The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Brad Goodman wrote:Another counter argument that I keep hearing from liberals is. We were disussing TSP and fanaticism of ROP and this guy is like. How was life before partition were the people of that area not living peacefully all these years. What happened during partition was a result of flare up of emotions by few politicians. He did an == with 1992 riots in Mumbai. So things happen we have to forgive/ forget and move on. Now I think this is how the WKK and liberals think. There needs to be a serious writeup to counter these lines of thinking.
This was one of the events that seemed to have caused Lala Lajpat Rai to study the Koran and Hadiths and come to the conclusion that Hindu-Muslim unity was impossible.
See this chapter titled "The riot-torn history of Hindu-Muslim relations, 1920-1940" by Ambedkar:
darshhan wrote:^^ Devesh ji, Supporting Khilafat movement was Probably MKG's biggest mistake. It practically legitimised Islamic fundamentalism. Although I am of opinion that even without Khilafat, Indian muslims would have accepted islamism. Quran would have ensured it.
but majority doesn't think so. I've even seen the argument being made that MKG's Khilafat "game changer" was "good" b/c it "isolated" the Muslims and ensured that the 'chi-chi' would be kept away and India would be "inoculated" from the "menace". so Gandhi gave India "respite" from Islamic menace by participating in Khilafat. and it comes more avowed secularists. the contradiction is ironic and hard to miss. on one hand, they are strict "anti-saffrons" and "pro-secular". OTOH, beloved Gandhi's Khilafat is explained with "Islamic menace". doesn't the former straitjacket make the later explanation a sheer hypocrisy?
Tehran, Iran (CNN) -- They may be a far cry from their Western counterparts fighting for the acceptance to breast-feed -- or go topless -- in public, but two girls clobbered a cleric recently in a small town in Iran when he admonished one of them to cover herself more completely.
The cleric said he asked "politely," but the girl's angry reaction and some pugilistic double-teaming with her friend landed the holy man in the hospital, according to an account Monday in the semiofficial Mehr News Agency.
Hojatoleslam Ali Beheshti said he encountered the girls on his way to the mosque in the village of Shahmirzad for noon prayers in late August.
He told one of the girls to cover up, the report said.
"She responded by telling me to cover my eyes , which was very insulting to me," Beheshti said. So he asked her a second time to cover up and also to put a lid on what he felt was verbal abuse.
She hit the man of the cloth, and he hit the ground.
"I don't remember what happened after that," he said. "I just felt her kicks and heard her insults."
Beheshti, who emerged from the infirmary three days later , said he did not file a complaint against the girls.
But he doesn't mind the local prosecutor's investigation into the matter either "as long as the case helps the cause of Islamic hijab."
The girls may have put the "jab" into "hijab," but fighting with morality police or private individuals telling women to cover up is rare in small towns. It's more common in larger cities, where women are more likely to take a stand.
The champions of islam and leaders of muslim world speaketh again:
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the 56 countries that form the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), condemned a video made in the United States that defamed Islam and the Prophet Mohammad, igniting Muslim protests around the world this month.
"Incidents like this clearly demonstrate the urgent need on the part of states to introduce adequate protection against acts of hate crimes, hate speech, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation and negative stereotyping of religions, and incitement to religious hatred, as well as denigration of venerated personalities," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said in a speech to the UN Human Rights Council.
Yet the champions of islam and leaders of Ummah have constant killings of their own brothers in Karachi every week. They have systematically eliminated Hindus who are now coming to India and have killed their Christian politicians. But they don't want to be branded as murderers. They can kill kafurs, convert Hindus and rape teenage Hindu girls...but you can't call that terror. The free world is at fault onlee as always. The free world hates muslims for no reason.
venug wrote:
Yet the champions of islam and leaders of Ummah have constant killings of their own brothers in Karachi every week. They have systematically eliminated Hindus who are now coming to India and have killed their Christian politicians. But they don't want to be branded as murderers. They can kill kafurs, convert Hindus and rape teenage Hindu girls...but you can't call that terror. The free world is at fault onlee as always. The free world hates muslims for no reason.
Adyakshaa! I protest this blasphemy.
