London’s Hour of Reckoning

Re: # 470

Ajeya, there is another explanation also, which suggests that there is a difference of opinion between Osama bin Ladin and Al Zawari (sp). Bin Ladin wants to attack the west, but Al Zawari is against the idea. According to Al Zawari, emphasis should be placed on ``swing states`` like Pakistan, Iraq and Algeria, where the Islamists are in equal power and are competing to dominate those countries.

There is a struggle, inside Al-Qaeda, over its operational long term aims. This might be another reason for a lack of an attack in the United States. Given the mindsets of these people, the destruction of Mecca, would be an immense dose of instant legitimacy to their struggle and hence, it would seem improbable that the American threat to Mecca is holding Al-Qaeda from attacking the United States.

In the last year or so, the American approach towards the problem is shifting its focus. At first, the idea was to get a military win, but now the United States is gearing up for a long, drawn out struggle. A close analysis of the comments in the specialized American journals, would suggest that the United States is using the idea of containment; first contain the violence, but at the same time, probe deeper into the political and religious ideology behind such acts. It would seem that the war has mutated from a military confrontation into a political one, whereby the idea is now to discredit the political believes, which are sustaining such acts.

It would seem that after London, and the British government`s response to it, there is now a well orhrestrated attempt to influence the manner in, which Islam is preached. The idea seems to be remove the inflamed rhetoric at its source by picking the imams through a process of certification and qualification, whose acceptance will be an imam who preaches inclusion and not exclusion in the sermons.

Taken one step further, the idea seems to be to intiate a sense of reform in Islam, within the western Muslim communities, and then seek to establish this newly reformed and moderated Islam, as the mainstream Islamic opinion.

Ciao

It’s happening.

Just like I said it would. The world is slowly realizing what we Indians have been suffering from for a thousand years.

This cancer is already in their midst, and the westerners are slowly beginning to feel it.
And Westerners are not like Hindus. They’ll take quick action.

Just keep watching.

The following was the HEADLINE STORY of the Wall Street Journal, July 11th:

As Muslims call Europe home, isolation takes root

First in a series

Monday, July 11, 2005

By Ian Johnson and John Carreyrou, The Wall Street Journal


TORCY, France -- Mourad Amriou slowly warmed up the crowd inside a small mosque on the outskirts of Paris, giving the congregation a pep talk after the Friday evening prayer.
``Just nearby here are Fatimas and Mohammeds who are drinking,`` said the beefy 26-year-old former rapper, using generic names for Muslim women and men. ``Can you believe it? Just around the corner, going to nightclubs. Do you accept it?``

There were murmurs of disapproval as he continued. Life, he said, should center on mosques. Not just for prayer, but for everything from language classes for children to social life. Otherwise, he said, Muslims will become indistinguishable from their French neighbors. ``Society has to be based on Islam,`` he told the gathering.

In France and across Europe, messages like this are finding a broad audience. Compared to the deadly subway and bus bombings that rocked London last week, they may sound mild. There is no call for jihad or violence and the message is delivered by local citizens, not outside agitators. Yet the message is radical: People who are different are held in contempt. Mingling with mainstream society is frowned upon. Society should be founded on one religion: Islam. Magnified by the power of demographics, messages like Mr. Amriou`s are presenting a profound challenge to Europe`s secular democracies.

Europe is undergoing a massive population shift -- some say the largest in more than a millennium -- as Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa cross the Mediterranean in search of work and a better life. The Muslim population of Europe is increasing dramatically; in countries like France, it is already about six million, or 10 percent of the total, and could easily double in percentage terms in the coming 20 years.

Declining birthrates mean that Europe needs these immigrants to stay vibrant. And indeed, many of them have integrated successfully, gaining education, wealth and prestige. Yet across the continent, some of Europe`s Muslims are drifting off into separate troubled societies. In some European cities, nearly half of Muslim youths drop out of high school and unemployment rates are high. Racism is on the rise, helping to drive Muslims back into their communities. The situation was crystallized in a report last year by the French domestic intelligence agency, which surveyed 630 communities with a heavy concentration of Muslim migrants. Half of them, the report said, are ``ghettoized`` along religious lines.
In Paris, this parallel society is centered in a string of suburbs along the capital`s northern and eastern fringes. There, amid housing projects slapped up a generation ago to accommodate a booming immigrant population, the signs of fundamentalist Islam are on the rise. Women who don`t wear headscarves are harassed. People who consume food or beverages during the month of fasting, Ramadan, are publicly criticized. And some families refuse to let women be treated by male doctors or nurses.

This development is a paradox to many sociologists, who figured that such behavior was confined to newcomers who brought it with them. With time, the theory went, immigrants would moderate their views. Instead, it is Europe`s second- and third-generation Muslims who are the most radical.

``Often young Muslims in the West are unmoored from their traditional beliefs and ripe for recruitment by radicals,`` says Olivier Roy, a leading expert on political Islam and an adviser to the French government.

Those recruiters sometimes come in the form of jihadist preachers who encourage acts of terrorism like Thursday`s bombings in London, which killed at least 49 people and wounded 700. While police haven`t identified any suspects yet, their investigation is focusing on European-based Islamic extremists. A network of terrorists drawn from the fringes of Europe`s Muslims staged spectacular attacks in Madrid and the murder of a Dutch filmmaker last year. Four of the lead actors in the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. became drawn to terrorism in one of Germany`s radical Muslim communities.

Laying the groundwork for such radicalization is the seductive idea of political Islam, which preaches a Utopian view of society where all citizens are part of a just and fair ``umma,`` or community of Muslims. In this world, the separation of religion and politics is heretical, and Europe`s Muslims -- now representing between 5 percent and 10 percent of the continent`s population -- need to be walled off from Western culture.

