I believe we are in the brink of an apocalypse of sorts. The Zeitgeist of today is a very bleak and fragile one. We are living at a stage that is crucial to determine the next century of our lives. We are at the helm of what can be expediently termed as THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE. The Islamization of Europe is a starting point for world domination for the many religious extremists and fanatics that are ever so omnipresent in today’s society. While it can be debated at length the reasons and the purpose of such fanatics let us circumspectly discuss the manner in which they are carrying out their schema and what they are aiming at.
PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT THE MUSLIM RELIGION SAYS AND HOW THE FANATICS INTERPRET THEM. THE MUSLIM RELIGION DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE ADVOCATE THE RIGHT TO TAKE SOME ONE’S LIFE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE FANATICS MANIPULATE THE RELIGION. This article as directed at those fanatics and what they are doing and how it is affecting /will affect you and me.
Let me start with examples of a few countries that are being affected in Europe. Please assume that ALL the countries are facing similar problems and I am just quoting a few examples.
Denmark 1929, one of the most peace loving countries with bare immigration laws and a diverse culture. A land blessed with peace and prosperity. The Danes boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a
history of humanitarianism. Today, with a high rate of Muslim immigration and territorial advances there is a high possibility that the Sharia Law can be implemented. The Muslim Imam has the power to torch a bureaucrats house when denied of blood money as followed by other Muslim nations.
In England, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Men are being beaten if they drink during Ramdan irrespective of whether they are Muslims or not. The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept Sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. 70% of the inmates in France are French Muslims. Imams take care of them and in the name of cleansing them, they are reformed to religious fundamentalists.
Amsterdam, Belgium, Sweden etc… problems are rife with the Muslim rabid people. Muslim ghettos are common in these areas and these ghettos are controlled by fanatics. These neighborhoods are mushrooming across Europe and posing a problem for the indigenous people and their culture.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. A British council report shockingly revealed that more than 75% of the Pakistanis say that they are Muslims first and Pakistanis second. Religion overshadows your Nationalism!
In an Islamic Europe with fundamentalists governing them you are bound to have the Sharia law. The Sharia law is one which is a horrifyingly applauding law. Yes, applauding indeed. (Like clap, clap wow. How ingeniously demonic) You can’t send your girl child to schools, men must have beards, no freedom of speech, no democracy, Honor killing of women, punishments will range from lashing a man to stoning him to death etc… It is a controlled authoritarian imposition on humanity and confines them to homes and makes them vicious barbarians. THIS IS A QUESTION OF CULTURES BEING WIPED OUT!
Can we STOP this territorial advance? Well, I personally don’t think so. Do you think we can? Let me know how.
Another unique problem which baffles me and has two schools of thought for which I am unable to decide whom to side with, due to lack of proper knowledge on the subject. The mystifying Israel-Palestine imbroglio:
Some feel that Palestine has been wrongly dealt with and rightly so. Jews occupied Palestine and soon they began to control the lands of Palestine and the U.N (a defunct body) re-named the land with outrageous borders favoring the Jews and renamed the land Israel in the year 1947. Soon, Palestine was confined and their movements regulated and controlled. Posts were built and the Arabs were treated unfairly. Roads, water, houses everything is monitored and controlled. Fundamental Human Rights are being denied. Today, the Israel-Palestine problem is probably the most discussed and bitter CRIME in mankind. The Israeli government employs American PR firms to improve its image and the media in America is tamed as well. Newscasters often play down the situation or portray Palestinian people as the aggressors. “Palestinian deaths is just a matter of few dozen”, “Israel attacked Palestine TARGETS”. “Israel RETALIATES” These are a few examples of how the media is waging propaganda. The information disseminated is scrutinized by watchdog groups in America and in Israel. Does Palestine not have a right to have its own state? Does it not have a right to live freely without the intervention of other bodies? You grab most of the land and then you impose rules and laws to another country? The acts of USA and UN are at its nadir in this scenario.
On the other hand, some people support Israel and Israel’s ‘CAUSE’. In the name of religion, Israel is the Jewish homeland after 2000 years of exile (Biblical) and the people have a RIGHT for ‘THEIR’ land. People also argue that it is a democracy as compared to Islamic Palestine and it is considered to be the first line of defense against the Islamization of Europe. It stands as a barrier for the territorial advance of religious extremists and fundamentalists. Israel is blocking the growth and spread of these fanatics and is an important part of Europe preventing the burgeoning growth of Islam. Just like Kashmir is the blockade for the spread of Islam. Israel is bearing the ‘brunt’ of Palestine violence. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. In short, the end of Israel will give enormous powers to the forces of Islam.
Both the arguments have their own pros and cons. They are both strong in their own right and this is perhaps why the battle between the two nations will never end. This war will be alive for a long long long time. It has to survive. If this war ends, I cannot predict the unimaginable ramifications it will have on the rest of the world.
This article was written after a lot of thought and a lot of reading from various sources and speeches by pundits. Please feel free to comment on any factual errors or any misconceptions from my part.
38 comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan
Read this to know how long back Islamization started. I dint know that Tajiksitan was originally Kamboja Kingdom of India.
I think Islamic fundementlism is a good thing considering i know wat the principles are and wat the religion stands for. but i still do not support Islamic extremism. I think yu need to clearly understand that there is a difference in the two. A very informative article i have to agree but i also hope that a lot of these allegations against "ISLAM" that you have made are very well based.
Fundamentalism means interpretation of the holy book in an exact manner to manipulate people into understanding the lines without reference to the context.
Everything in this post is researched well before hand. Took a long time before i accumulated the facts. You can read a lot more about it in Google and watch speeches in youtube. Its a hushed up thing because it creates tensions among people.
Spreading of religions are well known. Have you observed that Christianity spread in South America? For instance, Mayans are over 5000 yrs and lived in America. Now they are hardly any Mayans there; an we have 90+% Christians there. So, if Buddism spread in Oriental Asia 2000 years back, Christianity spread in America in about same time, why not Islam in Europe now?
ok before i comment or give my opinion, i want to know... one thing are u against sharia law or the teachings of islam? what is t that you arent agreeing with?
The teachings of ALL religions are RIGHT. We humans interpret them in a manner that makes the world what it is today. I am against what the fanatics who are manipulating the Sharia Law.
well thought of piece indeed. and while you did mention that religion takes precedence over nationalism,one of the things that i learnt living in a muslim country is that islam preaches that a muslim can only bow his head before God n noone/nothing else.this poses a dilemma for ppl sometimes. i do agree with the fanaticism though.ironical isn't it?islam means peace and yet fanatics spread fear in the name of islam.
I have written a detailed response on http://ind-sport.blogspot.com and also e-mailed the same to the author.
