sep 09, 2006
i am posting this on my blog and mailing this to a few people.
a powerful blog by fjordman on the mythical 'moderate' mohammedan. the author suggests that there aren't any such.
fjordman implies that because of the way mohammedanism is scripted, all members are a) visible extremists, b) extremists using taqiyah to mask themselves as moderates, c) likely to spawn offspring who will be extremists or d) those would rather escape mohammedanism, but are unable to extricate themselves.
the fault is not in mohammedans, it's in mohammedanism itself, he suggests.
rather an extreme view in itself i'd say, but thought-provoking indeed. and supported by selected examples and facts.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html
via little green footballs http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
consider various mohammedans and crypto-mohammedans we know, including those listed below, and see how they fit into these categories. i leave this as an exercise to the reader.
1. teesta setalvad
2. javed akhtar and shabana azmi
3. kuldeep nayar and praful bidwai
4. rafiq zakaria
5. shahabuddin
6. the filmi khan fraternity
7. mansoor ali khan pataudi
8. ma'dani
9. e. ahamed (foreign minister)
10. kamala suraiyya
11. akhila raman
12. arjun "dusshasana" singh
in the interest of fairness, i invite rebuttals (not rants). any blog comments that are not factual and rational will be deleted.
32 comments:
Are you trippin', Bro? How could you miss such luminaries as:
Amartya Sen
N. Ram
Khushwant Singh
Fareed Zakaria
and King of them all
Jawahar Lal Nehru
Rajeev said>>> rather an extreme view in itself I’d say
No Rajeev, Baron Bodissey is on the point. Problem is not Muslims; it is 7th century Islam that turns humans into 7th century barbaric savages.
So it is not extreme. It is this kind of Hindu mentality of hesitating at crucial time, lacking will and spine to call a spade. This Hindu’s (not Hinduism’s) inability to take tough decisions on crucial issues and difficult times has screwed us for the last 1000 years. So Rajeev himself is not immune to this disease I guess.
ah, the issue is the cure as well as the diagnosis.
so suppose you say all mohammedans are extremists then what do you do?
it's hardly feasible to expel them all.
i once wrote that there were three paradigms to deal with mohammedan terrorists:
1. brute force eg. israel and russia
2. slavish appeasement eg. india
3. benign neglect eg. us and w. europe
unfortunately none of these has worked.
so the only thing to do is to figure out what the pain points are and to apply pressue to those points.
what these are is a mystery.
but just condemning their ideology wholesale may not have much utility.
ibn warraq suggests that ridicule is a good weapon to use against mohammedans because they are so sure of the correctness of their views. any other ideas?
I cannot agree with the thesis that all muslims are bad. They aren't. If you narrow down the focus considerably, and come to those idolised by media, you would probably be closer to the group that is really bad. Even amongst those you have mentioned, I would tend to believe that tiger pataudi or (even) Javed Akhtar (not Shabana Azmi - she just doesn't seem brainy enough to understand the difference between genuine liberal thought and overt support to terrorism) aren't really ideologically committed to the fanatical thought.
The trouble is, because of Saudi money, and because of the sheer incompetence of political groups in India, we have come to a state of perverted democracy. Mahatma Gandhi crushed Indian democracy even before India became indpendent and people like Nehru and Bajpayee did their bit in killing democracy. At present, economics and short-term political considerations are ruling the Indian thought. Till enough people wake up and demand rational thinking and fair analysis, this will not change. Consequently, till Saudi money keeps pouring in, the fanatical thoughts will continue to have respect and protection. Remove this economic force, and the next day, half the editors in India will start singing a different tune and then, you will have a chance to hear the genuine opinion and ideas of people like Pataudi and Akhtar.
.
last week i saw a humble muslim school-teacher encouraging the children in his school to all sing vande mataram regardless of their religion. he said clearly that those opposing it are just creating trouble on religious grounds. all the children sang the song, and it was lovely to see.
so certainly there are people we cannot condemn. there may be many like this humble teacher.
i heard sonia g did not sing vande mataram at that function which they had to celebrate the anniversary. naturally, because she does vote-bank politics and appeasement polictics, and was afraid to lose her vote bank by singing it.
about "cures" following the diagnosis, i think truly non-radical, moderate and peace-loving following of islam need an identity that encompasses their religious affiliation, while also setting them apart from the violent ones.
