Here are some statistics from a minority that's actually smaller than our Buddhist one. Muslims here are more than twice as likely as the rest of us to be without work. Their children are twice as likely to be jobless, and three times more likely to be poor.
Their imprisonment rates are higher, and all 20 of the people we've jailed on terrorism-related offences are Muslim.
To those who are convinced that such titles are suggestive of Islamophobia, A world without Islam could be misleadingly provocative. Those who believe that there can never be a world without Islam or Muslims and that such a thought could be nurtured only at the cost of humanity will find it highly deceptive. The book vigorously argues that Islam has nothing to do with whatever violence, war, or ill-feeling is happening in its name.
What is surprising is that this robust pro-Islamic argument and fascinating pro-Muslim narrative comes from a very unlikely quarter. Graham Fuller, now in the academic field, has served as the vice-chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. That one with such a background will have so many nice things to say about Islam and Muslims is rather difficult to believe.
Graham Fuller attempts to make a convincing case for the innocence of Islam. A substantial part of the narrative is devoted to explaining the evolution of Islam, its relationship with other faiths, and how state power has its own dynamics that often makes Islam a convenient excuse for its wrongdoings and excesses. He argues that “[the] present crisis of East-West relations, or between the West and Islam, has really very little to do with religion and everything to do with political and cultural frictions, interests, rivalries, and clashes.” He goes on to add that three great Abrahamanic faiths — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — share more than they dispute, and it is the states that dispute.
Blame on evangelists
The author, in a very interesting chapter, titled ‘Muslims in the West', blames the evangelists for spreading the misconception about Muslims and Islam. By way of corroboration, he quotes how American evangelist Franklin Graham said things about Islam that are not just disrespectful, but factually incorrect. He observes that some Muslims, who seek to lead an Islamic life in the West, sincerely try to accommodate the western order and in the process make some compromises. He sounds quite convincing when he argues that some high-profile evangelists have been at the forefront in spreading canards about Muslims and Islam. The Islam-bashers are quick to blame Islam for whatever Osama bin Laden did. But, in the case of Adolf Hitler, they have little to blame in Christianity for his dark deeds. It is necessary that all peace-loving people do not fall for such easy unsubstantiated generalisations but seek to find out why such pernicious conflicts should persist for so long. In a multi-cultural world, the objective should be to build bridges across divides. Apparently, it is not just the evangelists, many among the western elite also subscribe to such sweeping generalisations about the Islamic community. British Prime Minister David Cameron's recent statement at a Munich conference calling for a rethink of the concept of multi-culturalism — in effect echoing what German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy had said earlier — is a measure of the deep prejudices and stereotypes the political elite of the West has about Islam and its adherents. Muslims in the West are indeed a global community drawn from diverse backgrounds and have contributed enormously to the enrichment of the western society.
In the chapter on Indian Muslims, the author argues that Hindus and Muslims have demonstrated how by peaceful co-existence they have enriched each other's life. He analyses not just the impact of colonialism, but also Partition, the Bangladesh war, the Kashmir issue, and the Rajinder Sachar report. Some of these issues are extremely complex, and justice cannot be done to them in a single chapter. Yet his conclusion seems to be on right lines. In South Asia, the efforts of ethnic minorities towards faith-based societies have been counter-productive. However, it will be naïve to argue that multi-culturalism is free from danger in India. Fuller seems to be convinced that the war on terrorism is wrong and that its intellectual and moral bases need to be diligently scrutinised.
Clash of civilisations
This book has effectively articulated the challenge to what is popularly known in academic discourse as the “clash of civilisations” thesis. It is an excellent read for those who are interested in understanding the wide range of issues associated with the so-called ‘war on terror'. Moreover, to the extent that the book exposes how some Western regimes are manipulating Islam to advance their own interests, it will go a long way in removing the misconception about that religion and the Muslims as a community. The purpose would be best served if the book is recommended for study at the undergraduate level.
