I just received a letter from someone at the Evening Standard, asking me if I'd like to write a letter in response to two articles they printed on Friday, one by Patrick Sookhdeo and one by Agnes Poirer of the French newspaper "Liberation". I'm not sure if the Sookhdeo article is the same one issued in the Spectator this week, but if it is, it'll take rather more than a letter to refute all the distortions and falsehoods in it. Sookhdeo is generally considered an expert on the miserable plight of the poor, downtrodden Christian minority of Pakistan.
As Shaikh Riyad Nadwi points out in a rebuttal of errors which appeared in a Spectator article in March, Sookhdeo's advocacy of Christian rights is rather selective; as with the Anthony Browne piece which is the focus of Shaikh Nadwi's article, Sookhdeo entirely ignores the damage Israel has done to the Christian community it dominates. He is, in fact, "a showpiece figure for the Israeli government", with the Israeli Foreign Affairs ministry's journal Christians and Israel boasting in 1999 of Sookhdeo's visit. Shaikh Nadwi believes that the organisation Sookhdeo runs, the so-called Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, shares with the Middle-East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) the primary function "not to create awareness of the declared aim, which seems to be benign, but to foment anger against Muslims in the West". (An updated version of the same article is available here.)
The article starts off with a mention of the funeral in Pakistan of Shehzad Tanweer, one of the four people who carried out the 7th July Aldgate bombing:
The funeral of British suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer was held in absentia in his family's ancestral village, near Lahore, Pakistan. Thousands of people attended, as they did again the following day when a qul ceremony was held for Tanweer. During qul, the Koran is recited to speed the deceased's journey to paradise, though in Tanweer's case this was hardly necessary. Being a shahid (martyr), he is deemed to have gone straight to paradise. The 22-year-old from Leeds, whose bomb at Aldgate station killed seven people, was hailed by the crowd as 'a hero of Islam'.
If this happened, it is as ignorant and misguided as the bomb attack itself. Shehzad and his gang are certainly not heroes to the Muslim community here in London. There is, of course, a contradiction here, because martyrs of jihad do not receive funeral rites, because it is unnecessary. They are guaranteed paradise (unless they fought to show off, in which case they are guaranteed hellfire). There are also lesser martyrs, such as women who die giving birth, people who die in epidemics or in fire, who unlike jihad martyrs do receive funerals. I personally question the significance of the thousands in attendance; funerals are whole-community events which are often held after communal prayers. In any case, the sole source for this accusation seems to be this article in the London Times, in which one short paragraph is dedicated to the event. The article is mostly about the funeral of Anthony Fatayi-Williams in London; one wonders where its author, Stuart Wavell, got his information from.
Sookhdeo's basic contention here is typical of certain right-wing commentators, that ample justification can be found in Islam for terrorist action:
By far the majority of Muslims today live their lives without recourse to violence, for the Koran is like a pick-and-mix selection. If you want peace, you can find peaceable verses. If you want war, you can find bellicose verses. You can find verses which permit only defensive jihad, or you can find verses to justify offensive jihad.
This essentially denies that Islam is a whole, and that people who "pick and mix" verses from the Qur'an (not to mention reports from the Sunnah literature) are either ignorant of, or just ignore, the way apparently contradictory verses and aspects of the Sunnah are resolved. There are times when a certain course of action is permitted or necessary, and times when an opposite course is required. That is pretty much common sense to most people. His quote from Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, tells only half the story: Blair was distinguishing fundamentalism from extremism - thought and opinion from violent action.
Next, Sookhdeo mentions a verse which he claims actually commands terrorism:
You can even find texts which specifically command terrorism, the classic one being Q8:59-60, which urges Muslims to prepare themselves to fight non-Muslims, 'Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies' (A. Yusuf Ali's translation).
As if to underline his own stupidity, he follows it up with a quote from a Pakistani army officer:
Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik's book The Quranic Concept of War is widely used by the military of various Muslim countries. Malik explains Koranic teaching on strategy: 'In war our main objective is the opponent's heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts.... Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him.'
Does Sookhdeo not understand the difference between war and terrorism? Both the verse of the Qur'an he quotes, and the book by the Brigadier, concern war. This is the same shoddy reasoning offered by Abdullah Faisal in a lame attempt to refute apologists' claims that we are not all terrorists, or something like that. Striking fear into the heart of the enemy in war is not the same as terrorism, which means committing random and spectacular murder and criminal damage in order to intimidate a civilian population.
Next, he takes on the Islamic penalties:
If you permit yourself a little judicious cutting, the range of choice in Koranic teaching is even wider. A verse one often hears quoted as part of the 'Islam is peace' litany allegedly runs along the lines: 'If you kill one soul it is as if you have killed all mankind.' But the full and unexpurgated version of Q5:32 states: âÂÂIf anyone slew a person â unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land â it would be as if he slew the whole people.'