I will respond to each paragraph of yours separately:
“I believe we are in the brink of an apocalypse of sorts. The Zeitgeist of today is a very bleak and fragile one. We are living at a stage that is crucial to determine the next century of our lives. We are at the helm of what can be expediently termed as THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE. The Islamization of Europe is a starting point for world domination for the many religious extremists and fanatics that are ever so omnipresent in today’s society. While it can be debated at length the reasons and the purpose of such fanatics let us circumspectly discuss the manner in which they are carrying out their schema and what they are aiming at.”
What exactly do you mean by “Islamization”? Do you mean an increase in the number of Muslims, or a broader influence of Muslim culture? In either case, I do not think that we are on the brink of an “apocalypse”, as you call it. You do not state what you think is wrong clearly. As such it appears that you have a problem with Muslims and Islamic culture in general.
“PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT THE MUSLIM RELIGION SAYS AND HOW THE FANATICS INTERPRET THEM. THE MUSLIM RELIGION DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE ADVOCATE THE RIGHT TO TAKE SOME ONE’S LIFE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE FANATICS MANIPULATE THE RELIGION. This article as directed at those fanatics and what they are doing and how it is affecting /will affect you and me.”
I must admit I hoped you would stick to your word even after I read your first paragraph. After reading the remainder of your article, it doesn't seem so.
“Let me start with examples of a few countries that are being affected in Europe. Please assume that ALL the countries are facing similar problems and I am just quoting a few examples.
Denmark 1929, one of the most peace loving countries with bare immigration laws and a diverse culture. A land blessed with peace and prosperity. The Danes boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a
history of humanitarianism. Today, with a high rate of Muslim immigration and territorial advances there is a high possibility that the Sharia Law can be implemented. The Muslim Imam has the power to torch a bureaucrats house when denied of blood money as followed by other Muslim nations.”
I have a “problem” with your use of the word “problem”. You make it sound like Muslim immigration is a curse.
Coming to the specific case of Denmark you have considered. You make a very general remark that Danes are peace loving. As such there is no conclusive method to prove this. It is easy for me to list wars that Denmark has been a part of, but doing that isn't exactly relevant to the subject at hand. Firstly, have you stopped to think as to WHY there is a high rate of Muslim immigration in continental Europe? There are a few reasons which I think you do not know. In any case, let me list them out for you. Firstly, quite a few of these immigrants are from Northern Africa. A part of the world that was colonized by countries such as France. The pattern is similar to Indian migration to the UK.
Secondly, the economy of these countries needs immigrants, unfortunately for some narrow-minded Europeans who feel that their culture is threatened, these immigrants are often looked down upon and treated with racism. We are all well aware of the problems Europe has with racism. The obvious incident is the Mohammed cartoons. I totally condemn any violence associated with them. No provocation justifies it. In their country, they have the right to say so and they did. However, is it advisable as a journalist to stroke a matter that is already sensitive by depicting the prophet of Islam with a bomb as a turban? Such depictions are sad, provocative and thoughtless. You speak about the high possibility of the implementation of Sharia Law. You then go on to give an example, which I do not know the veracity of, of what you claim is Sharia Law. Even if I were to agree with your given example, it clearly falls under CRIMINAL law. The only law which is being spoken of, with regard to possible future implementation is CIVIL law. This applies to personal issues such as marriage and inheritance, and only to Muslims in that country. Something similar works in India, known as the Muslim Personal Law Board. If Muslims want this, I do not see any harm in it being implemented, it causes no harm to others.
“In England, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Men are being beaten if they drink during Ramdan irrespective of whether they are Muslims or not. The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept Sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. 70% of the inmates in France are French Muslims. Imams take care of them and in the name of cleansing them, they are reformed to religious fundamentalists.”
Again, the Sharia implemented in Britain is civil, so I do not see what the problem is. Your next two statements are again given without any sources. Please quote reliable sources if you want to make such statements. In any case, what do you have to say about France banning head-scarves? This is again a personal issue. Many Muslims don't wear them. For European countries to make such laws, including the recent banning of Minarets in Switzerland is a clear denial of the rights. Europe, which considers itself to be the finest of humans, has a disturbing history of lack of acceptance of other cultures. In different times, this has manifested itself in various forms. From the punishments given to Gallileo, to the holocaust, they are all examples of Europe's narrow-mindedness. You make two more statements about France without quoting any reliable sources. As a Muslim, I know that a very large majority of Imams are critical of the actions of terrorists, yet you make a general statement against all Imams.
“Amsterdam, Belgium, Sweden etc… problems are rife with the Muslim rabid people. Muslim ghettos are common in these areas and these ghettos are controlled by fanatics. These neighborhoods are mushrooming across Europe and posing a problem for the indigenous people and their culture.”
Again, have you stopped to think WHY these ghettos exist? It is because the minorities are marginalized. In medieval Europe, there were Jewish ghettos. Today, there are Muslim ghettos, as the Jews have been conveniently (for the Europeans) packed off to Israel or burnt away.
“A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.”
Again, without giving me conclusive proof that Muslims and indeed Islam in general is evil, I do not see why you should have a problem with this.
“The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. A British council report shockingly revealed that more than 75% of the Pakistanis say that they are Muslims first and Pakistanis second. Religion overshadows your Nationalism!”
Before making any comment on this. I'd like to say two, seemingly contradicting things:
1.I am proud to be an Indian. Asking a question like which is more important to you is equivalent to blackmail. I am proud to be an Indian and I am proud to be a Muslim. Whatever you say, you can't take either away from me.
2.Nationalism in general seems overrated to me. Isn't it just another way of discriminating among people? Aren't we all humans after all?
Please quote reliable sources for the statistics you have quoted. For someone who believes in the hereafter, in Hell and Heaven, be they from any religion, surely, it should be more important to ensure that they go to Heaven than it is to claim loyalty to a particular division created by man himself.
“In an Islamic Europe with fundamentalists governing them you are bound to have the Sharia law. The Sharia law is one which is a horrifyingly applauding law. Yes, applauding indeed. (Like clap, clap wow. How ingeniously demonic) You can’t send your girl child to schools, men must have beards, no freedom of speech, no democracy, Honor killing of women, punishments will range from lashing a man to stoning him to death etc… It is a controlled authoritarian imposition on humanity and confines them to homes and makes them vicious barbarians. THIS IS A QUESTION OF CULTURES BEING WIPED OUT!”
As I had stated earlier, civil law, and not criminal is being considered. Still you make very misleading statements without reliable sources. From my knowledge of Islam, I judge your statements:
1.You can’t send your girl child to schools: WRONG! Many women in Muslim countries are well educated. All Arab countries I know have schools which girls attend.