A new identity. Something that is not answerable to fatwas from radical "religious" leaders. Something that allows them to be muslim yet uphold the way of peace. Something that separates them from the fanatical ones.
Then it would be easier for the law to step in and isolate the fanatical, violent ones, without hurting the sentiments of the whole community.
_
Daisies, nicely put. That is the perfect Hindu way of thinking.
the alternative, kapidhwaja and iamfordemocracy, is to annihilate everyone around us and be annihilated in return.
if you have other good ideas, i would like to read them.
thank you.
_
Here's a nice one on useful idiots and how they are being suicidal!
http://undressing-islam.spaces.live.com/
"Top 10 reason muslims love libs
Ironic, if Libs only know they are first on the chopping block if muslims take over:
1- Libs believe in freedom of speech (muslims don’t)
2- Libs believe in Multiculturalism (muslims don’t)
3- Libs believe in freedom of press (muslims don’t)
4- Libs believe in women rights (muslims don’t)
5- Libs believe in freedom of religion (muslims don’t)
6- Libs believe in individual rights to choose (muslims don’t)
7- Libs want gay to marry (muslims execute gays)
8- Libs believe in separation of state and church (muslims believe that Islam is the religion of the state) they want to over throw the constitution and replace it with sharia law.
9- Libs don’t believe in capital punishment (Muslim beheading and public execution is a spectator sport)
10- The whole world loves music and art (islam forbids both)
And if you dare to utter a word against muslims, Libs are the first to jump up and down like monkeys and call you a racist, Zionist, xenophobic, necon, Nazi, etc…
If anything liberals should be in the forefront of the fight against the Islamic wave and expose their true nature every chance we had, not defend them.
muslims love libs, they make great pets
well, i think it would be very unwise to alienate liberal muslims, and it is a fact that such people exist.
our problem, and the world's problem, is with fanatics and terrorists, not with any peace-loving, broad-minded muslim.
it does not matter if he/she chooses to worship in whatever way islam teaches.
liberal muslims should be encouraged to separate from the fanatical/terrorist type of islam, which is fed by saudi.
if we do not have a plan for the future of islam, then radical islam will have a plan for the rest of the world (it already does).
_
Option 1.Brute force
Brute force always works... it should be brutal enough though.
'Islamiofacism' to borrow the words of the great Mr.George Bush exists everywhere and no amount of political correctness and pithies and cliches about "majority of peaceful muslims" is going to hide it. In this context i genuinely belive, Indian mulsims because of their innate Hinduness are significantly different than their bretherens in other parts of the world.
Since I care only about Indian and Indians I will restrict my answer to ways I believe the best way to control the dangerous tendencies of this significant 'minortity' in my homeland. I guess we need to really encourage, prod, create the (non-existnet) enlightened leadership in the Indiam muslim community. Cutting off the oxygen of media coverage to all powerful imams including the likes of Shahi Imam along with their loose talk/fatwas is the first step.We need to consitently and concertedly need to praise, encourage and award the other muslims in the country who follow the mainstream approach to success in India at the same time disparaging and degrading the muslims who want to folow the "pure" way. We need to regularly brag about them in international stage.
Intelligence agencies like CIA are perfoem this "thought control" kind of things on their people and folks across the world.Agencies like RAW literally need to hammer into our muslims the million ways they are better off than their "purer" Pakistani counterparts. Such approaches are slower techniques involving more sophisticated effforts, but are sure to provide us the results..
These involve significant cohesion and coordination b/w our national security folks, media and political class. I believe this is eminently doable...
With regard to muslims in other part of the world... i really dont care..
By the way, I think brute force has worked for Israel. I don't really know what approach is 'feasible' for India but we could perhaps start by identifying the problem itself more accurately. Two important points that many people miss are:
1. Terrorism is just a means. The final objective is to talibanize Indian Society. If this can be done without shedding much blood (i.e. as is happening in the case of Kerala and Assam) then there is really no need for the promoters of islamic culture to blow people up into itty bitty pieces. With the collectively operating stupidity of dunderheads like some of the people who post replies on blog pages like this one, India could face a meek submission to Islam in a few decades.
