Saddam Hussein Lives!

#71 faziiet
What`s the point of wearing a hijab in france? Is it a statement, I`m different from you. I`m better than you? Or is it to say, I`m an immigrant who came here to be different? Or is it, I`m here and I reject your culture? At best it`s a confused statement and at worst, it`s an in-your-face taunting of the host community. That said, things will eventually change. When the second and subsequent generations begin to claim to be french, there will be some give and take.
Islam is new to france. How to deal with some aggressive manifestations of it is an ongoing process. Official france also has to take into account how much of the accomodation of the public expression of what still is an alien culture would play into the hands of the ultra-right.
Now I`m going to ask a slippery-slope question. What about full body veil. Should that be OK too? If not, why not? If it is OK, how about someone wanting to walk around naked in the streets. Should that be permitted? Who should decide and why?

hamidm2#70 and sameerJB: I re-read hamidm`s post, and I did go too far in accusing you of being close-minded. What I had in mind was an interaction further down on this board where I felt hamidm insisted on interpreting islam the way the mullah interprets it (namely, that the message of Islam equals the words of the Quran PLUS stuff the bakri ate up). In doing so hamidm is quite correct in rejecting it. However, I refuse to accept the bakri part (that is, the sharia, sunnah, tradition and the whole christmas tree of stuff that has been added through the centuries by ordinary men to reflect their personal preferences, conveniences, prejudices). I say this because logic dictates that if one calls oneself a muslim, one accepts only the Quran. And one interprets the Quran in terms of overall spirit - since the Quran is not a legal document or a computer program but more like a book of poetry (as I was explaining to dostmittar on another board).
Anyway: I do think you would be better off not letting the mullah run away with Islam. Indeed, the Quran is the most potent weapon against sharia laws, blasphemy laws, the whole Islamist mindset that pervades among too many muslims. Since it explicitly denies any political role to religion. Even the beloved symbol of the Islamist - the hijab - has no basis in the Quran (which explicitly calls only for women to be modest and cover their breasts - does not refer to covering the head, much less dressing up in a tent). The hijab is in fact taken from the Byzantines, and started over a hundred years after the prophets death.
So: separate the mullah and the islamists from the Quran. Expose them for what they are: half-brained chauvinists who have no clue what they are talking about. third world men who are having incredible difficulty understanding today`s world. What I am complaining about is the willingness with which you let them use islam as a substitute for any sense in what they say.

tahmed Sahib (#67) …

Touch down! After going in circles for a long time … you have finally accepted the validity of “seal of prophets” as the “prophet of the highest status”. I can now thump my chest and do the victory dance. However, a few comments are worth making …

You state that … “seal of prophethood could be interpreted as being something other than the fact that mohammed was a final prophet”

This statement reflects the command your belief has over your rationality (take this with a pinch of salt). If “seal” can imply “highest status” … than the “fact” the Mohammad is the last prophet … is no longer a fact, but an interpretation … subject to further scrutiny.

To support your interpretation you state that spirit of Quran is towards individual responsibility … and hence there is no need for prophets for guidance. This interpretation is negated by Quran … which maintains that coming of prophets does not conflict with individual responsibility at all.

Quran mentions prophets … Moses, Jacob, Jesus, Mohammad and others … sent for guidance of people. Quran clearly indicates that people remain responsible for their actions. Spirit of Torah is also toward individual responsibility … while prophets were still sent to the followers as needed.

I hope you see the flaw in your reasoning … and incorrect assumptions you associate with coming of prophets.

faziiet

ISNA a moderate group? ............ have you ever looked through their publications?.......... it promotes an islamic identity for american muslims based on orthodox islamic values which are contrary to mainstream american values ....it promotes religious nonsense with emphasis on ``personal morality`` combined with a jihadic support for lost causes all over the world ..........

......other religions like judaism, hindooism and christianity also have groups like this, but that represent the lunatic fringe .........the JDL, RSS and KKK are prime examples ............ however, the difference is that ISNA represents the ``mainstream`` ........... muslim groups that promote pluralism, modernity, equal rights for women, free markets, sex without guilt and liberal democracy do not exist, and by definition cannot exist .......... the ``living miracle`` of the koran ensures that we do not move past the seventh century .............

Re: hamidm #70 [“… matter of hijab, which is the root cause of all evil, …. is a symbol of militant islam and symbolizes the second class status of women in islamic society …”]

O ye misguided one, will you never learn?

Can’t you see that the veil is actually a great advantage for women. It is proof positive that Islam actually grants greater advantage to women by putting men at a handicap.

