Islamism & Islamophobia Abroad - News & Analysis

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Dec 2011 21:29

I like the term sham-secularism. Pseudo-secularism doesnt have the zing to it.

meanwhile

Philip wrote:Iran would much prefer the Iraqi card in its hand thatn the Baluchi.Shiite dominated Iraq,with the famous of Shiite holy shrines located in it,plus its oil wealth is a far greater prize than Baluchistan.......

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 10 Dec 2011 00:21

Mush rat and Fareed Jakaria are among House Ns.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Dec 2011 17:55

Posting in full
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/02/non- ... -the-west/

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovering Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.

The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.

In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.

In the name of distinguishing the enemy from Muslims who mean us no harm, far too many Western commentators have avoided using the name “Islam” for the enemy’s ideology, and instead have decided to create their very own terms for the threat we’re facing, terms that are alien to the enemy. Terms such as:

Totalitarian Islam.

Islamic Fundamentalism.

Islamic Extremism.

Totalitarian Islam.

Islamofascism.

Islamonazism.

Political Islam.

Bin Ladenism.

Radical Islam.

Militant Islam.

Islamism.

Jihadism.

We didn’t use terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them.

And it’s no accident that Western analysts of Islam who are most informed about Islam are also most critical of it, while those least informed are least critical. But then there are those who, in their study of Islam, have become so enamored with their subject that, instead of sticking to what Islam is, they often write about what it isn’t, what they hope it might be. They seem preoccupied with doing their part to save Islam from those who have allegedly corrupted it.

The Muslim world is where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice. Islam – not any alleged deviant form of it – means misogyny, censorship, anti-Semitism, homophobia, wife-beatings, beheadings, honor killings, pedophilia/“child marriages”, murdering infidels, etc. This is evil, and Islam sanctions every bit of it, but we’ve been told that we must respect “one of the world’s great religions” because it’s a religion. Following 9/11, the only thing George W. Bush knew about Islam was that it was a religion, and that apparently was a good enough reason for him to exonerate it as he did. And his advisor on Islam, David Forte, told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, that “Nothing this evil could come from religion.” But 9/11 did come from a religion. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was an act of faith.

And Bush saying “Islam is peace” shortly after 9/11 gave the enemy a gift they couldn’t have foreseen. Here was the one man who was charged to defend America from their attack and here he was defending the very ideology that motivated the attackers. Honesty is the best policy in general, and when it comes to war, it’s a moral imperative to find out the truth, to tell the truth and to act on the truth, no matter what sacred cow is killed in the process. And so a big part of why nearly 3,000 victims of jihad on 9/11 haven’t been avenged is because of respect for religion, even for a religion that calls for our destruction.

Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc. And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least.

I often hear that we should be working with the Muslim world. Working towards what? As Ayn Rand writes, “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” Any time we spend “working” with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction, consciously or not.

While it’s true that jihadists don’t represent most Muslims, they do represent Islam. But then why don’t most Muslims engage in jihad? Like in any culture, heroes are a small minority, and that goes for Islamic culture as well. The jihadists are Islam’s heroes; they are the ones most dedicated to following Allah’s commands and they’re celebrated in the Muslim world for it. They are also the only ones to whom Islam guarantees paradise. And their rarity was made even clearer when we learned that only the pilots of 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. Our enemy knows that it’s tough to get even hardcore Muslims to sacrifice their lives for Islam, but they don’t want us to know that. Just as they don’t want us to know that behind their boast that they love death is the fact that they hate life.

And while Muslims who blow themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims are a small minority, Muslims who would explicitly condemn them are an even smaller minority. And while I think that Muslims are mere sheep to their Jihadist wolves, there are also too many Muslim cheerleaders for jihad. How many Muslims celebrated 9/11? Far too many. Even in my own lax Muslim upbringing in America, there was an omnipresent anti-Semitism and misogyny. Some members of my family admired Adolph Hitler, who I refer to as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel.” Regarding misogyny, the birth of a girl became a day of mourning for Muslim women in my family; they understood the suffering this girl would endure under Islam, even in America.

Though we say we’ve been at war for over ten years, we haven’t even begun to fight the war the way we should be fighting it. And those calling for a change within Islam during this war would be surprised at how much Islam can be changed through an honest war on our behalf. You can’t make a violent religion like Islam non-violent by argument, only by greater retaliatory force against state sponsors of jihad terrorism.

The future of Islam and the well-being of Muslims is said to be of importance to us. Post – 9/11, the defense of our culture, our values, our very lives has been optional, but our defense of Islam has been absolute. It began with Bush’s “Islam is peace” and it continues with Obama, who said in his Submission Speech in Egypt in 2009, in front of members of The Muslim Brotherhood, “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt the same about America.

We can’t be both for Islam and for ourselves. This enemy is fully on their own side and fully against us and they’ve made themselves believe that they’re the good guys and that we’re the bad guys, and our actions have done nothing but turn their hatred of us into an ever-deepening contempt. Before we see the enemy for what it is, we need to see ourselves for what we are. Only then can we, with full moral conviction, make them pay for what they’ve done and move us towards victory.