2.Men must have beards: WRONG! I don't have a beard, nor do many other Muslims. If this was the case, every Arab would have a beard. Keeping a beard in not enforceable in Sharia.
3.No freedom of speech: PARTIALLY WRONG! What do you mean by freedom of speech? No country in the world has complete freedom of speech. There are limitations to it in every part of the world. If you compare the recent cases of Vikram Buddhi and Roxana Saberi, it would seem that there is more freedom of speech in Iran than in the USA.
4.No democracy: WRONG! There are many Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia etc. which are democratic. Indeed, if you really researched well for this article, you would know that according to Islam, the Caliph, a post which was abandoned by Europeans fearing Islam a century ago, was meant to be elected, not exactly in the way modern democracies work, but with consultation among learned men and scholars.
5.Honor killing of women: WRONG! I have not heard of one such case. Indeed, if it does exist, this is probably more of an Indian tradition imported into Muslim culture. It is not a part of Islam.. Please enlighten me if such a case exists.
6.Punishments will range from lashing a man to stoning him to death etc: CORRECT! BUT FOR WHAT? You conveniently ignored the crime for which the punishments are prescribed. Also if you consider other religions, the punishments prescribed are far more serious. For example, if you read the Bible, the punishment for blasphemy in Christianity is death alone. In Islam, another option is to exile the person. This is not a condemnation of Christianity, but one example to show that religion in general prescribes punishments which may seem “harsh” by modern standards. As such, many of Islam's criticisms can be even bigger criticisms of other religions. However, this is conveniently ignored.
Your second-last statement is again a general dismissal of Islam without proof. As far as cultures being wiped out, what is culture in your opinion? Why don't you think of it as the evolution of cultures. Culture is not stagnant. It flows and evolves. Indian culture is as rich as it is today because it has accepted diversity so openly. As another reader pointed out, the whole Mayan and Incan culture was wiped out by the advent of Christianity in South America.
“Can we STOP this territorial advance? Well, I personally don’t think so. Do you think we can? Let me know how.”
There have already been efforts. The real question is: Should people try to stop cultures and interaction between different cultures? Well, I personally don't think so. Do you think they should? If so, let ME know WHY.
“Another unique problem which baffles me and has two schools of thought for which I am unable to decide whom to side with, due to lack of proper knowledge on the subject. The mystifying Israel-Palestine imbroglio: Some feel that Palestine has been wrongly dealt with and rightly so. Jews occupied Palestine and soon they began to control the lands of Palestine and the U.N (a defunct body) re-named the land with outrageous borders favoring the Jews and renamed the land Israel in the year 1947. Soon, Palestine was confined and their movements regulated and controlled. Posts were built and the Arabs were treated unfairly. Roads, water, houses everything is monitored and controlled. Fundamental Human Rights are being denied. Today, the Israel-Palestine problem is probably the most discussed and bitter CRIME in mankind. The Israeli government employs American PR firms to improve its image and the media in America is tamed as well. Newscasters often play down the situation or portray Palestinian people as the aggressors. “Palestinian deaths is just a matter of few dozen”, “Israel attacked Palestine TARGETS”. “Israel RETALIATES” These are a few examples of how the media is waging propaganda. The information disseminated is scrutinized by watchdog groups in America and in Israel. Does Palestine not have a right to have its own state? Does it not have a right to live freely without the intervention of other bodies? You grab most of the land and then you impose rules and laws to another country? The acts of USA and UN are at its nadir in this scenario.
“On the other hand, some people support Israel and Israel’s ‘CAUSE’. In the name of religion, Israel is the Jewish homeland after 2000 years of exile (Biblical) and the people have a RIGHT for ‘THEIR’ land. People also argue that it is a democracy as compared to Islamic Palestine and it is considered to be the first line of defense against the Islamization of Europe. It stands as a barrier for the territorial advance of religious extremists and fundamentalists. Israel is blocking the growth and spread of these fanatics and is an important part of Europe preventing the burgeoning growth of Islam. Just like Kashmir is the blockade for the spread of Islam. Israel is bearing the ‘brunt’ of Palestine violence. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. In short, the end of Israel will give enormous powers to the forces of Islam.”
This issue is very complex. History is evident that a stronger force dominates a weaker one and relegates it to a position of pointlessness. For centuries, the world has been shaped by conquest. Wars have redefined international borders. I see this as yet another case of the same. Throughout the middle ages, and indeed well into modern times, Jews were persecuted in Europe. The development of Zionist ideology was a perfect excuse for Europe to pack Jews away. This is what, in my opinion, lead to the creation of Israel. Brutalities of the Israeli people are so easily ignored by western media, which is clearly anti-Islamic. As to who owns the land, well, from a philosophical standpoint, no one does. It is the powerful that currently occupies it.
“Both the arguments have their own pros and cons. They are both strong in their own right and this is perhaps why the battle between the two nations will never end. This war will be alive for a long long long time. It has to survive. If this war ends, I cannot predict the unimaginable ramifications it will have on the rest of the world.”
This is perhaps the most disturbing statement you have made. A WAR has to survive! You want thousands of people to die and atrocities to be committed, only because of an unreasonable fear of Islam. Shocking!
“This article was written after a lot of thought and a lot of reading from various sources and speeches by pundits. Please feel free to comment on any factual errors or any misconceptions from my part.”
While I do not doubt the integrity of your statement, I do doubt the integrity of the sources. I have made my comments above.
Hey Mohammad nice to know you. First things first. I have done ample research before I wrote this article. Of this I can assure you because I understand the sensitivity of the topic. Besides, it was not a piece written to provoke anybody or show any religion in bad light. Also, my blog is not commercial and I do not write articles for sensationalizing a story or earning money for that matter. I can also assure you that I have listened to many points of view before I wrote this article. Neither have I listened to what the stupid mainstream media claimed nor what a bunch of self proclaimed ‘know how’s’ profess. I want you to be CLEAR on this one.
In referral to the opening paragraph, I am trying to portray that it would be an apocalypse if the extremists have their ways as Islam strives for Sharia. And the Sharia law that is being used now is hideous as we all know.
Yes, Muslim immigration is a bad thing. It’s not what I am saying. I am giving you examples of countries who have a problem with the people. I have clearly given you figures and statistics as to the rate of corruption and the people involved in these cases. If a bunch of cartoons can provoke such wry fanaticism, one can imagine the plethora of problems people in India will face!
