Can the Ground Zero Mosque be a test of Muslim tolerance?
Christopher Hitchens brings out a great point in this brief excerpt from A Test of Tolerance (emphasis added):
Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its (the Ground Zero Mosque’s) defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true.
But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything “offensive” to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter .
…This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be “phobic.” A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.
Continued below…
Image courtesy: Wikipedia
From my window, I can see the beautiful minaret of the Washington, D.C., mosque on Massachusetts Avenue. It is situated at the heart of the capital city’s diplomatic quarter, and it is where President Bush went immediately after 9/11 to make his gesture toward the “religion of peace.” A short while ago, the wife of a new ambassador told me that she had been taking her dog for a walk when a bearded man accosted her and brusquely warned her not to take the animal so close to the sacred precincts.Muslim cabdrivers in other American cities have already refused to take passengers with “unclean” canines.
…At the United Nations, the voting bloc of the Organization of the Islamic Conference nations is already proposing a resolution that would circumscribe any criticism of religion in general and of Islam in particular. So, before he is used by our State Department on any more goodwill missions overseas, I would like to see Imam Rauf asked a few searching questions about his support for clerical dictatorship in, just for now, Iran. Let us by all means make the “Ground Zero” debate a test of tolerance. But this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.
Also read:
Sir V S Naipaul’s views on Islamism and Tolerance
and also MF Husain on why he did not paint on Islamic themes
“Can the Ground Zero Mosque be a test of Muslim tolerance?”
Firstly there is NO MOSQUE in ground zero.
Its two blocks away. Even then its not a complete “mosque”….it is a cultural/community center for muslims which will have a “mosque” component just like a “swimming pool” component!
Its like saying “i live in a temple”….since temple is two blocks away!
Christopher Hitchens is one of those “muscular” Atheist who are totally anti-religion. This explains his opposition.
Of course many radical islamists are present thoughtout the world just like radical right-wing Christians and radical right-wing hindus. Though i admit radical islamists are more in number. We need to counter them INTELLECTUALLY NOT BY FORCE.
Force multiplies their number. It acts only as a blessing in disguise for them. Cordoba Initiative has all the things needed to counter it.
And contrary to what what Mr.Christopher Hitchens like us to believe,
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is indeed a moderate with right kind of Ideas…….he is NOT A RADICAL.
Dear Shantanu
As I’ve elaborated in The Discovery of Freedom (http://bit.ly/9dRrPE) ALL religions have displayed tendencies for tolerance and intolerance. To start our journey to the (scientific) truth about reality, and hence to gain a level of control over nature, leading us to wealth and health, all modern societies have had to firmly break out of the choking grip that religions have exercised on our minds.
Thus, I don’t know of any religion which can’t be faulted on intolerance displayed. For instance, in the last few days some people on my blog have informed me that anyone involved in cow slaughter in India must be killed (capital punishment!). Thus, I haven’t come across a ANY fully tolerant religion so far. They don’t exist.
All religions have an EXTREMELY EVIL underbelly – of fanatic followers ready to kill others on the slightest pretext. Emperor Tiberius remarked, ‘if the gods think that they have just claims for grievance, they can surely take care of themselves’. But it appears that religious followers need to settle scores themselves.
It has been a very hard journey for USA over the past 9 years. One must sympathise with its travails. It is also a journey that seems to be increasingly risking US liberty.
The USA was founded by Protestants who had fled from the murderous Catholics of Europe. Today it faces a difficult choice:
1) If it blocks Imam Rauf’s centre, it risks reneging on the social contract of liberty it signed in 1776.
2) If it lets Imam Rauf’s centre be built, it risks strengthening those who will put pressure on USA’s liberties in the future.
The risks to liberty in BOTH cases are severe and urgent. The matter can’t be allowed to hang as it is, for when liberty declines in the USA, there will be no other place left in the world to uphold liberty. India is so far behind I can’t (now) see it leading the world in my lifetime. We must encourage the USA to defend liberty – above everything else in the world.
I therefore suggest a way forward: Take a written oath from Imam Rauf (and the Muslim community in NY) to be lodged with NY council asserting that Rauf and his fellow Muslims will NEVER demand a reduction in liberties in USA on religious grounds and that they will FIGHT SOLELY FOR USA as its citizens.
Once that oath is taken, Imam Rauf must be permitted to build the Cordoba Centre. As I note in DOF, Cordoba was a great case study in tolerance in Medieval Europe, at a time when Christianity was the world’s most intolerant religion. But Islam has subsequently lost the trust it once might have held in the minds of some. It must re-build this by making PUBLIC and credible statements to defend LIBERTY.
There are also very good, rational reasons for USA to demand such an oath. Too much blood has been spilled by Islamic fanatics. Any sign of weakness at this point in the USA will be exploited by fanatics within Islam to impose medieval ‘moral’ standards on the entire world! That must be stopped!!
The dangers posed by fanatic Islam are now obvious and self-evident. Too long have fanatics who have been plying a medieval trade of destruction of human liberty been allowed to get away because of confused moral relativism. Moral relativism must end. The supreme morality of liberty must be asserted. BOLDLY. You want to live in a free society like USA, then OBEY the fundamental tenets of freedom. Else go back to your own ancient land. No one will bother you there.
Note that after European Catholics had killed hundreds of thousands of Protestants, the Pope finally issued a statement in 1965 acknowledging the PRIMACY of religious freedom: “the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.â€
It is time for ALL PEOPLES of the world to sign such an oath. The FTI policy on religious freedom (http://bit.ly/c2rL1h) is the best document known to mankind so far on this subject, and should be used as a starting point for such an oath by all citizens of civilised nations.
