Mufakkar, my counterpoint was in my two liner itself. (hint: the laundry list), but I guess you like to argue for argument sake. PD I believe a lot of muslims are suffering from a misplaced sense of victimhood. When your own rulers, have been sucking you dry, like parasites, where is your stand against injustice. But when non-muslims do it to you, then you are outraged, like its the end of the world. Thugs like Saddam should have been long thrown into jail long back, but when US comes in to remove him, the muslims start raising hue and cry. Is the anger part because you yourself do not have the power to correct the wrongs of your ruler and an outsider comes in and does it with such impunity? You should also be happy (by your favoured method of justice), that the US smacked the taliban and Saddam (who knows what he would have done if he got WMD's) and did not offer a peace pipe to them after 9/11. I am totally against the US invading any country like it is its personal property, but I am amazed at the hypocrisy of some people here, regarding what muslims can and are allowed to do vis-a-vis non muslims. Even the title smacks of hypocrisy, the muslim countries are no where near the level of openness of society in the west, but hey we muslims are judged by a different standard.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
As long as the injustice in question isn't committed by muslim eg Sudan?
[/QUOTE]
Injustice is injustice and as a Muslim u r supposed to stop it regardless of the religious or ethnic background of the party who is inflicting injustice...in essence, if a strong Muslim is doing injustice to a weak and poor Hindu, as a true Muslim, I am supposed to stop my Muslim brother from doing so. As a matter of fact, this is also the basis of Islamic judicial system called “ADAL”.
Without going into the details, of course, in Sudan there is one party who is weaker and suffering and there is another one who is stronger and inflicting the injustice. Unfortunately both parties are Muslims. We as a Muslim country should determine who is right and then we should support the poor party as much as we could. But all of the Muslim countries are victims of the political needs….
Dear Phoenix, What Muslims are expected to do does not harm any one, but what Muslims are actually doing is a reason of questioning.
I deliberately ask this question, if Islam religion believes in non-violence? If not, the sense of offering peace has no meanings.
Retaliation? Who will judge retaliation? If all such things are welcome, what is the fault of different terrorist organizations? They are ding what religious scriptures offer to do.
When someone from West blames Islam for terrorism, have a little patience and try to find the root cause of violence, in your study centers, I mean in Madrisas, and in your religious texts.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by phoenixdesi: *
...it is not part of our religion to practice non-violence.
[/QUOTE]
This one statement is very telling and could be used in most threads to explain the problems Muslims face today.
[QUOTE]
As long as the injustice in question isn't committed by muslim eg Sudan?
[/QUOTE]
Hey Stu, got any other rabbits to pull out of that hat of yours? Lets get back to the discussion in this thread which was about the acceptability of negative and even hateful comments against Islam in Western media and you were talking about free speech....
[QUOTE]
Mufakkar, my counterpoint was in my two liner itself. (hint: the laundry list), but I guess you like to argue for argument sake.
[/QUOTE]
Ok allow me to elucidate. The muslims laundary list is well known, but I was just saying that you have a long laundary list of your own yet you seem to get away with it so why is that so?
[QUOTE]
This one statement is very telling and could be used in most threads to explain the problems Muslims face today.
[/QUOTE]
What exactly is so teling about it Semi? Do you or your nation or your religion practice non-violence? So why project all of that on the Muslims? BTW lwts get back to the topic of the thread which is the increased acceptability of labelling Muslims in the negative. Do you or do you not condemn this trend particularly in relation to Bill Maher's comments to Larry King?
I think Maher's comments were uncalled for and inflammatory. You cannot call Islam a bad faith because of Al Qaeda. Besides, why does he want to declare war on billions of World's citizens.
We can criticize Islamist terrorism without blackening Islam. Maher is a demagogue and an idiot.
^ Absolutely agree thank you Talwar
Have any Muslim organizations criticized Maher or called for an apology? Organizations like CAIR?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mufakkar: *
What exactly is so teling about it Semi? Do you or your nation or your religion practice non-violence? So why project all of that on the Muslims?
[/QUOTE]
I'm not projecting that on all Muslims, the post I quoted did. If the moderate Muslim believes that it is "not part of our religion to practice non-violence" you can hardly blame Bill Maher for saying that Islam has nothing to do with the terrorism of today. I didn't hear him on Larry King so I can't condemn or condone it. Anyone have a link?
As far as "my" nation or religion practicing non-violence, my country is a secular nation whose practices and policies are not based on scripture (or my religion) so it is not a comparison. But what other religion, among the moderate followers, would say it is "not part of our religion to practice non-violence?"
The problem with demagoguery is that it changes targets all the time. Yesterday it was communism when anyone with slightly leftist view was tarnished. Today it is Islam, because it is a convenient target.
I feel uncomfortable with people who indluge in Maher like tactics because they can easily turn on anyone.
In a few years, they can easily turn towards those evil 'brown skinned people' who are 'taking our jobs'
That is why it is important for those who have legitimate points against radical Islamism or jihadi groups not to associate themselves with people like Maher or those who issue blanket statements condemning Islam. In the long run you lose credibility by doing so.
My $0.02
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
This one statement is very telling and could be used in most threads to explain the problems Muslims face today.