You question me on the authenticity of the implementation of the Sharia law? I advice you to look around you and read articles and listen to what the Taliban have to say on the law and their acts under the name of Sharia. And how can you possibly say, “If Muslims want this, I do not see any harm in it being implemented, it causes no harm to others”. In other words what you are saying is punishment to a boy should be lashes on his back and breaking his hand and other acts like these? What differentiation is there from us and barbarians then? It appalls me that you can even think that because tomorrow if a non Muslim were to stay in a Sharia law country, can the Sharia laws be applicable to a non Muslim as well? If not, then why the Sharia law? Lets understand that Islam strives for the Sharia and its co-existence with other religions is IMPOSSIBLE (I like to use CAPS for driving home the point and stressing on the meaning. No harm in it. Journalists use it as well.)
The source for the Sharia being GRADUALLY implemented is from Nick Griffin. You can google him. The source on Imams is from a Danish immigration minister whose house was burnt because she denied blood money as it was not the law in her country. I completely agree with you on the Swiss issue and banning scarves for women. I did not support then either. There is a difference to what you are saying and what I am. I detest the fanatics and not the people itself. You have misunderstood me when I said that immigration is a bad thing. Immigration of extremists and the presence of Imams to spread these extremists is what I do not approve. I have also pondered on the existence of these ghettos. Its not because people are marginalized. As a matter of fact I can give you my own experience, but I would like to SHOW this to you rather than type it down. Because there is no ways you will be in a position to understand this nor will you accept it. Next time you are here to India give me a buzz and I will humor you.
San diego university and Pew research center are again sources my friend. I cant name the 20 or 30 people who conducted the research. The problem is you are unwilling to accept what I have to say, rather you want more material, more research, more people. The point is that you don’t want ALL the research I present it’s just that you want it your way. I do understand that you are defending your religion and this topic is something that very much concerns you. What you have to understand is that it is NOT the religion, it is THE PEOPLE who are ever so effortlessly MANIPULATING what the religion has to say.
Lets be factual here, tomorrow if the law of the land (your country, nationalism) says that for a rapist the punishment is beheading the convict and if the religious law says that you have to stone the man to death, which one are you going to follow? Therefore, it is necessary to understand that ones love for the country is more important than one’s religion. Tomorrow if the tables turn then we are going to have chaos in a country like India which respects diversity and secularism. Which makes me wonder, is there a necessity to have an Islamic republic? Why is there no tolerance to other religions and why are religious issues entwined in politics?
Again, you seem to deviate from what I intend to say. According to the Sharia law, girls are not allowed to schools. NOT THE other Muslim countries. I have a Muslim school in my neighbourhood and girls study there. Please read carefully before you retort. The beard is NOT a must in the Sharia(my friend told me after reading the article). However, according to the fanatics IT IS A MUST. (My friend agreed as well). Freedom of speech, partially wrong? I’ll skip that because I don’t want to state a trillion cases and I convinced you partially anyways. Democracy in Iran and Pakistan? Is this the same Iran your taking about that jammed internet connections? Honour killing of women does not exist???? As for cultural diversity I would like you to look up on the internet or any other source as you may please to find out the ration of Muslims to other religions in an Islamic republic.
As for the Israeli Palestine conflict, I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree that the western media has its own propagandist measures to ensure that Israel is portrayed in good light and the human violation is completely ignored. In my understanding of the conflict I realize that the war WILL last simply because if the Jews win the west will be enraged and the alarm bells will ring out loud for the territorial advance. If Israel wins, it’s a clear violation of human rights and is nothing short of a pogrom. Feel free to tell me what you think but this is the ground reality.
It was nice to hear your views. I want to repeat to you that I am not against ISLAM. If I can be clear, I am AGAINST ALL religions. I have written an article on it as well. http://adadithya.blogspot.com/search/label/Karl%20Marx
I am a Hindu and I have a million problems against how my own religion is being manipulated and creates such a havoc. I am ashamed at the atrocities in Gujarat and etc… My 2 BEST FRIENDS are Muslims and they have been such wonderful people. Both will vouch for the fact that the large amount of people today are manipulating their religion and causing a ruckus. Anyways, I do agree that I have not quoted ALL my sources and in the future I will have a special copy of all the sources as a backup.
Do keep in touch.
Hey Aditya
I apologize if it sounded like I doubted your intentions, but some of the things you said in your original article were truly shocking.
A few things I'd like to say:
Please do not judge Islam and Muslims by the actions of the Taliban. To say that Sharia is "hideous", based on its ridiculous interpretation by the Taliban, is like saying that a Mercedes is a useless car because someone who did not know how to drive crashed it. What I said in my earlier response was Islamic CIVIL Law can be implemented in Western countries without a problem. What you refer to, regarding lashings, would come under the CRIMINAL Law. I only refer to personal matters such as marriages and inheritance.
You criticise the democracy of Iran. Agreed, it is flawed. But could you point me to a perfect one? I have two friends who have Iranian ancestors and who do not have major problems with its current political system. Turkey is also a Muslim democracy, and so is Malaysia. Of the other democracies, I could point at Zimbabwe and say that democracy is useless. One or two examples are not enough to make such conclusions.
"Next time you are here to India.." I presume you mean IN India. I live in India and have been doing so for the past 68 months or so. I live in Hyderabad.
Sharia and its co-existence with other religions is impossible? Certainly not the civil law. As far as criminal law goes, no western country is implementing it, but it is implemented in certain Muslim countries. And questioning law is really another question altogether. I might point out that Saudi Arabia has the lowest crime rates in the world. Does that mean we should implement Sharia? Like I said earlier, religious laws seem harsh from a modern point of view.
Like I said earlier, I condemn any violence, and violence is not a part of Islam, unless in self-defence. So clearly the people who acted in Denmark, acted against Islam.
I am not doubting San Diego University, all I am saying is what is the point you are trying to make? Is it that an increase in the number of Muslims is dangerous for the world. You said two of your best friends are Muslims, then are they dangerous? All I said was that your point was irrelevant.
I agree that people manipulate every religion. That is a sad aspect. But that is really because of the ignorance of the people, a different topic altogether.
You re-emphasised that according to Sharia Law, girls aren't allowed to be educated. To the best of my knowledge this is untrue. However, as you insisted, I did check again. A saying of the prophet goes:
"A father gives his child nothing better than a good education."
[Hadith collections compiled by Tirmidhi (#4977)]
So clearly you are only seeing the Talibani interpretation and not true Sharia.
As far as the cartoons were concerned, you must agree that they were unnecessary and provocative. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that any violence has to be condemned.
But of course, as you are against religion in general, you would favour nationalism. I only ask you one question. Why choose the man-made division of nation, why not state, continent etc? For a person who believes in any religion, ant truly believes in it, this is a difficult question. You only quoted statistics for Pakistan and other Islamic countries. I'd be interested to see them for countries such as Argentina, or statistics for Christians who regularly attend a Church.
