Here We Go Again

Re: # 545

Unfortunately TNT and the communalized Pakistani identity has corrupted the vision of most of the PAkistanis that they empathise with the neo-fascist interpretation of the Al-Qaeda variety of political Islam (the usual wahabi sunni literalist crap)......................and the moderates know that the solution to all this is very much straight forward........isolate these crap mongers..................and we will find these diseased ideologies dissipating from the world in no time..........................................This implies that the moderates should not sympathesize with these diseased minds even if they try to play up their usual drama of ``Islam Khatare Mein Hai`` ( I feel Osama Bin Laden cuts a sorry figure before the moderate muslims on the TV screen with his recurrent exhortions on this Islam in danger theme).
But in Pakistan the words ``Islam Khatare Mein Hai`` is enough to make every `educated` Pakistani lose their common sense.....................

read on:

Refrain From Excuses for the Bombers

by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
November 23, 2005

Just hours after last July`s suicide attacks in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair`s advisers were working the phones to arrange an urgent meeting with what they term ``Muslim community leaders``. At the same time, however, the prime minister himself was telling the media that what had happened in London had nothing to do with Islam which was a religion of peace and harmony.
Soon, however, the ``Muslim community leaders`` were sitting across the table from Blair at Downing Street expressing ``Muslim grievances`` that had supposedly led to the suicide attacks. The meeting, followed by other sessions with Blair`s advisers, ended with an invitation by the prime minister to the ``Muslim community leaders`` to prepare a report on ``the deeper causes`` of the London tragedy.

Last week the ``Muslim community leaders`` produced their report. In it they cited two reasons for the tragedy: poverty among British Muslims, and Muslim anger over British foreign policy.

All this is interesting for several reasons.

First, if the London attacks had nothing to do with Islam, as Blair asserted, why invite ``Muslim community leaders`` to discuss it? When Britain was involved in bombing Serbia, to save the Muslims in Kosovo from genocide, Blair did not invite leaders of the Serbian Orthodox community in Britain to discuss matters at Downing Street.

While all the suicide bombers in London were of Muslim extraction their victims also included many Muslims. In fact 15 of the 57 killed in the three attacks were Muslims. In other words the attacks were designed to kill indiscriminately.

But if, contrary to Blair`s assertion, the London attacks did have something to do with Islam then the least that he should do is to say what that is.

By accepting to write the report, the ``Muslim community leaders`` have tacitly agreed that the July bombings did have something to do with Islam. And that, seen from any angle, is a disservice both to Islam and to Britain.

Caught in a cobweb of deceit woven by their own hypocrisy, the British ``Muslim community leaders`` have implicitly agreed that anyone has the right to use Islam as a label for any murderous ideology. At the same time by suggesting that poverty and disagreement on foreign policy were the causes of the suicide attacks, they are putting the British authorities on the wrong track.

The poverty argument as a justification for terrorism is too discredited to merit detailed refutation. Throughout history, terrorists have come from middle class and well-to-do backgrounds. The man who assassinated Caliph Omar was a wealthy Persian pearl merchant. Caliph Osman was assassinated by a group of Qureish aristocrats. Caliph Ali`s murderer was the well-heeled leader of a political faction. Julius Caesar was murdered by a group of Rome`s highest aristocrats. The Narodnik terrorists in Russia, the Anarchists in Central and Western Europe and, more recently, the Red Brigades and the Bader Meinhof terror gangs, all belonged to the upper middle classes.

We see a similar pattern in the recent history of Islamist terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Fedayeen Islam in Iran recruited their assassins from middle class families and were financed by wealthy merchants. The Al Qaida`s central leadership, now disrupted, included at least four millionaires.

The second cause cited by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is even more problematic. To begin with the ``leaders`` cite absolutely no evidence that British Muslims disagree with any aspect of British foreign policy. The reason for this is obvious. British Muslims are as divided on issues of foreign policy as are their non-Muslim fellow citizens.

In any case Britain is a democracy with several political parties representing a rich diversity of views and policies. Any British Muslim opposed to this or that aspect of British foreign policy could join any of the opposition parties or, even, join one of the several anti-Blair wings of the governing Labour Party.

The report produced by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is dangerous because it implies that as long some British Muslims are poor and some British Muslims angry about foreign policy, terrorist attacks would be understandable if not justifiable.

The report creates an ``us and them`` dialectics in which British Muslims see their non-Muslim fellow citizens as ``others``. And from that to treating non-Muslim Britons as the kuffar (infidel), is but a short step.