Such views are popularized by the Muslim Brotherhood, a Cairo-based organization that is the progenitor of many major radical Islamic groups. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Brotherhood established a beachhead in Europe after it was banned in many Middle Eastern countries. Although its formal structures have weakened, its matrix of ideology has taken hold in Europe, strengthened by a network of Brotherhood-inspired organizations.
In France, the organization the Brotherhood loosely spawned is called the Union of French Islamic Organizations, or UOIF as it is known by its French acronym. Mr. Amriou is one of the UOIF`s thousands of unpaid activists. In recent years, the UOIF has become one of France`s most powerful Muslim organizations, but also its most controversial because of the views it spreads. The UOIF says it is a moderate group and denies any links to Islamist ideology.

But many observers remain unconvinced. Dounia Bouzar, a prominent French Muslim social scientist, initially supported groups like the UOIF. In a book she wrote in 2001, she argued that they are valuable mediators between mainstream society and Muslim migrants. Many perform social services, such as after-school tutoring, day care or women`s activities. With time, they would help Muslims integrate, she argued.

After watching the developments of the past few years, however, Ms. Bouzar has changed her view. Instead of integrating Muslims, this all-embracing form of Islam builds a cocoon in which people have little contact with mainstream society, she says. Education is often stunted and the chance of professional success limited, she says.

``It`s a vision of society that separates people into two camps, Islamic and non-Islamic,`` says Ms. Bouzar. ``They have a need to Islamicize everything.``
In many parts of the world, the word ``suburb`` conjures a vision of single-family homes with yards -- a mixture of country and city where the better-off live and commute to the city to work or shop. In France, the equivalent word ``banlieue`` is synonymous with poorly maintained housing projects filled with immigrants or the poor. To the north and east of Paris are a string of these banlieues, such as Aubervilliers, Saint-Denis, La Courneuve, Stains and Torcy. They lie just outside a vast ring road, the aptly named ``peripherique,`` which slices the prosperous capital off from its impoverished neighbors.

Mr. Amriou quips that he ``immigrated to France at the local maternity ward.`` He grew up in a housing complex in La Courneuve nicknamed ``the city of four thousand`` for the number of units in it. It was a slum upon completion. Now, 40 years later, it is being torn down. It was recently in the news after an 11-year-old boy was killed there by a stray bullet.
Mr. Amriou`s father was initially happy to get a flat in the complex. He had moved to France from Algeria in the 1960s to take a job in construction. He brought over his wife and soon had a large family to house. Mr. Amriou was born in 1977, the youngest of 10 children. The parents encouraged their children to go to school and to get jobs. But Mr. Amriou`s father was busy all day long, working at a job where he had little chance for promotion. Mr. Amriou says he became dismissive of his father`s efforts to fit in and boasts that he ``couldn`t control me anymore.``

Mr. Amriou felt that French society was against him. His father`s generation came to Europe to fill low-skilled jobs. There was no effort at integration -- for example, the immigrants didn`t receive language classes -- because the host governments expected them to return home one day. But work was plentiful and many migrants accomplished their main goal: saving money and sending it back home. Mr. Amriou wasn`t so lucky. By the time he came of age in the early 1990s, low-skilled jobs had migrated to the developing world. Unemployment in the banlieues skyrocketed and now in many regions is over 20 percent. Despite his high-school diploma, he couldn`t get a job. He says he went to prison twice for drug possession.

One August night in 1999, he says he was hanging out with friends on a square, drinking beer and smoking marijuana. A man on a bike approached. He was a member of the Tabligh, a Muslim sect that originated in 1920s India and has spread around the world, preaching strict adherence to Islam but also a disengagement from politics or society. Mr. Amriou`s friends ran away from the missionary, but Mr. Amriou decided to stay put.
The older man sat down and made small talk. The stars were bright that night, Mr. Amriou says, and he mentioned that he liked astronomy. ``He said to me: `You like creation, but did you wonder about the creator?` I had to admit I hadn`t thought of that.``

The two men talked until dawn. They met day after day for a week. By the second week, Mr. Amriou was, as he puts it, ``re-Islamicized.`` He got rid of his jeans and T-shirts and started wearing the white gown and skullcap that he wears today. He cut his hair but let his beard grow thick and long. He quit smoking, drinking and started praying five times a day.
After his re-conversion, Mr. Amriou quickly gravitated to mosques run by the UOIF. There he shed the apolitical beliefs of the Tabligh and began to learn about current events and Islam`s role in them. The key message is that everything in life, including politics, has a religious dimension. The separation of church and state, Mr. Amriou says, is ``un-Islamic.``
Mr. Amriou`s rebirth was part of a religious awakening that started in the late 1980s and spread quickly among Europe`s Muslims. A turning point was 1989. The Berlin Wall fell, ending the Cold War -- an event that many Muslims saw as due in part to the actions of Islamic holy warriors, the mujahedeen, who through the 1980s had fought the Soviet Union to a standstill in Afghanistan. That was also the year Iran`s paramount leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a religious opinion, or fatwa, calling for the death of the British writer Salman Rushdie, whose novel ``The Satanic Verses`` in part criticized and satirized Islam. Fatwas are traditionally only valid in the Islamic world, so Khomeini`s fatwa implied something profound: Europe was part of the Islamic world. It was a revolutionary change that now is accepted by many Islamic theologians and thinkers.

The trend accelerated in the 1990s with the advent of the Internet, allowing young people to plug into a growing pan-Islamic movement that was inspired by orthodox Muslim groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and backed by wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich states. Girls began to wear headscarves and boys collected audio and videotapes of preachers who advocated a stripped-down form of Islam that emphasized the culture`s past glories and a handful of simple religious regulations.

The effect on Paris`s banlieues was dramatic. People living and working there recount how personal freedoms were restricted as the new ideology took hold.