So, the verse pertains to unjust killing, rather than to the killing of criminals; it does not really contradict the meaning generally applied to it.
The very next verse lists a selection of savage punishments for those who fight the Muslims and create âÂÂmischief' (or in some English translations âÂÂcorruption') in the land, punishments which include execution, crucifixion or amputation. What kind of âÂÂmischief in the land' could merit such a reaction?
The "mischief" referred to in this verse is understood by scholars to mean banditry (hiraaba). Many scholars of our time regard terrorism as a form of banditry.
Sookhdeo then goes on to give a very simplified analysis of the science of abrogation (nasikh wa mansukh) in Islam: to him it is simply a matter of the earlier being abrogated by the later, and therefore "the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed's time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina". There are other ways of resolving such apparent contradictions, such as that specific injunctions take precedence over general ones. But this does not change the fact that Muslims in this country are not in a position to undertake military missions as we are not in charge: the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) was invited by the Medinians to be their ruler, as the two main tribes of their own community, the Aws and the Khazraj, had been in a state of persistent internecine conflict for many years. In this country, the Muslims were invited to be guest workers, and later ordinary citizens. We are in no position to wage war on anyone, which makes the mere discussion of these verses irrelevant and possibly malicious.
Sookhdeo also brings in a barely-known fringe group called al-Ghurabaa, which "stated in the wake of the two London bombings, 'Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.'" (The punctuation mistake is theirs.) The Ghurabaa (strangers) are thought to be an offshoot of al-Muhajiroun, which makes them a pretty small group given that others of that ilk have formed the "Saviour Sect". Their views, needless to say, don't count for much in our community.
He then alleges that Muslims, having come to the UK initially for economic reasons, "have evolved away from assimilation with the British majority towards the creation of separate and distinct entities, mimicking the communalism of the British Raj". As examples:
British Muslims now have Sharia in areas of finance and mortgages; halal food in schools, hospitals and prisons; faith schools funded by the state; prayer rooms in every police station in London; and much more. This process has been assisted by the British government through its philosophy of multiculturalism, which has allowed some Muslims to consolidate and create a parallel society in the UK.
But the different Muslim communities are far from unique in settling certain areas so that people can be near those of their "own kind". After all, do not middle-class white people seek the same thing by moving to the suburbs and dormitory towns? London has many areas settled by different ethnic communities: Brixton, famously, for black Carribeans, Stockwell for the Portuguese, Peckham for Africans, east London for Bengalis of both Hindu and Muslim religion. Some of the accommodations he mentions are necessary to prevent unrest (eg. halal food in prisons), others can be justified on the grounds that we pay the same taxes as the rest of society, whose children also receive school meals acceptable to them (well, that's debatable - a lot of people say school meals are of unacceptable quality, but that's a separate issue). We have a small fraction of the state religious schools in this country - two in the whole of the UK - and Shari'a-compliant banking is provided by the banks themselves, as is their prerogative.
Then, he tries to put the scares on us:
The Muslim community now inhabits principally the urban centres of England as well as some parts of Scotland and Wales. It forms a spine running down the centre of England from Bradford to London, with ribs extending east and west. It is said that within 10 to 15 years most British cities in these areas will have Muslim-majority populations, and will be under local Islamic political control, with the Muslim community living under Sharia.
A spine running from London to Bradford? To my knowledge, there's not even a single halal service station on any British motorway, including the M1, M6, M40 and M62 which link the major Muslim centres. I find it unlikely that the Muslims could gain control over these towns because they are so divided amongst themselves. They have not even produced their own party, and in many cases would sooner vote for a non-Muslim candidate than for a fellow Pakistani of a different caste. The Muslim community are generally still wedded to Labour; their areas are considered safe seats suitable for senior cabinet ministers such as Jack Straw. I find it unlikely that Muslims could control the urban north as Muslims any time soon. He also claims, without the slightest evidence, that the Deobandi minority "argue for a quicker process [than the Bareilawi majority] using politics and violence to achieve the same result", that of Muslim control of the UK and an Islamic state. While connections between Deobandis and the Taliban and Kashmiri rebels are well-known, Deobandi involvement in political violence here is simply unheard-of.
Sookhdeo then makes an absurd attempt to link isolated incidents of violence between groups of Muslims, and between Muslims and other minorities, in this country with violence elsewhere, specifically southern Thailand, the southern Phillipines, Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine. In all these areas Muslims have either seen their lands invaded, or found themselves on the wrong side of someone else's border. The Muslims of the far south of Thailand are mostly Malays, not Thais, unlike those further north (Phuket and Chiang Mai, for example) who are not linked to any of the violence. Simiarly, the Phillipine-Malaysian border reflects only the Spanish-British colonial border. In Malaysia, a wealthier country where the Shari'a is implemented to some extent, Muslims there have felt little need to resort to violence.