The only useful contribution that ``Muslim community leaders`` can do is to refrain from furnishing excuses for the terrorists and to hold special sessions to condemn their ideology and put as much blue water between them and other Muslims as possible.

Sadly, the men invited by Blair to help have done the exact opposite.

Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

Re: # 546

Dear Urstruly:

[The article also mentions how Zoroastrians were later given the status of People of Book. And as Islamic law dictates the Jiziya is not applicable to People of Book.]

Well, I did not know this earlier? Being a person of the book, I could marry a muslim girl. Right? Are you saying that a Zoroastrian male can marry a muslim women? and not be afraid of being killed? Can you authenticate this statement?

Is it possible that you are not adequately informed about Jiziya? FYI....Iranian Zoroastrians were paying Jizya taxes until the 1910`s or so.

Respectfully submitted,

#526 by pmishra2

[#522 Ajeya

I am no fan of mohammed`s attitudes towards women and non-muslims. However, it is silly to apply standards of the 21st century to the 6th century. It is just as silly to insist that certain behaviors of the 6th century are fixed for all time.

You speak of the behavior of Mohammed you dont like. No problem, everyone should be free to criticize and choose. I personally dislike the idea of a prophet who is also a military general just as much as I find many hindu ``gurus`` who have luxurious lifestyle laughable.

But what about the behavior of Ramachandra in slaying Bali? What about Manu-smriti and this was a tremendously important document for certain varnas for many 100s of years. ]


I am tired of saying this again and again on this forum. Firstly, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are mythologies. Nobody has historic verification of ANY of it. Nobody knows what is true and what is folklore.

And secondly, let`s suppose ALL OF THAT IS TRUE. What about it? If you feel that that is wrong, and his words and deeds are causing Hindus to turn into terrorists, and cause murder and mayhem in the world, you have every right to demand that those parts of the Ramayana be purged from the book, for the prevention of murder and mayhem in the future generations.




[Do you know that in Calcutta, as late as 1900s, 12 year-old hindu girls were married off to old men? ]

I don`t know that it happened in the 1900s, but I know that it used to happen in the past. Not only that, since eligible Brahmin grooms were scarce in Bengal, there have been stories of fathers marrying their daughters to Brahmins on their deathbed, so that the daughter is saved from the ignonimity of remaining unmarried.

But the old men who married 12-year-olds ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE PROPHETS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PERFECT MEN, ON WHOSE CREDIBILITY PEOPLE HAVE STAKED THEIR EVERYTHING.

Is this distinction too difficult to understand? Eh?

(And another small point. A 12-year old girl is not the same as a 6-year-old child.)

#496 by soysauce

[Ajeya, you`re starting to talk like a mullah - ignoring empirical evidence in favor of literalism. This is the stuff fundamentalists are made of.
Two naturalized citizens of the United States who have taken the same pledge of allegiance could have different outlooks on life. Should they invade another country preemptively to safeguard the US, what does security of the US mean, who do we mean by the US, is it OK to criticize from within, at a time of war, how do we treat prisoners of war, when does torture become acceptable, what is the minimum level of economic safety that the citizens should have, etc., etc.
Same constitution, same polity, completely divergent views.
Regardless of what a literal reading may lead to, the evidence is there that different muslims read different things into the quoran. That, my friend, is human ingenuity.]


Sometimes I wonder if you guys read your own posts before posting them.

Let`s start with the last line:

[Regardless of what a literal reading may lead to, the evidence is there that different muslims read different things into the quoran. That, my friend, is human ingenuity.]

Yes. Exactly. And THAT is the problem. As long as there are hate-filled words in the Quran, some idiots might actually regard them as God`s instructions, and act as instructed.

Not everyone would rationalize the commission of multiple rapes with just being a normal 6th-century man.



Now let`s proceed to the rest of your post:


[Two naturalized citizens of the United States who have taken the same pledge of allegiance could have different outlooks on life. Should they invade another country preemptively to safeguard the US, what does security of the US mean, who do we mean by the US, is it OK to criticize from within, at a time of war, how do we treat prisoners of war, when does torture become acceptable, what is the minimum level of economic safety that the citizens should have, etc., etc.
Same constitution, same polity, completely divergent views.]

So who`s disputing that? The point is that by their accepting the Quran as the word of God, and teaching the same to their children, BOTH OF THEM are wittingly or unwittingly propagating violence and mayhem that future generations will continue to commit, in the name of Allah.