Pakis are not pure enough and per my RAW sources they have atleast 172 million Munafiqs amidst them. I would not call Pakistan a pure land until all those Munafiqs are beheaded or stoned to death.
Is the placard supposed to have a representation of Mohammed? (The mummy casket like object with the hands and arabic text floating upwards). How come there aren't calls of blasphemy against these guys?
If a silly badly made movie on youtube can incite these faithfools, I see hope. These guys are so easy to handle, incite them and they will shoot themselves or behead a fellow less green brother to show anger. The world is noticing their intolerance which is good, the people who had notions of Islam being RoP now are sitting up and taking notice of these faithfools' antics.
venug wrote:If a silly badly made movie on youtube can incite these faithfools, I see hope. These guys are so easy to handle, incite them and they will shoot themselves or behead a fellow less green brother to show anger.....
The West has already noticed this long ago (WWI ?). They maintain them (Islamists) because of the ease with which one can manipulate and use them.
There's an excellent response in the message board by one Ganesh Prasad, about the Islamic genocide in India over 800 years, which killed 80 million Hindus. And a very stupid, slimey response to that by "Uncle Bobb", who makes some comment about Vedic Gods killing millions of people and forcibly marrying their widows. Indians need to get on the board and respond to this garbage.
We have the unborn martyrs in our wombs and drop bombs in here because all that we blow up is minds in the minefields. They (Palestinians) resonate in refugee camps and housed by Zionists Nazis,” a Muslim woman said.
Another Imam from Brooklyn called on the United Nations to create an international law criminalizing “blasphemy.”
“The freedom of speak and freedom of rights our problem starts. So, I would like to demand United Nations to make an international law that would criminalize blasphemy. I again demand to the united nations and this platform please make an international law for the protection of honor of our beloved prophet,” he said.
Another Imam from Brooklyn called on the United Nations to create an international law criminalizing “blasphemy.”
If I remember correctly, this is not the first time they wanted a law against blasphemy. I think they showed similar rage during Danish Cartoon saga. Will they also pass blasphemy law that criminalizes conversions to Islam, atrocities committed against other religions by the adherents of RoP? what about calling us Kafurs? I fully support such laws. Full power to you O islamic brother. Full power to you, get such a law that criminalizes conversion to Islamic, let it be blasphemous to force conversion of people to Islam.
I would like the Islamists to ponder over their Kalima, which blasphemes all other religions by denigrating their Gods. If they want to all countries to pass laws against blasphemy and go down that slippery slope, it might come to bite them back!
The point here is for a faith like Islam (and other Abrahamic faiths), the definition of Blasphemy underscores their dominance. What is Blasphemous to Islam is foundation stone of Christianity and vice-versa.
Let us see how the other Abrahamic faiths respond to it.
RamaY wrote:The point here is for a faith like Islam (and other Abrahamic faiths), the definition of Blasphemy underscores their dominance. What is Blasphemous to Islam is foundation stone of Christianity and vice-versa.
Let us see how the other Abrahamic faiths respond to it.
no, not really. the clergy often keeps mum when the cousin clergy decides to push for blasphemy laws or forced circumcision or some such BS. blasphemy is essentially a tool to enforce totalitarian control. the Christian clergy and religious authorities will not really speak up against this. b/c they can use it too. it is the Pat Condell types who speak up, not the theological types.
Quote:
Amidst heart rending news, mind boggling protests and curiosity for the fate of the new PM, it is quite pleasant to know that Kareena Kapoor will embrace Islam after getting married to Saif Ali Khan. The Islamic world will be enlightened, with better aesthetics and the hope of seeing charming faces protesting against US “aggression” instead of the mechanically motivated Mullahs, inadvertently charged unemployed youth and frantically ignited lawyers. Not that the Muslim Ummah is devoid of charm, it is just hidden in the black robe which once put on, serves as a great leveler like death for all women (whether charming or plain). Women lose their conspicuous characteristics in the robe; tBy the way Kareena’s conversion reminds me of the U-Turn PPP took on writing the wretched letter that paved the way for Mr. Zardari to complete the longest period in office as the head of a democratically elected government
the Christian clergy and religious authorities will not really speak up against this. b/c they can use it too
I think there is a difference. First even if the international leaders agree on imposition of such a law making anything against Islam blasphemous, it is not necessary that this will translate to Christian clergy implementing the same. The reason is Christian clergy is not as dogmatic as Islamic ones. Some local ministers being gay and couple of women pastors are examples of flexibility of the Church and more importantly, most of the Christian population which thinks and prides itself to be pioneers of human civilization and industrialization and which chides Islam for being medieval might fight tooth and nail against any such blasphemy law. The west which is mostly Christian thinks itself to be champions of 'free world', where the governments want to separate religion from governance unlike Islamic counties which show a greater enthusiasm to usher in sharia.