Really, think about it. The sisters can see everything from behind the veil, whereas the poor brothers are lost in a guessing game. Imagine the advantage one could have in a game of poker (which only kafirs play astagh-firullah, no Muslim will touch, inshallah) if the opponent could not see the expressions on one`s face. It (the veil) confers the advantage of `stealth` technology to the sisters, such that the radar of the kafirs or even the non-pious brothers cannot decipher them. It is a `cloaking device` (which the Klingons of Star Trek emulated). Not only does it protect but also promotes the freedom of women. Yes, the sisters, al-hamd-o-lillah, have the final laugh in the end. They can operate in stealth while the movements of the brothers are there to see for all in plain view.

Thus Al-hamd-o-lillah, all the `loose character` Americans whose Presidents also admit to having “lust in their hearts” are frustrated in their ignoble lust for the sisters as our sacred Islamic tradition (hijab) protects the sisters from their evil eyes while at the same time safeguarding the moral virtues of the ummah by protecting the hearts of the brothers from shaitan-ir-rejeem`s evil agenda.

Fabay-ayeh-aalaah-e-raab-e-kuma-tu-qazibaan!

…SR

Re: no 69

Hijabi women don`t become CEOs? Yeah. Sure. Cuz MEN don`t let them.

I know hijabis who are medical professionals, who attend the best universities throughout the world, top-notch institutions from Cairo to New York City and they`re proud of it. Women who choose to cover, who make it a part of their lives and understand why they do it, are dentists, lawyers, surgeons, teachers, principals, magazine writers and editors.

In fact, Turkey`s Merve Kavakci, a woman who wore hijab, got herself elected to Parliament. It was a gang of close-minded secular men, secular fascists basically, who prevented her from taking the seat the people elected her to. She went back to America and now continues to work in a politically active career.

The vice-President of America`s largest Muslim organization, ISNA, is a Canadian convert who wears hijab. She is on route to become President. The head of a moderate group, claiming hundreds if not thousands of mosques, will be a woman. That`s close enough to a CEO.

Are you comparing Muslims who are religious to Nazis?

Well, since I wrote the above article, I can say: Does anybody even pay attention to a word of what is being said? The idea is to distinguish useless intolerance from constructive activism within a religious framework, for that`s the only way I believe can carry people in the Muslim world forward. Sorry, SameerJB, but if that`s Nazism... then Heil Allah.

tahmed

... sameerjb is right on the money when he says, ``One can not be considered close-minded for refusing to accept a rotten deal. ``

...... the people who push this ``rotten deal`` and call it a ``living miracle`` are the ones who are close-minded ......... it is wrong to accept the senseless diktats of religion because they are supposedly the word of god or his prophet ……. i am amazed by how even “moderate” muslims are unwilling to admit that some of this stuff is way of the mark …… for example, hardly any are willing to let go of the notion that laws should not be based on the Koran and sunnah ….. some, like you, might be willing to look for more “modern” interpretations and hope to find wriggle room, but no one has the gonads to call for a clear separation of mosque and state ……… even the simple matter of hijab, which is the root cause of all evil, is disguised as a matter of personal choice ……. the fact of the matter is that hijab is a symbol of militant islam and symbolizes the second class status of women in islamic society ……… muslim women in the west who “willingly” don the scarf are making a political statement – it is the equivalent of the nazi brown shirt……..

The logic of close-mindedness expressed in posts #63 and #66, ``You my friend are as incapable of logic, as close-minded in your views, as any mullah`` is laughable, the least. You would have labeled the same close-mindedness to those opposing nazism and Hitler some 60 years ago. You should also label all scientists close-minded since they refuse vehemently palmistry, magic, myths, astrology, jinns etc. And please be open inded to scientology (refusing medicine), white superemacy groups, cannibals, lices, mosquitoes, rats.............even rats try to leave a sinking ship. Why should a person leaving or trying to pinpoint the causes of sinking of a sinking ship or sliding ideology be considered close-minded.

Throughout history when a culture migrated to different environment, it adepted and adopted many local customs and traditions. Hijab is not like sari or panjabi suit; it is related to the lower status for women that is unacceptable in French society at present. Hijab wearing do not sing, dance, travel alone, become CEOs, preside meeetings of men, play sports, take part in sporting competitions and the list goes on and on. The French society is not willing to allow such tendencies in large segment of their society. They have achieved many of these liberties hard way and through centuries of struggle against such medieval values.

Make sure, you understand what close-minded means. Close minded are those who make their decisions on the basis of beliefs independent of empirical data to support their assumptions. Close-minded are those who, on one hand accept mythical historical accounts without question and reject any contrary evidence and empirical data on the other.

