London’s Hour of Reckoning

Ajeya:

``Remember, if you came to my house, I would never let you in or anywhere near my children, because you admire and respect a pedophile and a mass-murderer. To me, that represents the lowest of the low.``

Wow! How about the following two gentlemen you referred to in your earlier post:

``I remember one of my co-workers was Iranian. One day, I was not feeling well, but still came to work. When you live alone, small health problems can sometimes acquire a much bigger dimension. Nobody at work seemed to have noticed that I was not feeling well. But he did. It made a lot of difference for me.

One of my doctors is muslim. A gentler, nicer, and more dedicated soul is very hard to find.``

Won`t you let them into your house? Don`t these gentlemen admire the same prophet?

Re: 410 by tahmed32

Yesterday I was discussing your posts with a fellow employee who had, in fact, turned me on to Chowk. He never posts, but reads Chowk all the time. After sometime he said “Oh tahmed is a very ordinary guy, it’s no point arguing with him”. It was interesting that he used the word “ordinary”, instead of “not smart” etc. Because that was my impression in the beginning, when I noticed that you never changed your views. I remember in an earlier forum I had mentioned that I would never visit Islamic countries, especially Bangladesh. You had said something like “Why not Bangladesh?”. After I explained, you could have said – “Oh, I see”, or “I don’t agree BECAUSE of x, y and z”. But no – your approach is to shut up and pretend the conversation never took place, so that you do not have to change your mind.

With your recent trend towards self-introspection, I had thought that maybe my initial assessment was wrong, that there is something there.

But I’m afraid I have to admit that there isn’t.

You ARE like the common man on the street – shallow, superstitious and unthinking – able to see reason very quickly when your own safety and well-being are threatened, with the typical servile attitude towards Westerners, but otherwise like Romair in all other aspects.

Remember, when I am arguing with you, it is not so much to convince you personally, as to address the general audience at chowk. So that is the extent of your usefulness to me. Do not flatter yourself into thinking that I am all cut up about trying to persuade you. Remember, if you came to my house, I would never let you in or anywhere near my children, because you admire and respect a pedophile and a mass-murderer. To me, that represents the lowest of the low.

mohar:

the issues. point out the fallacy of the issues. there`s no need for all this name-calling.
afterall, when someone makes a statement such as:

I hope this explains why I dont share your concern about time running out for muslims. The only muslims who need to worry about their safety are the ones living in India - given the mindsets I see among Indian posters on chowk, and given the real life evidence of intimidation and harassment of minorities in India.

there`s no name-calling here. never mind that it imputes blame and harassment of indian muslims to those whose mindsets one has little clue of here, or if someone is critical of pakistanis, and ``jihadis`` they are automatically rendered as hindutva. no, that`s not name-calling at all! but at least you should remain above board, and not be as immature as such posters would be themselves.

the issues, mohar. stick to the issues. i hope you catch my drift. :)

Re: # 428 ana

I admit, I like calling Tahmed ``Closet Mullah`` - it`s fun to watch him go round and round :) But come on, don`t be so uptight - The so called ``Name-calling`` is part of the conversation :) - it makes things ``lively``..... I don`t see why this would be such big deal for Nanny Ana to come out with baton to discipline the bad boys :)

Also - Tahmed is complaining only because he is kind of cornered at this time - that PewResearch guy is hounding him on Prophet, Paedophilia and some other sh!t .. and our man tahmed, who is usually slippery as a snake, don`t know how to get out ....... otherwise he would have merrily done counter ``name-calling`` and that would be that.

There is nothing wrong with so-called ``name-calling``.

Further to #426 This statement from Tony Blair is interesting. It is exactly what I have been arguing about on this board - and poles apart from those who seek to denounce islam as a religion. btw, despite our differences, I appreciate your civilized and intelligent mode of discussion. Thanks.

/a>

Excerpt:

This, he (Blair) said, ``is a religious ideology, a strain within the worldwide religion of Islam, as far removed from its essential decency and truth as Protestant gunmen who kill Catholics or vice versa are from Christianity.