Our problem is not “Islamophobia”, but Islamophilia. It is this uncritical, uninformed, absolute defense of Islam by Western elites after 9/11 that I refer to as Islamgate. It’s a scandal for the ages that few involved would ever admit to being part of.

I care about the truth. I care about Western Civilization. I care about myself, my loved ones and my friends. I care about Iife. And that’s why I don’t care about Islam. Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of the Muslim world has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “The Muslim World” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s Big Lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or even guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of that, as they do of all of the policies our morally vain politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well-being at the enemy’s expense for a change.

We’ve tried everything since 9/11 except real war. War is the answer to Jihad.

So who cares about Islam? Muslims, Jihadists, Islamophiles, Leftists who naturally side with anti-American ideologies, guilt-ridden fellow travelers who think America is usually in the wrong, and religionists who believe any religion is better than none. But since Leftists and Islamophiles usually know very little about Islam, who truly cares about Islam? Those who are at war with us.

In the end, I care about Islam and the Muslim world as much as the Muslim world cares about America and the West. This is war. We can’t be on both sides. I’m not rooting for Islam or the Muslim world.

I’m rooting for us.

arun · Post by **arun** » 11 Dec 2011 14:33

Green on Green violence in the self -named Land of the Pure otherwise known as Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In the Khyber Agency of that country, the more pure Mohammaddens attack shrines of presumably less pure Mohammaddens by dynamiting one shrine and setting fire to another.

Will this incident bring out the Islamic Rage boys onto the streets? I somehow think that is not very likely:

Extremists pull down two shrines in Khyber

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 12 Dec 2011 21:55

A Religion of Peace? Islam and Support for Political Violence

C. Christine Fair , Neil A. Malhotra, Jacob N. Shapiro

December, 11 2011

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1971037

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cf ... 37&mirid=1

Our findings have at least two important practical implications. First, efforts to deal with the potential for violence in Islamist political movements should focus on the content of religious doctrine. In this sense, nascent programs in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia that seek to enlist religious scholars in deconstructing and delegitimizing the theological justifications for violent politics should be welcomed and supported. Second, the prospect of Islamist parties coming to power in the wake of the Arab Spring should not necessarily be viewed with alarm. It is only when the theological tradition embraced by party leaders legitimizes the use of non-state violence for political ends that policy makers in other countries should be concerned.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 12 Dec 2011 22:39

wow....the above is the narrowest possible definition of what constitutes "concern". in reality, the real "concern" is with the theologians' ability to incubate their radicalism for long periods of time before unleashing their agenda openly. by the above definition, the Taqyia factor is not even considered. another "analysis" to pull wool over non-muslim eyes...

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Dec 2011 02:37

Doesn't quite fit here, but where else to put it?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/24/macl ... mia-bloom/
Female suicide bombers.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Dec 2011 03:39

A-Gupta by putting women behind:non-muslims (can convert), slaves (can become free), male children(can grow up) Muhammad did a great disservice. In essence he froze societal, misogynist attitudes towards women.

A masochistic, egocentric, tribal society that thought the world revolves round it became empowerd and frozen. They think they tell the women and the world what to do. They don't have to have understanding or compassion.

In the whole history of the Muslim age in India the only odd and enlightened figures are Baaz Bahadur, Muhammad Quli Qutub Shah and Shah Jehan all of whom had monuments and works named after women.

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 13 Dec 2011 22:43

Who is a witch in Saudi Arabia?
Anyone The Anti-Witchcraft unit of religious say is a witch, there is no legal definition

In yet another reminder that the phrase "witch hunts" isn't only used figuratively these days, the Saudi Interior Ministry announced on Monday that it had beheaded a woman named Amina bint Abdul Halim bin Salem Nasser for practicing "witchcraft and sorcery." The London-based al-Hayat newspaper, citing the chief of the religious police who arrested the woman after a report from a female investigator, claims Nasser was tricking people into paying $800 per session to have their illnesses cured.

So, how did Saudi authorities prove Nasser was a witch? The government hasn't gone into detail, but a look at the kingdom's past witchcraft cases suggests the bar for proving someone guilty isn't very high. Witch hunting is fairly institutionalized in Saudi Arabia, with the country's religious police running an Anti-Witchcraft Unit and a sorcery hotline to combat practices like astrology and fortune telling that are considered un-Islamic.

But institutionalized is not the same thing as codified. A top official in the Kingdom's Ministry of Justice told Human Rights Watch in 2008 that there is no legal definition for witchcraft (Saudi Arabia doesn't have a penal code) or specific body of evidence that has probative value in witchcraft trials.

Instead, judges have wide latitude in interpreting Sharia law and sentencing suspected criminals. And Amnesty International claims these judges use witchcraft charges to arbitrarily "punish people, generally after unfair trials, for exercising their right to freedom of speech or religion." A Human Rights Watch researcher tells The Media Line that foreigners in particular are often the targets of sorcery accusations because of their traditional practices or, occasionally, because Saudi men facing charges of sexual harassment by domestic workers want to discredit their accusers.

