London’s Hour of Reckoning

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 administers his favorite self-medication - military power and BJP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/16/international/europe/16muslims.html?hp&ex=1121572800&en=7b1f44fe6658c193&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This doctor dude is a Brit-paki and he got a party called ``Party of Liberation`` - he wants to establish caliphate and ``to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life``. The party has followings all over britain and outside.

``....``For our parents, the attention was focused on getting a job and building a life here,`` Mr. Khan said. ``My generation had to go through more of a thinking process to discover who we are, our Islamic identity.``.....``

Boy - brits are really scre!wed. They really have no idea what they are dealing with here.

rsridhar: good to hear from you, after a long time. Let us see WHO thinks the majority of the muslims approve of terrorist acts, as you write.

First, it is Indians. That is clear from what I have reading for the past several years on chowk. And it seems reasonable to assume that these Indians represent a significant viewpoint in India (and the success of the hindu nationalist BJP in India indicates that perhaps as much as 50% of the Indian population shares this view). But (as I said earlier), these Indians dont matter: Pakistan is militarily secure from India. The BJP government tried its best in the 1990`s to get Pakistan declared a pariah state at a time when Pakistan was in a weak position - and they miserably failed to make any headway with the international community.

Second, people in the west. After 9/11 in particular, there has been a spate of books written on the subject by western scholars who have been uniformly appreciative of islam as a religion. Thus, even Hoagland (who has often been critical of specific aspects of Pakistan government policy) wrote an article after the london bombing that was in fact highly appreciative of the american muslim community. The 10 million american muslims are in fact often quite involved in community work - and often there are articles about them in the WP for example (e.g. there was an article on the tsunami relief work being done by CAIR, an article on the free medical services provided by muslim doctos at a local mosque, and so forth).

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.

re:#409 by tahmed32
while 1 billion muslims may not wake up everyday planning world domination, the world has not seen any kind of concerted effort by this silent majority against the ``terrorist`` minority. This is being interpreted as ``silent acquiescence`` nay, approval of the terrorist acts. It is time this ``silent minority`` showed clearly where it stands. As someone already said, time is running out.
Sridhar

Ajeya #408 I dont have anything more to say to you other than what you yourself quoted at the beginning: ``I am not interested in convincing muslim-haters like you on anything.``.

Obviously, there is some part of ``No`` that you dont you understand. I didnt read the rest of your post.

PewResearch #404 Lots of people say lots of things. Friedman says that Islam requires muslims to become politically dominant in the society they live in. Falwell has said worse things about Islam. Their saying something does not make it true.

You keep insisting on a response to Friedman, so here is my answer: There are over 1 billion muslims in the world, and they dont get up every morning planning world domination. And if anyone seriously thinks they do, then what that person needs is not an ``intellectual`` but a shrink.

Re: #383 by tahmed32


[I am not interested in convincing muslim-haters like you on anything.]

After all, what else do you have left, but using the standard response:

``You hate Muslims, therefore what your logic is, does not need to be debated``.

One would hope that after spending so much time debating people on Chowk, you could see through this threadbare defense.

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.

I could sit here and list dozens of wonderful people I have come across that are Muslim.

If I hated all Muslims, I would lose respect for myself, for having turned into something like an Islamist.



[My discussions on religion are directed to fellow muslims only]


You can argue everything under the sun with non-muslims, but when it comes to inconvenient quetions about Islam you cannot.

Do you see any flaw in this kind of logic?



Re: #386 by tahmed32


[If you are seriously interested in understanding the Quran, then the best thing is to read it for yourself with an open mind. It is not a very big book.]

Most Muslims I have met have studied the Quran MUCH less than I have.

I don`t think you are smarter than me. And I have read different interpretations of the Quran done by different people in different centuries. There is nothing to redeem those Quranic sentences I have quoted, and a thousand others like that. Let alone Muhammad’s life examples.

And I have read EXPLANATIONS of Quranic verses by renowned Islamic scholars.

So I don`t think you have any special knowledge that you could educate me with.