He demands that we "stop this self-deception" and "with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way that Christians have had to do, for Christianity has a very dark past". To my knowledge, Muslims don't in general deny that Muslim caliphs undertook aggressive wars in order to spread Islam; the issue is what it has to do with terrorism in our day and age. He also demands that we "look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith", and lists a number of people who, he claims have tried to do this. Among them are Mahmoud M Taha of Sudan, who was executed for supposed apostasy by General Nimeiri's regime in 1985. I've not found much reliable information on this incident, but much of it claims that the execution was politcally-motivated.
Sookhdeo then offers the "Free Muslims Coalition", which was "set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam" - uh, no, to promote the political career of its founder, Kamal Nawash. Much has been written here about Nawash and his club in the past, concerning such matters as his "anti-terror" march and the lack of support it received in the community (perhaps this was its purpose), to the extent that it permitted one "group" to be listed whose name included the words "Nawash sucks" backwards. "Universal condemnation of suicide bombers instead of acclamation as heroes would indeed be an excellent start," he claims. Well, from those whose opinions count, even Omar Bakri, the bombings did receive condemnation. We can't account for the words of lying rabble-rousers and peasants in Punjab.
He also offers a "three-point" plan by Mansoor Ijaz, of the same Benador cabal as Amir Taheri, which can be found in greater detail in this article at the Benador site. Writing in the Financial Times on 11 July, he proposed the following:
First, forbid the use of mosques and other religious institutions to discharge bigotry and hatred. As France has done already, Britain should require each imam to pass minimum competency exams. Radical preaching must be replaced with knowledge of how the Koran relates to daily life within Britain's secular traditions. Any imam failing to comply should be shown politely to the departure lounge at Heathrow airport. Those that pass must accept their citizenship responsibilities to become resources for authorities seeking data on criminal elements residing in Britain's Muslim communities.
As already stated here, very few mosques indeed are in the hands of radical groups; they are mostly dominated by sects and caste groups tracing back to Pakistan. Mas'ud Khan's blog, for example, mentioned last July (Google cache'd copy here - his page is currently in excess of its bandwidth) that his mosque's committee consisted of representatives of the Rajputs, Jats, Pathans and Rawalpindians - no mention here of HT or any other group. The imams are usually Breilawis or Deobandis, trained in seminaries in Pakistan, India or the UK (occasionally South Africa). Does he really propose that imams who don't preach what the government demands be kicked out (a lot of them are citizens)? And if people are suspicious of the imams because they are seen as government stooges, they will ignore them and go to the radical back-street preachers.
Second, open Britain's Islamic charities to greater financial scrutiny to identify those that fund terrorism. Charities should be asked to limit foreign donations to 10 per cent of operating budgets and certify that the remainder of their donors are British citizens who give from taxable â and transparent â income sources. Stopping the flow of money is central to dismantling al-Qaeda's franchise strategy, where one or two foreign "masterminds" oversee terrorist attacks with foreign money and logistical support.
What other charities - even religious charities - would be required to refuse donations from all but local donors? Only one British Muslim charity - Interpal - has been accused of financing terrorism; it has been investigated twice, and cleared each time. The Charity Commission already exists to investigate the financing of charities and identify false charities.
Third, form community watch groups made up of Muslim citizens to reclaim Islam from the terrorists and committed to contributing useful information to the authorities. Britain's tolerant political environment has transformed it into a haven for militant Islam. Communities joining together to compile and analyse data on Muslim fanatics for use by British authorities in official proceedings is the best way for moderate Muslims to prevent the state's anti-terror apparatus from appearing biased or being used inappropriately. It would also be the surest sign that British Muslims take their citizenship as seriously as their religion.
You mean, groups which spy on other Muslims and report "suspicious" utterances to the police? I'm sure most Muslims who know that a terrorist attack is in the planning, and who know who is planning it, would tell the police without hesitation. What the people have known about is what is obvious - that certain people have extreme opinions and express them.
"To this," continues Sookhdeo, "could be added Muslim acceptance of a secular society as the basis for their religious existence, an oath of allegiance to the Crown which would override their allegiance to their co-religionists overseas, and deliberate steps to move out of their ghetto-style existence both physically and psychologically". Winning hearts and minds is all very well, but invading them is just not possible. An oath of allegiance is a pointless exercise; Americans give oaths of allegiance at school daily, but it has not stopped US citizens from being convicted of various anti-American and terrorist offences. For those who had no intention of carrying out terrorist acts anyway, it would not matter; those who have such intentions would not be deterred. And I'm not sure how you could get rid of ghettoes without such measures as forced exchanges of property. I'm sure some Muslims would not mind being moved from a council flat in Bethnal Green to a five-bedroom house in Woodcote Village; the person who has to move the other way would take more persuading, however.