venug wrote:
I think there is a difference. First even if the international leaders agree on imposition of such a law making anything against Islam blasphemous, it is not necessary that this will translate to Christian clergy implementing the same. The reason is Christian clergy is not as dogmatic as Islamic ones.
actually, they can be quite dogmatic in their own way. either way, do you really want to test the theory by giving them the power and see what they do? when they had the power, they were equally oppressive and did everything they could to concentrate power in their hands. Europe had to go through 200 years of continuous religious wars before the power of the Church started waning.
the rest of the stuff you point out is true. but power corrupts. once you give them the power, there is plenty of precedent as to how they use it.
devesh ji, I'm not saying they are not dogmatic nor that they don't want to wield the power of blasphemy law. In your previous post what you said is true, they can put a stamp of blasphemer on whoever stands in their way, the way they did in medieval Europe. But it will not come to that because the model of governance is different in the dark corners of Islamic world and in the lands of the west where honey and milk flows and freedom is the birth right of every newborn.
Islam is a whole package which dictates how a true Muslim should act politically, spiritually etc. It is easy to implement blasphemy law like in the adjoining lands of paradise of pure landers, all the clergy has to do is invoke Allah or Mohammad and the rest follow in mass hysteria. This is not so easy for Christian clergy where many are disillusioned by the church in the west. If the church want to implement blasphemy law it will only push people away even further. Times have changed now, church doesn't enjoy the power it used to wield like in the medieval times.
In your previous post what you said is true, they can put a stamp of blasphemer on whoever stands in their way, the way they did in medieval Europe. But it will not come to that because the model of governance is different in the dark corners of Islamic world and in the lands of the west
I must disagree. in US there is a pretty strong religious contingent which will slowly but surely encroach.
in Europe, even if religion has "died out", the govts still have a paranoia that is quite forcefully on display. EU countries have some of the strictest gun control and other such restrictive laws. I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT GUN CONTROL LAWS HERE. but the point is they have a deep tradition of operating with paranoia against "ignorant citizens" from the monarchy times. I wouldn't exactly trust the govts to not abuse the "blasphemy" laws either. because the fundamental basis is that some words are too "insensitive" and cause "security issues". I'm pretty sure the law will have a pretty wide open interpretation of those words, which will give a lot of room to govts and religious nuts for creative harakiri.
Last Tuesday, Egypt's chief prosecutor issued arrest warrants against eight US citizens.
Their purported crimes relate either to their reported involvement in the production of the Internet movie critical of Islam that has received so much attention over the past two weeks, or to other alleged anti-Islamic activities.
One of the US citizens indicted is a woman who converted from Islam to Christianity.
According to the Associated Press, Egypt's general prosecution issued a statement announcing that the eight US citizens have been indicted on charges of insulting and publicly attacking Islam, spreading false information, and harming Egyptian national unity.
The statement stipulated that they could face the death penalty if convicted.
The AP write-up of the story quoted Mamdouh Ismail, a Salafi attorney who praised the prosecution's move. He claimed it would deter others from exercising their right to free expression in regards to Islam. As he put it, the prosecutions will "set a deterrent for them and anyone else who may fall into this." That is, they will deter others from saying anything critical about Islam.
This desire to intimidate free people into silence on Islam is clearly the goal the heads of the Muslim Brotherhood seek to achieve through their protests of the anti-Islamic movie. This was the message of Muslim Brotherhood chief Yussuf Qaradawi. Three days after the anti-American assaults began on the anniversary of the September 11 jihadist attacks on America, Qaradawi gave a sermon on Qatar television, translated by MEMRI.
