Culture Wars

hamidm2

`There are good muslims but there is no such thing as good Islam`

In Pakistan at least even good muslims are becoming scarer now. There are only `Halfia Constitutional` muslims found in Pakistan which are not found elsewhere. A colleague and friend of mine who is a globe trotter told me once that any good man he met all over the world was found to be either a jew or an Ahmadi and the most hated people in the world are the `Halfia` muslims.

Vertex

I can show you that Islam is a fascist and totalitarian religion, whether the US was at war in Iraq or foolishly and ignorantly pumping Billions of dollars into the geen bag of Mard-e-Momin Zia-Ul-Haq.

I will continue pointing out to everyone that Islam a fascist and totalitarian (and am ready to explain to you why if you would care to listen) way of thinking and living, irrespective of what the US does.


You show no such integrity. You `know` that the current battle is not a crusade, yet `prefer` to call it a crusade, self-confessedly, for the deliberate purpose of arousing the violent passions of other Muslims who may not `know` the truth as well as you do.

That, dear vertex, is deliberate lying with the clear intent to deceive.

Ralph,

No, I still think this conflict is more or less about the imperialistic ambitions of a super power. People like you want to make it about religion, and so invoke dark and emotionally charged terminology like totalitarianism and fascism and all that. It is people like you who are aptly labeled ``Crusaders``, since you share pretty much the same mentality.

vertex #38

You claim that this is not a religious conflict, but then freely paint everything in sight in darkly religious, emotion-charged terms.

Not every Muslim can be expected to be so adept at dancing between the arguments, or at playing with people`s reasons and their emotions. Do you feel at all guilty or dishonest?

37,

``Inappropriate, deliberate, and repeated invocations of `crusades` are deliberate attempts to cast goepolitical conflicts in religious light, and to gather emotional support from Muslims who would otherwise rationally not support their `Islamic brothers and sisters.` ``

LOL, Yes. As I said, it is a clumsy way of mobilizing support among a similarly affected people. It is an inaccurate diagnosis of the problem, however going by the symptoms alone it is undeniable. When a people face the exact same threat, why the hell shouldn`t they call a spade a spade? Now, in this case the mistakenly call a spade a shovel, but that`s just a matter of semantics.

``Few Muslims seem to be able to debate and discuss these conflictual issues without invoking the spectre of Christian `crusades` against Muslims. That includes people at such relatively enlightened fora as chowk.``

Blah blah blah. Like I said, contemporary use of the word `crusades` is just a buzzword for colonial and post-colonial conflicts in the Muslim world by Western forces. No, this is not a religious conflict. This is a conflict is due to the imperialistic ambitions of a world power. The target, however, are members of the same religious group. Further, the conflcit is egged on by a heavy dose of ideology...so in that sense, these are a Crusade of sorts. Not a Christian one...but a Crusade nonetheless.


``Others will be unwise to forget the bloody history they have faced, but in their day-to-day living, Hindus, Christians, and others seek to move beyond the past. ``

Duh, we`re not talking about history here. I`m talking about the stuff your going to see on CNN today. Newsflash: there`s a war going on in Iraq, and the stated reasons are to bring about a change in the entire Arab/Islamic world. To put it mildly.

vertex #36

There is a less charitable view.

Inappropriate, deliberate, and repeated invocations of `crusades` are deliberate attempts to cast goepolitical conflicts in religious light, and to gather emotional support from Muslims who would otherwise rationally not support their `Islamic brothers and sisters.`

The difference between the average Muslims` use of these words and others` use of historical references is that for many Muslims religio-historical inventions act as ubiquitous concepts encompassing their entire existence. Few Muslims seem to be able to debate and discuss these conflictual issues without invoking the spectre of Christian `crusades` against Muslims. That includes people at such relatively englightened fora as chowk.

Others will be unwise to forget the bloody history they have faced, but in their day-to-day living, Hindus, Christians, and others seek to move beyond the past.

Ralph,

``I wonder what the basis of this statement is.``

Read my message again: one is an archaic term coined for a current group of people to describe their actions, the others invoke actual historical events to implicate their country folk through a guild-by-association. Not the same...

-digit #28

``The way Muslim`s invoke Crusader now days is not the same way as Hindus invoke the Arab or Turkic invaders (as you are in fact doing). ``

I wonder what the basis of this statement is.

hassansiddiqi #31

How about bombing of Shia doctors in Karachi, attacks on people praying in mosques, and churches?

What kind of political disputes do you suggest be settled for eliminating these bombings and attacks on innocent `faithfuls?`

Thanks in anticipations.

Hassan Al Siddiqi says
I think if the American government had focused more on solving political disputes rather than bombing Iraq, it would have had a much better chance on winning its war on terrorism.
1. Give Palestinians their rightful homeland
2. Give Kashmiris the right to vote and decide their fate
3. Give Sudanese people the support they need to prevent genocide
4. Give Iraq back to its people

Intereting, however, why should the americans involve themselves so deeply in Sudan and Kashmir? Kashmir is better off being dealt with the two major parties (india and pakistan) - frankly based on america`s track record - we would be better off if they kept their noses out of this one.

And as for sudan, america is proposing sanctions. Sanctions!!! can you believe it. sanctions on a country that has just sufferred so much, surely there is a better way of dealing with a problem then imposing embargoes that would further cripple the country`s already ailing economy.

The arab world should play a larger part, instead they sit quietly like tamed dogs watching from a distance. its a shame the biggest concern for a genocide is coming from the west while muslims stay quiet as a whole.