As an example of what reform is possible, Sookhdeo tells us of the conference of "eight schools of thought", presided over by the king of Jordan, which issued a joint fatwa forbidding that anyone of those schools be declared an apostate. The problem Sookhdeo has with it is that it negates an earlier fatwa of exactly that nature against Osama bin Laden, from some community leaders in Spain. There are, in fact, well-defined guidelines on what someone must do or say to be pronounced an apostate; people who don't may be considered deviants, renegades or criminals, but not apostates. "Could not the King re-convene his conference and ask them to issue a fatwa banning violence against non-Muslims also?" Perhaps the conference was not about violence against non-Muslims, but about internal conflict which has been rife in some Muslim countries including Iraq and Pakistan.
The final paragraph expects "the changing of certain fairly central theological principles", but the defeat of the small radical fringe depends on the propagation of proper Islamic knowledge, something which has become more and more difficult as time goes on. After the Tel Aviv bombing last year, foreign students were barred from independent religious schools in Syria (which were already coming under political pressure to standardise religious texts), and last week the detested military dictator Parvez Musharraf (also known as Busharraf) of Pakistan announced that foreign students would simply be kicked out of madrassas in Pakistan - including dual citizens. Abu Easa notes that several other countries have closed their doors on foreign religious students; I add that Saudi Arabia closed its own a number of years ago for sectarian rather than political reasons.
Something Mansoor Ijaz does not mention regarding the reforms of British mosques is competency in English, the language spoken overwhelmingly by British-born youth, but not so well by the older generations. Often sermons are delivered in Urdu, primarily for the benefit of the old folk, with the assumption that the youth know enough of it to understand, and there's hardly anyone around who actually doesn't understand any of it; such reasoning may make sense in a small-town mono-ethnic Muslim community, except of course when visitors decide to stop around. I have personally heard of an incident in south London in which a visiting speaker asked whether he should give his speech in English or Urdu, was told "Urdu" by some of the assembled men, and he obliged, excluding a large number who simply left.
This is one of a number of issues which have separated the youth from mainstream Islam; others include the long-standing petty sectarian division of the Bareilawis and Deobandis. But even though terrorists tend not to be followers of classical Islam but of various schismatic groups, people like Sookhdeo don't like mainstream, classical Islam; what they demand of us is a neutered version with bits taken out of it. What he expects is a level of state interference in Islamic practice vastly in excess of the norm in this country, and vastly out of proportion with the actual threat and with the community's actual connection with that threat. More than three and a half years passed after 9/11 before a single attack took place on British soil, and those responsible apparently felt it necessary to conceal it from the Muslim community. Still, one can't expect any better in a magazine whose editors have not yet seen fit to solicit authentic Muslim opinion.
Agh, the Bareilawis and Deobandis are scary people. I have heard urban legends about these people.
On another note, isnt it true that you can become a shahid if you die by being attacked by an animal? THere is another hadith which states that one can die in thier bed a shahid if his intentions for going to jihad are sincere. The rahma is never ending.
Agh, the Bareilawis and Deobandis are scary people. I have heard urban legends about these people.
On another note, isnt it true that you can become a shahid if you die by being attacked by an animal? THere is another hadith which states that one can die in thier bed a shahid if his intentions for going to jihad are sincere. The rahma is never ending.
"As an example of what reform is possible, Sookhdeo tells us of the conference of âÂÂeight schools of thoughtâÂÂ, presided over by the king of Jordan, which issued a joint fatwa forbidding that anyone of those schools be declared an apostate."
I heard about this summit but couldnt find anything on the internet about it. I wanted to know if any scholars from Saudi were there and which ones.
"As an example of what reform is possible, Sookhdeo tells us of the conference of âÂÂeight schools of thoughtâÂÂ, presided over by the king of Jordan, which issued a joint fatwa forbidding that anyone of those schools be declared an apostate."
I heard about this summit but couldnt find anything on the internet about it. I wanted to know if any scholars from Saudi were there and which ones.
Muslims in this country are not in a position to undertake military missions as we are not in charge
Thank Heaven for small mercies.
Muslims in this country are not in a position to undertake military missions as we are not in charge
Thank Heaven for small mercies.
hmm...
I have been participating on this blog for sometime now... just when I have some leisure time from my work, I come here to see what's going on. After reading quite a lot of exchanges from Muslims and Non-Muslims here and the usual articles rebutted by Sidi Yusuf, I have come to notice something quite puzzling.
I have noticed that a lot of non-muslims have a very deep misconception/ignorance concerning Islam/Muslims. This in and of itself is hardly a problem, we are all ignorant of one thing or the other. BUT the problem however is that the very people who have this ignorance actually believe that they KNOW A GREAT DEAL about Islam. This is truly amazing! Even as Muslims, we always concede that we know little about our own religion and that the exegisis are boundless.
Has anyone else picked up on this fact, or is it just my arrogance.
Sidi Yusuf, where do you have the time/patience to respond to some of these quite "authoritative" thesis presented by our non-muslims friends about Islam. I praise these qualities in you!