2. There are no muslims who are both pious and moderate.The only moderate Muslims are those who in some way or the other reject their faith. Islam does not permit moderation or for that matter even any unislamic brand of extremism. Needless to say, Islam looks down upon all forms of rational and scientific thought.
The promoters of Islam will continue to use brute force. It seems logical that a good way to counter this is to retaliate with even more brutal force. Alternatively, one can turn the other cheeks (butt cheeks included).
Rajeev,
I never thought I have to debate Islam with you. I guess it is true that not every one will agree on every thing.
I did not say all Muslims are extremists but Islam is extreme. It is a barbaric desert cult, founded in 7th century for 7th century barbarians. It has not and will not coexist with other religions. It annihilated every religion it came to know. So it has no place to exist, at least in its current form, either in 21st century and certainly not in any non-Muslim states. So unless other wise Indian Muslims come up with a complete new set of interpretations of what was written in Koran, sort of like New Testament that allows them to co-exist peacefully among Hindus, Islam should be banned and all Indian Muslims should be converted to any Indic religion of their choice.
If you read history, Islam will always put fanatical Muslims in charge of their community. I know there are Muslims, whether it is majority or minority I have no clue, who are not crazy enough to kill in the name of religion. But they are power less. They cannot even challenge the authority of fanatics who control them and their religion then how are they going to defend non-Muslims? So what is the use in being politically correct so as not to offend this face less, power less “moderate” Muslims?
Brute force IS working for Israel. Proof – mere existence of Israel. Do you think if not for its military might Israel would be able to survive? You have to put this in perspective; Israel is surviving in spite of being surrounded by barbaric Muslims. If not for its military might it would have been annihilated a long time ago. If Hindus had at least half the strength of Israeli Jews then there will be no Pakistan or Bangladesh. It will be just one Hindu Akand Bharath.
May be you heard about one Sam Harris. He has written several books on organized religion. Last year he wrote a book titled “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason”. I watched his speech during the book release on C-Span’s book TV. He comes down heavily on organized religion, especially Islam and Christianity and the useful idiots – Communists. He accuses not just religious fundamentalists but also “moderates” because it is precisely because of moderates we are not able to address the root cause, dogma – religious or other wise, that results in terrorism.
On the other hand he has only praise for eastern religions because of its inherent nature – reason, debate and the freedom to be agnostic, more importantly the absence of any kind of dogma. He says that there is no place for dogma, either religious or other wise and I completely agree with him, in 21st century. I suggest this book to every Hindu, especially to those who harp on that there are “moderate” Muslims and we should not offend them.
You have to understand, terrorism is only a symptom it is not the disease. The disease that causes Islamic terrorism is Islam and its dogma, not Muslims – fanatics or other wise. Address the disease (Islam) then the symptom (terrorism) will go away. If we don’t recognize it then there is no point in whining about Islamic terrorism.
Some one also said if we cut off the oil money from S Arabia we can change Islam’s nature. What a juvenile thought. There was no oil money flowing from S Arabia when Gazni invaded us or when M A Jinnah partitioned Bharath and carved out an Islamic state out of Hindu Bharath. 1000 years of slavery has taught us nothing.
Handling Islam with kid gloves, or propagating the bull shit that Islam is a religion of peace or the useless talk of not all Muslims are fanatic when the religion they follow itself is barbaric will take us only to slaughterhouse. If we are fighting some body it is very important to understand the nature of our enemy. If we don’t we might as well surrender now.
There was no oil money flowing from S Arabia when Gazni invaded us or when M A Jinnah partitioned Bharath and carved out an Islamic state out of Hindu Bharath.
Siva,
I agree with you on everything including Sam Harris' book - which is prescriptive and an absolute must read for every one - specially liberals
But the passages above, I am afraid, are the wrong ones to cite to make your point.
1- When Ghazni invaded India it was not Indian Muslims who did us in. Indeed there were practically no Muslims in India at that time. Hence the question of the Muslims of India choosing the most militant as their leaders does not arise. Please blame the Hindu ancestors of the Hindu Jaichand's
2- Jinnah was no one to carve anything out of anywhere. He is the most consistently overrated figure in history.