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

There is no question about the fact that suicide bombings, Iraq bombings and the Kashmir violence are largely a result of political problems as opposed to cultural or religious reasons.

I think if the American government had focused more on solving political disputes rather than bombing Iraq, it would have had a much better chance on winning its war on terrorism.

1. Give Palestinians their rightful homeland
2. Give Kashmiris the right to vote and decide their fate
3. Give Sudanese people the support they need to prevent genocide
4. Give Iraq back to its people

These are all political messes that need to be cleaned up. Get them cleaned up and you have half of your problems solved!

eh?? 28 is mine...

Worth reading:
very interesting insights.

and then there are the drooling-dogs of the west , tales a-wagging, yelping in orgasmic ecstacy: `` O master! how am I doin```.
These are the so-called lead-dogs from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi & Khaleej, Egypt, Tunis, Morroco, Palestine, Iraq [and perhaps many more] : India & China , with a sizable muslim population are not among these. This the naa-pakis, the baighairats, MUST bear in mind.

Letter to Gorbachev : From Ayatullah Khomeini [1989]

---

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Your Excellency Mr. Gorbachev,

Chairman of the Presidium of the

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

With due wishes for the happiness and prosperity of Your Excellency and the people of the Soviet Union.

Since your assumption of office there has been the impression that Your Excellency, in analyzing world political events, particularly those pertaining to the Soviet Union, have found yourself in a new era of reassessment, change and confrontation; and your boldness and initiative in dealing with the realities of the world is quite likely to bring about changes that would result in upsetting the equations of power dominating the world. I have therefore found it necessary to bring certain matters to your attention.

Even if your new approach and decisions are merely used as a means to overcome the party crisis, and to solve some of the problems confronting your people, your courage in reappraising a school of thought that has for decades enchained the revolutionary youth of the world behind its iron curtain is indeed worthy of praise. If, however, you are considering taking a further step forward, the first thing that will ensure your success is that you reevaluate your predecessors’ policy of obliterating God and religion from society, a policy that has no doubt given the heaviest blow to the Soviet people. Rest assured that this is the only way whereby world problems can be dealt with realistically.

Of course it is possible that as a result of wrong economic policies of former communist authorities, the Western world, an illusory heaven, will appear to be fascinating; but the truth lies elsewhere. If you hope, at this juncture, to cut the economic Gordian knots of socialism and communism by appealing to the center of Western capitalism, you will, far from remedying any ill of your society, commit a mistake which those to come will have to erase. For, if Marxism has come to a deadlock in its social and economic policies, capitalism has also bogged down, in this as well as in other respects though in a different form.

Mr. Gorbachev,

Reality must be faced. The main problem confronting your country is not one of private ownership, freedom and economy; your problem is the absence of true faith in God, the very problem that has dragged, or will drag, the West to vulgarism and an impasse. Your main problem is the prolonged and futile war you have waged against God, the source of existence and creation.

Mr. Gorbachev,

It is clear to everybody that from now on communism will only have to be found in the museums of world political history, for Marxism cannot meet any of the real needs of mankind. Marxism is a materialistic ideology and materialism cannot bring humanity out of the crisis caused by a lack of belief in spirituality—the prime affliction of the human society in the East and the West alike.

Mr. Gorbachev,

You may have not in theory turned your back on certain aspects of Marxism—and may continue to profess your heartfelt loyalty to it in interviews—but you know that, in practice, the reality is not so. The leader of China struck the first blow to communism and you have struck the second and, apparently, final blow. Today we have no such thing as communism in the world. I earnestly call on you, however, not to get trapped, while tearing down the walls of Marxist illusions, in the prison of the West and the Great Satan. I hope you will attain the honor of removing the decayed layers of 70-year communist aberration from the face of history and of your country. Today those allies of yours that are genuinely concerned about their homelands and people are no longer willing to sacrifice their subterranean and surface resources to keep alive the myth of the success of communism—an ideology whose din of collapse has already reached the ears of their children.

Mr. Gorbachev,

When after 70 years the call, “Allah is Great” and the testimony to the prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets, Muh#ammad (peace be upon him and his posterity) were heard from the minarets of the mosques in some of your Republics, all the followers of the pure Muh#ammadan Islam were moved to tears out of ecstasy. Therefore, I have found it necessary to remind you to reflect once again on the materialistic and theistic worldviews. Materialists consider sense to be the sole criterion of knowledge and are of the opinion that whatever cannot be known through the senses falls outside the realm of knowledge. They identify existence with matter and consider as nonexistent anything that has no material body. Inevitably, they regard the world of the unseen—God Almighty, Divine Revelation, Prophethood, and the Resurrection—as mere fiction. On the other hand, theists consider both sense and reason to be the criteria of knowledge, and maintain that whatever can be known through reason lies within the realm of knowledge, although it is not perceptible. To theists, therefore, existence is inclusive of both the unseen and the manifest. For a thing to exist it is not necessary to have a material body. In the same way that a material thing depends on an incorporeal thing, sensory perception is dependent on rational perception.

The Holy Qur’an reprobates the fundamentals of materialistic thought and, addressing those who say: “We shall never believe in thee until we see God manifestly,” proclaims: “Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends all vision; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware.” I should not like to present here Qur’anic arguments concerning Divine Revelation, Prophethood and the Resurrection which from your point of view are debatable. In fact, I do not wish to entangle you in the twists and turns of philosophical arguments, particularly those of Islamic philosophy. I will content myself by presenting one or two simple, intuitive examples of which even politicians can avail themselves.