I am beginning to think the time has come to just let people believe whatever they want to believe about Muslims and Islam. Perhaps there is little need to address all these misconceptions/ignorance. Because the people you are addressing supposedly already know Islam even better than you and your scholars, and we are just seemingly making excuses for a barbaric religion?
I will like to get some response to this.
hmm...
I have been participating on this blog for sometime now... just when I have some leisure time from my work, I come here to see what's going on. After reading quite a lot of exchanges from Muslims and Non-Muslims here and the usual articles rebutted by Sidi Yusuf, I have come to notice something quite puzzling.
I have noticed that a lot of non-muslims have a very deep misconception/ignorance concerning Islam/Muslims. This in and of itself is hardly a problem, we are all ignorant of one thing or the other. BUT the problem however is that the very people who have this ignorance actually believe that they KNOW A GREAT DEAL about Islam. This is truly amazing! Even as Muslims, we always concede that we know little about our own religion and that the exegisis are boundless.
Has anyone else picked up on this fact, or is it just my arrogance.
Sidi Yusuf, where do you have the time/patience to respond to some of these quite "authoritative" thesis presented by our non-muslims friends about Islam. I praise these qualities in you!
I am beginning to think the time has come to just let people believe whatever they want to believe about Muslims and Islam. Perhaps there is little need to address all these misconceptions/ignorance. Because the people you are addressing supposedly already know Islam even better than you and your scholars, and we are just seemingly making excuses for a barbaric religion?
I will like to get some response to this.
Dear Anonymous:
I'll make an attempt to answer some of the issues you raise about non-Muslims' knowledge of Islam, etc. I happen to work in the field of PR (Public Relations), and as any PR professional knows, perception is everything. Perception is even more important than reality, in some respects. That's why you see corporations, organizations of all types and purposes, and even political candidates work so hard and spend so much money in an effort to cultivate a positive image of themselves in the public eye.
Why are charges of backwardness, primitiveness and bloodthirstiness not levelled against Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance? Why is Christianity, despite its bloody past, mainly known as a religion of mercy and compassion? Why is Judaism known more for its intellectual wealth than anything else? It's because these religions have, more or less, kept their images clean. All of them have fringe elements, I'm sure, that preach hatred, intolerance, and bloodshed, but by and large, such elements are kept in firm control by the moderate mainstream.
It's only in Islam that the moderate voices seem few and far between, and the fiery elements more visible. It doesn't help that Islam's religious texts seem to justify violence against non-believers (I know, I know, these messages are supposed to be contextual, but why should an average person bother about the precise context?) Furthermore, Koranic messages concerning women's status in family and society, harsh punishments for petty crimes as well as prohibitions against art and music lend Islam an overall image of a stern, joyless, puritanical, and vengeance-prone creed.
When you place actual acts of intolerance or violence carried out by Muslim folks against this grim doctrinal background, how could the world not have a largely negative view of the religion? Repeating the litany "Islam is a religion of peace," "Islam is a religion of peace" each time an atrocity takes place simply strikes non-Muslims as dishonest or laughably hypocritical.
As for knowledge of Islam among non-Muslims, professional experts on Islam probably do study the religion in great detail, but that level of expertise cannot and should not be expected from an average person. We discuss many topics in the course of a lifetime -- if we had to be certified experts on each topic before we opened our mouths, we would have very little to say.
In the end, it all comes down to perception. How do other people perceive you, and what can you do to change that?.
Dear Anonymous:
I'll make an attempt to answer some of the issues you raise about non-Muslims' knowledge of Islam, etc. I happen to work in the field of PR (Public Relations), and as any PR professional knows, perception is everything. Perception is even more important than reality, in some respects. That's why you see corporations, organizations of all types and purposes, and even political candidates work so hard and spend so much money in an effort to cultivate a positive image of themselves in the public eye.
Why are charges of backwardness, primitiveness and bloodthirstiness not levelled against Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance? Why is Christianity, despite its bloody past, mainly known as a religion of mercy and compassion? Why is Judaism known more for its intellectual wealth than anything else? It's because these religions have, more or less, kept their images clean. All of them have fringe elements, I'm sure, that preach hatred, intolerance, and bloodshed, but by and large, such elements are kept in firm control by the moderate mainstream.
It's only in Islam that the moderate voices seem few and far between, and the fiery elements more visible. It doesn't help that Islam's religious texts seem to justify violence against non-believers (I know, I know, these messages are supposed to be contextual, but why should an average person bother about the precise context?) Furthermore, Koranic messages concerning women's status in family and society, harsh punishments for petty crimes as well as prohibitions against art and music lend Islam an overall image of a stern, joyless, puritanical, and vengeance-prone creed.