The evidence arrayed against witchcraft suspects typically revolves around statements from accusers and suspicious personal belongings that suggest the supernatural, in a country where superstition is still widespread. In 2006, for example, an Eritrean national was imprisoned and lashed hundreds of times for "charlatanry" after prosecutors argued that his leather-bound personal phone booklet with writings in the Tigrinya alphabet was a "talisman."

There's evidence that the cases may involve coerced confessions and miscarriages of justice as well. Human Rights Watch chronicles the plight of an illiterate Saudi woman named Fawza Falih who was beaten, forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read, tried without a lawyer, and sentenced to death for "witchcraft, recourse to jinn [supernatural beings], and slaughter" of animals after a man accused Falih of rendering him impotent and authorities found a "foul-smelling substance," a white robe with money inside it, and another robe hanging from a tree in or near her home.

The most prominent witchcraft case came in 2008, when a Saudi court slapped a death sentence on Ali Sabat, a Lebanese television personality on a religious pilgrimage to Medina, for making psychic predictions on a Lebanon-based satellite channel (the picture above shows Lebanese human rights activists fashioning a mock gallows outside the Saudi embassy in Beirut to demand Sabat's release). Sabat's lawyer told NPR that the Saudi religious police arrested Sabat after recognizing him from television and pressured him to confess to violating Islam if he hoped to return to Lebanon (his confession landed him a beheading instead, though the Saudi Supreme Court eventually freed Sabat after ruling that his actions hadn't harmed anyone).

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... udi_arabia

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 14 Dec 2011 09:55

Canada bans the burqa (for the citizenship ceremony) !!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 102523.cms

One of the best comments - really an all-time classic - goes as follows:

The Muslims are not happy!
They're not happy in Gaza.
They're not happy in Egypt.
They're not happy in Libya.
They're not happy in Morocco.
They're not happy in Iran.
They're not happy in Iraq.
They're not happy in Yemen.
They're not happy in Afghanistan.
They're not happy in Pakistan.
They're not happy in Syria.
They're not happy in Lebanon.

So, where are they happy?
They're happy in Australia.
They're happy in England.
They're happy in France.
They're happy in Italy.
They're happy in Germany.
They're happy in Sweden.
They're happy in the USA.
They're happy in Norway.

They're happy in every country that is not Muslim. And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves. THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN! AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY. Excuse me, but How dumb can you get

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Dec 2011 15:49

Withdrawing ads from a reality show about Muslims.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/ano ... 08989.html

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 15 Dec 2011 20:18

Shiv, fabulous posting about Islamophobia/Islamophilia. But notice a tiny, little, miniscule omission? India, Hinduism, idolatory. How could that have possibly missed the attention of this highly intelligent, incisive commentator? It's baffling how people who are otherwise well informed and articulate leave out one of the Islamists major victims. Because that would _strengthen_ their case. Actually, more than strengthen it. Make it absolutely conclusive. It's almost there as it is.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 16 Dec 2011 07:40

Egypt's future is looking bright.
Egyptian Sheikh: A woman's face is like a vagina

A Salafist Sheikh in Egypt says a woman’s face is like a vagina.

“What is a veil? A veil is what covers the woman’s face. Therefore the woman’s face is like her vagina,” Sheik Abou Ishak al-Houwayni was quoted on the Elaph news website as saying.

His remarks were in reference to a discussion of the late Egyptian feminist, Hoda Shaarawi, who became the first woman to publicly remove her veil in a Cairo train station in 1923.

Houwayni is essentially arguing that the reason a woman’s face should be fully covered is because, like a vagina, it attracts men and sometimes women.

Original Arabic source report

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Dec 2011 06:36

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/austr ... ealth.html
Australians warned about Islamic "jihad by stealth

He said: “Muslims constitute the first immigrant group with a notion of ‘superior governance’ to the existing society of the host country. They see it as a ‘divine responsibility’ to emigrate — just as Mohammed moved from Mecca to Medina — with the intention of establishing Sharia law wherever they are.“This is not a question of race — both Hindus and Pakistanis, who shared the same country until the middle of last century, were racially similar. However there has never been an attempt by Hindu immigrants to establish a Hindu worldview as the sole approach to life in Australia.“Islam, on the contrary, has the aim of fighting [this is the meaning of jihad] from without or within a society to establish Sharia law here.”Some nominal and secular Muslims come to Australia, as well as to Europe and North America, to escape Sharia, and when they get to the West they find authorities eagerly granting concessions to their more rigid coreligionists.
Loss of free speech
Spencer observed the asymmetrical nature of the battle with Islam. If one complains about the Islamisation of the country, one’s facts and observations are not listened to; one is immediately labelled ‘Islamophobic’. A phobia is an irrational fear, but in the case of Islam there is a well-attested danger of an increased incidence of terrorist killings, aggressive Islamist policies and refusal to integrate into a host country.Spencer said “hate speech” laws are advancing in Australia. They are really Islamic laws because in Islam you are punished not because what you have said is untrue, but for saying what is not permissible to say under Islam.The Islamic approach, said Spencer, is “a polemic against Judaeo-Christian society”. Muslims deplore the division of politics and religion in the West. They state with pride that their “religion” covers everything in life from everyday matters to everything in the political sphere. myself was living in India when over a million people were killed during riots which accompanied the Partition of the sub-continent into India and Pakistan. There was murder and mayhem by both Hindus and Muslims, but even as a teenager I understood the reason my country had to be divided was because the Muslim-majority provinces would not accept incorporation into a secular, democratic country.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Dec 2011 09:35

Anujan wrote:Pakistan’s Modernity: Between the Military and Militancy – by Ayesha Siddiqa

http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/16890.pdf

This article, that is otherwise extremely tedious to read has the folowing info which seems relevant if one can actually understand what the woman is trying to say..