One can not be considered close-minded for refusing to accept a rotten deal.

faziiet#63
Please note that the remark in #62 re. bringing Islam into the 21st century referred to the kind of introspection going on in the discussion here and not to what the posted article suggested.

hamidm #65 I think your post provides a perfect example of what faziett #63 is writing about when he/she writes that `` am happy that many people here have confirmed my thoughts that Islam-bashers and Islam-haters are just as intolerant and thick, not to mention biased and obtuse, as the fundamentalists they claim to oppose.``
You my friend are as incapable of logic, as close-minded in your views, as any mullah.

sattar2 #61 I thought a bit again after reading your post, and will agree that ``seal of prophethood`` could be interpreted as being something other than the fact that mohammed was a final prophet.
I remain sceptical of this need to have ``junior prophets`` come later - you explained that once to me in terms of the need to do provide guidance to mankind, but I found that to be an unconvincing argument. From everything I have read in the Quran, the entire spirit of the Quran is clearly towards individual responsibility and strong discouragement of looking towards other men for religious guidance (e.g. ``on Judgement Day God will ask, where are those men you looked towards for guidance`` or words to the effect).
Anyway, I think we have gone around in enough circles on this, and after reading all these dumb posts from close-minded people (islam bashers as well as islam chauvinists), I think I will stick to having a bit of fun with them only on chowk.
And I think this story about the goat eating parts they wished were in the Quran but are not is about as good as it gets for a laugh. So, you can interpret the Quran as you wish, and a good day to you.

Urstruly,

And look where this mind-numbing memorization of Quran has taken the ummah …

Despite claiming to follow the “religion of peace” … your mullah insist on waging jihad against the polytheists, killing the blasphemers and adulterers, and executing the apostates. You folks have turned into animals … consumed with hatred and violence … and blame the Jews, the Ahmadis, and the white-man for your problems. If you are going to live like a loser, at least try to be good at making excuses.

Maybe one day your much-awaited Imam Mahdi will show up … and fight the one-eyed monster riding a giant fire-breathing donkey … and lead the ummah to final victory by killing all the jews and white folks … but until my underwater options fully recover, I am staying away from any life-threatening fights … be it against a cluster bomb, or a Mossad agent, or the noisy next door bimbo … and I don’t give two hoots about which side your Issa-ibne-Marriam is on. I recently read Maudoodi’s account of what will happen at this Armageddon … and I now understand why you jamaatis are so screwed up.

You can delude yourself that ummah is going places … reality is that they are only getting deeper in the gutter of ignorance and violence. Keep memorizing Quran … and continue telling yourself that truckloads of chicks await you, as you cry out calls for jihad. Partial ignorance can be quite painful … but complete ignorance is a bliss.

unfortunately urstruly speaks for the majority of the muslims today when he says, `` The Qura`n in its form that we see today is a living miracle. Denying this fact reveals only ones ignorance and arrogance and not his scholarship.``

.............. folks like me, sameer, sac and sr are would qualify as heretics and temporal is getting perilously close with his attempt to rationalize the book as nothing more than a ``starting point`` ....... for a true believer it is the beginning and the end ..........reform from within is not possinble .........now it is upto the civilized world to change this upside down view and beat some sense into the ummah ......... and it will happen, because the world cannot afford let this poison spread ......

I am happy that many people here have confirmed my thoughts that Islam-bashers and Islam-haters are just as intolerant and thick, not to mention biased and obtuse, as the fundamentalists they claim to oppose. Below me, re: #62... talking about how France`s Islamic Council will ``bring Islam into the 21st century``?

Well, neither France nor #62 is going to bring Islam anywhere. What`s so great and forward-thinking about a government that denies women the right to wear headscarves in ID photos, or, similarly, thinks it can decide that Muslim women shouldn`t wear the headscarf.

This is the same France that allows girls to wear crosses, but not scarves. Somehow, one is worse than the other. Though if I remember right, the Church had more to do with oppression in france than Islam ever did.

There`s little difference between a government mandating a type of dress and a government forbidding it.

Just rotten fundos on both sides.

I have been following this fascinating this thread. This is the kind of introspection which will bring Islam into the 21st century.
I thought the readers will find the following report in today`s New York Times intereseting:L

ETTER FROM EUROPE
France Envisions a Citizenry of Model Muslims
By ELAINE SCIOLINO


ARIS, May 6 — The French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, was booed and whistled at when he said at the annual conference of one of this country`s most important Muslim groups last month that Muslim women would have to go bareheaded when posing for pictures for their identity cards.

He did not seem to notice — or perhaps chose to ignore — that a vast majority of the women in the audience were wearing head scarves. A few of them had even swathed their faces in black and hidden their hands under black gloves.

And perhaps the law-and-order interior minister can be forgiven for overlooking the shopping bags on sale at a score of kiosks, the ones with the silhouette of a woman wearing a veil and the phrase ``I love my veil`` in English and Arabic.

In a largely secular continent still trying to come to grips with Islam, France, with its large Muslim population and long colonial history with Algeria, is something of a bellwether. But even here, it is unclear how — or even whether — the tensions between secularism and Muslim piety will be resolved.