Nacera, a 27-year-old clerk living in Paris who asked that her last name not be used for fear of harassment, recalls that era. Like many Muslim children, she attended a mosque to study the Quran. She liked learning classical Arabic and counts the time there as one of the most memorable of her childhood.

By the time she was a teenager, however, things began to change in her banlieue of Stains. As the Muslim community became more established, mosques began to pop up. Many were normal places of prayer, but others offered an agenda on how to behave. Her family`s mosque, frequented by Mr. Amriou, fell into the latter category.
``It used to be that at weddings people would mix and dance,`` she says. ``Then we weren`t allowed to mingle. It was an accumulation of little things.``

The religious fervor hit her youngest sister, who started wearing a veil. She quickly gave up school and married. Her brothers began to collect religious videos and books by Middle Eastern religious authorities on how to be a good Muslim.

After repeated requests by stalwarts at the local mosque and pressure at home, Nacera started wearing a veil and was urged to marry and have children. But she was a few years older than her sisters and had already started to work. About two years ago, she realized she wanted a career. To do so, she says, she had to break with her family.
``I felt I needed my own territory,`` says Nacera. She left Stains for a new home in the south of Paris. ``I didn`t want everything decided for me by the mosque.``
Others notice similar changes. Jocelyne Clarke, a teacher at a high school in Aubervilliers, says it is becoming harder to organize field trips and cultural outings with her students because Muslim boys and girls refuse to mix with the other sex. Some Muslim students have walked out of class during readings of Voltaire because the 18th-century author was scornful of religion in his writings, she says.

Two years ago, the city council of Aubervilliers gave in to Muslim associations` demands that it close off the municipal pool to men at certain times of the week so that Muslim women could bathe in private, in keeping with the Quran`s admonition that women dress and behave modestly. The city council also agreed to put up curtains over the pool`s big bay windows, which give onto the street.

In Saint-Denis, El Mostafa Ramsi says junior high-school students brought to tour the neighborhood`s famous basilica, where most of France`s kings are buried, have refused to enter the church on the grounds that it is ``an impure place.`` Mr. Ramsi, 46, who emigrated to France from Morocco when he was 20 and now serves as the local representative of a center-left political party, says parents of children who attend the local elementary school have asked for translations of parent-teacher meetings in Arabic. ``It shows that they couldn`t care less about integrating,`` he says. ``They don`t even make the effort of learning French.``

Nadia Amiri, a 45-year-old Algerian immigrant who works in the central office of France`s state-run hospital association, says the divisions go beyond schools. Hospitals are under pressure not to allow men and women into the same wards -- even as visitors. If carried out, that would require separate Muslim hospitals, she says. Doctors are also increasingly asked by fathers to issue their daughters virginity certificates.

The UOIF is an amalgamation of several Islamist groups with roots in the Muslim Brotherhood`s initial European toeholds of Munich and Switzerland. The group came to prominence in 1989 when a major event took place in France: Two girls were ejected from school for wearing a headscarf. The UOIF began to organize protests and quickly established itself as the force to be reckoned with in the banlieues. Until then, France`s Muslim organizations were divided along national lines. The Grande Mosque of Paris, for example, is still openly financed by the Algerian government and its head is an Algerian civil servant.

The UOIF instead advocated an ``Islam de France`` that was also part of the growing pan-national Islam. The group receives extensive funding from Arab countries. Even today, UOIF officials say, one-quarter of its annual budget of 2.75 million euros, or $3.3 million, comes from donors abroad, especially Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. But the UOIF projects a modern, global image, inviting speakers from around the world to its annual congress.

The UOIF joined other French Muslim groups in denouncing the London bombings last week. It said it wrote a letter to the British ambassador to France expressing ``its firmest condemnation of these odious and inhuman acts.``

Lhaj Thami Breze, the UOIF`s president, says the UOIF supports democratic society. If there is a conflict between Islamic law and French law, Mr. Breze says French law takes precedence. However, the UOIF encouraged Muslim schoolgirls to wear bandanas instead of headscarves last year to circumvent a new law banning overt signs of religious affiliation at public high schools. The UOIF opposes the law, arguing that it violates Muslim girls` freedom of choice.

``We`ve made a huge effort to adapt our Islam to France,`` says Mr. Breze. ``The people who still call us fundamentalist ... haven`t bothered to come see us in a while and don`t know how much we`ve changed. We`ve matured and come of age. We`ve reached respectability.``
Mr. Breze says the UOIF has made a formal break with the Muslim Brotherhood. He acknowledges that one of his predecessors in the 1980s was a member of the brotherhood but says the UOIF has had no links to the group since the 1990s. Yet, UOIF preachers and activists often cite Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and son of Said Ramadan, the man who brought the brotherhood to Europe, as their theological role model. Though based in Geneva, the influential Mr. Ramadan has a home and office in Saint-Denis, not far from the UOIF`s headquarters in La Courneuve. Mr. Ramadan`s prolific writings are ubiquitous at the UOIF`s annual congress.

Two years ago, government officials drew up plans for an elected body called the French Council of the Muslim Faith to represent the country`s estimated six million Muslims. But they ran into a problem: who should vote? French citizens don`t register their religious affiliation, so there were no official lists of Muslims.

The solution: Mosques would elect the representatives, with bigger mosques given more votes. That helped the UOIF, which boasts many large mosques thanks to generous sponsors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. The result: the UOIF won control of 12 of the 25 regional councils that represent the central council across France, thrusting it into a position of power. That forced the French government to recognize the UOIF as one of its main points of contact in the Muslim community. In new elections last month, the UOIF didn`t fare as well as in 2003, mainly because other French Muslim groups copied its strategies to organize and mobilize their followers. The UOIF lost control of six of the 12 regional councils it had presided over. But it continues to wield significant influence and obtained the vice presidency of the central council.