By the end of the 18th or 19th century, the Sufi movement had come to a close and what were left were the rituals of the Barelvi mullahs and sajjada nasheens (holders of the saintly seat). The Sufi tradition could only survive in a multi-religious society, which Punjab and Sindh had before 1947. The purging of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan created an anti-Sufi environment. Therefore, it is not surprising at all that the followers of the Sufis, namely the Barelvis, have become just like the Wahabi and Deobandi maulvis. They could not avoid the dictates of the environment they lived in. In contrast, the Barelvis in India are much more tolerant of other religions because they have to live with them. More Hindus visit the Ajmer shrine of Moeenuddin Chishti than Muslims.
As a matter of fact, the Barelvis had abandoned the Sufi tradition long ago. They had become a ritualistic sect that considered khatam darood (rituals) as their basic distinction. The Sufi shrines had become the jagirs (estates) of sajjada nashins who were running them like feudal dynasties. This trend had started much earlier in history. Baba Farid and his ilk had refused to see kings and their men but his great grandsons joined the Tughlaqs and were awarded a huge estate in Pakpattan. It was a noteworthy estate when Ranjeet Singh conquered Punjab and he had to negotiate with the then sajjada nasheen.
A proposed Tennessee law would make following the Islamic code known as Shariah law a felony, punishable by 15 years in jail.
It exempts peaceful practice of Islam but labels any adherence to Shariah law — which includes religious practices such as feet washing and prayers — as treasonous. It claims Shariah adherents want to replace the Constitution with their religious law.
A dozen other states are considering anti-Shariah bills, and there's a federal lawsuit in Oklahoma over one.
Matheny, the House speaker pro tempore, said he is concerned that aspects of Shariah law might conflict with the U.S. Constitution, but he does not intend to criminalize practices such as the preparations for prayer or dietary rules. He said he would consider amending the bill before asking the legislature to consider it.
Indonesia learns a lesson in bigotry from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and places legal restrictions on fellow Muslims of the minority Ahmadiyah / Ahmadiyya / Ahmadi sect :
"Our hearings today were informative and educational, and hopefully will have consequences in the Muslim-American community," King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said Thursday after the more than four-hour hearing on Capitol Hill. King, a New York congressman, spent much of the day offering a strident defense of the hearing, which examined the risk of "homegrown" Islamic terrorism. Democrats and civil-rights groups decried it as a divisive spectacle that they argued would sow mistrust in Muslim communities.
"To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness and an abdication of what I believe to be the main responsibility of this committee — to protect America from a terrorist attack," King said in opening remarks.
The committee heard testimony from several members of Congress, including Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Muslim who charged that King was "stereotyping and scapegoating" Muslims. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., dismissed the hearings as "great congressional theater" and "the equivalent of reality TV." But Republicans maintained they were not demonizing Islam. "The focus of this hearing is not the Islamic religion. It's Islamists. It's jihadists," Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said.
Bryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the social conservative group the American Family Association, says that when it comes to Islam, the First Amendment is a privilege, not a right. "Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam," Fischer wrote today.
"The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary," Fischer wrote on his Renew America blog.
It is heartening to note that attempts by the Mohamadden bloc of countries to divert attention from their significantly disgraceful and bigoted treatment of adherents of other world religions has been stonewalled.
I hope that this marks the beginning of a period of greater resolve by the Buddhists, Christians, Confucians, Hindus, Jains, Jews, Sikhs and Zoroastrians of the world to stand up to the bigotry being frequently dished out by OIC member states to the adherents of Non-Mohammadden religions.
The earliest written biography of Muhammad, by Ibn Hisham, who died in 833, contains parts of the missing work of an earlier scholar, Ibn Ishaq, who lived from about 707 to 767. The dating of Ibn Hisham’s work, composed nearly two centuries after the Prophet’s death, may be contrasted with that of Mark’s gospel, considered by most New Testament scholars to be the earliest of the three synoptic gospels and to have been written some four decades after the death of Jesus. The story of Jesus has long been subjected to the rigors of form criticism, with scholars such as Rudolph Bultmann claiming that almost nothing can be known about his life or personality, as distinct from the “message of the early Christian community, which for the most part the Church freely attributed to Jesus.”1 Yet despite widespread recognition of the unreliability of oral traditions, most scholars have tended to accept the Muslim narrative.