Pakistan’s foremost social scientist Hamza
Alavi believed that Barelvi and Sufi Islam, which denote “peasant’s
religion”, would become less relevant with growing urbanisation,
particularly
sophistication in modes of production. Increasing
mechanisation of agriculture (and now the gradual industrialisation)
will make Barelvisim redundant or less forceful.15
These socio-economic changes have an impact especially in
increasing the common man’s need for more potent culturalreligious-
social structures.
Deobandi and Wahabi Islam, as opposed to Sufi and Barelvi
Islam, have textual basis and offer a form of modernity. Allama
Mohammad Iqbal, the poet-philosopher of Pakistan, also recognised
this factor. He found orthodox religion as having greater
capacity to respond to the needs of establishing a modern state.
Referring to present times the increasing popularity of Deobandi
and Wahabi Islam in what used to be centres of Sufi Islam bears
witness to the society’s urge for modernity. While Sufi shrines
will continue to attract people, they will fail to fulfil the spiritual
and intellectuals needs of those marching towards some form of
material progress. The rural middle class and those of the small
towns view the piri-mureedi culture as an extension of the extortionist
feudal culture. Sufism as an institution has over the years
transformed into piri-mureedi, which represents crude institutionalisation
of Sufism with deep shades of feudalism. The pirimureedi
culture, as we find from Sarah Ansari’s work (Ansari 2003)
is not a new phenomenon. However, the transformation has
compounded with the problem of a new power alternative
emerging in the society that has some licence from the state in
the shape of militant-radical force. The Talibans and jihadists
are seen as challenging the traditional power centres known for
their feudal-tribal culture (Constable 2011: 88). A close analysis
of Punjab’s politics will show that the Sufi institution, which was
an essential part of traditional power politics, no longer holds
the power it used to. In fact, the various militant groups and
their leaders are emerging as the new power centres that will
influence electoral politics and sociopolitical development in
general (Siddiqa 2011).

The changing social and economic patterns have a bearing on
cultural-religious norms in general. The militants benefit from the
rise in Deobandism-Wahabism since it enhances the ideological
pool from which they can recruit fighters at will. But the most
noticeable development pertains to the impact of Deobandism-
Wahabism on Barelvi religious norms that face the pressure of
competing for political and ideological space.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Dec 2011 09:40

Varoon Shekhar wrote:Shiv, fabulous posting about Islamophobia/Islamophilia. But notice a tiny, little, miniscule omission? India, Hinduism, idolatory. How could that have possibly missed the attention of this highly intelligent, incisive commentator? It's baffling how people who are otherwise well informed and articulate leave out one of the Islamists major victims. Because that would _strengthen_ their case. Actually, more than strengthen it. Make it absolutely conclusive. It's almost there as it is.

India dropped out of the world's interest after it was concluded that the greatness had all come from Europe while INida degenerated into a social mess doomed to degenerate. This narrative has still not gone.

The problem with people of a "younger generation" (on and off BRF, including my own children) is that they are too quick to conclude that "things have changed now". They have not had the time to realise how wrong they are and how much things have not changed and how much they will need to do to change things.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 Dec 2011 23:09

Three Muslim migrants plot to kill people of the country that provided them refuge:

Judge berates terrorists who were given refuge in Australia

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2011 07:27

Cross post from Packee thread

ramana wrote:A_Gupta, To put it in Western context, the pirs are like the abbots who became parallel feudal lords to the barons.
So Ayesha is saying that making the pakis drop the pir-murid system is a step in modernity just as the abbots lost their lands and were confined to temporal role only.

partha, Islam is an urban religion. It needs a central mosque and its appurtnences to flourish.

Ayesha is saying there are three streams driving the Wahabandization of Islam: modern economy leading to shift from rural to urban, stagnation of pir-murid system, rise of Wahabi/Deobandi system with military support.

In other words she is saying Pakibarian is getting greener by the day. The limit value is reArabised Islam.

Sufi is really Turkish derivative.

A post of mine:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1209021

Very insightful posts that exactly shows up the social mechanism that Islam has used for house-cleaning. It also exactly shows "Me and my brother against our neighbour. After which it is me against my brother" which Raphael Patai describes as an Arab trait (but it could be more than that but my idea is OT for this thread)

For house cleaning Islam first clears an area of land of all kafirs (or all except those needed as slaves/menial workers). All Muslims, Barelvei, Ahmedi, Deobandi, Wahhabi are goaded into doing this. Once the kafirs are out, the internal housekeeping starts. Purge those who are less pure. "Purity" needs the written text as "proof", and the written text is protected by death sentences.