In a sense, France`s center-right government is trying to create a model Muslim citizenry. President Jacques Chirac has spoken about his vision of a ``tolerant`` Islam. Mr. Sarkozy said recently, ``There is no room for fundamentalism at the Republic`s table.``

For them, model Muslims would be French-speaking and law-abiding. They would celebrate the 1905 French law that requires total separation between church and state. They would attend mosques presided over by clerics who are French-trained and avoid politics in their sermons.

Model Muslim women would not try to wear head scarves in the workplace; model Muslim girls would not try to wear head scarves to school. Most important, model Muslims would call themselves French first and Muslim second.

The thinking goes something like this: Muslims must be integrated into French society to avoid a culture clash that could contribute to terrorism. So the French government has embarked on a two-pronged strategy that will give Muslims what French leaders call ``a place at the table,`` but monitor and regulate their activities at the same time.

This strategy lay behind Mr. Sarkozy`s campaign to put together an official Islamic council led by a ``moderate,`` suit-and-tie-wearing mosque rector to interact with the French state. It also underlies Mr. Sarkozy`s belief that the only way France can stop radical foreign clerics from preaching on French soil is to create a home-grown variety that identifies more with French culture and tradition. It is the reason French intelligence has assigned operatives to monitor sermons in mosques and prayer centers every Friday.

The idea of the French state regulating a religious community is rooted in Napoleon`s bold concordat concluded with the papacy in 1802. While the concordat recognized Catholicism as the ``preferred religion`` of France, it also forced the pope to accept nationalization of church property in France, gave the state the right to appoint bishops, police all public worship and make the clergy ``moral prefects`` of the state.

A few years later, the French state sought to transform the Jewish population into better French citizens by controlling their behavior, going so far as to propose briefly that every two marriages between Jews be matched by a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew.

But in an era in which the French state enjoys less and less direct control over its citizenry, transforming a Muslim population into an ideal citizenry may be too much of a stretch.

``It is very difficult to say it openly but this is a very troubling situation, a crossroads,`` said Pierre Birnbaum, professor of politics and philosophy at the Sorbonne and author of ``The Idea of France.``

``The state, which is no longer the center of the nation, may not be in a position to rule on religion from above,`` he said. ``It may not have the power to integrate.``

France is home to about five million Muslims, about 7 percent of the population. But that figure is hopelessly unreliable because under French law, people are not officially counted, polled or classified according to religion.

Officials say they do not know whether there are any Muslims among France`s 577 members of the National Assembly, although a Muslim cultural organization affiliated with the Paris Mosque says there are none. There are no Muslim ministers, although there are two Muslim state secretaries, one for long-term development, another for veterans affairs.

The driving force behind France`s campaign to make its Muslim citizens more French is to curb political radicalism and terrorism, both inside and outside the country. The problem is that mainstreaming Muslims into European society does not necessarily translate into an embrace of European ideals.

France — like the rest of Europe — was stunned when the perpetrator of a suicide bombing in Israel late last month was identified as Asif Hanif, a 21-year-old middle-class Briton of South Asian origin. Another Briton, Omar Khan Sharif, the 27-year-old son of a successful businessman originally from Kashmir, reportedly fled the scene. Both came from comfortable, Westernized suburban neighborhoods.

The French are aware as well of the power of a protest leader like Dyab Abou Jahjah, the Lebanese-born son of university teachers, who speaks five languages and founded an Arab pride movement for immigrants in Belgium. He demands affirmative action in schools, the workplace and housing, and calls assimilation ``cultural rape.``

So even as France struggles to ``integrate,`` as French officials call it, its Muslim population, the nightmare is that the strategy may fail. Radicalism and terrorism sometimes may have less to do with religion and more to do with an overwhelming sense of alienation and rage linked to economic and political realities, like discrimination, joblessness and the open-ended war between Israel and the Palestinians.

tahmed Sahib (#57):

Your interpretation of “seal on the prophethood” is negated by Arabic phrases of “khatam-ul-auliyaa”, “khatam-ul-shuraa” etc. ... which signify a person’s highest status as a wali (saint), or sha’er (poet) etc. I have supported this viewpoint, and negated yours, from Quran and reasoning, and you have not been able to comment further. Mindlessly repeating the same line only suggests stubbornness on your part.

Now, it is not my place to tell you what to believe. However, when you start ridiculing my convictions … I may take you to the task … and highlight absurdities that you dress up in your brand of rationality … and attempt to pass as the only valid interpretation of Quran or understanding of truth.

Lack of arguments, combined with sporadic ridicule of others … is what I find contemptible about your position. Such an outlook puts you in the same category as the delusional, jahil ummah … who believe what they have been told … but are unable to justify it rationally and intellectually.