Rampaging mob madeup of Mohammaddens targets Hindus and Christians working for the UN in Afghanistan apparently in protest over a Koran burning in the US and kills them:
It is essential to those who burned the Koran into prison because they have made many US citizens' life under threat. Particularly those US and other soldiers' life who are in Afganistan brought under threat and gave a chance for the terror groups to kill them. This is not only anti US but also anti humanity. This is not freedom. One may speak against Koran or against any inreligion but burning Koran is hurting many people's feelings and religions and thus emotionally make them to kill any westerner. This also can justify some young to lead any operations attacking US or other religious communities. Islam in Afganistan is no more of an Islamic tradition or roots it is full of terror which is a tribalism against which Mohamad himself fought. But by burning Koran some US folks are giving chances to emotionalising people against particular nation and particular race. This is what should be immediately addressed. Terrry jones is not a Christian but is terrorist who is bringing many westerners' life under threat who are living with good positions in Muslim countries.
Saudi Arabia routinely confiscates and destroys bibles and korans. Oddly, this doesn't seem to offend anyone.
Notably, the state bans the importation of Korans published elsewhere. When foreign pilgrims arrive at the Saudi border by the millions for the annual journey to Mecca, what happens to the non-Saudi Korans they are carrying? The border guards confiscate them, to be shredded, pulped, or burned. Beautiful bindings and fine paper are viewed as a particular provocation--all are destroyed.
In response to the verbal diarrhea of Mr, joshvajohn, please read this piece by Vijay Kumar, who is running for a US congressional seat from Tennessee.
joshvajohn wrote:It is essential to those who burned the Koran into prison because they have made many US citizens' life under threat. Particularly those US and other soldiers' life who are in Afganistan brought under threat and gave a chance for the terror groups to kill them. This is not only anti US but also anti humanity. This is not freedom. One may speak against Koran or against any inreligion but burning Koran is hurting many people's feelings and religions and thus emotionally make them to kill any westerner. This also can justify some young to lead any operations attacking US or other religious communities. Islam in Afganistan is no more of an Islamic tradition or roots it is full of terror which is a tribalism against which Mohamad himself fought. But by burning Koran some US folks are giving chances to emotionalising people against particular nation and particular race. This is what should be immediately addressed. Terrry jones is not a Christian but is terrorist who is bringing many westerners' life under threat who are living with good positions in Muslim countries.
Loadsa bullshit sir. Loadsa bullshit. Secularism tells me that I should agree with you. But facts tell me that you are spouting a variety of misinformed propaganda that hits Indians hardest. Your US and your Islamist friends are violence prone allies of the same creed who need to wipe each other out in the way they cooperated to wipe Indians, especially Hindus and Sikhs out.
Faithfools need to be jerked from their sense of entitlement and ownership. The space can not be ceded in the name of 'Not hurting the feelings of muslims' . Slowly but surely the time is coming around that this nonsense should stop as more often than not , it means only the muslim sensibilities.
What about our way of life and our belief system? We have aright to question and not accept things at face value. Why not have an informed debate like civilised people? Why have you burn down property and kill people. It's also true that muslims don't care too much about lives of believers, Only the geography under control matters.
"Terrry jones is not a Christian but is terrorist .........."
I am not sure what is meant by this. Terry Jones is only doing what the Bible commands him to. His actions are in full conformity with Christian activities over the past 2000 years.
Shiv I do not understand your points there. I thought you are a well informed writer. Nowadays US keeps itlself away from Pakistan. It is Indian polical leadership who wish to keep themselves away from US. When US wants to cooperate Indian govt does want to work with them. Many in Pakistan believes that Israel, US and India are working against Islamic interests in Pakistan.
For me it is essential to reduce the ignorance on every side so that conflicts can be reduced.
>> Nowadays US keeps itlself away from Pakistan. It is Indian polical leadership who wish to keep themselves away from US. When US wants to cooperate Indian govt does want to work with them.
I know this was addressed to shiv, and I'm sure he will reply, but frankly this is bordering on the absurd boss... The US keeps itself away from Pakistan? Come now, you can't really be serious.