The idea of islam is actually very good and very robust at its core, but is at war all the time. It uses a robust and proven biological model and implements it among humans. Humans are first divded into two species "Ummah" and "Kafir". Kafir is a different species and needs elimination. But within ummah "genetic diversity" (actually memetic diversity) is allowed. If one brand of Islam does not suit you, you can shift to another for survival.

The solutions are clear for kafirs, but OT for this thread. in fact islamic extremism survives because most solutions have been made "OT" in all non Muslim human societies by means of dhimmitude, secularism and liberalism. But in Islamic societies no solution about dealing with kafirs is "OT". It's all allowed. Islam is definitely more "liberal" (in some ways) in what is allowed to Muslims than anyone else. We don't want to admit it or see it.

akashganga · Post by **akashganga** » 18 Dec 2011 08:48

Been reading great posts in this thread. Will recommend reading Vs naipaul's 'beyond belief....' also read late anwar sheikh's works.

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Dec 2011 09:48

Pravda reports that Saudi Barbaria in conformity with Mohammadden religion sanctioned Law executes a “Witch” by beheading.

Piling on yet more medieval barbarism atop medieval barbarism the “ beheading was performed gradually, in three steps.”:

Saudi Arabia executes 73rd victim of Sharia laws

dada · Post by **dada** » 18 Dec 2011 10:58

why is islam a relatively unchanging system of ideas ?
=======================================
BRF members should focus on discussing concepts/words that will help them to understand & grasp islam & its

attendant behaviour patterns in totality.

One can attempt to abstract these underlying concepts/words by surveying the various things which arabs have

constructed the world over (I have selected arabs specifically because islam is a product of arabic culture). These things

include their musical patterns,archiectural patterns, patterns of their religious ideas, their ideas of political systems

(including the concept of ummah etc), family practices etc. Note that these are all outputs/products of the same arabic

collective mind or culture !

==========================
Case Study : Taj Mahal

The Taj stands on a raised, square platform (186 x 186 feet) with its four corners truncated, forming an unequal octagon.

The architectural design uses the interlocking arabesque concept, in which each element stands on its own and perfectly

integrates with the main structure. It uses the principles of self-replicating geometry and a symmetry of architectural

elements.

This is a very interesting point.

The Arabic mind basically was good in evolving systems of interlocking elements (something similar to a jigsaw puzzle,

3D jigsaw puzzle (similar to a CUBE). We can study the properties of such system. These systems are known to be very

rugged , stable, rigid & tend to maintain their structure even in the worst conditions ! . The main drawback of these

system is clearly that they cannot evolve in time (only semi--weak system structures can do that )

The key word that will help us understand "islamic mind and its attributes" is " INTER-LOCKING" structure.
==============================================================================

Web definitions of Interlocking Structures are as follows
========================================
a device that prevents a system from
starting or
if running from stopping
changing / evolving !

a structure that coordinate in such a way that all parts work together effectively
a structure that holds all parts in a locking position which prevents parts from moving from their assigned positions
it is a mesh

Applications in Law & Order Management
===============================
A human pyramid is a interlocked structure. Such structures are used by police to hold crowds in check.
In such structures people are closely engaged / intermeshed / fit together securely / firmly joined / closely united /

placed in close relative proximity or in a specific relationship with another or others
An arrangement by means of which the functioning of one part is controlled by the functioning of another.

Applications in Fabric Design
======================
This idea is also used in Fabric design. Such fabrics are thicker, heavier, and more stable than single knit constructions.

Applications in Engg
===============
device with two related and interdependent functions
control of a device starting or stopping is dependent upon the action of another device.
A device used to lock two or more drawers together but allows only one drawer to be open at a time. This prevents

simultaneous opening and prevents tipping (Furniture).
interlock is a device actuated by the operation of some other device with which it is directly associated, to govern

succeeding operation of the same or allied devices. (used in Railways, Signalling)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Dec 2011 12:44

dada ji,

really a great post! But perhaps more suitable for the "Islam - Critical Analysis of Theology, History & Society" Thread.

Bharath.Subramanyam · Post by **Bharath.Subramanyam** » 18 Dec 2011 22:51

x - post

A Satire on Harvard - Subramanian Swamy fatwa:

http://harvardfatwa.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-eck.html

Another thing to analyse is why Secularism & the 'liberalism' are impediments in rational discussion/critique/ of any religion.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Dec 2011 02:44

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/farah-jas ... 54429.html
Al Ghazali: 900 Years Later and Still Relevant