Did you know that in every Constituent assembly elections in India prior to partition Indian Muslims in all Muslim majority provinces (NWFP, Bengal, Sindh, the Punjab and Baluchistan) voted to power Muslim parties opposed to the partition of India? It is a recorded fact of history. Please look it up - I will refer you to this interesting book
Then how come partition came into being? The simple reason is this " The British Decreed and the Congress Meekly accepted" . The British stance in the final years in India was
a- we will go by what the majority says
b- cancel a-) we will go by what the Muslim majority says
c- cancel b-) we will go by what the Muslim majority in the seats reserved for Muslims says
d- cancel c-) we will go by only by what the muslim league claiming to be representing the muslim majority says.
When even these constitutional tricks failed the British incited riots by sponsoring - yes British Sponsored - Islamic terrorism. I will refer you to another interesting book . When the plan to partition was announced Baadshah Khan told Gandhi "You are throwing us to the wolves" - A case of the Muslims letting India down? I dont think so - Badshah Khan was after all a Muslim ....
Hence to blame the Muslims alone is not right - if anything blame the British the most - and then blame the Congress
So much for history!
I am convinced that the Muslim fundamentalist leaders such as Ali Mian and fellow travellers - such as Imam Bukhari are kept in action principally by Saudi petro dollars. Take away that feeding tube and I guarantee that Indian Muslims will evolve a leadership that will start adjusting to the reality that the 'Islamic' endeavor failed in India and will in fact never succeed.
.
"So unless other wise Indian Muslims come up with a complete new set of interpretations of what was written in Koran, sort of like New Testament that allows them to co-exist peacefully among Hindus, Islam should be banned and all Indian Muslims should be converted to any Indic religion of their choice."
--- Siva, I like this. (And in general, I like reading about solutions more than rants). I have thought on the conversions lines for some time.
I can straightaway tell you a few reasons why this isnt workable:
1. Basically Islam does not approve of "idol-worship". 2. Islam swears by God. 3.Cow-slaughter OK.
Hence for conversion options for a "believing Muslim", it rules out Hinduism for them. As well as Buddhism, since Budhha did not really talk about God, whereas God is central for Islam.
Thus the two Indic major religions are not an option for a "believing muslim".
If Islam is banned, do you think even a peaceful Muslim will take it peacefully. I doubt it very much. Also conve
This is why I feel that a new identity needs to be there for a peaceful believing muslim, allowing him to be muslim, but separate from the imam and fatwa run Islam.
Then the remaining fanatical Islam could be banned. When there is a law for that, the law can take care of the rest. (As I stated in my post, the law can step in to isolate the fanatical ones).
Anyway criticising me for harboring "fanatasies" in my mind, well, at one point independence for India was a fantasy thought. Some visionaries took it from fantasy to reality. And interestingly, it wasnt achieved mostly by brute force.
_
Typo: I meant "Anyone..." not "Anyway..."
Excellent cut-paste job. Why don't you supplement it with your own analysis? Or is Sita Ramji going to be your only lamp in life? Not that it is a bad thing - he is a man I much admire. Perhaps you will give me the opportunity to respond as follows
To begin with of course is the problem that "Blaming the British is wrong" model does not apply to Ghazni - their being no Britishers in India at that time. However, let us proceed to where it does apply
ISLAM AND HINDU SOCIETY
Islam came to India as a fully developed ideology of an aggressive and self-righteous imperialism. It tormented Hindu society for several centuries. It should have been demolished and dispersed when its imperialist hold was broken at last, after a long struggle. But it was allowed to survive and its inherent aggressiveness was not tamed. Hindu society had meanwhile deceived itself into believing that Islam was just another religion and, therefore, entitled to reverence.
When I mention the fact that Islam is the Ravana and Muslims are the Sita, please note that I am already conceding that argument. Why throw the same argument at my face?
FAILURE OF BRITISH POLICY ON ALL OTHER FRONTS
But when the chips were down and the British got ready to go, all these mutual misgivings were overcome. All segments of Hindu society closed their ranks and stood united like a solid phalanx. It was only the Muslim community which stood apart and stuck out like a sore thumb.
Could this also not be explained by another factor i.e. that when it came to the question of separate electorates - the only community that was guaranteed the same was the Muslims? Gandhiji's fast unto death in 1933 prevented separate electorates for the Dalits. However, let us suppose that such a separate electorate had come about ; do you think that the Dalit 'leaders' with dreams of founding their own 'nation' and being Prime Minister's themselves would have voted for the Indian Union? How did such separate electorates for Muslims come about? Who fought for them and how? Were the 'rabid' Muslims masses in the forefront of a violent agitation for separate electorates? Would be interesting to study wouldn't it?