But do not let us underestimate or dismiss it. Those who kill in the name of this ideology believe it genuinely that in doing it they do God`s work, they go to paradise.

Britons, he said, ``must join up with our Muslim community`` -- which he stressed believes in democracy as much as any other group -- to take on the militants at home and overseas.
``It is a global struggle. And it is a battle of ideas and hearts and minds, both within Islam and outside it. This is the battle that must be won.``

PewResearch #418 I read Lewis` ``What went wrong``, and found it to be a very interesting and insightful book. He shows how the ottoman empire, which as at par and in some ways ahead, of western civilization until around the 15th century slipped back since. However, that book does not by any means support the claim that conflict/terrorism is inherent in the muslim religion. Indeed, his point is exactly what I was making earlier on this board - namely, the institution of kingships and the lack of stress on general education. I not just agree with him here, I use every opportunity to bring it to the attention of my fellow pakistanis who talk about sharia (which as I said earlier, is based on the kingships whereby royal ``firman`` were issued and qazis appointed by the king diveloped the sharia, and has no religious backing to it).

I have not read his latest book that you mention, so perhaps I will get to it one of these days. However, your summary description seems reasonable to me and I dont have any problem with it. Of course there is plenty of arrogance among muslims (and earlier I was telling romair about the need for muslims to get off this ``high horse`` of contempt for other religions). But is this arrogance any different from that of hindus I see on chowk?? These are the characteristic of any backward people - hindu or muslim.

Re: # 426

Tahmed: I think that you are still missing the point when you seek to lay blame on `kingships`, since they are by no means unique to Islam. Every part of the world has had kings, but homicidal bombers are predominantly Sunni muslim. WHY?

Also, the issue of lack of stress on general education: is that a mere coincidence or a direct result of the smugness or arrogance that you identified?

Even the Blair quote that you cite is further evidence that other, non-Muslim civilizations institutionalize mechanisms to restrain their own extremists to not target innocents in rage to uphold the principle of equality before law, but there is no counter-evidence that muslim societies succeed in reining in their own extremists and treat their minorities on an equal footing as muslims. The Blair quote, while pointing to the decency of British people, also indirectly casts muslim leaders in an unfavorable light because no muslim leader has shown the moral turpitude to lead a struggle for civil equality for non-muslims. Every single member of the OIC enshrines Islam in some way, shape or manner in their constitutions, further supporting Friedman`s assertion. NOT A SINGLE OIC MEMBER OUT OF 54 GIVES EQUAL CIVIC RIGHTS TO NON MUSLIMS.

Hindu chauvinism will become a worthy issue of world concern if hindus replace Sunnis as homicide bombers, and extremists succeed in changing India`s basic election law, and India abandons Westminster-style democracy. There is no indication that that is about to happen, a few Chowkies notwithstanding. Until they succed in determining civic rights based upon religion, any connection between the two is meaningless.

mohar: And this is my first and last post to you. You can now follow your usual boring drill of declaring victory and what-not.

mohar #423 Namecalling is the clearest sign of an immature man. Your calling me names says nothing about me, and speaks volumes about you.

the muslims in india are not the only ones who have to worry about their safety. what? has this board turned from ``london`s hour of reckoning`` to ``india`s hour of reckoning``?!

the muslims in iraq have to worry about their safety, especially the little children who died in the bombing this past week.

the muslims in pakistan have to worry about their safety, because their mosques are being blown up. . . not by indians.

the muslims in kashmir are being killed and maimed by muslim elements as well, not just as some purport by the indian army.

so let`s talk again about who are the ONLY ones who have to worry about their safety? or are we actually going to put all the blame for this now on the west and ``the indians`` whereas before we were dismissing the correlation between the war in iraq, and dissatisfaction about palestine?

for those who do not subscribe to the NYT. the article mohar posted a link to:

LEEDS, England, July 15 - At Beeston`s Cross Flats Park, in the center of this now embattled town, Sanjay Dutt and his friends grappled Friday with why their friend Kakey, better known to the world as Shehzad Tanweer, had decided to become a suicide bomber.