It is self-evident that matter, whatever its nature, has no awareness of self. Consider a stone statue: each side is ignorant of the other side, whereas human beings and animals, we clearly observe, are aware of their surroundings. They know where they are and are aware of what goes on around them. There must be, then, an element in men and animals that transcends matter and is separate from it, living beyond the life of matter. Intrinsically, man seeks to attain absolute perfection. He strives, as you well know, for absolute power over the world; he is not attached to any power that is defective. If he has the entire world at his command, he naturally feels inclined to have command of another world once he is informed of its existence. No matter how learned a person may be if he learns of some other branch of knowledge, he naturally feels inclined to attain mastery of that branch of knowledge as well. Therefore, there must be some Absolute Power and Absolute Knowledge to which man is attached. It is God we all seek although we may not be aware of it. Man strives to attain Absolute Truth, so that he may be annihilated in God. Basically, the desire for eternal life that is inherent in every individual is proof of the existence of an Eternal World to which destruction cannot find its way.

Should Your Excellency desire further information on these matters, you may command those scholars of yours who are well-versed in this field to study, in addition to the works of Western philosophers, the writings of Peripatetic philosophers, al-Fārābī and Avicenna, peace be upon them. It will then become clear that the law of causation on which all knowledge depends is a rational, not sensible law. Likewise, perception of general laws and concepts on which all reasoning rests is reached not by means of sensory experience but through rational argument. Your scholars may further refer to the Ishrāqī theosophy of Suhrawardī, and explain to you that the flesh, as well as any other material thing, is in need of Pure Light which has no material entity, that man’s witnessing of his own truth does not take place by means of any sense organ. You may also have the scholars familiarize themselves with Transcendental philosophy of Mullā S!adrā (may Allah be pleased with him and resurrect him with the prophets and the pious), so that it may become clear that the nature of knowledge is different from the nature of matter and that intellect, far removed from matter, cannot be restricted by the laws governing matter.

I won’t tire you further by mentioning the works of mystics, in particular Muh#yī’d-Dīn ibn al-‘Arabī. If you wish to make yourself acquainted with the doctrines of this celebrated mystic, send a number of your brilliant scholars, who are well-versed in this field, to Qum so that, by reliance on God, they may, after a couple of years, glimpse the depth of the delicate stages of gnosis, which will be impossible for them to acquire without making such a journey.

Mr. Gorbachev,

After mentioning these problems and preliminary points, let me call on you to study Islam earnestly, not because Islam and the Muslims may need you but because Islam has exalted universal values which can bring comfort and salvation to all nations and remove the basic problems of mankind. A true understanding of Islam may forever release you from the problem of Afghanistan and other similar involvements. We treat Muslims of the world as Muslims of our own country and will ever share in their destiny.

By granting certain liberties to some of your Republics in matters pertaining to religious practices, you have shown that you no longer consider religion as the “opium of the people.” Indeed, how can Islam be the opium of the people—the religion that has made Iranians as firm as a mountain against superpowers? Is the religion that seeks the administration of justice in the world and man’s freedom from material and spiritual shackles, the opium of the people? Only that religion is the opium of the people that causes the material and spiritual resources of Islamic and non-Islamic countries to pass into the clutches of super- and lesser powers and that preaches that religion is separate from politics. This, however, cannot be called a true religion; it is what our people call “an American religion.”

In conclusion, I declare outright that the Islamic Republic of Iran as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world can easily fill the vacuum of religious faith in your society. In any case, our country, as in the past, honors good neighborhood and bilateral relations.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance.

Rūh#ullāh al-Mūsawī al-Khomeinī

67/10/11 AHS

[January 1, 1989]

Re: # 29

``....he calls for a worldwide peace movement to deal with the current dangerously volatile standoff between the political Christian Right and militant political Islam.``

I am yet to read the entire thread of the narration carefully before I can comment on how did he arrive at the above potentially dangerous suggestion which clearly tows the line of OBL. But the thread seems to follow the usual line of pointing fingers at others (Imperialists, Stalinists to Maoists) who have used political violence in order to shout us into acceptance of their violent actions!!

And if he is suggesting that we re-interpret of all the violence around as requiring some sort of religious rapproachment between various religious communities is to exactly follow OBL`s ``Historical Spiritualism``. Without getting into the `source` or original inspiration behind all the technology of the violent weapons (which is irrelevant), let us not forget that 9/11 was an action designed to resusticate the hitherto forgotten imagery of violent religious jehad for attaining temporal power.

It was in a sense an attempt to re-invent fascism and legitimatize the use of forgotten religious metaphors for theocratic expansionism. As Khomeni has so succinctly mooted his spiritual right to rule the state of Russia in his letter to Gorbahov :

``In conclusion, I declare outright that the Islamic Republic of Iran as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world can easily fill the vacuum of religious faith in your society. ``

If this is not neo-fascism then I fail to understand what it is???

BruceLee,

You know what? I am not talking about events from ancient history. I am talking about events that had their origins in the past decade. No one is blabbing on about the Crusades. It is sufficient to point out that the neo-con mentality is (rather crudely perhaps) referred to as a `Crusader` mentality.

