` and authoritarian.

You are actually proud of these nonsensical hate-inducing fairy tales? Hmmm, I guess your thought disorders are even more advanced than I imagined....

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

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

Most of the posts here are critical of Islamic fundamentalism. But to be fair, fundamentalists have quite valid reasons for pursuing their jihadi policies.

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the liberal and moderate Muslims either silently condemned the invasion or welcomed it. It was the conservative, Mujahideen who fought the brutal Soviets, suffered all the casualties, and finally drove a superpower out of their country. America doled funds out to the brave Mujahideen. Hollywood glamorized the Arab, Pakistani, Sudanese, Yemeni and Afghan mujahideen as ``soliders of God`` and ``vanguard of Freedom``.

Then USSR broke up. Russia became friends with America. All of a sudden, the Chechen freedom fighters fighting Russia were declared ``terrorists``. The causes (freedom, liberation) remained the same but yesterday`s friends were now declared enemies.

If Osama Bin Laden fights against Soviets, he is a brave, honorable freedom fighter. The moment he takes up arms against oppressive American allies (Israel, Russia, India), he becomes an ``Evil Mastermind`` and ``terrorist``.

Now that American allies are at the receiving end, suddenly America wants the Islamic world to reform, democratize and secularize itself. Instead of reforming exploitative US foreign policy, American hawks want the oppressed to change their ways!

Isn`t this moral relativisim and self-righteousness?

Islamic fundamentalists would argue that US applies the same moral relativism to UN resolutions and WMD. Israel and India have been violating UN resolutions since decades. Both India and Israel have large arsenals of WMDs. America itself has WMDs.

But the moment a Muslim state like Iraq seeks WMDs, America is suddenly becoming the ``chowkidar`` of UN and global peace.

Why not force Israel and India to observe UN resolutions and destroy its WMDs first? Why not destroy America`s own WMDs first? The argument that America should keep its weapons because it is a democracy, also doesn`t hold for much. After all, democracy didn`t prevent America from using its nukes against Japan in 1945, didn`t it?

If there are some questions that Muslims have to ask themselves, there are also tonnes of questions that non-Muslims have to ask themselves.

America, Israel, India and Russia should first eliminate their own double-standards, ulterior political motives and moral relativism before demanding reform in Muslim world.

How can these countries tolerate/encourage the rise of Christian, Zionist and Hindu fundamentalism in their own backyard... but condemn Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan/Indonesia/Arab world??

Something for everybody to ponder about...

Also, check out Marjane Satrapi`s graphic novel Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood. An excerpt entitled Tales Form an Ordinary Iranian Girlhood is being featured in the current Ms. Magazine.

Calmly and reasonably argued piece.

The deconstructions of ``utopia`` and home coming/coming home and ethnic identity were particularly enlightening and serve the main contention of this piece quite well.

I would like to go back to an aspect of an idea that the writer brought up when he maintained that religious identity becomes attractive to certain folk.

Does having a single overriding identity help assuage the anxiety/reality of having many identities esp. in modern times when:

1. diverse communities automatically confer upon its inhabitants a number identities (i.e. the Palestinian-American poet Suheir Hammad indentifies herself as:

a. a Muslim
b. a woman
c. a Palestinian
d. an American
e. a New Yorker
f. a Brookynite (who lived in an African American and Latino community)
g. Black (as a political state of being)
h. a poet
i. a poet in a movement called the Nuyorican Poets (which started off as Puerto Rican-American grassroots movement)
j. an Arab
k. a daughter/sister/girlfriend/friend/etc.

etc. While some folk revel in the rapidly collapsing nature of identity, others find it threatening. Can we argue that globalization has aggravated this anxiety to a degree higher than past encounters/interactions between peoples of various ethncities?

On a different note, today is May Day, a worker solidarity holiday celebrated globally to emphasize the common goals and aspirations of working people in unions and those who are fighting to unionize. The American President Franklin D Roosevelt, in an attempt to detach American labor from the ``socialist`` agenda of a global worker solidarity, made ``Labor Day` the institutionally approved day to go shopping...and more recently American President Ronald Reagen made May 1st ``Prayer Day``....a lot of anxiety from the management and religious folk over here...

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