This oath must also apply also to those who are re-asserting medieval ideas in India (e.g. Baba Ramdev and the Hindutva brigade). India is faced with a great challenge: If liberty is not strongly defended by this generation, I expect India to go down the gurgler end up with mayhem – very much like Pakistan. And it will finally splinter into a thousand pieces. Liberty and tolerance is the ONLY glue that can unite India.
The world must now split into two: the FREE and NOT FREE. Let the milk and water be separated. Those who oppose liberty must exit the FREE societies. Let them live their disastrous medieval brutal lives wherever they want, but not in the free societies. The world can’t continue tolerating this inner tension that is making it virtually impossible to live in peace anywhere now.
All people who enter free societies must SWEAR to uphold religious liberty.
Regards
Sanjeev
Sam Harris, author of “End of Faith” weighs in on Cordoba initiative.
“It is both ironic and instructive that at the very moment that the path was finally smoothed for the construction of the ground zero mosque, the Hamburg mosque that nurtured the 9/11 hijackers was shut down by the German government. No doubt there were German Muslims who felt their religious liberty was shamefully abridged. However, after a decade of treating this mosque as a monument to tolerance, the Germans were forced to admit that it was actually an incorrigible incubator of jihadism and anti-Western values. And so, the question must be asked: Which of these sister mosques represents the true face of Islam?”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/
Sanjeev S said:
“Thus, I don’t know of any religion which can’t be faulted on intolerance displayed. For instance, in the last few days some people on my blog have informed me that anyone involved in cow slaughter in India must be killed (capital punishment!). Thus, I haven’t come across a ANY fully tolerant religion so far. They don’t exist.”
There is no such thing a fully tolerent or partially tolerant religion. Either a faith’s ideology allows pluralism or it does not. This has nothing to do with individual practioners. Semtic religions(Islam and Christinity) do not, where as Indic traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism and etc) do. That is why Hindus never went on a Jihad or a crusade. In fact they were/are genocidal victims of organized religion. Clubbing together organized religion and Indic tration is extreme reductionism.
“All religions have an EXTREMELY EVIL underbelly – of fanatic followers ready to kill others on the slightest pretext.”
I will believe this when I see Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina suicide bombers. All I see is Hindus persecuted even in ‘moderate state’ like Malaysia.
>>Atheist who are totally anti-religion
Tell us something new, Comrade Punditji. Like, for example, that atheists are totally pro-religion.
>>We need to counter them INTELLECTUALLY NOT BY FORCE
And no doubt the force used by bloggers saddens you, given you are a peace-lover and not an extremist. When will these guys learn to intellectually engage the terrorists in Conversations #1, #2, #3 and #507, like you do?
@Kartik
“When will these guys learn to intellectually engage the terrorists in Conversations”
Many liberal Muslims already know how to do it……its just that people like YOU make it difficult for them!
As you know , intolerance breeds intolerance!
Wow! Right wingers invoking Hitchens and Harris! This has got to be a first!
Wonder how the author would see the following argument Hitchens made only a couple of weeks ago AGAINST the opposition to the Islamic centre in Lower Manhattan!
http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/
>>As you know , intolerance breeds intolerance!
Actually, intolerance is bred in the family Punditji, passed down from papa to sonny, and then sonny tries to scale the heights papa did. Chances are far fewer that adults suddenly develop intolerance and prejudice.
>>Many liberal Muslims already know how to do it……
The first step to fighting intolerance is to dispel the notion that intolerance and extremism can be successfully palmed off as liberalism and moderation, comrade. That ploy is not working, and it won’t. I must again point this wonderful writeup to you:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2010/08/silence_is_not_moderation.html
@Ashish: Beyond the sarcasm, do you have any comment to make on “Islamism” and “Islamophobia”?
@Ashish Deodhar
“”Wow! Right wingers invoking Hitchens and Harris! This has got to be a first!””
Its textbook right-wing tactics.
Its so identical.
For example , Islamists often use Chomsky and Arundhati to justify their actions against USA and India……
@B Shantanu
Here is the ANSWER to your Quesion on Islamism:-
“”To pluck one example, the leftist-turned-neocon supporter Nick Cohen has accused Chomsky of being soft on jihadism (as well as of “not being bothered” by “the crimes of Adolf Hitler”). Yet Chomsky points out that an analysis of official data for the government-supported RAND corporation found that the invasion of Iraq caused a “seven-fold increase in jihadism.” If you really hate jihadism, you have to figure out what reduces it, rather than engage in bluster. Chomsky supported the path that produces fewer jihadis, while Cohen supports the path that produces more.“”
“”http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20100716.htm””
Read his recent book : Hopes and Prospects by Chomsky…..everything explained beautifully
@Shantanu
I have plenty to say about “Islamism” and “Islamophobia” but I am afraid none of it would interest the commentators on this forum.
But I will give it a shot anyway.
@IP
Thanks for that note. I was going to make that point about “Islamism”. Islamism is what happens when a particular community is pushed against the wall. Those with any sanity left whatsoever would realize that.
As for “Islamophobia”, I agree and disagree with Hitches at the same time. I agree with him that it’s a dangerous concept but I disagree with his reasons for saying so. It’s dangerous because it’s turned into “an irrational fear and hatred of muslims” (and blogs like these do a good job of spreading it further!). And the more people fear and hate muslims, the more they push them against the wall.
So “Islamophobia” feeds into “Islamism” and vice versa. That completes the circle.