But you are correct. Closet fascists and people planning genocide do like to take history and spin a story around it to mobilize against a defined threat which is otherwise...well..boring. Just look at how Hindus react to Muslim invaders (who may have been brutal - perhaps no more brutal than the slaving Hindu Raja`s - but they were - like the Raja`s - also responsible for developing a functioning society). The way Muslim`s invoke Crusader now days is not the same way as Hindus invoke the Arab or Turkic invaders (as you are in fact doing).

We should appreciate a good thing when we see one. The Moghal raj was, overall, a grand and noble achievement. If we leave Aurangzeb out, it was an era of which people can still be proud.

We should also acknowledge that the great Moghuls were great rulers primarily because they did not see themselves as beacons of Islam, and because, after Babar, they became part of the local milieu, instead of remaining implants of some Arabistan.

We should appreciate a good thing when we see one. The Moghal raj was, overall, a grand and noble achievement. If we leave Aurangzeb out, it was an era of which people can still be proud.

We should also acknowledge that the great Moghuls were great rulers primarily because they did not see themselves as beacons of Islam, and because, after Babar, they became part of the local milieu, instead of remaining implants of some Arabistan.

A common Islamist refrain is that the West is ``attacking`` Islam because Islam poses a ``viable threat`` to the ``immoral ways`` of the West.

Those who read a few things will be amused to recall the opening line of Karl Marx`s Manifesto of the Communist Party -

``A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of Communism.....``

Ralph

``Isn`t Islam merely communism on Arabic opium, sustained through five shots a day? Perhaps someone could delineate the differences for us``

Muhammad was a capitalist and a tradesman who engaged in buiness. Thats why I cannot understand so much of the Islamic discourse that is anti-capitalism! I reckon it is just because liberal capitalism is the prevailing paradigm which Islamic ideologues see themselves as having to dislodge...had the Commies won the cold war we would be having the Islamic ``resistance`` (code word for Imperialists) preaching the wonders of capitalism, how Muslims invented capitalism and the free market, and how Adam Smith is an Islamic hero!

vertex

You know what? Just as you can define the term crusader for yourself in relation to the Christian worlds onslaught on poor innocent virginal Islamic civilisation, so can anyone else use that word to describe the hegemonic imperialism of Islamic history as it intersects with their own. In fact, it is a neat term to engage with the ideology and its frontiers :-)

I agree with Ralph: if only the Muslim intellectuals spent as much time writing about the wrongs being committed in the Muslim world - then by gosh, we might be getting somewhere. To hope that America will change its foreign policy for the good of the world instead of the good of America is just plain wish full thinking.

I thank the author of the article for presenting this essay, and it is also testament to the openness of the American people who are buying these books (as mentioned in the article they were sold out)- as well as all Qurans being sold out after Sept. 11. A book criticizing Muslims or Pakistan would be gathered and burnt at the stake, or virtually ignored.
There are great differences between our societies, but we would be better off to find common ground and to be fair and balanced in our criticism.

As for Echobboom, miss Saminaasha - dont bother, no one can help this mullah - he dreams only of the 6th century - if only we could send him back using a time machine! Now thats wishful thinking!

Bruce Lee (nice nickname) says:
One thing I dont understand about some Muslims is the big chip on the shoulder they have about the crusades and other things that happened a thousand years ago, as if Islam was a poor innocent virgin who was molested by nasty monsters. Islam had its own crusades, Islamic crusaders invaded and commited unrighteous acts in India and other places, yet when you bring that up many people have epilietic fits and start crying and moaning. Islamic Imperialism and its history is the imperialism that leftists love to revere.

Bruce Lee needs a good karate chop on his head! BruceLee, i feel weird just typing that! - Mr. Lee, I actually agree with you on some counts that the picture painted off Muslim rulers after the Prophet Muhammad passed away is somewhat appologistic. There were cases of abuse, but to generalise that as a crusade is unfounded. Muslims did conquer with swords, but never ruled by it - the tolerance that existed in communities (Spain, Jerusalem and other parts of Europe) - are well documented - even though orientalist literature has tried to twist and mangle the facts.
The crusades were probably the first real holy war against a civilisation much ahead of Europe which lay in the dark ages. The causes of the crusades are many - but more so to do with Pope Urban ordering the ``liberation`` of Jerusalem. The result was disastrous and are quite lengthy to get into here. So please do not compare the spread of Islam over a thousand years ago to the crusades which were a barbaric assault, and can be compared to whats going on today (even though American foreign policy is partly to blame).

As for India - please. Muslims ruled India as a minority, yet in most aspects - tolerance prevailed, and there was little suppression of the Hindu and Sikh religions except for a short time under the rule of Aurganzeb. I think Muslims should be proud of the Moghul dynasty which brought much good to the subcontinent. Historians dont label the Moghul dynasty as Great for no reason, that is because that period of history brought the subcontinent out of the lethargic state that it had been in for much of its past.

...a war against totalitarianism? I think not. Too many totalitarian regimes have been recruited, and continue to be propped up, in this so-called war on terror.

No, Mr. Mamdani is right in pointing out the imperial nature of the `war`. Rather than a burden, the white man has chosen to identify a task: the containment of a people that share a religious persuasion. Why? Because OBL recites versus from the Quran? No, rather because this particular religion inspires a fierce desire for sovereignty from `foreign` influences amongst it`s fundamentalist adherents. This becomes a breeding ground for a particular mindset, a nascent ideology (with the rational for existence in place, but with no follow-up theory of it`s own). So, where Mr. Mamdani needs a bit of work is on trying to dissociate Islam from the conflict. The very nature of the target has an explicit association.