When you place actual acts of intolerance or violence carried out by Muslim folks against this grim doctrinal background, how could the world not have a largely negative view of the religion? Repeating the litany "Islam is a religion of peace," "Islam is a religion of peace" each time an atrocity takes place simply strikes non-Muslims as dishonest or laughably hypocritical.
As for knowledge of Islam among non-Muslims, professional experts on Islam probably do study the religion in great detail, but that level of expertise cannot and should not be expected from an average person. We discuss many topics in the course of a lifetime -- if we had to be certified experts on each topic before we opened our mouths, we would have very little to say.
In the end, it all comes down to perception. How do other people perceive you, and what can you do to change that?.
"Why are charges of backwardness, primitiveness and bloodthirstiness not levelled against Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance? Why is Christianity, despite its bloody past, mainly known as a religion of mercy and compassion? Why is Judaism known more for its intellectual wealth than anything else?"
Actually I have heard many comments made by people attacking the status of women in Hinduism (which isn't even really one religion), Christianity and Judaism. Its rare to hear any westerner say anything good about christianity nowadays.
I've never heard Judaism described as a wealth of intellect before. I tend to find most people know nothing about Judaism. In terms of fringe groups ultra-orthodox Judaism is actually on the rise due to birth rates as is Evangelical Christianity. In ten years possibly 50% of religious jews could be ultra-orthodox.
"Why are charges of backwardness, primitiveness and bloodthirstiness not levelled against Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance? Why is Christianity, despite its bloody past, mainly known as a religion of mercy and compassion? Why is Judaism known more for its intellectual wealth than anything else?"
Actually I have heard many comments made by people attacking the status of women in Hinduism (which isn't even really one religion), Christianity and Judaism. Its rare to hear any westerner say anything good about christianity nowadays.
I've never heard Judaism described as a wealth of intellect before. I tend to find most people know nothing about Judaism. In terms of fringe groups ultra-orthodox Judaism is actually on the rise due to birth rates as is Evangelical Christianity. In ten years possibly 50% of religious jews could be ultra-orthodox.
Dear Faloodaputra,
I doubt PR is a major issue, hence have a problem with your analysis. The issue is a disease in the heart that need healing, and people's refusal/reluctance to do a reality check on their beliefs (perhaps cos it's painful to do so). It is like going with the perception that prevailed in America in the 1950s and even very much till today that all black people are criminals or sub-humans, and challenging them (i.e. black people) to correct it or prove it wrong. How audacious and ludicrous! Of course this served the white populace for a long time, so why should they not believe so.
Or, going with the PR that Japan is posing so much threat that we have to nuke them, which resulted in the one night atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 350,000 + 120,000 civilians dead. Of course, this was a good way to experiment the first weapon of mass destruction ever to be detonated on a civilian population anywhere in the universe. Let's look at the quantity of destruction, wars, injustices, exploitation, terrorism, killings, murders, general crime, genocide, homicides, whatelse can I say, etc that goes on in the world.... do you really think Muslims are at the Forefront of this. Come on, wake up. How many muslim countries do you see manufacturing weapons (of mass destruction), chemical weapons, etc...well except for the west aping countries like Pakistan, and Iran. Is it because they are backward and barbaric that is preventing them, or they have little appetite for these things and what they are being used for.
Yet, no matter what they may do, Muslims are still the bad guys. Everywhere muslim country I go as a westerner (not as a muslim!), I am received with open arms to do as I please (generally speaking). They invite me into their homes for tea (even tho they have very little). But when muslims come here or even non-muslims (but just foreigners), they are mocked, shackled, suffocated, told that they are backward, degrade them and systematically marginalised so that they can work in low end jobs cleaning our streets and sewers. And in the worst case, they are killed like the Brazilian "terrorist". It's just a mistake! It is the fault of the terrorist.
People can fall for PR as much as they want. It just testifies to what is already in their hearts or their level of intelligence. The intelligent person will say, "I am not sure about that, but I'll bear it in mind". There are almost 2 billion muslims in the world, and less than 5,000 or so of them are perpetrating these jihadi style terrorist acts, so how does PR swing these facts around in peoples head such that they think most Muslims are terrorist. Yet you have governments and whole armies invading, bombing, colonising, pillaging and exploiting the poorests of the poor nations world-wide. But their PR is good? How awful. What a travesty of the human intelligence.
I am afraid, it is about time people wake up from their slumber and cultivate good ethics in dealing with people. PR has little to do with all of this, people's perception is a result of their complexities.
Read what our Koran say about PR and what not - without any spin or sophistry.
[49.6] O you who believe! if a perpetual-sinner (a fasiq) comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.
........
[49.11] O you who believe! let not (one) people laugh at (another) people perchance they may be better than they, nor let women (laugh) at (other) women, perchance they may be better than they; and do not find fault with your own people nor call one another by nicknames; evil is a bad name after faith, and whoever does not turn, these it is that are the unjust.
[49.12] O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? But you abhor it; and be careful of (your duty to) God, surely God is Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.