Comrade & Comrade,
Each age witnesses great thinkers who see through the fads, superstitions, tyrannies and scourges of the time with extraordinary clarity and prescience. With great courage, they also rebel against what they see through. Hitchens and Harris are among the great thinkers of our times. Being atheists, they hold no brief for religion, ANY religion, so too bad your usual gimmicks against those who speak out against Islam don’t work. Hating them is not only an irrational response, but is also ineffective if historical record is anything to go by. Understood that they stick in your gullet, but what are you gonna do? If they were a ChandruK or SuryaM you could fake a handle, blabber some nonsense, create confusion and use the melee to slither out of embarrassment. But these people are well-known and greatly admired. Your pedestrian trickery doesn’t work. There are descent methods. They begin with discarding bluff and bluster. Shedding intolerance and prejudice. Stopping the recital of scripture and dogma as if they answered any questions.
Coming back to the point, not only Hitchens and Harris, but Mark Helprin also has some great points to make. Wrote he in today’s WSJ:
“Building close to Ground Zero disregards the passions, grief and preferences not only of most of the families of September 11th but, because we are all the families of September 11th, those of the American people as well, even if not the whole of the American people. If the project is to promote moderate Islam, why have its sponsors so relentlessly, without the slightest compromise, insisted upon such a sensitive and inflammatory setting? That is not moderate. It is aggressively militant.”
Take a break from your day job of being make-up men for the pig, and go read the article in full at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704147804575455503946170176.html
@Kartik
The usually irrational, insane right-wing nutters hijacking the great thinkers is the irony! I guess you missed my sarcasm in my earlier post! But I wouldn’t blame you for that. After all, sarcasm IS intelligent humor 🙂
By the way, I am an atheist myself and I often speak out against Islam, and Christianity, mormonism, scientology and all the other funny religions of the world. The hypocrisy of the Hindutva brigade is that they speak out against every religion EXCEPT Hinduism.
After all, worshiping a semi-naked, three-eyed, blue-colored man sitting on top of a mountain or an elephant-headed creature isn’t really a sign of “great thinkers”, is it?
So stop invoking the atheist LIBERALS as and when it suits your ulterior motives. I am sure they will dissociate themselves from bigots of any religious denomination.
@Ashish: Hurried response…Re. “Islamism is what happens when a particular community is pushed against the wall.” Any ideas on why that did not happen with Kashmiri Pandits? or with the Hindu minority in Pakistan? or Bangladesh?
And perhaps a more fundamental question, what is your view/definition of “Islamism”?
Further, any comment on this sentence of Hitchens: “A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature…“?
@Shantanu
I think I have responded to both the definition of Islamism and Hitchens’ take on Islamophobia in my earlier comment.
And it would be wrong to suppose that Hindus have not been radicalized. The fact that blogs such as yours flourish is evidence enough of this radicalization. Just as the Islamic extremists use Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir as rallying cries for their deplorable causes, so the Hindutva brigade uses the Kashmiri pandits and Hindus in Pakistan as rallying cries for the Hindutva movement. (your questions should stand as a proof to my claim!) Come to think of it, there’s hardly any difference between the two.
As for why the Hindus haven’t been radicalized in Pakistan, I don’t have enough information to make a comment on that. I couldn’t tell one way or the other if they are or aren’t radicalized in Pakistan.
@Shantanu
Had to mention this in my earlier comment but somehow forgot! Your last comment and questions in it are a very simple (and a common) distraction from the subject at hand (as I have noticed many a times in the past).
Whether or not Hindus have been radicalized has nothing to do with the growing trend of Islamism. The fact remains that muslims are being pushed against the wall and they are increasingly seeking refuge in Islamic fundamentalism. We’re seeing this happening very rapidly in the UK and I am sure this is happening elsewhere in the world too.
I would recommend a book called ‘The reluctant fundamentalist’ by Mohsin Hamid to the readers of this blog. This book gives a very good insight into the mind of an ordinary muslim driven to fundamentalism who otherwise could’ve easily been a hard-working citizen. You should also watch a very beautiful film called ‘My son the fanatic’ dealing with the same subject.
Hello Comrade Deodhar,
>> guess you missed my sarcasm in my earlier post!
Were you trying sarcasm!? My bad. If only if you’ll issue a sarcasm alert in advance next time, I’ll watch keenly and admire your skill, ok?
>>I am an atheist myself and I often speak out against Islam, and Christianity
Glad to know. It might warm your heart to know that self is unbeliever too and is allergic to all dogma; particularly to genocidal dogma like communism that kills people.
>>So stop invoking the atheist LIBERALS
Know what, comrade, I rarely ever see Harris and Hitchens loudly advertising themselves as LIBERALs and letting on like they constitute some club or brotherhood. Are you under pressure to proclaim yourself a LIBERAL, by any chance? Don’t be! Recall the fact that there once was a Federal Republic of Germany and a German Democratic Republic. Guess which one was democratic? The leftwing loons ruling the east side of Berlin called themselves democratic, and it was only when the wall came down that the dimwits realized the joke was on them. This episode illustrates the point that whereas true-blue liberals stand out, the fake ones have to yell like Tarzan The ApeMan to claim the label.
>>I am sure they will dissociate themselves from bigots of any religious denomination.
Well, no harm keeping trying if rejected.
But what they will encourage you to do, I’m sure, is to try and be open reason, logic and rationality. Therefore, pay attention to argument, not to the proponent. Best wishes.
Why Hindus have NOT been radicalized???
or Why Muslims have been radicalized?
Reason is quite different!
Try answering these questions:
1) Who funded the global jihad or mujaheddin movement???