Honestly, please give me links to articles related to honour killings. I am yet to see one.
You speak about the ratio of Muslims to Non-Muslims in Muslim countries. This is quite clearly very high in most countries because they declare themselves to be Muslim countries. Most other countries call themselves secular. Also, countries which have high diversity are those which have either been melting pots for centuries or which attract substantial migration. In some countries, these ratios are not that high, where immigration is a major factor, such as the UAE. However, you completely missed my point on this one. I asked you if cultural diversity is a bad thing, as this is the ultimate result of migration. And to add to that, if it is so, then any migration, not just of Muslims is a problem. The recent activities of the MNS highlight that even intra-national migration causes problems. So, people should simply live where they are born? How much can they move. As the recent Telangana agitation right here shows, even intra-state migration is causing problems. How much should the movement of humans be controlled?
As far as the Israel-Palestine conflict is concerned, the only thing that shocked me was your willingness for a war to continue due to the fear of the unknown. It is sad that the west simply ignores the occupation of the land. But as they have more power today, their word goes.
You skipped the point on freedom of speech. You have to agree that no country allows COMPLETE freedom of speech. Each country draws the line at different points. How can you say where the line truly lies? It can only be an opinion.
Ya, and I read some of your other articles. You write well! Truly agree with the one on chicken! Poor vegetarians!
Also, can this dialogue be made public, preferably on your blog, as mine is not really an active one, so that people can get both points of view.
Looking forward to your reply,
Mohammed Mudassar
There was a point about ghettos I forgot to make yesterday. Coincidentally, I came across this article today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8413795.stm
Again, I shall explain to you, the Sharia law in itself may or may not be bad. But, that is NOT the point. The point is, today in countries like France, Belgium, Pakistan etc… the Sharia law is by far a hideous law. It is an atrocious ordeal with no respect for human dignity.
Hmmm, can we compare the democracy in Iran and the democracy in India? Your call.
“As far as criminal law goes, no western country is implementing it”?
I beg to differ. The Sharia law is being pushed for in many countries. In Indonesia girls live in fear and cannot wear tight clothes and there are constant policemen ensuring these. In Somalia, the President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed had to give in to the insurgents fir the implementation of the Sharia in the region. Its not just the Taliban. There are so many such organizations who want the Sharia to be implemented. In case of a divorce the child has to be with the father, the woman has to pay money to the husband, women forced into marriage as young as 13 yrs old. For, in sharia, the rights of the man supersede the rights of the woman. I can go on with countless examples like this.
Religious laws may be harsh from a modern point of view? Laws such as the Sharia are harsh and intolerable from any point of view. I certainly could not bear the sight of a small kid’s hand being broken for stealing a loaf of bread. Can you? Where is the respect for human life then?
“So clearly the people who acted in Denmark, acted against Islam.”
Here lies the point. A lot of people are acting against Islam. A really lot. We have wars being waged under the name of Islam. How do you expect me not to take the case of the Taliban when organizations like the Taliban are killing millions? Again, your religious passion has blinded what I am trying to say. Try and understand dude, its NOT ISLAM. I don’t have a problem with the religion. But, I do have a problem with so many of them manipulating the religion and today we have a majority of them who have succumbed to such manipulation owing to unemployment and to a large extent, the fanaticism of a minority people who abhor the west.
As for Sharia being implemented in the Civil level, in Britain we have what is known as the Sharia courts especially for the Muslims. (Why have a separate court when you have one for every other religion?) These courts decisions are legal and binding. They are considered as tribunal hearings and it overrides the national law. One cannot repeal the decision given by these courts. Also, I would like you to also read up on the division of property as far as the Sharia is concerned. I’ll leave that for you to read.
The sharia courts operating in Britain, will hear and pass legally binding judgment on cases involving divorce, financial disputes, and even domestic violence. But, it will not end there. According to the Daily Mail, sharia court officials have said, that they hope, “[…] to take over growing numbers of 'smaller' criminal cases in future,” and extremist clerics have already asserted their aims to establish sharia law for everyone in Britain. Here is a video for you to watch. Please watch it with an open mind ;
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1683635.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
Highlighted points :
For example, during the year 2002 in Pakistan, it is estimated that 245 women and 137 men were killed in the name of Karo-kari in Sindh. These killings target women and men who choose to have relationships outside of their family's tribal affiliation and/or religious community.
There is some evidence that homosexuality can also be perceived as grounds for honor killing by relatives. In one case, a gay Jordanian man who was shot and wounded by his brother.[5] In another case, a homosexual Turkish student, Ahmet Yildiz, was shot outside a cafe and later died in the hospital. Sociologists have called this Turkey's first publicized gay honor killing.[
A recent phenomenon of Honor suicides occurs in Turkey. There have been many cases when people order or pressure a woman to kill herself; this may be done so that the people avoid penalties for murdering her. A special envoy for the United Nations named Yakin Erturk, who was sent to Turkey to investigate suspicious suicides amongst Kurdish girls, was quoted by The New York Times as saying that some suicides appeared in Kurdish-inhabited regions of Turkey to be "honour killings disguised as a suicide or an accident."[8][9]
Over 80 Iraqi women in Diyala province committed suicide, to escape the shame of having been raped. They choose to become suicide bombers to escape the shame; startlingly, their rapes were planned in advance by 51 year old Iraqi woman Samira Jassim, who confessed to Iraqi police that she organized their rapes so she could later persuade each of them that to become a suicide bomber was the only way to escape their shame.[10][11] [12]
"The report of the Special Rapporteur ... concerning cultural practices in the family that are violent towards women (E/CN.4/2002/83), indicated that honour killings had been reported in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Yemen, and other Mediterranean and Persian Gulf countries, and that they had also taken place in western countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, within migrant communities."
PLEASE NOTE MIGRANT COMMUNITIES.