Exactly 900 years ago today, on Dec. 19, 1111, the world bid a sad farewell to one of its most influential contemporaries: Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. That same world still has a reason to be nostalgic.
Al-Ghazali was a Persian theologian, philosopher, jurist and mystic, acclaimed in both East and West as the most influential Muslim after the Prophet Muhammad. His works shaped how generations of Muslims would understand their religion and even influenced European theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas. His great feats include bringing orthodoxy and mysticism into closer contact and leading Islamic theology into an epic battle against Arabic Neo-Platonism.It was at this point in his life, when he apparently had all the answers, that he realised all he had was questions. He underwent a traumatic spiritual crisis riddled with doubt and confusion. Did he really believe in existing doctrine? Was he sincere in his profession or massaging his ego? Was he ready for the mortal journey of death?
Al-Ghazali later relayed this existential crisis in "Deliverance from Error," a sort of autobiographical account. His inner turmoil culminated in his dramatic exit from the classroom where, in front of his students, the falsity of his state dawned on him, rendering him speechless. He walked out of the class to start a journey of self-discovery and didn't return for 10 years. He left as an academic who had just had a breakdown and returned as a holy man who had tasted the fruits of faith. He sold most of his possessions, leaving enough to sustain his family and set out for the wilderness. Thus began his spiritual odyssey.Al-Ghazali speaks to us because he was just as human and confused as us all -- but he never stopped searching. Faith could not be defined by academia, but was a complicated journey of realisation. He wasn't afraid to admit that despite his reputation, he didn't know. Such humility was, and still is, a rarity in a world of both religious and secular arrogance.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Dec 2011 02:50

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-protest/
Lowe’s pulling ads from Muslim show sparks protest

ALLEN PARK, Mich. (AP) — Protesters descended on a Lowe's store in one of the country’s largest Arab-American communities on Saturday, calling for a boycott after the home improvement chain pulled its ads from a reality television show about five Muslim families living in Michigan.About 100 people gathered outside the store in Allen Park, a Detroit suburb adjacent to the city where “All-American Muslim” is filmed. Lowe's said this week that the TLC show had become a “lightning rod” for complaints, following an email campaign by a conservative Christian group.The show premiered last month and chronicles the lives of families living in and around Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit at the heart of one of the largest Arab-American populations outside the Middle East.Dearborn is home to the Islamic Center of America, one of the largest mosques in North America. Overall, the Detroit area has about 150,000 Muslims of many different ethnicities and is served by about 40 mosques.It airs Sundays and ends its first season Jan. 8.The Florida Family Association has said more than 60 companies it emailed, from Amazon to McDonalds, pulled their ads from the show, but Lowe's is the only major company so far to confirm that it had done so. The group accused the show of being “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

dada · Post by **dada** » 19 Dec 2011 07:35

islamic logic is boolean logic. This takes the form ( true / false ) ( 0 / 1 ) ( yes / no ) etc
this logic is very good/robust at its core ! It PERFORMS BEST specifically in war conditions. It is obvious that
creating & sustaining war conditions is essential for islam to thrive continuously. It is immaterial whether such conditions are internal to muslim society or external to it.
(prophet himself spent a large part of his own life in war conditions either attacking or defending all the time)

The HOPE for dismantling islam of this absolutist type lies in the fact that today Fuzzy logic (in which Boolean logic is
merely a Subset) Model is the way to go in the complex 21st century realities !

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Dec 2011 07:50

dada ji,

this is not the thread for analyzing Islam. Please do it somewhere else!

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 20 Dec 2011 04:17

X-post from BD thread:

Bangladeshi woman's husband 'chopped off her fingers' for going to college without his permission

A young Bangladeshi woman, whose husband is accused of cutting off her fingers after she began a college course without his permission, has spoken to the BBC about her determination to carry on with her studies.

The attack on Hawa Akther Jui, 21, is the latest in a series of acts of domestic violence targeting educated women in the country.

The brutal husband had just returned from working in some Gulf country. The link above has video interview.

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 20 Dec 2011 06:15

Not sure where to post this, other than this "Islamophobia" thread as it might qualify as such (I mean historical details about Islam and its prophet). This one is about urine:

Muhammad's Urine and its fire retardant properties

The following narrations (several of which are classed as sahih- authentic)[1] discuss the drinking of Muhammad's urine

Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti reports from Tabarani and Bayhaqi who narrate from Hukaymah bint Umaymah (May Allah be pleased with her) with an authentic chain of transmission, she said, 'the Prophet (May Allah shower peace and blessings on Him) had a wooden bowl in which He used to urinate and was placed under His bed. One night, He searched for it but did not find it and asked for it saying, ‘where is the bowl?’ The members of the house replied ‘Umm Salamah’s slave girl Barrah drank from it’ who came from Habashah with her. The Prophet replied, ‘surely she has protected herself from the fire with a great wall’’'.[2]

Muhammad's Urine and as Gastrointestinal palliative

Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti reports from Abu Ya’la, Hakim, Dar Qutni, Tabarani and Abu Nu’aym from Umm Ayman May Allah be pleased with her, who said, ‘the Prophet got up one night and urinated in a bowl. During that night, I rose in the state of thirst so I drank whatever was in the bowl. In the morning I told Him what I had done to which He thereafter smiled as such that His teeth appeared and said, ‘surely you will never have pain in your stomach’’. Abu Ya’ala’s wordings are as follows, ‘you will never feel stomach pain as of today’.[2]

Then, Camel urine

Narrated Anas: The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.