[49.13] O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely God is Knowing, Aware
Dear Faloodaputra,
I doubt PR is a major issue, hence have a problem with your analysis. The issue is a disease in the heart that need healing, and people's refusal/reluctance to do a reality check on their beliefs (perhaps cos it's painful to do so). It is like going with the perception that prevailed in America in the 1950s and even very much till today that all black people are criminals or sub-humans, and challenging them (i.e. black people) to correct it or prove it wrong. How audacious and ludicrous! Of course this served the white populace for a long time, so why should they not believe so.
Or, going with the PR that Japan is posing so much threat that we have to nuke them, which resulted in the one night atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 350,000 + 120,000 civilians dead. Of course, this was a good way to experiment the first weapon of mass destruction ever to be detonated on a civilian population anywhere in the universe. Let's look at the quantity of destruction, wars, injustices, exploitation, terrorism, killings, murders, general crime, genocide, homicides, whatelse can I say, etc that goes on in the world.... do you really think Muslims are at the Forefront of this. Come on, wake up. How many muslim countries do you see manufacturing weapons (of mass destruction), chemical weapons, etc...well except for the west aping countries like Pakistan, and Iran. Is it because they are backward and barbaric that is preventing them, or they have little appetite for these things and what they are being used for.
Yet, no matter what they may do, Muslims are still the bad guys. Everywhere muslim country I go as a westerner (not as a muslim!), I am received with open arms to do as I please (generally speaking). They invite me into their homes for tea (even tho they have very little). But when muslims come here or even non-muslims (but just foreigners), they are mocked, shackled, suffocated, told that they are backward, degrade them and systematically marginalised so that they can work in low end jobs cleaning our streets and sewers. And in the worst case, they are killed like the Brazilian "terrorist". It's just a mistake! It is the fault of the terrorist.
People can fall for PR as much as they want. It just testifies to what is already in their hearts or their level of intelligence. The intelligent person will say, "I am not sure about that, but I'll bear it in mind". There are almost 2 billion muslims in the world, and less than 5,000 or so of them are perpetrating these jihadi style terrorist acts, so how does PR swing these facts around in peoples head such that they think most Muslims are terrorist. Yet you have governments and whole armies invading, bombing, colonising, pillaging and exploiting the poorests of the poor nations world-wide. But their PR is good? How awful. What a travesty of the human intelligence.
I am afraid, it is about time people wake up from their slumber and cultivate good ethics in dealing with people. PR has little to do with all of this, people's perception is a result of their complexities.
Read what our Koran say about PR and what not - without any spin or sophistry.
[49.6] O you who believe! if a perpetual-sinner (a fasiq) comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.
........
[49.11] O you who believe! let not (one) people laugh at (another) people perchance they may be better than they, nor let women (laugh) at (other) women, perchance they may be better than they; and do not find fault with your own people nor call one another by nicknames; evil is a bad name after faith, and whoever does not turn, these it is that are the unjust.
[49.12] O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? But you abhor it; and be careful of (your duty to) God, surely God is Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.
[49.13] O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely God is Knowing, Aware
David Wood's article is one way of looking at things.
I am sure the scholars of Islam & Expert Orientalist's on Islam will have another way of looking at it.
David Wood's article is one way of looking at things.
I am sure the scholars of Islam & Expert Orientalist's on Islam will have another way of looking at it.
Pity, that - David Wood - sees the Prophet of Mercy (Allah bless and grant him peace) is such disgusting light.
I think the person that will win the "hearts" of some of the critics of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is anyone that will offer himself as a sacrifice even as a reward for their own wrong actions, ....perhaps like "Jesus". But little do they know that this was actually not the case with Jesus. And indeed Muhammad (peace be upon him) even goes further than Jesus as being a mercy to the universe. And if not for his sake (sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam) conscience and the least of virtues, morals, goodness, etc amongst mankind (muslim or non-muslim) couldn't have manifested. Those who know this know it, those who don't know it, don't know it.
God decides his Prophets for mankind and not vice-versa.
Pity, that - David Wood - sees the Prophet of Mercy (Allah bless and grant him peace) is such disgusting light.
I think the person that will win the "hearts" of some of the critics of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is anyone that will offer himself as a sacrifice even as a reward for their own wrong actions, ....perhaps like "Jesus". But little do they know that this was actually not the case with Jesus. And indeed Muhammad (peace be upon him) even goes further than Jesus as being a mercy to the universe. And if not for his sake (sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam) conscience and the least of virtues, morals, goodness, etc amongst mankind (muslim or non-muslim) couldn't have manifested. Those who know this know it, those who don't know it, don't know it.
God decides his Prophets for mankind and not vice-versa.