Europe
In 2005 Der Spiegel magazine reports: 'In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members', and goes on to cover the case of Hatun Sürücü - killed by her brother for not staying with her husband of forced marriage, but of 'living like a German'. Precise statistics on how many women die every year in such honor killings are hard to come by, as many crimes are never reported, said Myria Boehmecke of the Tuebingen-based women's group Terre des Femmes which, among other things, tries to protect Muslim girls and women from oppressive families. The Turkish women's organization Papatya has documented 40 instances of honor killings in Germany since 1996.[17][18]
Hatun Sürücü's brother and murderer, was convicted of murder and jailed for nine years and three months by a German court in 2006.[19]
In March 2009, Turkish immigrant Gülsüm S. was killed for a relationship outside her family's plan for an arranged marriage.[20]
Every year in the UK, a dozen women are victims of honor killings, occurring almost exclusively to date within Asian and Middle Eastern families[21] and often cases are unresolved due to the unwillingness of family, relatives and communities to testify. A 2006 BBC poll for the Asian network in the UK found that 1 in 10 of the 500 young Asians polled said that they could condone the murder of someone who dishonored their family[22] In the UK, in December 2005, Nazir Afzal, Director, West London, of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, stated that the United Kingdom has seen "at least a dozen honour killings" between 2004 and 2005.[23] While precise figures do not exist for the perpetrators' cultural backgrounds, Diana Nammi of the UK's Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation is reported to have said:"about two-thirds are Muslim. Yet they can also be Hindu, Sikh and even eastern European."[24]
Another well known case was of Heshu Yones, who was stabbed to death by her father in London in 2002, when her family heard a love song dedicated to her and suspected she had a boyfriend.[25] Another girl suffered a similar fate in Turkey.[
Actually read the whole article. No point in copying and pasting everything. If you want more links, more sources, more proof I would be happy to flood you with LOADS of them. I have read around 8 of them. If you want more brutality, mail me.
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2250-UK-Muslim-Honor-Killing-Wife-Daughters-Burned-Alive.html
At least most countries call themselves secular, why do we have countries who are non secular? Why is there no tolerance to other religions? IS there a need for an Islamic republic? Let me take the examples of Parsis. Parsi people are from Persian Iran. Today, how many Parsis live in Iran? Why don’t you find out. Most of them have been forced into conversion or have fled from a country which does not tolerate other religions. As for freedom of speech, every country has to OBVIOUSLY draw a line. But a distinction can be made whether that line is to not speak at all. For example, in China bloggers like me are controlled and regulated. In Iran, an Islamic blogger was killed for his views against Sharia. (Which also makes me wonder my chances of survival!)
I did not understand the pertinence of the Telgana or the MNS issue.
Thank you for the encouragement on other articles :P
P.S. As of now are you from A.P or Telgana? Ha ha.
In referral with the article you sent me : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8413795.stm
“In the Netherlands recent controversies like the assassination of the film-maker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist have "convulsed public opinion". Muslims, it says, have "become scapegoats for public anxieties over security"
These attacks by EXTREMISTS are bound to instill fear in the common public. Also, I am against people who carry out these attacks where your freedom of speech is curbed.
“Among Muslims surveyed, 61% have a strong sense of belonging to the country”
So, you do agree that belongingness to one’s country (nationalism) is important. Look at the ratios here, only 61% of normal Muslims have that spirit.
Want to type more but will wait for your reply.
The Telangana and MNS issues are quite clearly relevant. They are quite simply problems caused by migration on a smaller scale. It is clear that migration of any kind does cause some friction. How much can the movement of people be controlled? You say that the migration of Muslims into Europe is dangerous. Yet the problems I mentioned are far more violent (having been witness to one myself).
And for the record, I am from Telangana. While this is deviating from the issue, I am really not sure if it should be a separate state. I think that it is true that the people of Telangana have been suppressed to a degree by the people from Andhra. However, whether this needs a separate state is questionable in my opinion. Perhaps fair and just treatment to all communities is an answer, though this is rare in the real world.
As far as belonging to a country is concerned, I have already made my views clear on this. It is important. But I really do wonder how important it is and why it alone is important? (Even from a non-religious point of view). If anyone discriminates on a basis such as race, region, community etc., it is totally unacceptable, but for nationality, it is patriotism. Even if you say that the nation is important as it is the source of Law, what about situations where a part of a nation feels suppressed, such as the earlier case of East Pakistan, or the more modern case of Kosovo. Where should your loyalty lie as an East Pakistani or a Kosovan, to your region or to your nation?
As far as whether a country should be theocratic, it is really up to the people who govern that country. A sovereign region should retain the right to decide what it does and what it wants to be. Of course, certain people may not like it, but that is the respect given to sovereignty. If people simply started attacking people because they did not like what others believed, I shudder to think what the state of the world would be like. Again you single out Islamic nations, there are Christian nations, like the Vatican, by your argument, it should be secular too. And then there is the only Jewish nation, Israel as well as the only Hindu nation, Nepal.
On an unrelated note, you used the word Zeitgeist in the first paragraph of your original article. Have you seen the documentary of the same name? Though I may not necessarily agree with the views expressed in it, I thought it was worth a watch.
I haven't watched the video yet. I will watch it tomorrow before replying. However, I must say that it is extremely unlikely that Britain would adopt Sharia law for criminal cases. You however did not reply to my point that ultimately, the low crime rated of Sharia show its effectiveness.
You speak about comparing the democracies of India and Iran. Well, being an Indian, there are many things in India I am not too happy about. If we go by pure numbers, the Human Development Index of Iran is 0.782, far greater than India's 0.612. Iran's per capita income is more than four times that of India. I do not know how you judge governments, but if we go by effectiveness, well, you can take a call. Yet again, you single out Iran. Like I said, you could do a similar comparison of Turkey and Zimbabwe.
You say that the point is not about the quality of Sharia Law. But that is precisely the point. I have more to say as well. I will write it later today. Awaiting your reply.
Muslim Belief
This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well-known leader in the prison ministry.
The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the United States, especially amongst the minority races!!!
Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their beliefs.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.
After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.
When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: 'Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?' There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, 'Non-believers!'
I responded, 'So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?'
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.'
He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.'
I then stated, 'Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith, or Dr. Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!'
The Imam was speechless!
I continued, 'I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me!
Let me ask you a question: Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?'
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the Diversification training seminar were not happy with my way of dealing with the Islamic Imam, and exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President!
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
@Anon: I really find it hard to believe you. If what you are saying is true, the so-called Imam really lacked knowledge.
"I responded, 'So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?'"
That is absolutely false. If you want to verify you can check the first few verses of the ninth chapter of the Holy Quran. These verses speak of a treaty between the Muslims and the non-Muslims of the time of Prophet Muhammad. This treaty was unilaterally broken by the non-Muslims, eventually leading to a war. It is in the context of this war that the verse {9:5) is referred to. Mischievous people often quote this verse out of context. The greatness of Islam can be understood by reading the very next verse. The two verses say,
"
5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah, and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
"
You also said holy Jihad. And mentioned holy war in []. Let me clarify. First, Jihad DOES NOT MEAN WAR. If you know Urdu, you would have probably heard of the term jadd-o-jahad, which comes from the Arabic Jihad. Both mean STRUGGLE, not WAR. Jihad can me taken to mean any struggle to improve yourself as a Muslim, to take your faith to greater heights. It includes various aspects of life, from a simple thing such as striving to be a better human being, to something which is frequently misinterpreted, self-defense in the face of aggression.