Qaradawi struck a moderate tone. He called on his followers to stop rioting against the US. Rather than attack the US, Qaradawi urged his Muslim audience to insist that the US place prohibitions on the free speech rights of American citizens by outlawing criticism of Islam - just as the Europeans have done in recent years in the face of Islamic terror and intimidation.
In his words, "We say to the US: You must take a strong stance and try to confront this extremism like the Europeans do. This [anti-Islamic film] is not art. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is nothing but curses and insults. Does the freedom to curse and insult constitute freedom of speech?"
Both the actions of the Egyptian prosecution and Qaradawi's sermon prove incontrovertibly that the two policies the US has adopted since September 11, 2001, to contend with Muslim hatred for the US have failed. The neoconservative policy of supporting the democratization of Muslim societies adopted by President Barack Obama's predecessor George W. Bush has failed. And the appeasement policy adopted by Obama has also failed.
Bush's democratization policy claimed that the reason the Muslim world had become a hotbed for anti-Americanism and terror was that the Muslim world was not governed by democratic regimes. Once the peoples of the Muslim world were allowed to be free, and to freely elect their governments, the neoconservatives proclaimed, they would abandon their hatred of America.
As a consequence of this belief, when the anti-regime protests against the authoritarian Mubarak regime began in January 2011, the neoconservatives were outspoken supporters of the overthrow of then-president Hosni Mubarak, despite the fact that he had been the US's key ally in the Arab world for three decades. They supported the political process that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power. They supported the process despite the fact that Qaradawi is the most influential cleric in Egypt. They supported it despite the fact that just days after Mubarak was ousted from power, Qaradawi arrived at Cairo's Tahrir Square and before an audience of two million followers, he called for the invasion of Israel and the conquest of Jerusalem.
In the event, the Egyptian people voted for Qaradawi's Muslim Brotherhood and for the Salafi party. The distinction between the two parties is that Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are willing to resort to both violent and nonviolent ways to dominate the world in the name of Islam. The Salafis abjure nonviolence. So while Qaradawi called for the riots to end in order to convince the Americans to criminalize criticism of Islam, his Salafi counterparts called for the murder of everyone involved in producing the anti-Islamic film.
For instance, Salafi cleric Ahmad Fouad Ashoush issued a fatwa on Islamic websites last weekend calling for American and European Muslims to murder those involved with the movie. His religious ruling was translated by the SITE Intelligence Group on Monday.
Ashoush wrote, "Those ******** who did this film are belligerent disbelievers. I issue a fatwa and call on the Muslim youth in America and Europe to do this duty, which is to kill the director, the producer and the actors and everyone who helped and promoted the film.
"So, hurry, hurry, O Muslim youth in America and Europe, and teach those filthy lowly ones a lesson that all the monkeys and pigs in America and Europe will understand. May Allah guide you and grant you success."
These are the voices of democratic Egypt. The government, which has indicted American citizens on capital charges for exercising their most fundamental right as Americans, is a loyal representative of the sentiments of the Egyptian people who freely elected it. The Salafi preacher is a loyal representative of the segment of the Egyptian people that made the Salafi party the second largest in the Egyptian parliament. Qaradai's call for the abolition of freedom of speech in America - as has happened in Europe - and to ban all criticism of Islam is subscribed to by millions and millions of Muslims worldwide who consider him one of the leading Sunni clerics in the world.
Free elections in Egypt have empowered the Egyptian people to use the organs of governance to advance their hatred of America. Their hatred has been empowered, and legitimized, not diminished as the neoconservatives had hoped.
The behavior of the Egyptian government, Qaradawi and the Salafis also makes clear that Obama's policy of appeasing the Muslim world has failed completely. Whereas Bush believed the source of Muslim hatred was their political oppression at the hands of their regimes, Obama has blamed their rage and hatred on America's supposed misdeeds.