[the Quran explicitly places boundries on the prophet muhammed himself - saying that he is just a messenger, and implementation of the message is not his concern. That is a matter between God and the individual alone.]


This is standard circular logic used by Islamic apologists.

To belive that God transmitted the Quran THROUGH Muhammed, you have to FIRST believe Muhammed. That God came and spoke to him etc.

I CANNOT, and no decent person should believe a man with his track record. Period.

So if you cannot believe him about God talking to him, then everything else is null and void.


[Dont just pick a verse here or there (as you had done), ignoring what the rest of the book has to say.]


Another couple of standard arguments used by Muslims:

1) You are taking the particular sentences OUT OF CONTEXT.

Answer: If I am – SHOW ME HOW!

2) The Quran has lots of good sayings in it, too. If Quran was not such a good book, then how is that possible?

OR

Muhammad did many good things too. If he was not a good man, how come he did these good things?

Answer: This does not make a difference. If you study the lives of ANY serial killer, serial rapist, mass murderer etc. in any country, you will find that they have done some good things in their lives too. This does not change the fact that they are bad people.

See?

No?

Okay….

Romair #392

`` I always find it funny, how people quickly attempt to tear down anyone whose views contradict with theirs. ``

You mentioned him as an unbiased observer. He is a biased observer with a vested agenda.

`` I only mentioned Margolis` knowledge on Afghanistan, and the character assasinations started. He is recognized, worldwide, including by CNN, as an authority on Afghanistan`s Soviet war. He was, in there fighting with the Afghan Mujahideen. Even his critics recognize his expertise of that area. ``

He does not understand Pushutu or Dari.

`` I am not sure what his mother`s religion has to do with. He is actually an athiest, himself. And is an Eisenhower Republican. And fought in the Vietnam war. His mother, Nexhmie, was actually an American journalist, of Greek and Albanian background........... ``

How do you know his mother`s Albanian background does not influence his thinking ? I never knew it until dost-mittar pointed it out. It explains his anti-Slavic rantings.

`` I don`t think he hates India. He has, however, gone into Kashmir, and written about the human rights violations there. Which maybe why many people think he hates India............``

The Indian government would not allow him.

`` One should look at the point being made, about his experience in Afghanistan, rather than getting into someone`s mother or father, or India or Pakistan.............The other option is to simply close one`s eyes to anyone who disagrees with one`s opinons..........something I have never been willing to do...........but too many on this site prescribe to......... ``

Why does his experiences in Afghanistan make him so qualified ? I will be glad to post his articles on Afghanistan between Sep-11 2001 and Dec 20 2001.

`` I think his knowledge regarding the creation of Al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, would be far greater than most other people`s. Then again, that should not count, because his mother may(?) have been a Muslim.........How in the world can a son of a Muslim mother (if she even was Muslim), who is an athiest himself, know about Afghanistan!!``

Huh ???

FYI I have read his book ``Top of the world ``

Romair#392:

Thanks for not contradicting me on the substance about Margolis except that he does not hate India. It`s not human rights in Kashmir - whether it`s Kargil, Siachen, cross-border jihadis, Khalistan or any other issue, his views are identical to that of Pakistan. I have never heard him say a positive sentence about India.

Not only CNN, he is a regular panelist on CBC and TV ontario. Not because of his balanced viewpoint but because he is a strong, articulate spokesperson for the Muslim viewpoint and a very good debater. However, I wouldn`t mind recommending you as a good substitute for him. :-)

This is what wikipedia has to say about his political views:

``Margolis`s writings display strong bias in favor of Muslims - noticeable in his coverage of issues of Palestine and Kashmir - and against Russians and other Orthodox Christian Slavs - noticeable in his fervent support for the Kosovo War, and his coverage of the conflict in Chechnya. These biases can be attributed to his close relationships with the Afghan mujahideen and their Pakistani military and intelligence handlers during the Soviet-Afghan war, and also to his Albanian-born mother Nexhmie Zaimi, who was one of the first American female foreign correspondents to cover the Middle East and was one of the few Western journalists in the 1950s to focus on the issue of Palestinian refugees.``