@ Anonymous : We need to understand that not all Imams are like that. An Imam is a peace bringer and the one who unifies people. However, the case you have quoted is a classic example of an Imam manipulating what the verses have to say. The sad part is that there are quite a few like them who are using this is a tool for manipulation for their own vested interests.
@ Mudassar :Let us take the issue of Telgana. Why should Telgana not be offered a separate state? Is it because other regions would ask for separate states as well? If so, then what is wrong with that? Why can’t we have separate states which will improve and increase the efficiency of the administration of the people? After all, the Telgana region has been secluded from the overall growth of AP and just like Eastern India it is a very much neglected area in AP. Let us forget my views here. I am asking why you would not prefer it?
Also, you speak about migration. I have no problems with migration but I do have problems with immigration and especially if that immigration is going to wreck havoc in the immigrated country.
Shall we compare the Islamic republics to the other religious countries? You know which one will be greater. I have watched the documentary Zeitgeist and I believe in what it says. Especially when it comes to religion and America. Let us not get started on America as we both know it’s a corrupt nation.
However, religion to me is a manufactured man made institution. You can read my article on religion and the debate that followed in my blog under the label Karl Marx.
The Sharia law propagates fear. One lives in constant fear with the implementation of the Sharia law. Could you please read my entire comments on the Sharia. I need to know whether you approve of the Sharia or you do not. I never doubt the quality of the Sharia law. I KNOW that the Sharia law is the WORST law one can have in a country. How can you justify the methods of punishments in the Sharia? How can a non-Muslim be judged in a country that follows the Sharia? I want you to answer to these question along with all the other questions that I have asked you previously and watch the video AND read about the manner of honor killings. Time for an eye opener, buddy. A REAL BIG ONE.
In referral to your comments
against Anonymous :
5. “….but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. “
These lines make me wonder regular prayers and practices of the perpetrators own religion or for the Muslim religion. For if you want the perpetrator of the crime to pray for the Muslim religion and only then he will be forgiven, it makes a world of a difference.
6. Listen to the word of Allah and Pagan men are without knowledge? How can you say that?
Interesting. Awaiting your reply to ALL my questions.
What is the difference between immigration and migration? It is again the superiority of the concept of 'nation' compared to all other divisions created by mankind.
With regards to Telangana, the only reason I feel it should not be created is that it is bound to have a domino effect. Each new state also requires serious administrative reform, the costs for which are approximately 1 lakh crores. If all wannabe states are formed, the government would need to spend almost 10 lakh crore rupees, money I feel can be better spent.
You say that Sharia is the worst law. You say that people live in fear. Yes, but fear of what? Fear of committing a crime. Isn't that a good thing? About the methods of punishment, like I have said before, religious methods of punishment are much harsher than most modern ones. How can you justify any punishment or say that a particular punishment is the most appropriate? Perceptions have evolved over time and will continue to evolve. The only way I can think of to judge law is its effectiveness in preventing crime. You ask how a non-Muslim can be judged in a Muslim country following Sharia. If you are in any country, you follow the laws of that country. You do not ask why a non-American is subject to American laws in America. The case is the same. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to watch the video. I did read the article however and the response to the right was pretty appropriate in my opinion. And with regards to the Quranic verses, I am not saying them. In any case, with regard to the second verse, Pagan men are without knowledge. Not worldly knowledge, but as in that they do not know the true religion as such. And the first one, I am not too sure, but I think it has to do with Prisoners of War. I repeat again that I am not sure, but as I understand it, they are not kept as prisoners of war in the former case.
Yes I know I haven't replied to all your questions. I have been quite busy and will post a more comprehensive response in a few days time.
How can you justify modes of punishment? You have a point here but then you don’t see the context of the question. The Sharia law is one that speaks about punishments extensively and harsh ones a that. A law should speak about methods of redemption, justice and mercy. In my opinion a law formulated by people is in consensus with a majority and people accept it. The option of a consensus and scope for amendments exist in such a law made by the people for the people. On the other hand, the Sharia law is a proscribed law that only preaches brutality and barbarianism. How can you meet out such harsh laws for a child who just stole a loaf of bread?
As for the verses and my questions, a well educated student like you finds it difficult to answer such a question. I just want you to take a moment and realize what about millions of people who are uneducated and even the minority if educated, have the inability to rationally analyse? Are not such people raw meat to various fanatics who can manipulate them? Just think about it very carefully. I want you to actually look away, close your eyes and think of the plight of people who do not receive quality education like you and me. Also, how can you say that Pagan men have only worldly knowledge and do not have knowledge about religion? What makes you to come to such a conclusion?
I will respond in more detail later today. But I have two quick points to make:
Even though I am reasonably well educated as far as formal education is concerned, my knowledge of Islam is not as great. Yes, people can be manipulated and have been manipulated by people of various religions. But most people, however uneducated have a basic sense of right and wrong. You don't need to receive formal education to say that killing an innocent person is wrong.
And about Pagan men, consider it from the point of view of a religion X. Let R be the set of all religions. A person from X would feel that a person from any religion belonging to any other religion Y, where Y belongs to R - {X}, does not have true knowledge of religion, or to put it differently, knowledge of the true religion.
I disagree with you to a great extent. Lets take Kasab's example. Do you think he would not know killing is a bad thing? For him, it is considered a good deed. Tomorrow if we were to give mercy on Kasab, he would just kill more people. Simply because for him, killing is the right way to live and the ONLY way to reach god. The point of a basic sense of right and wrong does not arise. For him the right thing is to kill. I suggest you watch a beautiful national award winning Tamil movie called Kannathil Muthamittal directed by Mani Ratnam. Catch kids when they are young and indoctrinate them. People dont know to make a clear distinction between right and wrong because they are indoctrinated as to what to do, what to believe and what to think.
As for your example with X and Y, nice try to get me trapped into a complex Mathematical situation! ha ha. But on a serious note, is it not wrong to denounce other religions? How can you say Pagan men are non religious and uneducated? Is that not an offence in itself? Besides, the Muslim religion came after the Pagan one and if the Pagans were dumb (according to you) then how can the Muslim teachings (which is a stem of Paganism) be considered superior?
Will wait for your reply to ALL my questions.
Hey, I will reply soon. I haven't been too well for a while. I need some rest. Will reply as soon as I am better.
Apologies for the delay.
First off, the reply to your last post.
OK. Let us assume that everyone is a blank slate when they are born. They only learn good and evil as what they are taught. This is what you claim. If this is indeed the case, then would there be any such thing as good and evil. “Catch kids when they are young and indoctrinate them.” In such a case everyone has been indoctrinated with something. I remember a rather ominous dialogue from Harry Potter, "There is no good and evil, there is only power...and those too weak to seek it." Dangerous! I believe that there is some universal morality, though I do not how to prove it, because I believe the alternative would have resulted in a far more violent world (as man is inherently greedy) where everyone seeks their own gain.