OTOH, you have thousands of words on this very forum which argue that the Indian political leadership not only wish to keep themselves close to the US but are hoping to be paid by them in cash or Nobel prizes.
So this pastor didn't simply burn the koran. He held a 'trial' with an imam as defence attorney, a convert from islam as prosecutor, with a jury voting on the verdict.
Hindu temple in Australia, shot at by Muslim Teenagers! http://9-11domorethenneverforget-stopis ... again.html
Priest Jatin Kumar Bhatt says his children Jaldhi, 13, Harishree, 8, and Raghav, 2, are very scared after a gun attack on the Auburn temple behind which they live.
joshvajohn wrote: I thought you are a well informed writer. Nowadays US keeps itlself away from Pakistan.
Frankly i don't give a damn if you think I am well informed or not - that is a digression from the issue.
The information I have is as follows:
The US is paying Pakistan 3 billion a year plus costs and needs Pakistan to transport material for its men in Afghaniatsn.
It appears to me that in your opinion 3 billion plus dollars a year and using Pakistan as an ally is the same as "keeping away from Pakistan". Your opinion sounds like complete ill informed rubbish to me and actually angers me enough to tell you on your face that it is tripe.
I would be grateful and perhaps better informed to judge your opinion as something better than trash if you could explain the meaning of the sentence you wrote. I quote it again below, in case you didn't read it first time
joshvajohn wrote:Nowadays US keeps itlself away from Pakistan.
US has dual approach. When they are engaged in Afganistan they work closely with Pakistan as they need space and cooperation in terms of fighting the terror in Afganistan. But in the case of India US has made it clear that terror against India will not be tolerated within Pakistan. US support would be there as long as Pakistan follows this as US needs India for their business. For me India too should work on sophistication of their military arms by colloboration with US and thus become very powerful in this region. Democratically this suits Americans as their interests in South Asia protected and there is a balance of power in the region. India has to develop strong defense systems in order to protect themselves from Chinese and Pakistani invasions.
It is to some extent true that Pakistan is turning the support that it receives from US into arms and other defense systems that are against India. But the problem with Pakistan is that the fundamentalists can take over power at any time and attack west for any reasons including Koran Burning. Such attacks can also aim at Indian interests too. This is where my argument comes that is, not to give any chance for Islamists to find a case for attacking the West while trying to promote freedom and democracy among Islamic countries.
US cannot work against India as democratically people in US will not let it happen. This can also be true for India. We have more in common than anything to hate each other. One should know that Hinduism is the most respected religion by many in the West though a few fundamentallist Christians would speak of it differently. Since the time of Maxmuller and G U pope many of the Western philosophies and theologies were influenced by Hindu thinking.
Coming back to my point US needs to keep away from Pakistan because of their supporit and links with terror groups and their military and intelligence connections to terror groups and their dual role.
ramana wrote:menon-s, Why did you post that Hindu temple attack in this thread? Suggest you post it elsewhere as its not relevant to this thread topic.
Thanks,
ramana
IMO there is more than enough to this story to believe that it is relevant for posting on this thread.
The temple in question is located in a Mohammadden dominated locality of Sydney and the suspicion is that the perpetrators of the attack are those subscribing to the Mohammadden faith.
The busy Hindu temple opened in 1977. It is surrounded by a predominantly Muslim population and it is no secret among locals that tensions have been simmering in recent years, caused by concerns about noise and parking problems at Sri Mandir.
Furious Indonesian women fought off a mob of armed Islamists after the religious fanatics tried to evict a mother and her newborn baby from a house, police and reports said today.
Dozens of angry housewives forced the Islamists to flee for safety and attacked their leader's vehicle during the incident near Medan, northern Sumatra, reports said.
"What the housewives did here was spontaneous and it was because we care for our neighbours who are in trouble," a witness identified as Evi was quoted as saying in the Jakarta Globe.
The melee erupted Saturday when the women rushed to the defence of their neighbour, Nurhayati, and her two-week-old baby.
A group of about 12 stick-wielding men from the Islamic Defenders Front -- a notoriously violent vigilante group that is tolerated by the authorities -- had attacked her house over a land dispute.