Of course, this reality is not available to be pasted from a web site! - oh and by the way the fact that the Hindu Communists actually supported the Britsh over the nationalists in the Quit India movement - wonder why they never 'stuck out like sore thumbs'? Or were they part of the 'phalanx'?
Also let us take up the argument that the Muslims 'stuck out like a sore thumb' in detail. How do you then explain the victory of the non-partition oriented Muslims in the Constituent Assembly elections? How do you explain that the Muslim league could not on it's own win absolute majority in any election held in all Muslim majority provinces (list again Punjab, Baluchistan, Bengal, NWFP and Sind)? How do you explain that even the Muslim league premiers of Bengal (Fazal-ul Haq) and Punjab (Sikandar Hayat Khan) opposing the partition in the 1940's - a matter of record that can be verified by what they said on the matter in the legislative houses and in the press? How do you explain for instance the Baadshah Khan fighting till the last to prevent the partition - only to live the rest of his life feeling that he was stabbed in the back by the Hindus? - read another book (not available online - I dont know where you will find it - but try) - this one by Khan Abdul Wali Khan called "Facts are Sacred" - a denunciation of Jinnah as a mere puppet of the British. As a puppet that had thugs available to do the British bidding on the streets - to 'forge a pistol' as Jinnah would say. This book incidentally was enough to send him to jail in Pakistan; of course not facts that are ready for cut-paste operations!
or yet another dark reality - which 'Hindu' leader supported the Khilafat movement to inject Ismalic divisiveness in the Indian polity?
Where I Agree with Sita Ram Goel
-Islam is inherently violent and divisive
- To be Muslim in India means first and foremost - to not be Hindu
- To be Islamic in India is to indulge in rapine and pillage - all of it directed at the Hindu community
- To be Islamic in India is to repudiate the Indian nation because our nation and indeed our civilisation is founded in Hinduism
- Islamists that opposed the partition wanted all of India for Islam and not just Pakistan
- Islam can only be fought with a full and frontal assault on the Islamic Ideas
Where I disagree with Sita Ram Goel
- That the Muslims of India can never overcome the debilitating effects of Islam while being Muslims
- All things being equal - the Muslims of India can never evolve a culture that is accomodative and gives up the insane "Islamic enterprise" model
- That the partition happened because the Muslims "always and only" think divisively and the British could not have prevented it
- that the British were not responsible - not at all responsible for the partition of India - whose blame is wholly at the door of Muslims
Please do read both the books I have cited in the first comment.
I personally believe that the veneer of Islamism is rather thin on the Indian Muslims. This is because after all - all of them have Hindu ancestory - a fact that not many on this blog acknowledge. Indeed I sense that this is a fact that many on this blog rather dread - that the evil 'other' is actually a distant cousin from way back when.
What tilts the scales and makes the veneer appear hard as concrete is that the state apparatus rewards them for being divisive - that factors determine that only the most intransigent voice amongst the Muslims will find favor. British sponsorship first, secular sponsorship next and Petro Dollars always. Overall the solution is two fold
1- As Shri Aurobindo said - let the Hindus unite; Hindu Muslim unity will take care of itself
2- Curb the funding and freebies that lead to the extremist view taking over - and a gradual erosion of the "Islamic enterprise" will take place.
There will be no cataclysmic change - but a gradual recognition that they are in the wrong... and yes, I think they can come to admit it while being Muslims.
Ghost Writer
You precisely made wrong interpretation of my passage. Where did I say it was Indian Muslims who backstabbed us when Ghazni invaded? That example was to show that it was not Saudi oil money that funded Gazni’s invasion or the partition of India rather it was driven by Muslim’s religious zealotry and self-righteousness that was codified in their book. I was making the point that Muslims are driven primarily by their dogma than by Saudi oil money. You can stop the oil money all you want it won’t change a bit unless you address their stupid 7th century dogma.
Muslim majority states may have voted for parties opposed to partition earlier but in the election held in early 1946 overwhelming majority, a whopping 95%, of Indian Muslims voted for Muslim League, which openly claimed to represent Indian Muslims and whose sole platform was partition. This is also a FACT.