2) Which countries MONEY and which countries IDEOLOGY and which countries TRAINING BASES(funded by the “money” country) was used to fund , operate , support Islamism and jihad in order to fight the “godless” communists????
3) By the way , what is the PRIMARY GOAL of global islamism/jihad????
4) What is the reason of their “primary goal”??
Answers of all these questions will effectively answer the question of Islamism!
Why Hindus have NOT been radicalized???
No proper funding or brain washing!
@Kartik
“It might warm your heart to know that self is unbeliever too and is allergic to all dogma; particularly to genocidal dogma like communism that kills people.”
Can you name one ideology that haven’t killed people????
Gandhi’s Non-violent ideology is the least violent!
@Kartik
No I wasn’t “trying” to be sarcastic. I was being sarcastic. Shantanu got it. Didn’t you? Gosh that’s dumb!
Ah so you think I am communist? That answers the comrade referral. Here’s a little education for you mate. Not everyone who demands blood of some or the other community is a communist. You clearly don’t know anything about me and hence this idiotic assumption. Will forgive you that!
As for reason and rationality, I could give you a few lessons in that myself. In fact, let me drop the name of Ayn Rand and see how your brethren jump up as if they’ve been pocked in their backside with a needle. 🙂
So pack up your “reasonable” Hindutva trash and try it on someone else, will ya?
@Kartik
I said: “Not everyone who demands blood of some or the other community is a communist.” I meant to say: “Not everyone who DOESN’T demand blood of some or the other community is a communist.”
My bad!
@Kartik
Again, ‘pocked’ should’ve been ‘poked’. 🙂
Comrade and Comrade,
That Muslims are recently radicalized is nutty leftwing fiction.
In Iran, for example, the government wants to stone a young woman to death on charges of adultery. She will be buried neck deep in sand, and stones of a particular size will be hurled at her head. Where did they get this idea from, of legally perpetrating such brutality for such a “crime” as adultery in this day and age? Ask your local SFI or CPIM nutjob, or the president of the *self-proclaimed* Liberal Club, and he will give you a fiery speech on Shah of Iran, America, capitalist imperialism, bourgeois betrayal, dialectical materialism etc etc and link it all to why poor Iran was left with no choice but to stone female adulterers to death. I do encourage you to listen to it to get entertained. Take the front row to keenly watch the speaker roar, get *sarcastic*, gesticulate, get mad and get all blue in the face. When the show is over, read Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Hadith 4211. Warm regards.
@Comrade Kartik
Her name is Mohammadi Ashtiani and her case has been brought to light by a UK newspaper called Guardian months ago and since then, for your kind information, I have been an active social media campaigner AGAINST this brutality. Just so that you know, Ashtiani would not be stoned to death (as it stands now) and there is a huge campaign to even save her life by all means. If you need any more information on this, please do get in touch with me.
This idea of stoning people to death comes from Hadiths and has been followed to date by barely a handful of countries – Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia. You would be disappointed to know that MOST of the muslim countries don’t execute people in that fashion.
Now that we are done with Islam bashing (I am beginning to wonder if commentators on this forum do this for a living!), could you be kind enough to enlighten us with your brilliant cooked-up connection between the growing “Islamism” and “stoning of women to death”?
Btw, comrade Kartik, looks like you’ve sat in many a front rows of these left-wing assemblies. Time to come out of the closet, eh?
@IP,
Can you name one ideology that haven’t killed people????Gandhi’s Non-violent ideology is the least violent!
Really!!! Let us start with Hinduism and Buddhism then. Please elaborate on how they are violent. While you are at it, please explain how Gandhi’s ideology inspired people to commit violence. Reductionism is a great commie tool, but it is not easy one to pull off.
@Kartik
Of course NO ONE supports islamist regime in Iran!
But obviously you are clueless about WHY the current regime in Iran came to power!
Also you are applying TEXT BOOK right-wing tactics!
It goes something like this: “‘Point out the evils of others EXCESSIVELY while acting like a holy cow”
Thats what happens when you listen to your hindu fascist nutjobs!
Next time when a certain “M” from a great western state comes to speak ,Take the front row to keenly watch the speaker roar, get *sarcastic*, gesticulate, get mad and get all blue in the face. When the show is over, read something called Untouchability. Warm regards.
@Sid
Spoke like a typical holy cow!
Of course , Caste system , untouchability are not part of hinduism!
@ Ashish Deodhar wrote:
“I am beginning to wonder if commentators on this forum do this for a living!”
Third point of Fascism written by Dr. Laurence Britt
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
Hello Comrade Deodhar,
Are you being sarcastic again, by any chance? You’re so smart and it’s becoming difficult for me to tell whether you are being sarcastic or being more sarcastic.
Anyways, the topic I now wanted to touch upon is Islamophobia. What I like about the word is that it rhymes well with LaGuardia, an airport I frequented while living in the Great Satanic imperialist capitalist US of A.
But Sam Harris has a different opinion on the word. I know quoting Harris annoys members of the Liberals Club and the Pickwick Club, but for whatever it’s worth:
“Apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as “Islamophobia.†My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali is said to be suffering from it. Though she was circumcised as a girl by religious barbarians (as 98 percent of Somali girls still are) has been in constant flight from theocrats ever since, and must retain a bodyguard everywhere she goes, even her criticism of Islam is viewed as a form of “bigotry†and “racism†by many “moderate†Muslims. And yet, moderate Muslims should be the first to observe how obscene Muslim bullying is—and they should be the first to defend the right of public intellectuals, cartoonists, and novelists to criticize the faith.”
@Comrade Kartik
Let me commend you on your great effort to try and paint me as an Islamic apologist! Good try but sorry, no luck!