Sahih Bukhari 7:71:590

The above story kind off goes off in an unexpected direction; I mean starts with camel urine drinking and ends with eyes being branded with heated pieces of iron. Not sure what is going on there other than lot of islamophobia.

All of these stories (and more) are from

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_H ... lars:Urine

Is the above a 'phobia site, or is it real?

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Dec 2011 21:46

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan it is apparently Un-Islamic to sport a handle bar mustache.

The story of Tribal Leader Amir Muhammad Afridi's “badge of courage”:

Two years ago local extremists in Afridi's hometown of Bara, a city in Kyber Agency in the country's northwest tribal areas, took umbrage at his mustache, determining it to be un-Islamic.

Then one day in the summer of 2008, members of the Lashkar-e Islam extremist group stormed Afridi's home, took him to their local office, and forcibly trimmed both ends of his 30-centimeter 'stache.

Read it all:

Mustached Pakistani Man Emerges From Hiding, 'Handlebars' And All

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Dec 2011 01:06

shiv wrote: The solutions are clear for kafirs, but OT for this thread. in fact islamic extremism survives because most solutions have been made "OT" in all non Muslim human societies by means of dhimmitude, secularism and liberalism. But in Islamic societies no solution about dealing with kafirs is "OT". It's all allowed. Islam is definitely more "liberal" (in some ways) in what is allowed to Muslims than anyone else. We don't want to admit it or see it.

So-called Islamic liberalism only applies to Muslims that too only when dealing with non-muslims. All these liberal values will add further criteria when it comes to pure islamic society. That is why we do not see any liberalism in Islamic societies even when they reach 100% muslim population.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Dec 2011 03:45

http://news.yahoo.com/muslim-baby-risk- ... 07273.html
Muslim baby was at risk of "honour killing

LONDON (Reuters) - A baby at risk of becoming the victim of an "honour killing" because she was born as the result of her unmarried Muslim mother's secret affair must be adopted to keep her safe, the Court of Appeal ruled on Wednesday.hree senior judges rejected a bid by the one-year-old girl's natural father to have her live with him and his wife.The child's natural mother is in favour of adoption so that her own family will not find out about the birth.Lord Justice Munby, Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Kitchin said in a joint judgment the case involved "exceptionally difficult adoption proceedings," the Press Association reported.
The judges imposed unusually wide reporting restrictions banning the publication of all names and locations linked to the case because of the continuing dangers faced by mother and child.
The appeal court rejected an appeal by the father "F" against a decision last July refusing him a residence order allowing the baby to live with him.The judge ordered that "baby Q" should be adopted by a couple, also Muslim, from the same country as the mother, but from a different community.She found there would be "a very significant risk of two and two being put together" if the child went to the father because Q was quite obviously not the child of his wife, who had a child of her own.If the child's maternal grandfather found out about the affair "it would be a matter of intense almost unimaginable shame to him and his family," said the judge.The appeal court said on Wednesday: "It was plainly the judge's view that this might provoke action to preserve the family's honour."The mother had consented to the adoption by the couple, who had been looking after her since December 2010.The appeal judges said Baby Q was conceived in a relationship "which was unacceptable to M's traditional Muslim family and conducted in secrecy."Both the unmarried mother and her lover were from abroad and moved to the UK in the last 10 years. Although both Muslim, there was a "profound cultural difference" between them.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 22 Dec 2011 05:39

Not with that thing on, sister

So it turns out, I cannot enter a nightclub in Dubai.

To those who haven’t ever visited the city, Dubai is a place where there are more nightclubs than mosques. Here, alcohol is a ready consolation for all and sundry. When I was visiting, I was forced to put a pillow over my head in a desperate attempt to drown out the noise from the clubs nearby. In Dubai, according to the Emirati who drove our Land Cruiser over sand dunes for the desert safari earlier in the day:

“We Dubai people, we do this every day. We get tired of clubbing and partying, we take our cars over the sand and have some desert fun.”

However, I, a hijabi was denied entrance in a club in Dubai.

Comments are

Dubai discos are run by Israel and since you were wearing Palestine style hijab you were denied entry to the club. Israel is behind it. Believe me. I know everything.

Who is confused here?

A topless club dancer cannot enter a mosque in this modern thriving city too I believe. Isn’t that a discrimination?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Dec 2011 19:25

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us/po ... to-us.html

In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees a Mortal Threat to U.S.
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — Long before he announced his presidential run this year, Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that Shariah, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave as or graver than terrorism.

“I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it,” Mr. Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010 devoted to what he suggested were the hidden dangers of Islamic radicalism. “I think it’s that straightforward and that real.”

Mr. Gingrich was articulating a much-disputed thesis in vogue with some conservative thinkers but roundly rejected by many American Muslims, scholars of Islam and counterterrorism officials. The anti-Shariah theorists say that just as communism posed an ideological and moral threat to America separate from the menace of Soviet missiles, so today radical Islamists are working to impose Shariah in a “stealth jihad” that is no less dangerous than the violent jihad of Al Qaeda.