So much for your “history”!!
Even if we follow your logic that partition happened in spite of Indian Muslims voting against it only proves my argument that ordinary Muslims have no power and Islamic fundamentalists control them.
If pre partition Indian Muslims of those provinces were so humane as you suggested then why didn’t they stop the butchering of Hindus? How come Hindu population dwindled from 25% in Pakistan and 35% in Bangladesh in 1947 to its current 1% and 7% respectively?
You have every right to have your opinion but not to facts.
Siva,
A whopping 95% Muslims voted for Muslim League
Perhaps you would provide us all the benefit of figures. Please be kind enough to cite voting numbers. Of course you will not be able to (I leave it to you to find out why). A causalty to 'FACTS' I guess!
It would make interesting reading of course - as to how "over 95%" Muslims voting for the League ensure that the League does not win a majority in Muslim-reserved seats in the Muslim majority provinces. Perhaps you also have a statistical model to explain how it happened
I think you insist that Muslims voted for Jinnah and Jinnah only - and I must say that I disagree.
it only proves my argument that ordinary Muslims have no power and Islamic fundamentalists control them.
Or it could be that the British did not care what the Muslims thought and just needed a client state and decided that we will set Jinnah up as the sole spokesperson for the Muslims.
It is also instructive to note how it is that Islamic fundamentalists take over. It is either because the state rewards only the fundamentalists (as in the British); appeases them (as in the secularists) or is pussilanimous.
Why does it not reward someone like Arif Mohammed Khan for instance? or Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi?
I whole heartedly support you in your criticism of Pak-Bangladesh persecution of Muslims. That and medieval Islamic excesses (and so much else) are only explained by one thing - Islamic scripture itself. The question however is - can an Indian Muslim break the hold that these scriptures have on him/her? Can they come to admit that it is wrong to believe in killing as a religious duty? I think they can - if not we are all doomed.
The critical prerequisite for that are
1- Full knowledge that their religious duty to kill will invite the Hindu religious duty to defend and if needed destroy
2- Full knowledge that the state will will prevent excesses in the name of religion
Fulfill 1 and 2 and I assure you that the doors of Ijtehaad , so firmly shut for so many centuries will be forced open by those very 'ordinary Muslims' whom you claim are always controlled by the likes of Bukhaari. Once this happens the redefinition of Islamic 'duty', the reinvention of scripture and all the rest will follow. of course I think that cutting out Saudi funding for the likes of Bukhaari will help.
But in all this happening - please note that the reform will be from within. I do not subscribe to your view that they are 'simply incapable' of reforming
Reading opinions for and against Islam, one can't but feel that most people are beginning to take an extreme stand, perhaps out of a helpless feeling. One set sees pipe dreams of eradication (with possible conversions..), the other sees pipe dreams of a peaceful coexistance.
With the leftists having virtually surrendered themselves to the Mullas and missionaries, one wonders whether there is anyone left to defend common people.
The answer, thankfully, is not 'NO'. Here is a link where many such thinkers have come together to declare something sensible.
http://eustonmanifesto.org/
I fondly wonder. Is this a kind of globalisation of basic Hindu philosophy?
IK, thanks for all the info.
re:
"(In any case if they are so decent why don't they publicly dissociate from their jihadi brethren? if not convert out)".
--- IK, I agree with you. I was coming to that. The new identity I talked of has to be created by them not us. Non-mohammedans can only encourage them to do so. But it is in the muslims' hands to separate themselves from jihadis.
If he/she does not want to separate from the radical Islam and such people, then we should treat them no different than their jihadi brethren.
With this I would like to seed the idea of Good Islam (I cant come up with the best Urdu words right now), which will mean peaceful Islam that is respectful of other religions and cultures and does not owe allegiance to Saudi.
Fundamentalist Islam run by Imam Bukhari should be outlawed by the Indian Govt. He has already talked of ruling India, how come he is still walking free here ?
_
Siva,
You make a prescient point with reference to Russia; cause for me to revise my thinking I have to concede.
What then explains people like Badshah Khan? I guess one explanation could be that such Muslims are actually as aware of the Koran & Hadis as I am of the Upanishads - that is to say not aware of it at all.
That would be one way to understand their behavior - the fact that they susbscribe to the religion but are actually quite unaware of the scripture!