French officials concede they are taking a calculated risk in dealing with the UOIF but say it`s part of a strategy to co-opt and soften the organization. Even though it might not represent the views of most Muslims, the UOIF is by far the best-organized of France`s Islamic organizations and has the most reach in France`s troubled ethnic neighborhoods.
``I never said the UOIF was for integration,`` says a senior official in the French Interior Ministry. ``But they accept the rules and they want to play the game.``

Inside UOIF mosques, the talk isn`t of integration, but of how to protect oneself from harmful French society. Activists like Mr. Amriou help keep the message simple: The mosque is safe; the outside world is dangerous.
One Friday evening, he stopped by the new mosque in Torcy. The head of the mosque is a Senegalese convert named Ibrahim who had met Mr. Amriou at a UOIF conference. The group holds frequent religious revival meetings, which are chances to make contacts and buy books and videos by well-known Islamist preachers. Ibrahim had invited Mr. Amriou here to help set the tone in the community.

Mr. Amriou`s visit was part of his daily routine. His life, as he likes to put it in English, is ``speed, speed, speed`` -- hurrying to work, to prayer and to a UOIF mosque to help out with organizational work or to hold a lecture. Married, he has no children and holds odd jobs like repairing computers and selling phone cards at a store. That leaves plenty of time for religion. He orbits Paris in his small Fiat, living in one banlieue, working in another, praying in a third and spending free time at the UOIF headquarters.

``I`m tres speed today,`` Mr. Amriou said as he unzipped a thick wool jacket that he`d worn over his gown against the cold. The prayer room was about two-thirds full with 90 men sitting cross-legged or kneeling. The few women who had come were in an adjoining office listening through the door. After settling into a director`s chair and adjusting the microphone, he launched into his pep talk.

After telling about how he was saved, he moved on to a broader point: the need to enforce orthodox Islam on all French citizens of the Muslim faith. After half an hour, he took a few questions and then mingled with the crowd. Over tea and sweets, Mr. Amriou did some damage control for the UOIF. A UOIF preacher had been publicly accused of anti-Semitism and some of the members were worried and wondered what to think. ``He said nothing unusual,`` Mr. Amriou said with a shrug. He clicked on his cellphone, bringing up a picture of a Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli troops. He showed it to the men and they nodded in agreement, anger crossing their faces. The preacher`s questionable remarks were forgotten.

A few moments later, Mr. Amriou`s busy schedule caught up with him. He made a quick getaway from the mosque and hopped into his car for a drive home along the rim of Paris. Mr. Amriou used to try his hand at rap music and even cut a single. As he drove, he listened to Zacharia, a young boy he is mentoring who has learned most of the Quran by heart. Mr. Amriou taped him singing the Quran at his home and popped in a cassette.
Mr. Amriou drove by one of the prisons where he had been held. It was now nearly 11 p.m. and the traffic was light. Paris glowed on one side of the highway, while prison floodlights blazed on the other. Mr. Amriou turned up the volume.

``Listen,`` Mr. Amriou said. ``His singing is beautiful, but it is even better when you know the meaning of the Arabic.``

``This is my path,`` sang Zacharia. ``With sure knowledge I call on you to have faith in Allah, I and all my followers. Glory be to Allah! I am not among the idolaters.``

On the Outside

In France, foreign youths from predominantly Muslim countries have a particularly high rate of unemployment. Rates for ages 15-29:

Foreigners from North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Turkey 40 percent Foreigners (all nationalities) 26 percent French by birth 16 percent French by naturalization 15 percent

Note: Data are from 2002

Source: Advance excerpts from ``Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France

rsridhar #466 I think now we are basically on the same page!! Enjoy the mangoes. :-)

re:#463 by tahmed32
Thanks. I am enjoying the much needed respite from work. Yes, mangoes are good though the peak season has passed.
I never said that religious fundamentalism does not exist in India. I only said India treats its minorities much better than many other countries. In Bangladesh, hindu population is slowly decreasing due to systematic pogram unleashed on that community. You may read the amnesty report to know the truth:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/bgd-summary-eng
Pak too has problems with minorities and so does India.
It is true that under BJP, minorities (especially muslims) were targetted at least in Gujarat. With BJP biting dust in General elections, secularism is the buzz word in India today. Even Advani (who u quoted) is changing his tunes. It has become very clear that for any political party to survive, it has to shun fundamentalism and get on to the bandwagon of secularism.
Sridhar

hindvi #459 Those are very valid points you have made, and I am really glad there are people like you on chowk willing to stand up for the facts and common sense, regardless of ``how the cookie crumbles``.

Ajeya does have a problem with comprehension, I think. Even while claiming there is no discrimination on the basis of religion in India, he betrays his own personal discrimnatory attitude towards the lower castes by writing ``I see. So you are from the “backward castes”. Hmm… This is the problem with chowk. It is difficult to tell who is who. ``

This betrays the fact that this man is hard-wired to think of people in terms of ``who`` they are wrt caste, rather than what they have written!!

rsridhar #460 I hope you are enjoying the mangoes then, while in India on vacation, in-between your chowk interacts. :-)

you write ``I think India treats its minorities much better than most countries.`` I think you are being too smug here. In other countries national leaders almost invariably seek to promote harmony between different communities in the country. In India, you national leaders like Advani have stoked trouble between communities by LEADING attacks on mosques (i.e. a place of worship of a minority community). You have some fundamental problems in India (just as we do in Pakistan, of course, with OUR religious chauvinists). Instead of trying to hide this, you should be speaking out against it. Of course there are many good things in India (as there are in Pakistan) as well. So, there is no doubt in my mind that over time this rot will disappear in India (as it will in Pakistan). But till then, let us not pretend it does not exist.