As I said in my earlier comments, Islamophobia has been turned into an “irrational fear and hatred of Muslims”, mainly thanks to bigots such as yourself. There’s a difference between hating Islam and hating Muslims. I despise Islam but not those who are merely born in Muslim families.
So if you are trying to tell me (I hope against all hopes) that you are merely averse to the ideology of Islam but are willing to not consider all Muslims as barbaric demons, then I am with you. But I am not that optimistic to be honest.
So there you go. Now you’ve tried to brand me a communist. You’ve tried to brand me an Islamic apologist. I look forward to your next “reasoned” accusation!
@IP,
Spoke like a typical holy cow!Thank you for this compliment. A cow is way better than a delusional communist. At least a cow never forced other cows to Siberia.
Of course , Caste system , untouchability are not part of hinduism!So is caste system/untouchability equivalent to violence? I challenge you to cite me the references inside Hindu and Buddhists text and ask for violence (even caste system). As usual, as budding commie you have no idea what you are talking about.
Hello Comrade Deodhar,
Do I think you are the usual commie fruitcake offering justifications for Islamic terrorism? I don’t know. Since you are a cleverly sarcastic guy, difficult for a dumb person like me to tell. But your sarcastic arguments do pass the duck test, and they sound so commie like.
Take for instance, this decidedly commie gem: “Muslims are pushed against the wall” — subtext being, “therefore they kill innocent people”.
Commies being more loyal to the caliphate than the terrorist is, they are the first people to get stark raving mad when someone says “Muslims are violent”. “How can you say Muslims are violent?” they pounce on you with a glare in the eye, “only some Muslims are violent, just like some Hindus are violent. Bigot! Fanatic! Hindutva! Nazi! Fascist!” etc, etc. The usual drama from the usual set of lunatics.
But here in this commie gem, “Muslims are pushed against the wall”, there are no nuances. It is as if the Muslims of Saudi Arabia, who don’t allow non-Muslims to worship even within their private four walls, are also “pushed against the wall”. Several variations are possible for our commie to pick from, even when none of them, like the original, needs necessarily be truthful, a key commie requirement:
Some Muslims are pushed against the wall.
Some Muslims claim that they are being pushed against the wall.
Some Muslims believe that they are being pushed against the wall.
Some people are pushed against the wall, they happen to be Muslim, but this wall-pushing has nothing to do with their being Muslim.
Some people believe that they are being pushed against the wall, they happen to be Muslim….
And so on.
The point of this commie sophistry is to justify terrorism. Muslims are being pushed against the wall, so they drive planes into buildings and commit mass murder; or pump bullets into commuters in a train station and commit mass murder yet again, etc.
Kashmir has been ethnically cleansed. But the Pandits are not going about bombing people. Communist China committed untold atrocities in Tibet. The region’s ethnic character is being changed, its unique Buddhist culture is being wiped out. Yet the Tibetan leader, Dalai Lama, is fighting a peaceful battle. (Marxist thugs masquerading as editors in our newspapers vent bile against him at the instance of China.)
My expectation from people REALLY “pushed against the wall” is that their response is within limits of humaneness. This expectation is based not only on my belief in innate good sense of people, but is also validated by real-world examples cited above. What are the odds, comrade, that if “pushed against the wall” you will slit the throat of your hostage and gleefully videotape the event?
True liberals like Sam Harris hold all peoples — Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, atheists — to same moral/ethical standards. Commie liberals don’t because they actually have a patronizingly low opinion of Muslims. They think, or perhaps know, or perhaps wish, that Muslims are more violent than Hindus and Buddhists. Hence they think it is “natural” that Muslim terrorism should result from Muslim wall-pushing.
Best wishes.
Dear Kartik
You typically avoided my questions:-
1) Who funded the global jihad or mujaheddin movement???
2) Which countries MONEY and which countries IDEOLOGY and which countries TRAINING BASES(funded by the “money†country) was used to fund , operate , support Islamism and jihad in order to fight the “godless†communists????
3) By the way , what is the PRIMARY GOAL of global islamism/jihad????
4) What is the reason of their “primary goal�?
Also i NEVER found you and your brother sid to condemn Gujarat Mssacre of muslims , death of more than 2 million muslims in Iraq and Afganishtan , condition of Palestinian muslims ??????
This selective condemnation of events is another typical right wing tactics.
Keep on playing the holier-than-thou games……we all know what you really are : A FASCIST!
Also Noam Chomsky will never be quoted by you…..
Kartik wrote
“Kashmir has been ethnically cleansed. But the Pandits are not going about bombing people. Communist China committed untold atrocities in Tibet. The region’s ethnic character is being changed, its unique Buddhist culture is being wiped out. Yet the Tibetan leader, Dalai Lama, is fighting a peaceful battle.”
Kartik forgot to mention:-
1)Untold atrocities in Iraq , Palestine , Latin America and even INDIA by Capitalist thugs.
2)Both Kashmiri Pandits and Tibetians are have LOST.
@Hello Comrade Kartik
Communism is a social and economic philosophy; not a religious opinion. So not all communists are anti-religion and not all anti-religionists are communists.
So as to where I stand – I stand on the far right of the economic argument (classical liberal) and on the far left of the religious argument (atheist/liberal).
(Too heavy for your brain, I know but worth putting it out there!)
“Muslims are pushed against the wall†— subtext being, “therefore they kill innocent peopleâ€.
Seriously? What are you on? LSD?