Is this `war` to defend the home front against an expansionist ideology? No. Those in the know, know that OBL and Islamist `ideology` is not expansionist...there is little to no concern for what ideology the West adopts. Thus it`s not like communism. Nor is their a massive military machine with a capability to occupy large swaths of land and carry out progroms. No, even OBL never threatened that. He may be murderous, but he’s not stupid.

American might is being applied to maintain the status quo; they want to maintain their supremacy and to this end they are embarking on a soft-imperialist path. The real enemy is `radicalism`. Invoking the doctrine of mutual-security, the OBL types want to tie respect for the sovereignty of Muslim lands to the security of Western lands. This of course means an upsetting of the established status quo...hence the `radical` agenda of OBL. When key American interests are involved, no relationship is tolerable except one that recognizes American interests as penultimate, often with a ruling oligarchy getting perks in return. You see, this is a mutually parasitic relationship…

This is much too low intensity for Bubba (and apparently some Chowkies) to understand, and so imagery of two evils-vanquished have been invoked to generate a sense of urgency and has done well to mobilize the masses into a pro-war groupthink. You see, sometimes for those who are real slow you have to paint very colorful pictures, with all dots pre-connected.

........ every insidious and tyrannical philosophy has had its long-haired and pot-smoking defenders in the west ......... even as german tanks rolled into sudentenland and soviet tanks were rolling into prague, idiots in boston and london cried, ``oh, but they do have historical grievances and we have to address the root cause !``............. nonsense!....... there should not, and cannot be any compromise with totalitarian ideologies that seek to destroy civilizaton and replace it with the tyranny of false gods ................ all this crap about good islam is eyewash and hogwash ............. of course there are good muslims, but there is no such thing as good islam .........

Isn`t Islam merely communism on Arabic opium, sustained through five shots a day? Perhaps someone could delineate the differences for us.

.... this is definitely about islam, as it should be ..... totalitarian islam (and i don`t know if there is another kind) is the twenty first century sucessor to communism and it has to be dealt with accordingly ........

The crusades were always regarded as a frontier war. The real damage was caused by the Mongols, and that is what is remembered.

Contemporary Muslims, however, take the term of Crusade to describe a destructive colonizing force, and an immanent threat. Not a past one. Although the term ``white man`s burden`` would perhaps be better, the Crusades is more familiar to the layperson.

The ideological bent of those out to ``reform`` the Middle east does clearly demonstrate a crusader mindset. This is about Islam, not just radical Islamist Islam as Lou Dobbs likes to sugar coat it. Without a clear definition of that, and with asinine linkages of Iraq to terror (the only outstanding one is the Muslim link), the Crusader label is perhaps more apropos then we would want to think.

Hamidm2 #13

The crusading Christianity, the Chrisitanity of Inquisitions, or the Christianity against which Voltaire wrote so eloquently, was not very different from what the essence of Islam has always been. In todays America particularly, traces of that Christianity remain alive. That`s the trace with which Islamists hope to form an opportunistic alliance against the `secular world.`

I think this guy is married to Mira Nair the director who made Monsoon Wedding.

He is a Jihadi apologist masquerading as a righteous man. Really scary.

One thing I dont understand about some Muslims is the big chip on the shoulder they have about the crusades and other things that happened a thousand years ago, as if Islam was a poor innocent virgin who was molested by nasty monsters. Islam had its own crusades, Islamic crusaders invaded and commited unrighteous acts in India and other places, yet when you bring that up many people have epilietic fits and start crying and moaning.

Islamic Imperialism and its history is the imperialism that leftists love to revere.

Excellent article! I would like to read more about Mahmood Mamdani, who I believe is husband of film director, Mira Nair.

The US is unfortunately no longer (if it ever was) the beacon of intellectual freedom. You cannot criticise Israel in the US. At the same time, I think the present Muslim intelligentsia with few exceptions is PATHETIC - pardon me for being blunt. I would like to see them move beyond jihad and religion-based analysis to something like what Mahmood Mamdani has done.

................it is nice of you guys to try and conduct a civil discourse on the folly of cultural war .........but, you see, it is a matter of life and death for those jostling in line to get into heaven - that includes mullah echo and joe sixpack ........... let`s be realistic about this - there is a huge cultural divide between the world of islam and the rest of the world which should be painfully evident to even those who are chronically liberal and and terminally naive ..................the muslims have known this all along and that is why, a long time ago, they divided the world into two warring houses ........... the rest of the world simply refused to recoginize it - maybe because in the good old days they too had bought into the idea of christendom and other such nonsense ............. but today, as you travel the world, it is clear that there are two diametrically opposed cultures engaged in a figth to the death ..........may the better woman win ................

Ahmadiyyas are not ``Good Muslims``. In fact, according to Pakistan`s law, they are not even ``Bad Muslims`` but mere infidels.

According to the Book of Genesis, God placed a mark on the world`s first murderer before sending him into exile. The mark of Cain proclaimed its bearer as a criminal and social outcast. For centuries, prisoners and those who broke social codes were forcibly tattooed.

Pakistan`s ruling elite has put the mark of Cain on the nation`s hapless Qadianis. In fact, it is verily the kiss of death for one`s career even to be suspected of being a closet Qadiani.