Ajeya #461 I see you misrepesenting my view: ``People like tahmed32 have a name for the untold miseries inflicted on Hindus by Muslims – “percieved injustices”. ``

I never used that phrase, and in fact it is the opposite of what I have always said on chowk: I have many times specifically condemned things like the destruction of the somnath temple and the 17 raids on India by Ghazni and called these actions that are commonly thought to be undertaken on behalf of islam to be in fact a violation of islam. Just as I have frequently spoken up for the attacks on hindus and sikhs in what is now Pakistan in 1947.

I am merely correcting you here, and am not interested in starting a discussion with you. So dont bother to reply - unless you can cut and paste anything I have ever written to disprove my point above that you are a liar.

#459 by hindvi

[I cant help it if your comprehension skills are weak, it is you who wants to know about Legal discriminations among Hindus so bring me their constitutions and i will, if not go read Indian history, as you should considering how half baked your internet skimmed ideas are and how vocal you are, I have pointed out to you where you can do so. To begin with read the the hindu practice and laws against Melacchas, check out some of the travelogues of ancient and medieval India. Then read up on hindu discriminatory laws against the Shudra and other lower Caste minority, who were not considered Hindus by any of the upper castes and thus were not allowed entry in Temples.

when you do so then come back.]


I see. So you are from the “backward castes”. Hmm…

This is the problem with chowk. It is difficult to tell who is who.

You obviously have unresolved issues about the way the upper castes treated the lower castes over the ages. And you want to derive some satisfaction by bashing Hinduism on this forum.

Well I think you are not being logical about this. Granted, that in many parts of India this upper caste - lower caste thing is still going on. But you know as well as I do, that it is decreasingly so. And it is not at all like the unresolved issues that Hindus have with Muslims. In the case of the mistreatment of Hindus by Muslims, there never has been ANY acknowledgement of past wrongs, rather, terrorists are terrorizing Hindus in their own homeland in Kashmir as we speak. People like tahmed32 have a name for the untold miseries inflicted on Hindus by Muslims – “percieved injustices”. In contrast, MANY upper caste hindus for MANY years have led MANY movements against the caste-based ills in our society. After India became independent, Dr. Ambetkar was invited to lead the writing of the constitution. There are a million affirmative-action programs. Affirmative action programs have gone completely overboard (in my opinion) trying to win votes for the politicians. I hear that today, in Tamil Nadu, if you are an upper-caste hindu, your son or daughter has to often leave the state to get an education in college. So Hindu society has been trying, at least, for more than 50 years.

And as far as Hinduism as a religion is concerned, bash it all you want. I really don’t care. As I have mentioned before, Hindu religion, not being an organized religion, means many things to many people. There’s a huge amount of region-based social traditions, superstitions and prejudices, as well as some pretty profound and well-thought out philosphy. For me, Hinduism means its philosophy, and I happen to belong to the Hindu culture. If you want to bash the philosophy, I would expect you to produce some arguments. If you don’t, bash away anyway. Get some satisfaction. And if you want to bash Hindu culture, well, I think you are wasting your time. Because lots of corrective measures have been taken over the years, and are still being taken.

One thing I should mention here. This is something I`ve seen Harimau mentioning many times. Don’t blame EVERYTHING on the upper castes. The upper castes did not prevent you from developing your own mathematics and astronomy. You have to take some of the blame for that.

And get a life. Don’t keep shouting at a society that has acknowledged over many years the caste-based injustices, and has gone overboard trying to address them.

And if that upper-caste father-in-law-to-be doesn’t want to give you his daughter’s hand in marriage, pay him back in his own coin.

Retaliate.

Don’t let his son marry your sister either.

Ciao (Did I actually say that? Omigosh!)

re: tahmed`s post
``...as far as india is concerned, you dont even have to look too far to see the rot that pervades your indian society: look at the insults to a minority religion by hindu chowkies on chowk, and then tell me about proper treatment of minorities...``
I do not see any rot in Indian society. I am on a vacation to India. Among the many channels that are available is something called a Q TV, which is an Islamic channel. I see at least 2 more channels propogating christianity and a channel for sikhs. Now, which other country would have so many channels dedicated to minorities.
I think India treats its minorities much better than most countries. Except muslims, rest have all prospered and i see that clearly during my travel. Muslims in south too look prosperous and well integrated. It is the muslims of North who are unable to integrate.
Sridhar

``So in your opinion the Marathas, sikhs, rajputs never ruled.]


Yes, Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs did rule. Before the Muslims came, almost all of India was Hindu. After the Muslims came, most of India was Muslim-ruled.

Why don`t you give me examples where under the Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs, there was LEGAL discrimination (that`s what you are talking about, right?). ``

I cant help it if your comprehension skills are weak, it is you who wants to know about Legal discriminations among Hindus so bring me their constitutions and i will, if not go read Indian history, as you should considering how half baked your internet skimmed ideas are and how vocal you are, I have pointed out to you where you can do so. To begin with read the the hindu practice and laws against Melacchas, check out some of the travelogues of ancient and medieval India. Then read up on hindu discriminatory laws against the Shudra and other lower Caste minority, who were not considered Hindus by any of the upper castes and thus were not allowed entry in Temples.

when you do so then come back.

Ciao

Where were we? London?

How about this?

Pakistan says UK is terrorist breeding ground
By Jean Eaglesham and Jimmy Burns in London and Vicky Burnett in Islamabad
Published: July 17 2005 21:07 | Last updated: July 17 2005 21:07

Pakistan has accused Britain of being a “breeding ground for terrorists”, in a diplomatic clash about the root causes of the July 7 attacks on London that could hinder a co-ordinated international response.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/18561970-f6fe-11d9-aeff-00000e2511c8.html

Re: #456 by tahmed32

[That is the kind of objectivity and intellectual honesty that can actually get us somewhere.]