Islamism
In the post 9/11 world, Muslims all over the non-Muslim world faced a backlash. There are plenty of cases of people wrongly implicated/persecuted for being Muslims, discriminated against and so on. Their only refuge (and that’s where I think they went wrong) was within their community and consequently in religious fundamentalism. Hence, you will see a number of second-generation Muslims in the UK (I can only speak for the UK, but I am sure it’s pretty much the same elsewhere in the western world) going back to Islam whilst the first generation were fairly liberal in their outlook. This, in a nutshell, is what I call “Islamism”.
Now if wearing a hijab or keeping a beard is “killing innocent people” for you, then I can’t help it. (now coming to think of it, it shouldn’t come to me as a surprise that a right wing nutter holds such an opinion!)
Now on to the violence. To say that the violence caused in the name of Islam is inhumane is to state the obvious. Most of the middle-east is economically depraved or religiously deluded. So those seeking Islamization of the world (and there are many) use this economic situation and the problems in Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya as a recruiting tool for their cause.
At the cost of being called a “commie” again, let me assure you that most Muslims don’t support these activities. Whilst discussing this with a Muslim friend, I realized that one of the reasons for most Muslims to assert their religious identity is to also demonstrate to the world that not all Muslims are terrorists. So they go to work in a hijab and do the jobs that you and I do!
Now on to Hindutvawadi’s darling – Saudi Arabia! To set the tone, one of the most oppressive and deluded countries in the world! Goes against everything I stand for, on economic and religious ideas. But the Hindutva brigade would be disappointed to know that Saudia is one of the very few countries adhering to wahhabi Islam. There also exist countries such as Turkey and Egypt that are far more open than many socialist/communist countries in the world.
Many of those Muslims who choose to live in a non-Muslim country do so because they prefer the liberal/secular values of their adopted countries over their own. An Iranian friend who lives in London works hard to spread the message of liberalism in Iran. Neda Soltan, another Iranian woman, was shot dead whilst peacefully protesting on the streets of Tehran. Many within the Islamic republic are fighting hard against the oppressive regime. They are all Iranians and they are all Muslims but unfortunately for you, they don’t fit your “killers of innocent people” stereotype.
So to sum up, some Muslims commit acts of violence and most Muslims are made to answer for those acts.
They do so by asserting their Muslim identities, which I don’t agree with.
When they do assert their Muslim identities, they cause “Islamophobia”.
As a result, they are again pushed against the wall.
There are many Muslims within the Muslim world who want to bring about a change in their own country. They are NOT your stereotypical “jihadis”.
My solution to this: Treat people as individuals; not as Hindus, Christians or Muslims. Open yourselves to them and get to know them better. Support and empower, in whichever way you can, those in the Muslim world who are fighting hard for liberalism. They are offering far more sacrifices for the ideals of liberalism that you and I could not even begin to imagine.
Even after this, my dear friend, if you insist on calling me an Islamic-apologist communist, that’s entirely your choice.
@Shantanu: I don’t know whether I am still allowed to post on this forum but if I am not, could you please pass on this to Kartik? I think he deserves my response.
And as for my sarcasm, well, if your blue-eyed boys and girls stop offending me by calling me a “commie” and whatever else, I wouldn’t have to resort to sarcasm and insult.
Cheers!
Dear All: Can we pl have a debate without necessarily labelling people as “Commies”, “Fascists”, “Right-wing”, “Left-wing”, “Liberals” etc?
I have found that these terms rarely add much value to the debate (besides being open to a variety of interpretations) and generally push us down the slippery slope of sweeping generalisations…
So regardless of who started this, let us please get back to substance and content.
Thank you for your understanding.
Dear Shantanu,
If “labels” are not allowed on your blog, I respect your choice. Much as we must avoid pasting labels on people, we must also resist the hijacking of labels by people who don’t deserve them. “Liberal” is one such; much-abused and twisted out of its original meaning. I was pointing out that justification of terrorism as some sort of expected reaction to Muslim “wall-pushing” is the stand of the far-left folks who happen to style themselves as liberals, but that by no means it is the opinion of apolitical liberals like Sam Harris. This is where my use of the label “communist” comes into picture.
Hello Comrade Deodhar,
>>Communism is a social and economic philosophy; not a religious opinion.
You raise an interesting point, unless of course, you are being your usual sarcastic self. This reminds me of the “criticism” that Richard Dawkins tells us that he usually faces. Muslims and Christians challenge him on his point that religion killed many innocent people. “But how about atheists like Stalin? He killed millions of people. So didn’t your atheism also kill people?”
It is instructive and educational to read Dawkins’ response to this hare-brained question. He writes that the motivation for communist killings was the dogma of communism, not atheism, just as the motivation of Christian/Muslim killings was their theological dogmas. Dawkins, like many other intellectuals who studied dogmas of the world, points out that Communism shares many similarities with religion, and extremist religion at that. It is millennial, has its own holy literature and prophet figures, and advocates/endorses violence as means to achieve ends. No wonder then, as authors of “Blackbook of Communism” (themselves ex-Communists) detail, communism murdered 80 million people world over in the 20th century; larger than even the Nazi killings that were covertly winked at by the Catholic church.
That is about the only new point you made. Apaprt from that, I notice that you have expanded further on your pet theme of Muslim wall-pushing, dived and swam through it, floated on top of it, clung to it with admirable tenacity, psychoanalyzed it with sharp analytical tools, enriched it with attributions to voluminous amounts of evidence and data, and propounded a thesis on why poor Muslims can’t help becoming extremists when the world is ganging up against them. Moreover, you delivered it all with your characteristically sarcastic aplomb. I will definitely return to the theme some other time.
Meanwhile. I offer Pat Condell’s video to you to relax after all that hard work you put in. Enjoy maadi.