PewResearch:

perhaps you`ve been here long enough to know that most of us are a little off-color here. anyone who is critical of pak policies (and muslims) is automatically branded a hindutva or a BJP walla and anyone who is critical of india policies and the BJP and the RSS is automatically branded a paki muslim jihadi.

no middle ground here. but if you`re a recycled identity here, you already know that.

like hotel california, this is such a lovely place. . . :)

PewResearch #402 As I recall from reading Friedman`s article, he does not call for muslims to start apologizing for their faith. Or to start explaining to nonmuslims that it is possible to be a muslim and not be a terrorist.

He did say something about muslims holding demonstrations condemning the london terrorism - but dont look to me to organize such demonstrations. That requires a level of commitment and time that I just am not interested in.

Re: # 401
Tahmed:

I am not looking to you to demonstrate on the streets, and neither am I expecting you to apologize on behalf of terrorists. I am looking for explanations to a troubling conclusion that many NY Times readers might reach that `Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam` and thought that you might fit the bill. If you don`t or can`t then I think that the world is in for a lot of trouble, because if intellectuals like you cannot explain, then not much can be expected from the illiterate masses.

Romair: I agree this has been a good discussion, and I appreciate your civilized manner even as i dont agree on some things. We will no doubt have a chance to discuss this subject in some other context, on some other board on chowk. So till then, au revoir my friend. :-)

PewResearch #394 If you do not have the time to read the Quran for yourself, then read one of the many popular books on Islam written by western writers. Read Huston Smith`s ``The World Religions``, e.g., or any of the fine books on the subject written by Karen Armstron or Joe Esposito. After all, if you seriously wish to understand something (the issue about whether the Quran promotes terrorism, the point you were making earlier), then you need to find the time to read objectively about it.

I must repeat that I am not interested in dispelling ``any misgivings in the minds of non-muslims that one can be a good Sunni muslim and not have a small, uncontrollable and deadly minority that will resort to homicide-suicide bombings ``. I can see from the time spent on chowk that much mischief has been done in India by BJP in terms of poisoning Indian minds about Islam - but why should I care? Pakistan is militarily secure, and even the BJP now understands that. If they wish to have peace with Pakistan (as is now happening) while continuing to harbor hatred for Pakistanis or their religion (as I can see is also the case from chowk) - Well, all I can say is, God bless their conflicted little hearts. :-)

As for the last part, I dont see how you can consider the Quran to be offensive to nonmuslims when you have neither read it, nor consider it worth your time to read it. If you just want to go by heresay in India, why should I spend time trying to negate that heresay - much less start apologizing for my religion??

Re: # 398

Tahmed:

You are missing the point. You keep pointing me to different sources to read and tasking me, whereas, what I am suggesting is that Muslims now have an obligation to allay fears of non-muslims about harboring a murderous minority in their midst. Do you agree? You do not appear to agree to either of my suggested alternatives in #394. You also feel no compulsion to `negate that heresay` which you speculate as having been gathered `in India` (you are wrong there. My point of reference about Sunni Muslim misplaced anger is the Friedman article in the New York Times of today.). You are under no obligation to accept any of my suggestions, nevertheless, do you not feel a sense of responsibility to explain, if not to act to restrain (rather than task me) as to why a predominant number of homicide bombers are Sunni muslims?

Your remarks about impugning me to BJP in India are off-color, and those regarding Pakistan`s military irrelevant.

Re: # 400
Tahmed:
Addendum to previous: Friedman writes in his article, ``Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam.``

THAT is a thought that has begun to resonate with liberal Western democrats (the author himself is one). Until only a few months ago, it would have been unthinkable that a statement such as that would be published in a major liberal newspaper. But now, this line of reasoning is very much in play. More than anything else, THAT is what I am trying to either validate or invalidate. Forget me, what would you say in response to Friedman`s assertion?
Thanks