Cheney may be a fool but the General continues to "The Lord of all Idiots" - (that from a character in Seinfeld).
The "enlightened moderate" yielding to the daadhiwallahs yet again
I love the spohistry on this one - If there are 4 witnesses rape shall be tried under Hudood - even there are not 4 witnesses it will tried under a Criminal Procedure Code i.e. a case of
"Have your Islam and eat it too"!!!!
Not that it will worry our enlightened press. The daadhiwallahs are only "fighting for what they consider religious in a manner they consider religious". So the rape and butchering of the most defenseless - the women of Pakistan to continue apace.
Re. by Darkstorm:
"Daisies, whats wrong with you? Stockholm syndrome eh.. ?
Stop viewing everything from the anti-men prism.."
--- Darkstorm, something must be seriously wrong with you. Nothing I have posted here is anti-men and yet you accuse me of being anti-men.
I simply disagreed with 2 people here and agreed with one. (All three are men, and my statements had nothing to do with their gender).
I'm afraid, perhaps you have vision problems and need reading glasses.
Or perhaps you need an interpreter to interpret my writings.
Even then, the diagnosis can only be as good as the doctor.
Good luck. I hope you will successfully deliver the country from terror.
_
correction:
I simply disagreed with 2 people and agreed with 2 people. All 4 are men.
_
Shahryar,
I agree that this will improve the condition of women (if the bill passes at all - the daadhiwallahs have already said "we will see") ; my point only was the complete need to dress it up in Sharia.
If 4 people bear bear witness try it in Sharia court; if not try it under the Cr. PC
I did not know the basis of the Koranic injunction. Is this when Ayesha got left behind by the caravan? And then when she caught up - she was accompanied by someone ....
Regardless of what you and I think - the daadhiwallahs are the ones who define what the injunction means anyways!
Hi Ghost Writer,
Thanks for responding specifically to my comments.
I really would like some specific arguments against what i have to say.
I for one completely do not believe in homilies like "Islam is a religion of peace"..because it is not..
at the same time.. Indians muslims are different and for a reason.. their innate Hinduness..
as for European muslims.. they are easily the most virulent..atrributed to the unhindered pampering and the complete godlessness in their lands..the same cannot be said of Indian muslims..
managing the minds of Indian muslims..to me is a sure shot way of handling them.. but this needs a national focus..by different state agencies.. instead of the current pandering..
If we expect to have India as a unified country like we think of right now.. we have to find a way to reconcile and work with Islam.. there is no way out.. mindless bluster which BJP and VHP is famous for against muslims wil not work (they have good ideas but they are woefully bad in expressing them) .. Unlike some others who have expressed ideas i am pretty sure violence against Muslims will not work ..
DARKSTORM:
Re:
"I guess this is not the first time you have shot off your mouth without thinking, or butt in with inane comments."
--- Grow up little baby boy. I did not butt in with any comments. Next time think before you shoot off comments about me.
You do not own this blog.
RAJEEV SRINIVSAN, The Owner of This Blog, specifically invited ideas.
Here is his exact sentences reproduced(below). And when I presented my ideas, Kapidhwaja and Imafordemocracy, and Ik RIDICULED ME. Hence I had a right to respond to them, which i did. Further, I agree with a couple of points, presented by Siva and IK.
Here is what NIZHAL YODDHA said:
" once wrote that there were three paradigms to deal with mohammedan terrorists:
1. brute force eg. israel and russia
2. slavish appeasement eg. india
3. benign neglect eg. us and w. europe
unfortunately none of these has worked.
but just condemning their ideology wholesale may not have much utility.
ibn warraq suggests that ridicule is a good weapon to use against mohammedans because they are so sure of the correctness of their views. any other ideas?"
_
Does anybody here know whether the recent Malegaon bombing victims are Shias or Sunnis? I tried hard to find out from our ELMs but none of them mentioned it, which I think is deliberate. I have a hunch though that it is Shia and normally it is them who go to grave yard to worship.
daisies is now banned from this blog.
any new posts by daisies shall be removed by me as soon as i find them.
Hei Rajeev,
Based on this intrestsing and large number of comments from your readers..do you have anything to say/add/comment.. to kind of bring a closure to this..
wud b intresting to see what u have to say on this after reading all this...
Post a Comment