[Ajeya, you`re starting to talk like a mullah - ignoring empirical evidence in favor of literalism. This is the stuff fundamentalists are made of. ]


I don`t mind you characterizing me like that. If after reading this post, you still feel that I am ``talking like a mullah``, show me why. If you cannot, retract what you said.

I`ll be looking forward to your response.

Behram:

Here is white man`s account of the Muslim conquest of Persia, I hope you find this satisfactory. Although the authors have consulted the Islamic historic accounts yet they have relied mostly on independent accounts and while doing that mentioned where the source had been entirely Islamic. The article mentions the historic tussle between Persian and Bezantyne (Roman) empires and how land of Arabia was used as their battlefiled. The article also mentions how Zoroastrians were later given the status of People of Book. And as Islamic law dictates the Jiziya is not applicable to People of Book. Same principle was applied to Hindu subjects by giving them a status of People of book and keeping them from paying Jiziyah until Aurangzeb Alamgir (may God be pleased with him) imposed this tax albiet controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Iran

As far as the Zorostrian holocaust is concerned, it seems plausible but not likely. It is higly likely that while chasing Yazdgard Muslim happened to take Persian towns, that may have given refuge to Yazdgard, and put it to sword upon resistance but I don`t think that as Persia was conquered gluotines were set all across the Persia and people were given two options; either to get their heads chopped off or accept Islam. This contradicts the histoical facts.

One fact being that the Caliph Omar (ra) was assassinated by a Persian POW named Ferouz. As the tradition goes, Feroz along with his family and many other Persians was brought to Medina as POW. As the Islamic law that was applicable in that day Feroz was given into the custody of an Arab who used him as a laborer. Feroz was an independent soul and used to write poetry of freedom and he used to cry seeing so many Persian slaves in Muslim captivity. feroz was a carpenter by profession and used to make delicate and beautiful pieces of art with wood for decoration etc. One day he met Caliph Omar in the street and told him that his owner did not pay him well for his handicraft and that Omar should order his master to pay him a bit more (imagine slaves and POWs being paid for the work they used to do under Muslim custody). It is said that Omar refused to oblige him the request for pay increase fearing that such pay increase would then would have to be imposed for all POWs; Feroz was not very amused at Caliph`s decision. He had an artifact in his hand which he tried to gift Omar, but Omar refused and jokingly told Feroz that his creation was not very good. This further infuriated Feroz and next day during the wee hours of the morning when Caliph was offering his morning prayers Feroz attacked him with a dagger. The Caliph fell martyr on the third day of the attack.

The moral of this story is that, if forced conversions were going on then the first candidates should have been the prisoners of war; this historical account contradicts that. And second thing is that if a mass murder of a captive nation had happened then the caliph should have been more careful, whereas we see that he is meeting POWs who roam about the streets of Medina freely.

Personally, I don`t think that any ideology that is forced upon people can last. The case in point is the Communism that collapsed like a house of cards, whereas Islam has outlasted all the tests and tribulations that it had been through and not only that it has flourished across the globe.

#540 behram

Good luck to you. It is sad that you believe the garbage that Urstruly is vomiting to be significant. It is tragic to think that adult people want to
discuss hateful nonsense like:

[quote]
It was really interesting to learn from Urstruly that the Prophet himself had instructed attack on Hindoo India
[quote]

People who justify violence in this sick way need help. This is the kind of talk that Nazis and mass murderers indulge in. My suggestion to you is to contact a good mental health professional.

Behram, thanks for your kind comments.

Internet here has provided me a safe way to explore the jihadi mindset. This exploration would not be possible in real life without the discussion turning into a shouting match, with a distinct possibility of physical pushing-and-shoving. And I say this from experience.

I used to think that fanatic ullema had a certain logic to their views. But as I’ve learned over time, they don’t. Their views are flawed in very obvious ways.

A good example is that of apostasy. Ullema have failed to explain how killing for apostasy is consistent with the Quranic view that religion is not to be forced upon others.

The obvious failure on ullema’s part to acknowledge this contradiction is shocking, as well as revealing. It shows how a person can get blinded by hatred … twisting words to validate fanaticism while nursing an insidious ideology. It is a sign that ullema have become bankrupt, intellectually and morally. And it is the same all the way from Indonesia to Brazil.

And this explains the chaos we see in world events, as they unfold, most violently, on daily basis. Ummah stands today at their lowest point. Discussions with mullahs like Urstruly have helped me see how and why that is the case. With such corrupt leadership, ummah can have no hope of reversing their decline into social, political, and economic turmoil.