By changing the way America treats the Muslim world, Obama believes he can end their hatred of America. To this end, he has reached out to the most anti-American forces and regimes in the region and spurned pro-American regimes and political forces.
devesh ji, the days of civil rights movement are still afresh in the minds of Americans, even a mere mention of N word can get you into trouble. People are even suing the government for making them say "in God we trust". To pass a law against abortion: a sin against Christian God, means open fights on the streets and in the courts. There sure are Christian nuts who would like to see an Aryan Christian nation. But they are a minority, yes I am aware of southern belt, but it is not easy to impose will of a section of people on another. What I am trying to say is people have become more aware of their rights and the form of governance has given power to common man (relatively speaking) so much that it is not easy to issue a Christian fatwa akin to Islamic one. It might have been possible had there been a monarchy, but then we would be talking about medieval days. Even though in the Islamic world, time has stood still since the birth of Mohammad, it appears time has turned a corner in Christian world.
^^^
then let us agree to disagree. I don't share your over-arching optimism that alliswell in the "West" in terms of the potential for "blasphemy" laws to be abused and taken advantage of, both by govts and opportunistic theologians.
devesh ji, I am not batting for western Christian world nor am I optimistic, actually I don't care much what happens to Christian or Islamic worlds, they are both a bane to Dharmic world. But I do agree that blasphemy law will be abused no doubt about that, just that as you say we differ about what extent it will be easy to apply in C and I worlds.
devesh wrote:^^^then let us agree to disagree. I don't share your over-arching optimism that alliswell in the "West" in terms of the potential for "blasphemy" laws to be abused and taken advantage of, both by govts and opportunistic theologians.
The West will simply NEVER agree to blasphemy laws...for the simple reason that the biggest support for the first Amendment and the right to free and unrestricted speech comes from Evangelicals. On balance, its the evangelicals who stand to gain most from the absence of 'hate speech' restrictions - so this is not really a wonder.
STRASBOURG: France will expel any foreigner who threatens security at home or abroad in the name of Islam or does not respect the country's secular traditions, Interior minister Manuel Valls said.
France will be "intransigent... and I will not hesitate to expel those who claim to follow Islam and represent a serious threat to public order and as foreigners in our country do not respect our laws and values," he said at a ceremony to inaugurate a grand mosque in the eastern city of Strasbourg.
"The preachers of hatred, those espousing obscurantism and fundamentalists ... do not have a place in France," he said. "Racism, fundamentalism is not part of Islam."
"Those who are on our soil to defy our laws and want to attack the foundations of our society cannot remain here," he said.
The mosque, which can hold 1,500 worshippers, is the biggest in France, which with four million Muslims has the largest Islamic population in western Europe.
varunkumar wrote:"Racism, fundamentalism is not part of Islam."
These actually are an inseperable part of Islam. The dude has not read the Koran.
It is actually surprising how many kafirs chose to live in denial. They are endangering themselves and their closed ones. Islam is the actual example of an "apartheid religion" where non muslims are relegated as 2nd class subjects.
Former UK Home Minister Jack Straw raises the issue of men of the Mohammadden religion originating in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan targeting Christian children for sex in the UK:
saip wrote:I dont know if this is OT. But I went to Best Price today, which is owned by Walmart and some Indian company. What caught my eye is the sign on their meat department which said 'we sell only Halal meat'. When I am in US I avoid Halal and Kosher meat like plague, the reason being these are not inspected by any Govt inspectors. Now how come in India which has majority of Hindus a company is allowed to sell only Halal meat (which means Allah's name has been invoked, the animal was killed in the most cruel way by a pious muslim) and offer no other choice? Is it even legal? It is time Hindus forced these companies to offer alternate choices like Jatka meat or boycott these stores.
Thanks for the info. But, if I know my Halal rules, anything killed by a machine can not be Halal. Animal must be slaughtered by a PIOUS muslim in a particular way (which rest of the world considers inhumane, but I digress) and before the animal is killed Allah's name must be invoked. So I don't think a machine can be programmed to do that. Obviously Muslims are being mislead, but that is not my problem.
, which was very insulting to me," Beheshti said. So he asked her a second time to cover up and also to put a lid on what he felt was verbal abuse.
, said he did not file a complaint against the girls.
Inbreeding has taken the toll brain. Mess anger of automatic Piece.