``Intellectual honesty``!!!

You wouldn`t recognize intellectual honesty if it hit you between the eyeballs.

Wow. Quite a discussion continuing.

Dost Mittar: No sir, you have not misrepresented my views. Thanks for summarizing them. Where we differ is of course the degree to which you and I believe my views reflect the basic message of Islam: You think I am looking at selected passages in the Quran, whereas I think I am taking a holistic view, that things I have often stressed on chowk (e.g. that there is no place for a priesthood in Islam, that religion is a personal matter between the individual and God and no one else`s business, respect for all faiths) are ALSO STRESSED in the Quran.

hindvi: Loved your responses to PewResearch. That is the kind of objectivity and intellectual honesty that can actually get us somewhere.

OK. Gotta run - sorry I couldnt get back to you PewResearch - but I think we are going round in circles now. I suggest you take an objective look at what I am saying in my last post to you.

``hindu, muslim, sikh, esaaii - in sub ko meraa salaam``. :-)

Re: #452 by hindvi

[you bring me their writen constitutions and i will show it to u. ]


Whose written constitutions?

What the heck are you talking about?




#453 by hindvi

[By The way I am not here to ``To inform and correct.`` If you are in the west you can easily obtain from the closest university the compiled readings for any of the period you are interested in i.e. Subcontinental History, Islamic Civilsation, Medieval world History, etc. If you cant then you can easily get the reading list off the net and check out the books from the closest Public library. Since you have quite strong and forcful views I reccomend you make some effort and atleast check whether they tally with actual historical practice. ]


Since you are the one making accusations about Hindus, you should at least say who did what to whom and where.

THEN I`ll make ``some effort``.

So let me ask again:

What the hell are you talking about?

Tally WHAT with actual historic practice?

Stop making vague accusations, and tell us exactly what you are talking about.

tahmed32:

Re.#442

Sorry, if I unintentionally misrepresented you.

By The way I am not here to ``To inform and correct.`` If you are in the west you can easily obtain from the closest university the compiled readings for any of the period you are interested in i.e. Subcontinental History, Islamic Civilsation, Medieval world History, etc. If you cant then you can easily get the reading list off the net and check out the books from the closest Public library. Since you have quite strong and forcful views I reccomend you make some effort and atleast check whether they tally with actual historical practice.

you bring me their writen constitutions and i will show it to u.

Re: #450 by hindvi

[So in your opinion the Marathas, sikhs, rajputs never ruled.]


Yes, Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs did rule. Before the Muslims came, almost all of India was Hindu. After the Muslims came, most of India was Muslim-ruled.

Why don`t you give me examples where under the Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs, there was LEGAL discrimination (that`s what you are talking about, right?).


[You sem to be quite vocal about india but poorly informed of its history.]


Well, that`s where you come in. To inform and correct.

So in your opinion the Marathas, sikhs, rajputs never ruled. You sem to be quite vocal about india but poorly informed of its history.

#448 by hindvi

[the question was about legal status not actual practice, in legal status all citizens of secular polities are equal and of religous polities are not]

Well, if we are talking about legal status, for the past thousand years we have been ruled by first the Muslims and then the British. And after that, when India became independent with a Hindu majority, it became a secular country.

So when did Hindus legally NOT GIVE equal treatment to the religious minorities?

I’m not sure I understand.


[..but if you are looking at Muslim majority polities there are many examples where the legal status of minorities are the same as that of majorities as i have pointed out below.]

I’ll comment on this after we have cleared the previous point.

the question was about legal status not actual practice, in legal status all citizens of secular polities are equal and of religous polities are not. So it doesnt help if you are looking at only Islamic polities, you could compare them to then christian, jewish or hindu polities but if you are looking at Muslim majority polities there are many examples where the legal status of minorities are the same as that of majorities as i have pointed out below.

Re: #446 by hindvi

[This not in defence of any organised religion but you give me one example of ANY Christian, Hindu, or Jewish regime that gave equal treatment to its minorities and I will answer you query.]

By the way, Hinduism is NOT an organized religion.

But to address your comment, it is possible that I am not adequately informed on this matter. And I am assuming we are talking about RELIGIOUS minorities ONLY (Because if you are talking of ethnic minorities, NO SOCIETY is perfect, and in no society has there been perfect interaction between different communities).


That said, could you list out the examples of oppression inflicted on SPECIFICALLY the Jewish and Parsee communities by the Hindu majority.

Pew Foundation

``So, again, just ONE example, of ANY muslim regime, anywhere, anytime that gave equal treatment to minorities as it did to muslims will demolish his assertion that `Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam```

This not in defence of any organised religion but you give me one example of ANY Christian, Hindu, or Jewish regime that gave equal treatment to its minorities and I will answer you query. And if it is secular polity that you are referring to then there are many muslim majority states that would qualify ex: Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, Syria, Kazakhistan, etc etc.

Re: #442 by dost-mittar

[Ajeya:

You are right that most people inherit their faith. But over time, it does become a part of their identity, sometimes the most important part.]

That`s exactly what I said. Our identity is derived from our culture. And religion becomes intertwined with the culture.

(In the case of Islam, though, it replaces almost any traces of pre-existing culture - everything becomes arab-oriented. But that`s a different issue)

[There are two aspects to any relgion such as Islam - the personal and the political. In the personal domain, one can have faith in anything or anyone. Islamic faith demands complete obedience or submission to it, indeed that is the real meaning of Islam. If you are a Muslim, you must have faith that the Prophet was a divine messenger and that he was flawless. Faith does not permit argument and debate even though this is what we do at chowk all the time. The Prophet is at the core of Islamic faith and if one does not want to discuss certain aspects of his life, it is their prerogative. ]

If that is indeed true, and he does not want to discuss Islam, then he should keep his mouth shut on any and all aspects of it. Because at this forum, EVERY issue that deals with India-Pakistan relationship, terrorism etc. ultimately revolves around that.