Pakistan`s newly-appointed Prime Minister is only the latest who has had to declare in public that he is not a Qadiani to prove that he is a ``Good Muslim`` and worthy of being appointed the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-9-2004_pg3_3

The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Friday, September 10, 2004

I am not Qadiani, please!
By Khaled Ahmed`s

..... According to Khabrain (July 1, 2004) then prime minister-in-waiting Shaukat Aziz said that he was not a Qadiani and all the rumours spread about his being one were false and malicious. He pronounced Al Hamdu Lillah and said that he was a Sunni Muslim and the clerics who instructed him in Islam were still alive and could vouch for his not being a Qadiani. Sarerahe in Nawa-e-Waqt stated that Mr Aziz`s mother was in the habit of holding religious gatherings every month on the occasion of Giyarwin Sharif where great Sunni scholars came and lectured. She said her prayers five times a day. According to Jang, Mr Aziz said that his entire family and he held only a Pakistani passport and that he listened only to Eastern music and that he painted in his spare time.

Shaukat Aziz is not the first man who has had to humiliate himself like this. Before him, President Pervez Musharraf also went through the same kind of self-abasement. He had to exclude the Qadianis from his joint electorates, but no one believed him. The more you say you are not a Qadiani the more the clergy will shout Qadiani. Dozens of politicians and bureaucrats were thus put through the humiliating trial-by-falsehood in the past. .....

---

In this day and age, there is indeed a country where, under the law of the land, it is unlawful for members of a persecuted community to call themseves ``Muslims``. The five million members of the community in that country are not allowed into mosques and are prosecuted if they say Islamic prayers.

No, I am not talking of the ``Great Satan`` USA or even of much maligned Israel. I am talking of Pakistan where Muslims of the Ahmadiyya sect can be sentenced to death (under Section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code) if they dare use Islamic expressions like Asslam-o-Alaikum, Bismillah and Insallah.

Sections 295-A and 298-C allow the state to put away an Ahmadiyya in prison for as long as 10 years if he dares to call himself a Muslim. And it is quite according to the laws of the land for the authorities to demolosh the Ahmadis` place of worship if they dare call it a mosque. Five million Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan must live under the shadow of laws undreamt of even by blacks in South Africa during their darkest hours.

In Pakistan the law of the land very specifically bars non-Muslims from the highest positions in the land. In fact, it is not enough to be a Muslim, you must be so certified by the country`s ruling elite to qualify for the positions.

Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam, for example, was not entitled to be a Presidential candidate. As a Qadiani, he was a mere Kafir according to Pakistani law.

When USA recommended an alumnus of the World Bank for succeeding Nawaz Sarif after his first stint as the Prime Minister, the ablest among the alumni had to be bypassed for he, too, was a Qadiani. And earlier, when Benazir Bhutto, as Pakistan`s Prime Minister, had attempted to post a Qadiani as Pakistan`s top diplomat at the United Nations, she was roundedly accused of being an infidel by the press and the political establishment. The diplomat was soon found dead in a Tokyo hotel under mysterious circumstances. Benazir, herself, was dismissed by President Ishaq Khan soon after.

In Pakistan, even the mere rumor that you are a Qadiani can ruin a person. Some years back, when the office of the Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of Pakistan fell vacant, the nominating process said a lot about the guiding philosophy of ``Islamic`` Pakistan:

When the office fell vacant, the senior most judge took over as the acting Chief Justice and everyone assumed that he would soon be confirmed to the post. But the judge had enemies who promptly spread the rumor that he was a closet Ahmadiyya. The acting Chief Justice denied vehemently that he had ever been an Ahmadiya or ever will be one. But the damage was done. A junior judge was appointed the Chief Justice and the alleged Ahmadiyya was forced to resign from the Bench!!

Not even death will bring reprieve. Benazir Bhutto`s interior minister, General Naseerullah Babar, for example, came under nasty attack for merely attending the Namaz-e-Janaza of his Qadiani friend, Mumtaz Ahmed Malik.

Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmed (the spiritual head of the Qadianis) visited India anytime he wanted to. But, understandably, he never dared to visit Pakistan where he was deemed an infidel - and as such to be worse than a ``Bad Muslim``

9 by echoboom

It is all third class propaganda stuff which can hardly withstand any factual and critical analysis. For men like ehoboom one can only say: `hue tum dost jiske dushman uska aasman kion ho`. He is mixing up the Arab Ummi culture with Islam, attributing good things of that culture to Islam and comparing them with the bad things of `Kitaabi`, i.e. Judaistic culture of Arabs when, in fact, all three have the same source, Judaism; Islam being only the Arabic edition to Ibrani and Latin editions, known as Jewish and Christian ones, respectively. Just think who was Khadijah, owning wealth and doing import and export business even before the advent of Islam. And what do you think about the `Loundies`, especially the women plundered during conquest. Are they not women? You can have sex with them even if they are married and you can have as many of them as you can have and have free sex with them. I personally treat these plus points for Islam, especially the provision of extra-marital sex, about which echoboonish Islam is completely silent. I may tell him that I am an ethnic Arab and proud of that culture including Islam and its Judaistic source and not defensive about it like echoboon.

Echoboom Sahib,

That stick up your backside that you mistake for a spine has clouded your ability to be coherent. Please explain the logic of your post.

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

Buy then there is the Almanac and ``enemy`` sources even post 9/11. The westoxicated intellectual is trying to flatten the earth or giving it a counterspin. Nothing is working.

`tis your `ducation you dunce. You have been freeze-framed in the missionary-position.