It wasn't my intention to trap you in a Mathematical situation. I use Mathematics because it is clear and unambiguous. But you missed my point again. How is it denouncing to say that? All I said was that a person x of religion X would assume that a person y of religion Y did not have the knowledge of the true religion, because x believes that X is correct. I also used Mathematics to avoid individual religions and to make the fact clear that this is true of all religions.
Coming to back to the rest of the discussion:
For the sake of clarity, I will present it in a Q&A format. In the end, I will list my questions or points that you haven't answered to.
Your Questions
Q. Why does Sharia proscribe harsh punishments?
A. To deter crime. Aren't the crime rates in Islamic countries proof enough of the fact? The statistics on murders on: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita are one such example.
Q. How can a non-Muslim be judged in a country that follows the Sharia?
A. In the same way a Brazilian is judged in India under Indian Law. If you are in a particular country, you follow the law of the land.
Q. Shall we compare the Islamic republics to the other religious countries?
A. Sure, we can. You say, “You know which one will be greater.” What on Earth do you mean by “greater” here? Only then can I compare.
Q. Why I don't prefer Telangana?
A. I am not entirely in favour or against it. Living in Hyderabad, and studying at OU, this has been an irritant too long. It is no more than a political issue. There are good points on both sides. But, this is straying too far from the main debate.
Q. Why not consider the Talibani interpretation?
A. By the way, you write, “you are blinded by your religious passion”. Let me make it clear that though I am a Muslim, I am a very liberal one. I was appalled by your defamation of Islam and thus sought to defend it. It is much easier for me to simply defame other religions by not just quoting incidents, but quoting from scriptures. It is in the interest of society not to do so. Clearly, the various efforts of people promoting Islam as peaceful and merciful have not reached you. I am not here to invite you to it. You can only see one side of Islam. You do not know me personally and may think so. However, I must make it clear that you have made far too many such general statements. This was not an answer, but a rant I had to make. Such statements sometimes make me doubt your intentions. Coming to your question. Yes, the Taliban call themselves Muslims. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most, their actions are completely against Islam. Their ideology has nothing to do with Islam, which is nothing but a convenient political excuse. If you want to judge Islam by the actions of the Taliban, I cannot help you. I can only ask you to look at other Muslims and open your eyes.
My Questions
You made the ridiculous statement: “I KNOW that the Sharia law is the WORST law one can have in a country.” Does this sort of statement hold any value in a logical debate? Using Caps to emphasize this is even more puzzling. Do you think that Caps will add value to a statement that has none?
What is the difference between immigration and migration? Why are the two so radically different from your point of view? To quote myself, “Even if you say that the nation is important as it is the source of Law, what about situations where a part of a nation feels suppressed, such as the earlier case of East Pakistan, or the more modern case of Kosovo. Where should your loyalty lie as an East Pakistani or a Kosovan, to your region or to your nation?”
Honor Killings: I have read the article. I was not aware of this before. Clearly this is a cross-cultural phenomenon with a majority of Muslims involved. Like I have said before, do not judge Islam by the actions of a few Muslims. Can you provide an authentic Islamic source that asks people to act in such a manner? No. Then why blame Islam?
You say that religion is a man-made institution. You are free to choose. But then how would you explain good and evil?
Which democracy do you think does a better job? One that is seen as more restrictive in rights, but provides a better standard of living, or vice versa?
The video has a well-written response on the side. I don't think I have much to add to it.
You quoted Nick Griffin as a source. If you have heard him and members of his BNP speak, I really hope you don't agree with his views.
I have recently recovered from a long illness. I may have missed points of yours. I would try to reply to them next time. It would be convenient for me if you could list your questions.
Jihad in Europe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S0j8WZvYIs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFuJz0hA5rc
Well, this article created a lot of heat huh.
A Muslim friend at work made a comment the other day: lately, there seem to be more open followers of the Islamic faith, more religious fervor.
I gave it a thought. And I think I figured it out, it's all these fingers pointing at you, that creates thirst and incites learning.
I mean, if you were walking on the road, and someone went: "OMG a Hindu terrorist" or said to you, there are a lot of Hindu terrorists.. you'd want to know, if the religion was connected to the terrorism or not. If you don't know, you can't defend it. And knowing means, following. It's the teachers that make the difference.
Aga Khan to the Ayatollah, they are the interpreters of the religion. And they make the difference, between one Sharia Court to another.
Adi you are right, the religion is spreading. Increasingly, the more open minded cultures are adapting their existing legal framework and cultural framework to accommodate a different faith, a different way.
The ones more threatened, for example, the India that the BJP envisions is fighting back. People of the Islamic faith like Mudassar are pushing back too, against ignorance- perceived or otherwise, to right the wrongs the world believes.
If you feel that Islamic imperialism is inevitable or rather the spread is inevitable, then it will be these mediators that will make the difference. In survivor speak, they are the swing votes. And it is heartening indeed, to see him making the effort to challenge and change.
This is the sort of dialogue that needs to be happening at a world stage and sadly I think, we've all sunk back to the usage of stereotypes. It's just easier.
Adi: Loved this article. I think by now you know which side of the fence I am. And ha ha I understand your confusion now, this article was tilted in Palestine's favor.The video was the icing.
And I echo your sentiment: this war looks like it can go on forever. But right now, I firmly believe that Israel is the one with the power to make it better.
Fix the Palestinian cause, and gain the favor of the moderates like Egypt. But both you and I know, they won't take a step in the right direction. And that is indeed unfortunate.
For Mudassar: A lot of the Shariah Laws, and subsequent punishments are very similar if not the same as the Book of Leviticus, Old Testament.
Which is not surprising since Nabi Isa, is a messenger of Allah as well and the foundations of both the religions are essentially the same.
There is no reason to look at the two differently, especially since the Prophet integrated them, successfully. Adi's only point was, that in enforcing the Shariah's laws strictly, as any country that wants to welcome diversity will need to, they are being accommodating to changing their own laws.
And this is like, say... adding one more national language to the existing list.. so all govt docs will need to be printed in english, hindi and fr eg, french.
And that is the power or the spread of Islam. And unfortunately, not everyone is a moderate. I'm not Islamic or Christian. And unfortunately, with the spate of bad publicity that the religion has been receiving, thanks to the deranged few hundred thousands: this spread of Islam can be a bad thing.
At no point though, is the religion or any religion ever bad. Well, unless we're talking about the sort that kills people to make voodoo dolls out of them.
Post a Comment