Re: # 534

Dear Urstruly:

[But invasion of Persia is a differnt story and hostilities increased gradually as I have written in my post.] Definitely not from the Persian Zoroastrian`s side. This is red herring from your side. This is absolutely humbug and not true. There were no hostilities from the Persian`s side.

Can you cite any authentic source, other than yourself, that would suggest that Persian Zoroastrians cared about the Arabs? The invading Arabs went against the teachings of their own prophet and attacked Persian Zoroastrians. And that is a fact.

Respectfully submitted,

”In the matters of faith aggression is strictly forbidden …”

i thought in islam there is no saperation of faith and politics.

Re: # 538

Dear sattar2 and Urstruly:

Thank you for an excellent lesson in the history of political Islam.

[How do you explain killing apostates for leaving Islam?] And that is exactly what Khalid Bin Walid did in the reign of Abu Bakr. Did he not?

Continue the conversation, we might learn something.

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 536

Dear pmishra2:

Unfortunately, you are wrong. I have always respected all religions. With hundus, it is the Indianess that gets to me, especially when the conversation is not held in a dignified way. When was the last time, we read a Hindoo interactor discuss anything about political Islam? It was really interesting to learn from Urstruly that the Prophet himself had instructed attack on Hindoo India. Can he validate that is yet to be seen.

Actually, I learn a lot about political Islam from Urstruly with this method then sending sugar canes in his way. That therapy is only reserved for the fanatic hindoos of India.

[But the hate-laden and fascist ravings of Mullah Urstruly deserve respect. Why? because, you see, they have something to do with ``islam``.] This is not true. Urstruly is only educating me about the history that he knows it best.

Although, I did not get my questions answered by Urstruly, but hopefully I will get it on some other site. This Sattar2 guy is really making sense to me. And it seems that he is asking the same questions a logical person would ask.

Nevertheless, I respectfully submit

... and another comment ... ``shoulda`` and ``coulda`` are critical ... otherwise you may as well argue that 2+2=5.

Reason tells us that 2+2 ``shoulda`` = 4.

Similarly, arguing that killing for apostasy does not force religion on others ... is like arguing 2+2=5 .... it does not add up ...

Urstruly,

OK, let’s briefly review what you wrote:

+++++++++

- You say … ”In the matters of faith aggression is strictly forbidden …”

How do you explain killing apostates for leaving Islam? If this is not aggression, what is??

Quran makes it clear that there is no worldly punishment for apostasy. If you violate Quran in the name of Islam, you must be kidding ...


+++++++++

- You say … It is explicitly made forbidden to coerce or force someone to accept Islam

Obviously this does not apply to the Prophet … who was allowed to wage war against non-believers due to differences in faith. BTW, you are yet to provide a reference to support this.

Furthermore, is this the same Prophet the Quran calls “best model for believers”? Should the believers also wage war over religious differences??

Furthermore, if a Muslim state should attack non-Muslim states (#487), then it is forcing others to accept Islam … right?

These are glaring contradictions in your views … that fail to add up.

++++++++

As for #487, you should carefully read what Maudoodi wrote: He suggests that it is not possible for a Muslim state to properly follow Islam unless neighboring states too are Muslim … therefore a Muslim state must fight and destroy neighboring non-Muslim states in the name of Islam.

Sattar

There is no point in arguing `shoulda` and `coulda`. I have explained my understanding of the cannonical position on foreign invasions in post #490. That is consistent with what Moududi is saying. Instead of selectively quoting you should post the whole article by Moududi or at least read it. I am sorry it disappoints you but that is the fact.

However, I must make this clear to you that Moududi is not a prophet of God nor he is an ultimate and final authority on Islam. However, he must be given the due credit that whenever he presents his point of view it is consistent with Qura`n and Hadith and where it is not he makes it clear that it is his or someone else`s Ijtehad on a certain issue. In this particular instance I agree with his thesis in the article of which you have posted a selected clipping.

Let me make it loud and clear once again: In the matters of faith aggression is strictly forbidden. It is explictly made forbidden to coerce or force someone to accpet Islam.

#532

This is what is known as dhimmitude. Having grown up in an islamo-supremacistt environment, Shri behram ``knows`` that it is always OK to abuse hindus, buddhists etc. That is but the natural order of things.

But the hate-laden and fascist ravings of Mullah Urstruly deserve respect. Why? because, you see, they have something to do with ``islam``.