“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Mr. Gingrich said in the speech. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah.”

Echoing some Republicans in Congress, Mr. Gingrich blasted the Obama administration’s policy of declining to label terrorism carried out in the name of militant Islam as “Islamic” or “jihadist.” Administration officials say such labels can imply religious justification for a distortion of doctrine that most Muslims abhor, thus smearing an entire faith.

“In the hands of terrorists, Shariah can be developed into a highly threatening, militant notion,” Professor Weiss said. “In the hands of a contemporary Muslim thinker writing in the journal Religion and Law, Shariah becomes an essentially pacifist notion.”

But Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said non-Muslims like Mr. Gingrich were not the most effective advocates for what he believes is really a debate within Islam.

“Unfortunately, as long as a non-Muslim opens the discussion, whether it’s Gingrich or someone else, it’s going to hit a brick wall in the Muslim community,” Dr. Jasser said.

Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim and an adviser to law enforcement agencies in Texas and to the Department of Homeland Security, is a conservative Republican who said.....

“There are plenty of American Muslim patriots who will defend American freedoms,” Mr. Elibiary said. “But you can’t be anti-Islam and find those allies.”

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 23 Dec 2011 20:10

I have never understood why some Afro-Americans are so keen on becoming Muslims. Arabs enslaved many Africans for centuries. Muhammad himself had many African slaves and he was ‘proud’ to release one of them. These people have been brainwashed that their ancestors were Muslims when white people enslaved them – [Wikipedia -‘Malcolm X said that Islam was the "true religion of black mankind" and that Christianity was "the white man's religion" that had been imposed upon African Americans by their slave-masters’]

Do they have any proof of this theory or is it that racism causes them to reject Christianity which they perceive to be their ‘Masters’ religion? Shouldn’t they adopt one of the original ‘tribal’ religions of Africa?

Famous Afro-Americans with Islamic identities will help them convert even more people to Islam which is not in our long term interest. However, if Afro Americans decide to go back to their ‘original roots’ in future then it will be good for them and good for India and Indic religions.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Dec 2011 20:39

Shankaraa wrote:I have never understood why some Afro-Americans are so keen on becoming Muslims.

It offers protection while nurturing the sense of victimhood. Christianity doesnt do that in USA.

Same with certain sections of Hindu society in India.

Same with Islam in certain areas of ME.

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 23 Dec 2011 21:47

Ramay has good reasons.
Also, Islam has loopholes for condoning crimes. Islam says you can do bad things PROVIDED blah blah blah.
The "provided" part is left to the interpretation. Which allows the loopholes.

Islam is a very cleverly designed religion. It is designed to expand and to appeal to the lowest form of human being comforting them that it is okay the way they are and they don't need to change. It also says many good things and the good productive Muslims point to that to say their religion is good.

The equivalent among Hindus are "Dalits" and "SC/STs". These labels prolong victimhood and rewards people for mediocrity through unreasonable reservations.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Dec 2011 22:47

^^^ What do the above have to do with Islamophobia abroad?

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 24 Dec 2011 01:44

What a Shame!!

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 76,00.html

Last Saturday, violent groups of Islamic-Salafi radicals burned the famous scientific institute established by Napoleon in Egypt after its first encounter with the West. Some historians consider it the start of modern times in the Middle East.

The site, L’Institut d’Egypte, held some 200,000 original and rare books, exhibits, maps, archeological findings and studies from Egypt and the entire Middle East, based on the work of generations of western researchers. Most of the artifacts were lost forever, burned or looted.

It’s difficult to understand the modern Middle East without these studies, which were overcome by an immense fire. The large building was situated in the center of Cairo and torching it was a symbolic, intentional act. Those who burned the building and its artifacts meant to burn the era of logic, enlightenment, research and individualism.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 24 Dec 2011 18:45

At least 61 dead in northeast Nigeria violence
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 232721.cms
The fighting between suspected members of the sect known as Boko Haram and a joint task force of police and military began Thursday in Borno and Yobe states in Nigeria's arid northeast corner bordering Cameroon, Chad and Niger. The fighting left residents cowering in their homes amid gunfire and explosions.
The violence left at least two senior police officers dead in Yobe state, while a military spokesman in Borno said that three churches had been bombed during attacks there.
Boko Haram has launched a series of bombings against Nigeria's weak central government over the last year in its campaign to implement strict Shariah law across the nation of more than 160 million people home to both Christians and Muslims.
Boko Haram claimed responsibility for a Nov. 4 attack on Damaturu, Yobe state's capital, that killed more than 100 people. The group also claimed the Aug. 24 suicide car bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Nigeria's capital that killed 24 people and wounded 116 others.
Little is known about the sources of Boko Haram's support, though its members recently began carrying out a wave of bank robberies in the north. Police stations also have been bombed and officers killed.
Boko Haram has splintered into three factions, with one wing increasingly willing to kill as it maintains contact with terror groups in North Africa and Somalia, diplomats and security sources say.
The sect is responsible for more than 450 killings in Nigeria this year alone, according to an AP count.