[Most Muslims are aware of what is in the Quran and the life of the Prophet and I would be surprised if your doctor or the Iranian friend are not. Yet, I don`t think that it would be proper for you to talk to them about subjects which are in a deep emotional domain. ]

This is why I don’t. As long as they don’t start spouting forth on why kafirs must pay jezia to them.


[Muslims have their own interpretation of why the Prophet did what he did and, if asked in a calm way, would inform you of those reasons.]

It is difficult to shout here on this forum. I was hoping that I had asked such questions in the spirit of academic debate on many occasions. The reasons that I have been provided so far have been meagre, and easily refuted. And in the end, they invariably clam up, instead of acknowledging that they have no argument left.

[However, a debate on this issue is not easy because of the concept of blasphemy in Islam. ]

This is because of circular logic. One always hopes to go from Muhammad -> Quran -> Blasphemy route, but one is always confronted with Quran -> Blasphemy -> No discussion on Muhammed -> Muhammad is GRREAT -> Quran is great route.

[There are two types of verses in the Quran; one which address the believers directly and the others that address the Prophet. Several verses are said to deal with the situation at hand and many Muslims believe that they should only be understood with reference to that situation. Still, they are not allowed to reject even those which may not be applicable today. ]

Well, even if one overcomes one’s disinclination to open a book that came out of the mouth of a man with Muhammad’s track record, and does open the Quran, and asks people like tahmed to explain WHAT THE REFERENCES ARE that would justify those horrible words, they just clam up.


[Now to tahmed32. I have followed his interacts for a long time and he is quite consistent.]

I don’t think he is consistent.
Read his posts after the Bombay blasts that killed about 300 Indians. And compare those with today where 52 Britishers were killed.


[He loves his religion, is highly sensitive about it and will defend it against all and sundry who in his opinion are misrepresenting it. But his interpretation of Islam is very liberal. He rejects political Islam completely and does not believe that the laws developed during the 7th century should have any relevance in today`s world. He loves the Prophet like every other Muslim but I do not think that he would defend each and every action of the Prophet even though he may not criticise him nor can he do so beyond a point without risking a charge of blasphemy.]

Or without risking losing the ground under his feet, on which he has staked his life, his afterlife, the life of his family, and his entire worldview.


[And he would perhaps agree that the concept of blasphemy should not have any place in today`s world. As far as my interpretation of the Quran is concerned, he has laid himself open to the serious charge of being a Munafiq, namely, a person who accepts the verses of the Quran selectively. ]

On this I agree. You CANNOT be a hypocrite and pick and choose if as a faithful, you believe the Quran when it says that it is the immutable law for all times and people.


[Tahmed is okay. I know. I have had many an argument with him and probably will again. Our main difference is that what he says Islam IS, is what I say that it SHOULD BE. ]

Well “Okay” is a relative term, I guess. If someone believed in the Mein Kamf fervently, and taught his children that it is a good book (and thus potentially creating another Nazi), I don’t think that that person is okay.

[It is awkward for me to talk about another person and his religion but I have done so because you specifically asked me to. I hope you understand if I do not want to prolong this discussion. Thanks.]

I specifically asked you because you made the post #431 in response to my post to tahmed32.

But thanks for responding. I appreciate it.

mohar:

i see that ``nanny ana`` is going to have to tutor you on the fine and not so fine art of sarcasm. . . or irony.

chalo koi na, if it pleases you to call me uptight. ye bhi hum bardaasht kar saktay haiN. :)

cheers!

Ajeya:

You are right that most people inherit their faith. But over time, it does become a part of their identity, sometimes the most important part.

There are two aspects to any relgion such as Islam - the personal and the political. In the personal domain, one can have faith in anything or anyone. Islamic faith demands complete obedience or submission to it, indeed that is the real meaning of Islam. If you are a Muslim, you must have faith that the Prophet was a divine messenger and that he was flawless. Faith does not permit argument and debate even though this is what we do at chowk all the time. The Prophet is at the core of Islamic faith and if one does not want to discuss certain aspects of his life, it is their prerogative.

Most Muslims are aware of what is in the Quran and the life of the Prophet and I would be surprised if your doctor or the Iranian friend are not. Yet, I don`t think that it would be proper for you to talk to them about subjects which are in a deep emotional domain. Muslims have their own interpretation of why the Prophet did what he did and, if asked in a calm way, would inform you of those reasons. However, a debate on this issue is not easy because of the concept of blasphemy in Islam.

There are two types of verses in the Quran; one which address the believers directly and the others that address the Prophet. Several verses are said to deal with the situation at hand and many Muslims believe that they should only be understood with reference to that situation. Still, they are not allowed to reject even those which may not be applicable today.

Now to tahmed32. I have followed his interacts for a long time and he is quite consistent. He loves his religion, is highly sensitive about it and will defend it against all and sundry who in his opinion are misrepresenting it. But his interpretation of Islam is very liberal. He rejects political Islam completely and does not believe that the laws developed during the 7th century should have any relevance in today`s world. He loves the Prophet like every other Muslim but I do not think that he would defend each and every action of the Prophet even though he may not criticise him nor can he do so beyond a point without risking a charge of blasphemy. And he would perhaps agree that the concept of blasphemy should not have any place in today`s world. As far as my interpretation of the Quran is concerned, he has laid himself open to the serious charge of being a Munafiq, namely, a person who accepts the verses of the Quran selectively.

Tahmed is okay. I know. I have had many an argument with him and probably will again. Our main difference is that what he says Islam IS, is what I say that it SHOULD BE.

It is awkward for me to talk about another person and his religion but I have done so because you specifically asked me to. I hope you understand if I do not want to prolong this discussion. Thanks.