In the Beeston section of Leeds, the police cordoned off the Iqra bookstore Friday for a search in connection with the investigation of the London bombings. The store is a gathering place, holding classes about Islam. Shehzad Tanweer, one of the bombing suspects, lived nearby.

Dr. Imram Waheed, a psychiatrist in Birmingham, leads a conservative, nonviolent party seeking to instill Islamic standards in daily life.
``He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it,`` Mr. Dutt, 22, said. ``Why, for example, don`t they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?``

``It`s a double standard, that`s why,`` answered a friend, who called himself Shahroukh, also 22, wearing a baseball cap and basketball jersey, sitting nearby. ``I don`t approve of what he did, but I understand it. You get driven to something like this, it doesn`t just happen.``

To the boys from Cross Flats Park, Mr. Tanweer, 22, who blew himself up on a subway train in London last week, was devout, thoughtful and generous. If they understood his actions, it was because they lived in Mr. Tanweer`s world, too.

They did not agree with what Mr. Tanweer had done, but made clear they shared the same sense of otherness, the same sense of siege, the same sense that their community, and Muslims in general, were in their view helpless before the whims of greater powers. Ultimately, they understood his anger.

The news that four British-born Muslim men from neighborhoods around Leeds were suspected of carrying out the bombings in London has made the shared dissatisfaction of boys like these and the creeping militancy of some young British Muslims an urgent issue in Britain.

The bombers are an exception among Britain`s 1.6 million Muslims. But their actions have highlighted a lingering question: why are second-generation British Muslims who should seemingly be farther up the road of assimilation rejecting the country in which they were born and raised?

Speak to young Muslims like Mr. Dutt and his friends in Leeds, or to others like Dr. Imram Waheed, 28, and Farouq Khan, 32, two Islamic activists living in Birmingham, another Muslim population center, and the answers seem clear. Each expresses the grievance in his own way, but the root is nearly the same.

They say they are weary of liberal Muslim leaders and British politicians who promise changes. They see them backing policies against the Muslim world in general, from Iraq to the Middle East to Afghanistan, and promising relief from economic distress and discrimination. Still, Britain`s Muslims have languished near the bottom of society since their influx here in the 1950`s.

``I know what people don`t understand - it`s how terrorists could have been born in this country,`` Shahroukh said. ``But my point is, why not?``

A recent poll commissioned by The Guardian found that 84 percent of Muslims surveyed were against the use of violence for political means, but only 33 percent of Muslims said they wanted more integration into mainstream British culture. Almost half of those surveyed said their Muslim leadership did not represent their views.

The grievances of the boys of Cross Flats Parks have not propelled them toward political action. But Dr. Waheed, a practicing psychiatrist, and Mr. Khan, a documentary filmmaker, are acting on their alienation.

Both men, eloquent, better educated and better off than most in their community, are also among the more politically motivated. They have embraced one of the more conservative, if not militant, Islamic movements in Britain today - Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation.

The party`s stated goal is to rebuild the Caliphate - the Muslim state dissolved with the fall of the Ottoman Empire - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.

The group has drawn about 10,000 members to its recent annual meetings, its members say, and includes chapters abroad in places like Uzbekistan. It is a controversial movement, even among British Muslims, and its members have become emblematic of the shift of Muslims born in Britain to more conservative and outspoken expressions of their faith.

In interviews earlier this week in Birmingham, where they were born and bred, Dr. Waheed and Mr. Khan described the group`s struggle as one for the very identity of Muslims in Britain

ferozk#417

Do I see a book in the making?

Excellent analysis! My reading of the history is superficial and limited to relatively recent past. Based on that I have one question to ask: Do you think that the Islamic world would be the same but for the events of the decade following the second world war? The reason why I am asking this question is that the Islamic world produced by and large fairly modern, progressive people during first part of the twentieth century who assumed leadership during that period. Sukarno in Indonesia, Tunku Abdul Rehman in Malaya, Jinnah in India, Nasser in Egypt and the Shah of Iran may be quite different in many ways but none of them was a regressive Muslim, even the Saudis produced a relatively liberal leadership which lifted bans on pictures and cinema during this period.