@Comrade Kartik
I admire your ability to use Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris’s arguments as word of god! Another religion in the making, I see!
Although I agree with Dawkins that Stalin and Mao’s violent acts have nothing to do with their religious beliefs, I fail to see how communism could constitute a religion. And if it is, I am sure you will call China blasphemous!
“propounded a thesis on why poor Muslims can’t help becoming extremists when the world is ganging up against them.”
If that’s all you could get from my argument, then I seriously feel bad for Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens to have followers like yourself. I think you are fit to be a die-hard follower of Pat Condell. (btw, any plans of building temples in their names in the near future?)
@Kartik
Thank you for avoiding my questions simply because you are exposed FULL TIME!
“He writes that the motivation for communist killings was the dogma of communism, not atheism”
What are the motivations for MILLIONS OF CAPITALIST KILLINGS ????
You are a typical ugly propagandist of western world……
Terms like “communist killings” is very enlightening!
Its like saying “hindu killings” of Gujarati muslims……!!
Hello Comrade Deodhar,
>>Another religion in the making, I see!
With your characteristic perspicacity and penchant for sarcastic wit, you raise another excellent point again.
Is Dawkins, or rather, atheism if you will, in danger of becoming a cult of its own? Do we fear that when a 100 years later Jyllands Posten publishes a cartoon showing Dawkins as an extremist, his followers world over will bomb embassies and kill innocent people? I see even some paranoid Hindus asking this question! (though it is Christians and Muslims who have the larger reason to bear a grudge against Dawkins).
There are two reasons this will not happen. First is that Dawkins’ arguments are founded on *reason* and (this might shock you given your wall-pushing theory) *evidence*. Religion on the other hand is founded on blind belief and dogma. The second is that atheism makes no exclusivist claims, and is willing to coexist. This needs more explanation.
All Abrahamic religions (and that includes Communism) share a common trait that puts them inevitably in conflict with both each other and with non-Abrahamic belief systems. (By contrast, Indian/Asian religions get along reasonably well). All Abrahamic religions claim that 1) that they have a monopoly on Truth and 2) that this Truth is revealed by One True God and 3) it is revealed to the good/chosen people and 4) and therefore it is their bounden duty to compel the bad/non-chosen people to bow before this one Truth as revealed to them by the One True God.
An illustration involving the perorations of Dr Zakir Naik, Islamic preacher recently banned entry into UK, is in order. He was asked why is that Muslim countries do not permit the construction of churches, while Muslims are free to build mosques in Christian-majority countries. To which Dr Naik replied, admirably for a theologian you might think, with a mathematical analogy.
Suppose you are hiring a math teacher for your school, he began. There are three applicants. When asked what is 2+2, the first one says 5, second one says 3 and the third one says 4. Which one will you hire? Duh. Shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Religion likewise is the teaching of God, Naik came to the point. Muslims know that only Islam teaches it correctly. So they cannot permit false teachers in their midst.
The point he illustrates in so many words, is that Islam being the one true religion, has no obligation to humor false religions. There are those verses about kufr and kaffirs, no mistaking their intent. Christianity and Communism also believe the same way. That is the reason why Christians can’t be content with minding their own business. They *have to* proselytize and convert all non-Christians to the faith. Likewise whereas communist parties are allowed to exist and contest elections in democratic countries, communist countries themselves are single-party tyrannies, because they *know* with *absolute certainty* as to what is good for their people. In other words, Abrahamic religions are exclusivist, imperialist, expansionist and do not believe in peaceful coexistence. It is therefore inevitable that they fight not only with each other, but with everybody else.
Hope I have acquitted myself well in appeasing your intellectual curiosity. Warm regards.
Hello Comrade Deodhar,
I am rather surprised to learn that you have never heard of Communism’s similarities with religion. I’m inclined to believe leftwing seminaries these days are not doing a good job training students to prepare them for countering difficult questions. The Christians call it catechism, I believe.
All my knowledge of the subject is culled from books read long ago. Yet, when I said “google”, one of the first things that turned up was this paper:
http://svonz.lenin.ru/articles/Kula_Marcin-Communism_as_Religion.pdf
And if ye shall search more, ye shall surely find more.
Warm regards.
I have just deleted a bunch of comments that I believe digressed from the main topic/issue being discussed.
If you feel I have made a mistake, leave a comment here.
I am open to re-considering but will reserve the right to a final decision.
Thank you for your understanding and support..and patience.
***
Extract from the Disclaimer:
I reserve the right to delete, edit or modify any comment submitted to this site without prior notification and/or explanation.
***
In case anyone is interested, the off-topic comments that were taken off this post can be read here.
I cannot guarantee that I will continue to do this. I only have 24 hrs in a day and this is not a high-priority task. Thanks.
As I’ve observed numerous times, some people make the Muslims a monolith when it comes to “being pushed against the wall” or “victims of US imperialism”; but take others to task when they (others) treat Muslims as a monolith, for example, blasphemy of Mohammad. In the latter case, all the differences, like Shias, Sunnis, Sufis are cited, and any mention of terrorism by Muslims is countered with Sufis being peaceful, as if Sufis represent all Muslims while being a teeny tiny percentage. One has to wonder at this obfuscation and misdirection by some intellectuals, and what prompts it.
Kaffir said:
“One has to wonder at this obfuscation and misdirection by some intellectuals, and what prompts it.”