PewResearch #439 That is an interesting method of studying scriptures you have provided - that is, ignoring the scriptures (i.e. the Quran in this case) themselves (for lack of time, as you said); ignoring books written about these scriptures by independent (i.e. western, in this case) scholars. And pointing to kingships etc.

And how do you measure ``equal treatment`` of minorities?? Which society is totally free of discrimination?

as far as india is concerned, you dont even have to look too far to see the rot that pervades your indian society: look at the insults to a minority religion by hindu chowkies on chowk, and then tell me about proper treatment of minorities. you yourself are arguing that a minority religion in india (islam) is evil!! Are you able to understand the irony behind what you are arguing about??

Re: # 440

Tahmed:

I am suggesting that since kingships (a notion that you introduced, not me, to set the record straight) are irrelevant when it comes to explaining Sunni homicide bombings, where does the reason lie? Why then is the world witnessing this terror? If you suggest that it is not scripture, then WHAT IS THE REASON? Kingships, as we discussed apply equally to all regions of the world.

In so far as equal treatment of minorities is concerned, while it is true that in PRACTICE few societies meet the bar, in PRINCIPLE, many societies have made their INTENTION explicit in their supreme laws (e.g. the US Constitution amongst others). No OIC member state has made even that intention explicit. THAT is the difference -- some have outlawed discrimination, while others have institutionalized it. The latter applies to ALL 54 OIC member states, and the lowest common denominator amongst them is (you guessed it). That is how liberal democracy (including India) is different. And your attempt to cloud the issue with Chowkies wont wash on this one.

The hypersensitivity that Ferozk alluded to seems to be clouding your ability to distinguish between institutionalized discrimination as practiced by OIC and the random insults by Chowkies. Does Chowk speak for India? And it was not me who dragged me India into the discussion, it was you!

The OIC issue is important because the common bond amongst them is `Islam`. And where do the supreme laws of Islam draw their inspiration from?

So, again, just ONE example, of ANY muslim regime, anywhere, anytime that gave equal treatment to minorities as it did to muslims will demolish his assertion that `Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam`.

If you recall, you refused to explain a particular verse (8.12) from the Quran to me. Your stated reason was that `Those discussions are with people who claim to subscribe to the Quran (i.e. self-professed muslims).`. I hope that you are not implying that my faculty of comprehension is compromised by the fact that I may not a muslim! Otherwise, do you realize how supremacist that suggestion is?

I never wrote that `a minority religion in india (islam) is evil!! ` That choice of language is yours, not mine. Sorry, but I wont similarly ascribe words to you.

Re: #431 by dost-mitter

By the way, I would appreciate it if I get a response from you along the lines of:

``Oh, I see now``

Or,

``I still cannot agree to what you are saying because of .....``.


Too many discussion threads are left hanging in Chowk for a lack of acknowledgement from the other person at the end of the discussion.


tahmed32 specializes in this, by the way.

(Not namecalling - ask me, and I`ll give you MANY examples).

Re: #433 tahmed32

[dm #431 thanks for responding to Ajeya on that point. now you too have set yourself up for namecalling. ;-)]

You can say that I am engaging in namecalling.

I can say that you are engaging in namecalling.

That makes it a 50-50 situation, much better for you than the 100% situation where you are unable to answer my questions 100% of the time.

So it is not surprising that you would say that my posts are merely “namecalling” and nothing else.

But anybody who reads my posts would recognize that I am asking legitimate questions which you are unable to answer.

Re: #432 by tahmed32

[Ajeya #429 I am indeed a very ordinary guy. And not too smart either. But I manage to get by...in the land of the blind (i.e. chowk), the eyed man is king. :-) ]

No.

The ONE-eyed man is king.

Re: #431 by dost-mitter


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

Most people simply follow the religion handed down to them by their parents. Many do not even bother to read the religious texts in detail, but just follow the customs and rituals that become part of the culture. This is true of ALL societies. A lot of times people don’t ask themselves the tough questions, or try not to confront them.

But if these same gentlemen had the same conversations with me as I had with tahmed, and still did not express any doubt in the man who started their religion, or the contents of the Quran, but exhibited the same steadfast obstinacy and stubbornness, I would have to change my opinion about them as well.

PewResearch #430 I think muslim kingships have been bad - but not much worse than similar (i.e. absolute) kingships in every other culture. The japanese had their suicide bombers in WWII - who killed themselves in the name of their king. Absolute monarchs in europe were no better, and burnt villages and committed mayhem over centuries. So, there is no difference here.

The difference is as follows: Europeans gave up the ``divine right of kings`` after the american revolution, and established democracies. The japs gave up venerating their king as a god as they used to, and the US occupation introduced democracy in japan. Democracy is still very tentative at best in muslim countries like turkey and indonesia and malaysia - and does not exist in other muslims countries at all. That is one difference. The other difference is that muslim fanatics talk vaguely of re-establishing the caliphate, i.e. muslim kingships. They talk about sharia and the islamic state - and those have their roots in the caliphates of old, i.e. muslim kingships. Fanatics in other countries dont have a hope of introducing such absolute forms of government.

Re: # 434
Tahmed:
You are still no closer to disproving Friedman`s hypothesis. Just ONE example, of ANY muslim regime, anywhere, anytime that gave equal treatment to minorities as it did to muslims will demolish his assertion that `Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam`. If you are able to find ONE, SINGLE example to disprove this, then the explanation for Islamist terror lies elsewhere. If you cannot, then the world will continue to look for explanations in Islamic scripture.

dm #431 thanks for responding to Ajeya on that point. now you too have set yourself up for namecalling. ;-)

Ajeya #429 I am indeed a very ordinary guy. And not too smart either. But I manage to get by...in the land of the blind (i.e. chowk), the eyed man is king. :-)

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 th