---

``kheera naa kr skaa mujhhay , jalva-e daanish-e franG
surmaa hai mairee aankh kaa khaak-e madina O Najaf``

tr:
Never could I be blinded by the glitzy-glare of the western thougt
The kohl that`s in my eyes, is the dust from Madina and Najaf``




According to ``The Almanac Book of Facts``, the population increased 137% within the past decade, Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%.

In a recent poll in the (US), 100,000 people per year in America alone, are converting to Islam. For every 1 male convert to Islam, 4 females convert to Islam, Why?

It is Clear why Christians are converting.

1. Christian Scientists are declaring the Koran is from God. Visit Here for Christian and atheist Scientists who convert to Islam and why: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch13.html. click here


2. The Christian Bishops and Priests are admitting the Bible has tensions. http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch2.1.html
click here

3. Jesus is a Muslim: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/jam.html
click here

The question still remains, why are more women converting than men to Islam ?
Perhaps they realize their Soul is worth the Factual Research.

1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original
Sinners, (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden
tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}. The Koran Clarifies it
was Adam Not Eve {Qur`an 7:19-25}

2. The Bible says ``The Birth of a Daughter is a
loss`` {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}. The Qur`an says both
are an Equal Blessing { Qur`an 42:49}

3. The Bible Forbids Women from Speaking in
church {I Corinthians 14:34-35}. The Qur`an says
Women Can argue with the Prophet {58:1}

4. In the Bible, divorced Women are Labeled as
an Adulteress, while men are not {Matthew 5:31-32}. The
Koran does Not have Biblical double standards
{ Qur`an 30:21}

5. In The Bible, Widows and Sisters do Not
Inherit Any Property or Wealth, Only men
do{Numbers 27:1-11}The Koran Abolished this
male greediness { Qur`an 4:22} and God Protects
All.

6. The Bible Allows Multiple Wives{I Kings 11:3}
In The Koran, God limits the number to 4 only
under certain situations (with the Wife`s
permission)and Prefers you Marry Only One
Wife{ Qur`an 4:3} The Koran gives the Woman
the Right to Choose who to Marry.

7. ``If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not
pledged to be married and rapes her and they are
discovered, he shall pay the girl`s father fifty
shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he
has violated her. He can never divorce her as long
as he lives`` {Deuteronomy 22:28-30}

One must ask a simple question here, who is
really punished, the man who raped the woman or
the woman who was raped? According to the
Bible, you have to spend the Rest of Your Life
with the man who Raped You.

The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book
86, Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:`` It is
essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the
marriage)``.

Would the Christian men Reading this prefer the
Women they know to Be Christian or Muslim?

8. The Bible also asks Women to wear veils as in
Islam {I Corinthians 11:3-10}, this lowers the
chance of rape, (God Forbid), see statistic link
below.

9. Women were given rights to Vote less than a
100 years ago in the (US), while the Quran (42:38) gave
Women Voting rights almost 1,500 years ago.

10. Islam has unconfined Women and has given them
the human right to reach for the sky. There have been
Muslim Women Presidents through out the centuries,
but to this date, the oppressive mentality of the
men in the Western U.S.A. has stopped any Women from becoming
Presidents in predominately Christian countries,
while the Muslim countries have voted for and
elected Female Presidents.

Here is a list of previous Female Muslim leaders:

Khadija bint Khuwaylid
Aishah bint Abu Bakr
Fatimah bint Muhammad
Barakah
Ramlah bint Abu Sufyan
Rumaysa bint Milhan
Umm Salamah
Asma bint Abu Bakr
Zaynab al-Ghazali
Maryum Jameelah

The comparison goes on and on, to hear from some of these Converts, including Nuns, and Many Famous People, visit here;http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/newmuslim
click here

The reason non-muslims have bought and read Qoran after 9/11 is not that they conspired to blame it on religion.....it was because the guy giving the orders from the cave was holding the qoran in his hand and quoting from it while issuing fatwas.....naturally people wanted to know what is in it and is the guy quoting it correctly or making this stuff on the fly.

Bush once blurted the Crusades word in his speech....from which he back tracked later...I am sure if he insisted on it people would have bought books on crusades and bible to find out what is he talking about.

Mullah` biggest nightmare is people actually paying attention to what Mullah says.

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

America did not look to the Greek Orthodox church during its confrontation with the Soviet Union. But it did look to leftist literature and ideology to understand the motivation of the communists.

If America and Americans look to the Koran, it is because Islamic militants have defined the conflict in religious and cultural terms. Nobody was looking to the Koran in the war in 1991 or for that matter confrontation with Arab nationalist states like Syria in the 1980s.

Saminasha`s post is absolutely valid in an intra-civilizational scale but more so on an inter-civilizational level as well. No reason one has to look only in the former while dimissing the possibility of the latter.

Saminasha

I hope I won`t win you more enemies on Chowk by confessing that I agree with you on most issues. You are on the money again in #2. I am acutely aware of the more assertive, more militaristic, more unilateral, and more patriotic America that has arisen since 9/11. This is not a GOOD thing.

But there are real problems on the other side too. Arguably far deeper problems, masked at the world stage only by their relative lack of corresponding power on the world-stage.

And there IS an ongoing war, if not between civilizations, then between the good and bad everywhere, even among Muslims. Echoboom and Urstruly are at perpetual war with saminasha, and vice-versa.