What is interesting is that all the obfuscation and pretzel logic is not showing results. Americans do not seem to be impressed by elaborate rationalizations offered by the liberals regarding ‘root cause’ of Islamist violence. According to Pew trust surveys 70% of Americans in 2007 thought Islam and their religion are very different( compared to 50% in 2001). This shows a hardening of attitudes. It is interesting to note that roughly the same percent 70% oppose Cordoba Mosque. Also, interesting to note that a majority of independants oppose the Mosque.
Nor do Americans seem to be cowed down by the tag of ‘Islamophobia’. Just see the brick bats Eboo Patel of Washington Post gets. The ultra liberal viewers of NPR took Reza Islam to task for the following conclusion he said:
“I am a liberal, progressive, secularized American Muslim. But when I see that bigotry against my faith — my very identity — has become so commonplace in America that it is shaping into a wedge issue for the midterm elections, I can barely control my anger.
I can’t imagine how the next generation of American Muslim youth will react to such provocations. I pray that we never find out.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129381552
The b-word and the usual tantrums. Islamists are actually so pampered that they have come to believe expressing *anger* constitutes argument! “You making me poor victim angry and I am gonna strike back!” If this emotional blackmail is shown to 30% of those Americans who are pro-mosque, chances are some of them will change their mind.
kaffir,
“..some people make the Muslims a monolith when it comes to “being pushed against the wall†or “victims of US imperialismâ€; but take others to task when they (others) treat Muslims as a monolith..”
dhanyavaad for nice summary.
Kaffir (#45),
Mostly agree. But, this caught my eye:
... is countered with Sufis being peaceful“peaceful sufi” is a myth. A commenter on greatbong’s blog presented a marvelous picture of two highly respected sufis, do read them if you have time.
Aah the link was eaten by the software:
http://greatbong.net/2010/08/24/the-ground-zero-mosque/#comment-852373
friends,
from the link http://folks.co.in/2009/12/demystifying-the-sufis/
this excerpt;
“Accordingly Muinuddin reached Ajmer in Hindustan. There he said: ‘Praise be to God, May he be exalted, for I have gained possession of the property of my brother. Although, at that time there were many temples of idols around the lake, when the Khwaja saw them, he said: ‘If God and His Prophet so will, it will not be long before I raze to the ground these idol-temples.’â€
This is followed by tales of Khwaja coming over those Hindu deities and teachers who were strongly opposed to his settling down there. Amongst such people was a disgruntled employee of Rai Pithaura (as Prithvi Raj Chauhan was also known).
It appears that shorn of miracles the story simply suggests that Khwaja came to India determined to eradicated idolatry and paganism and establish Islam in its place. He met with a lot of resistance from the local governor of Rai Pithaura besides resistance from Rai Pithaura himself. With the help of the immense treasure at his disposal and having converted many gullible Hindus to his faith, he became strong enough to invite Rai Pithaura to convert to Islam. Having failed to persuade him, Khwaja sent a message inviting Sultan Shihabuddin Ghori to attack India. Shihabuddin made unsuccessful invasions. Rai Pithaura always allowed him to go back unmolested after his defeat. Ultimately, however, he defeated Prithvi Raj Chauhan and killed him.
excerpt ends.
can somebody explain what is meant here.
is it that this bum chishti was so powerful that he could not be owerpowered by prithvi raj chauhan?
@ashwani,
Chauhan was too much of an arrogant and over-confident king. He did not have a really big kingdom as compared to the other Rajputs. So, when first battle of terrain happened, a Rajput confederacy was created to help him. When Ghori lost and was running away from the battlefield (as described by another Sufi accompanying him), Chauhan refused to pursue the running Ghazi and finish the job.
Please note that, just around two centuries behind that time, when Arabs finally won Sindh, they made similar attempt at Rajputana. A Rajput confederacy led by Bappa Rawal (around 800 CE) not only defeated them but also extracted a promise made on spot with witness of Qur’an that they would never attempt beyond Sindh. The promise worked and it was not before Turks took over Caliphate, attack on India restarted. Chauhan had another such chance and he pretty much let it go. Other partners in the confederacy were disappointed. So when the second battle of terrain happened, no Rajput king other than Uday Singh of Mewar (I may not remember the correct name) was interested to help him. Consequently he lost because the combined team did not have the resource to defeat Ghori.
Five centuries later Rana Sagha made the same mistake with Babar and paid the price.
Calling people like Chauhan a Hindu hero gave us a wrong impression that is how heroes are supposed to behave and that needs to change. Chauhan acted like a loser and then lost it. Period.
Shantanu,
my apologies for being off topic. Please feel free to move the discussion if you want.
Thanks Sid, Ashwani for the links…will cross post them here too On Sufi Terror, Personal Terrorism, Jihadi Mindsets and Minarets
Sid, thanks. I had read that comment earlier, and had also left some comments on that post.
I didn’t imply that Sufism is somehow 100% benign – I was merely pointing out how Sufism is ascribed as the peaceful face of Islam by many. While there are some admirable qualities in Sufism – especially when compared to its other brethren, I’m not sure that Sufism abrogates odious concepts like “kaffir”, “Dhimmi”, “blasphemy” etc. that are present in the ideology.
*** Comment moved here ***
Pl post comments on relevant threads only. Pl use the “Categories” drop-down menu to find the appropriate headings or the “Search” function to find the relevant posts. Thanks.
*** Comment moved here ***
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
Comments on relevant threads please. Thanks
@Ashish Deodhar
In the post 9/11 world, Muslims all over the non-Muslim world faced a backlash. There are plenty of cases of people wrongly implicated/persecuted for being Muslims, discriminated against and so on. Their only refuge (and that’s where I think they went wrong) was within their community and consequently in religious fundamentalism
As if there was no Islamic terrorism before that!