However, this progressive leadership did not last. I think that a number of events during the decade after the second world war were critical to this development. These were:

- Creation of Pakistan. Although the movement was led by progressive and modern Muslims like Jinnah and Agha Khan, it heralded the triumph of political Islam and lifted the spirits of the ummah. It was inevitable that this triumph would be used to bring back the image of the past glory of Islam.

- Creation of Israel. This had the opposite effect of feeding the grievances of Muslims who saw in it a stab in the Arab world by a Judeo-Christian conspiracy.

- The powerful effect of Marxism and Socialism on the educated elite of the Muslim, especially Arab, world and the threat it posed to the Western world during the cold war. This led to the West choosing Muslim clergy as a natural ally in a common war against the godless commies.

- The West`s need for a cheap and secure source of energy which made it choose dictators it could manipulate over unmanageable democracies. In the absence of democracies, the only alternative to oppose the West was the mosques and the sermons of the mullahs.

I think that it is difficult to ignore the above factors while analysing the impotent rage felt by the Islamic world against the West.

re: dost-mittar # 416

Dostji, I doubt that there is a book in the making. :) Still, thanks for the encouragement. :)

As to the events of the decade after the Second World War, I would speculate and suggest that people like Jinnah, Nasser and others whom you mentioned, were the exception. These people inheirted power after the process of independence was complete and such, they did not have to compete, with the clergy for power. It was only afterwards that clergy started to reassert itself and marginalized such people. Remember, the colonizing powers were secular and when the power was transfered, it was given to those native leaders who had earned their credentials under a westernized structure of power. The clergy, due to its political isolationism, had effectively removed itself from power and thus, was not in a position to influence the events.

However, the conflict was still very much present. :)

The rest of the events, which you have mentioned did not necessarily feed the Muslim impotence, as much at it justified it. Muslim political impotence, was quite visible by 1680s. I think, that the exact year was 1683 and the event, was the Turkish siege of Vienna. The siege failed and since then, Muslim power was in a constant decline only to end in 1919.

It would seem that Muslim rage is fanned by the inability of the Muslims to accept the political developments of the last 500 years and the fact, that political Islam itself was responsible for it.

Ciao

PewResearch: Let me try again. The ``specific assertion`` you quoted from Friedman is ```Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam` ``

I said that is one man`s view. You have responded by implying that this Friedman is an influential man in the mainstream, unlike Falwell. Maybe so. But he is still just one columnist - people whose job it is to study islam in the west, whose books are the most popular ones on islam, do not share his view of islam. I had referred you earlier to those books, and referred you to read the Quran itself and find out for yourself whether it promotes terrorism (which is the point you had originally made).

Re: # 415
Tahmed, it cannot be dismissed as just one man`s view. Consider, for example Bernard Lewis, the celebrated UK-born Middle East/Islam scholar. In his latest book, `The Crisis of Islam`, Lewis explains how a preoccupation with a loss of status and power (that resonates with your repeated search for succour in Pakistan`s military power on unrelated topics), a world view looking to blame outsiders (echoes of your frequent referral to BJP, and in the case of the exclusivists, the Jews) rather than looking inward for critical self-examination, and a lack of democratic tradition, continue to radicalize the Middle East. The author further seeks to explain how Islamic culture holds a different world view from those in the west and that we need to understand this world view if we are to confront the threat of terrorism.
In an earlier book, `What went wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East`, he explains how stunned the Ottomans were when they saw how Western society respected women, because it was in such contrast to their own ways. Not much has changed in the last 1400 years.
This is a serious allegation, and cannot be dismissed lightly based upon the speculation that it is an isolated viewpoint.

Re: # 418 pew to closet-mullah32
//...how a preoccupation with a loss of status and power (that resonates with your repeated search for succour in Pakistan`s military power on unrelated topics), a world view looking to blame outsiders (echoes of your frequent referral to BJP.......//

You hit the nail on the head :) Tahmed aka closet mullah has been pontificating about ``peaceful religion of islam`` for a long time. Whenever cornered, he brings out his trump cards - paki military and BJP.