Anybody who wants me to believe that all three are the same, and that any differences I see among the three are my own cultural and hegemonic constructions against innocent Islam is a bloodly lier. A lier who deliberately or not, is setting both you and me up to be victimized by the likes of Echoboom and Urstruly and their extremely distasteful religious ideology.

Despite my oft-professed hatred for Islamic ideology, there are many Muslims on Chowk for whom I have nothing but the hghtest admiration. I make this distinction based on my belief that as in the case of all ideological superstructures, there is a deep fault line running through the heart of Islam, and that some form of Islam does not pose any direct threat to me, but some other form does. I don`t see what could be a greater disservice to `moderate` Muslims than to convince non Muslims that their construction of moderate and extremist muslims is unwarranted.

(Revolted as I was with this article, I couldn`t read it with much care. So I may have completely misjudged the central message of the article. If that happened, it wouldn`t be a first for me, and I will, once again, have to eat crow).

Ralph,

``Culture Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The term Culture Wars has been used to describe ideologically-driven and often strident confrontations typical of American public culture and politics since the 1980s.

The expression gained wide use with the publication in 1991 of Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America by James Davison Hunter. In that book, he described the dramatic polarized re-alignment that had transformed American politics. The observation is that on an increasing number of ``hot-button`` defining issues — abortion, gun control, separation of church and state, privacy, homosexuality, censorship — there are two definable polarities in American culture. These are not defined by their their nominal religion or even by their political affiliation, but rather by an ideological world view. Hunter characterised this polarity as stemming from the impulses toward Progressivism and toward Orthodoxy.

During the same period, paleoconservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan mounted a campaign for the Republican nomination for President of the United States against incumbent George H. Bush in 1992, mostly based on Bush`s decision to raise taxes after the latter`s famous pledge, ``Read my lips, no new taxes``. After doing surprisingly well in the first Primary in New Hampshire, drawing 37% of the vote, his campaign faded. However, he received a consolation prize, the keynote speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. The speech played well amongst the hard-line Republicans, but some consider that its effect may have cost the party swing votes and alienated moderates. That is, it was adjudged to have been polarizing. Buchanan said, ``There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.`` Buchanan`s campaign is credited to some extent with allowing Independent Ross Perot to emerge as a major figure in politics; Perot received 19% of the vote that year.

The term Culture Wars was adopted by William Strauss and Neil Howe in Fourth Turning (1996), to describe the historical period from 1984 to approximately 2005. The preceding era they termed the Consciousness Revolution; the succeeding era in Strauss and Howe`s system is the predicted upcoming Crisis of 2020.

In the Culture Wars, public morality was a defining issue.

The period opened with triumphant ``Morning in America`` individualism and drifted toward pessimism as time wore on. Personal confidence remained high and in the 1990s few national problems demanded immediate action. But, the public reflected darkly on growing violence and incivility, widening inequality, pervasive distrust of institutions and leaders, and a debased popular culture. People began fearing that the national consensus was splitting (http://jkalb.freeshell.org/web/culture_wars.html) into competing ``values`` camps.

Contents [showhide]
1 Suggested causes of the split
2 The various camps
3 Age location in history
4 Did theSeptember 11 Terrorist Attacks herald the end of the Culture Wars era?
5 External links
[edit]

Suggested causes of the split
Though society had been turning away from tradition and the transcendent for centuries, technology had by this time enabled the decoupling of many biological functions from their respective social functions — sex from its social function of producing the next generation, etc.

[edit]


The various camps
The Boom Generation, who had control of the culture at the beginning of the era, came under attack from their next juniors, Generation X, who had a distinctive anti-Boom crossculture. These two generations are like oil and water: aggressive moralizers on one side, neo-hedonists on the other.

[edit]
Age location in history
The Silent Generation was entering elderhood.
The Baby boomers were entering midlife.
Generation X was entering rising adulthood, looking at a Boom-built culture in need of the one thing missing at Woodstock: ice-water realism.
Generation Y was entering childhood.
[edit]

Did theSeptember 11 Terrorist Attacks herald the end of the Culture Wars era?
Some argue that the destruction of the World Trade Center produced only a temporary sobering reaction from the American populace. If the Culture Wars era had ended then, the national mood would have been akin to the mood at the time of the start of the Great Depression. The American military took over Afghanistan and Iraq, but that has not had the same feeling among the populace as, say, VE Day.

Other critics dispute this. Instead of comparing September 11 to the end of the Second World War, they see it as similar to the beginning. Many argue that the 9/11 Attacks were ``a new Pearl Harbor`` that heralded the beginning of a culture shift. Some right-wing and left-wing intellectuals see a post-9/11 United States as being more assertive, more militaristic, more unilateral, and more patriotic. This perceived change has been both applauded and criticized.``

What new theoretical ground does this person break? Every sentence you attribute to the man has been said more effectively by more literate people such as atif, ali, and urstruly.

``He is no apologist for terrorism`` seems to have become the preferred mode of introduction for terror apologists. You people - and non Muslims are told that there are no good and bad Muslims, so you are all Osama`s colleagues - do yourself much much harm through this pathetic tactic - you make the life of good Muslims much harder.

And there ARE good Muslims and bad Muslims - good Muslims are those who think of themselves as human beings first, and when they see evil in their religion they acknowledge it.

The author is right, Mamdani`s view is provocative...I was also intrigued by the usage of the phrase ``culture wars`` - in North American academia ``culture war`` has been used to describe the discussions taking place around curricula and critical theory applications. But, no reason why this additional resonance cant apply.

Great article. Thanks!