[/QUOTE]
well you are entitled to do what ever you want to... but you are trying to modify my statement.......I said that we Muslims do not practice non-violence AGAINST INJUSTICE...and I stand behind my words.. we are supposed to fight against ZULAM and in-justice....and that is exactly we Muslims are trying to explain to the west that Palestinians, Chechnyans, and Kashmiries are not terrorist or violent….they are fighting for their rights, for their freedoms and for justice….and they are simply responding to the atrocities they have been facing for years…
Don't worry about Mahar, it was a one off line, and guys like him need to keep a certain controversy to keep thier face on the tube. Nobody goes around quoting Bill Mahar as a souce of news in the world.
Let me tell you a far worse situation. I have been on vacation for the last week, and picked up a couple of best sellers to read. Am reading a book called "Memorial Day" by Vince Flynn, a New York Times best selling author. His main character is a guy named Rapp, a CIA agent with unorthodox ways. Over his last few novels all of Rapps exploits have been against Al-Qaedda terrorists. But there is enough truth to a lot of what he says to convince the reader that "Radical Islam" is essentially the new Communism. Tom Clancy did the same thing with the Russians, they made convenient villians for over 20 years.
The "villanization" of radical Islam is a serious thing. It is plausible, and it is realistic to read. There is obviously an audience, and every book that sells both educates readers and fills them with new fears and new prejudices. Don't worry about a 10 second blurb on TV, worry about millions of people spending 20 hours with a book that marks Wahabbis as the new global villians......
OG
There has to be a certain effort to separate the radicals from the rest of the people, people paint with a broad brushstroke enveloping everyone. People like you who have engaged with muslims know better, but for others the differentiation has to be made ..there has to be more responsible and accurate statements. I see the same approach by certain writers associated with idiotic rags in Pakistan as i see with some here.
Fraudz,
"There has to be a certain effort to separate the radicals from the rest of the people, "
I think you hoping rather than thinking. Like it or not the nature of this war is that a small fraction of a fraction of Muslims has declared war on the west. Unfortunately their methods include using an open society, and living among the very people they want to attack. Short of some kind of truth serum administered to all Muslims to see their true intent, people will always be wondering if you are a "good" muslim or a "bad" muslim. But do not expect the people of the west to start worrying about how to distinguish the two. That is sort of patently unreasonable.
Ultimately the only people who will solve this probelm are Muslims. The Muslims community must purge itself of bad elements. Radical Clerics preaching violence must be banished. Madrassas that teach brainwashing to young impressionable men must be closed. Funding for violent jihad must be stopped. The West will never be able to do this, only Muslims can. An individual may be able to do very little, but the power of local Mosques acting in concert is quite powerful.
Unfortunately we are only one more big attack away from a very slippery slope. The next round of anti-Muslim knee jerk reactions will be far worse than anything currently being experienced.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
But what other religion, among the moderate followers, would say it is "not part of our religion to practice non-violence?"
[/QUOTE]
Pervasive complete no-guns non-violence? Actually I dont think very many would propagate that kind of complete non-violence.
Not Christianity, if you're thinking of it. The crusades opened up gates for holy war, and even if the pope has apologized for random instances of mass massacre, he hasnt apologised for the principles behind the war, nor has he declared religious war illegal, and thereby it stands morally and religiously justified in the majority of the Christian world.
Judaism actually goes one step further and preaches pre-emptive violence. Eliminate a threat before it becomes one. Before the Iraq war I was reading a series by a group of religious leaders on war and violence, and both Christians and Muslim leaders had justified violence only when injustice was wrought. The Jewish spokesman was the only person who said that you should eliminate a thread before it attacks, giving the example of being confronted with a lion, and how you would attack the lion before it attacked you.
So I guess anjjan and your points dont really stand up.
Mufakkar, the length of the list is what matters, and the fact that Muslims are in conflict around the world which makes it more noticeable.
^ muslims are in conflict around the world yes and what is the reason for these conflicts is it fighting for fighting sake or is oppression and injustice involved something which you conveniently omit from your posts!
// muslims are in conflict around the world yes and what is the reason for these conflicts is it fighting for fighting sake or is oppression and injustice involved something which you conveniently omit from your posts!//
The whole world is out to get me. They are all bad. I am being opressed. I am denied the basic rights. I am the only good person around.
Extrapolate this to a community and see how well this matches with Muslims.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
^ muslims are in conflict around the world yes and what is the reason for these conflicts is it fighting for fighting sake or is oppression and injustice involved something which you conveniently omit from your posts!
[/QUOTE]
My post was in reply to Mufakkar's query as to why everyone talks of Muslim 'terrorism'. Whether it is justified or not is a different subject altogether.
Muslims are in conflict or they are fighting for justice?
You know Hitler was a very peaceful person, for a simple reason that he offered peace on terms and conditions.
If you accept all our conditions, its OK, or we will fight a just war against you.
What war is going on in Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine? They started a freedom struggle in Kashmir and the first targets of this struggle were Hindu pundits. No need to mention the torture offered to Hindus. Kashmir was a sacred Hindu land just three hundred years back. Today they call it a Muslim land.
Chechnya never belonged to Chechens. But the same way the freedom fighters first removed all Russians from there.
Palestine, a nation never existed in history. This myth the Muslims have successfully created in last fifty years.
How the rest of the world should behave? The same way as it is written in religious scriptures of Islam?
‘Remove them from where they have removed you’?
Peace is a ‘political offering’ whereas ‘non-violence’ is something religious. For Muslims it is difficult to understand non-violence; it is not a part of Islam.