"But when muslims come here or even non-muslims (but just foreigners), they are mocked, shackled, suffocated, told that they are backward, degrade them and systematically marginalised so that they can work in low end jobs cleaning our streets and sewers. And in the worst case, they are killed like the Brazilian âÂÂterroristâÂÂ. ItâÂÂs just a mistake! It is the fault of the terrorist."
Are we expected to take that seriously? The most recent poll I saw found that the vast majority of black and minority ethnic communities in London were positive about their experiences in the city and were actually happeier about their treatment than white residents. Can you name another country in the world that provides as access to employment, generous benefits, access to services and subsidised housing as the UK? Or indeed provides the same levels of freedom of association and religion? Please ease up on the victimisation thesis it does none of us any favours.
"But when muslims come here or even non-muslims (but just foreigners), they are mocked, shackled, suffocated, told that they are backward, degrade them and systematically marginalised so that they can work in low end jobs cleaning our streets and sewers. And in the worst case, they are killed like the Brazilian âÂÂterroristâÂÂ. ItâÂÂs just a mistake! It is the fault of the terrorist."
Are we expected to take that seriously? The most recent poll I saw found that the vast majority of black and minority ethnic communities in London were positive about their experiences in the city and were actually happeier about their treatment than white residents. Can you name another country in the world that provides as access to employment, generous benefits, access to services and subsidised housing as the UK? Or indeed provides the same levels of freedom of association and religion? Please ease up on the victimisation thesis it does none of us any favours.
Abu Marshalsea!
There's no doubt that things are getting better, and I am happy about that. And the UK people certainly deserves some credit for attempting to improve themselves in terms of social relations. That's commendable.
But don't let us start clapping yet, because there is a long way to go! A long way. There are polls that vitiate some of the things you have mentioned. For instance, the number of police stop and searches still occur disproportionately amongst ethnic people (who constitute less that 12%) in the UK. The areas they live are run down and under funded by the council, the schools they go are similar decrept and ill-equiped (if equiped at all) - I know this from first hand cos my wife used to be a teacher. etc. I don't think these are innocent happenings. These are products of a mindset. Some of these conditions inturn filters through our institutions, schools, colleges, employment, etc. The consequence is active exclusion, marginalisation, and even humiliation. So on the one hand, people have a place to live, food to eat, petty jobs here are there to do...but on the other hand, there are constantly sent a systematic signal of being second rate counterpart human beings.
Of course if it is all about eating food and living in council houses, a lot of people in the UK are better than many people in the world. The point in my post wasn't really to criticise the living conditions amongst people in the UK or any country. Rather, the point in my post was to address falloodaputra's misconception that Muslim's somehow have a monopoly on "backwardness, primitiveness and bloodthirstiness", "violence", "intolerance", "terrorism", "barbarism", "incivility", etc, and what not...and we in the west are the tolerant, peaceful, humanitarian angels. ha - ha - ha! I know first hand that when a westerner goes to a muslim country, they are treated with utmost respect and offered the best of everthing even if they don't have it. So, I was trying to compare that with the attitude of the average citizen here in the west. "These people have come to take our (cleaning) jobs"....
I probably went to far...cos Falloodaputra to me comes accross like someone who is living according to his experience of hollywood movies, but I had some spare moment, so I thought I should spell out some of the issues to him at the micro-level - perchance oneday he will be able to look behind the cameras scenes.
Abu Marshalsea!
There's no doubt that things are getting better, and I am happy about that. And the UK people certainly deserves some credit for attempting to improve themselves in terms of social relations. That's commendable.
But don't let us start clapping yet, because there is a long way to go! A long way. There are polls that vitiate some of the things you have mentioned. For instance, the number of police stop and searches still occur disproportionately amongst ethnic people (who constitute less that 12%) in the UK. The areas they live are run down and under funded by the council, the schools they go are similar decrept and ill-equiped (if equiped at all) - I know this from first hand cos my wife used to be a teacher. etc. I don't think these are innocent happenings. These are products of a mindset. Some of these conditions inturn filters through our institutions, schools, colleges, employment, etc. The consequence is active exclusion, marginalisation, and even humiliation. So on the one hand, people have a place to live, food to eat, petty jobs here are there to do...but on the other hand, there are constantly sent a systematic signal of being second rate counterpart human beings.
Of course if it is all about eating food and living in council houses, a lot of people in the UK are better than many people in the world. The point in my post wasn't really to criticise the living conditions amongst people in the UK or any country. Rather, the point in my post was to address falloodaputra's misconception that Muslim's somehow have a monopoly on "backwardness, primitiveness and bloodthirstiness", "violence", "intolerance", "terrorism", "barbarism", "incivility", etc, and what not...and we in the west are the tolerant, peaceful, humanitarian angels. ha - ha - ha! I know first hand that when a westerner goes to a muslim country, they are treated with utmost respect and offered the best of everthing even if they don't have it. So, I was trying to compare that with the attitude of the average citizen here in the west. "These people have come to take our (cleaning) jobs"....
I probably went to far...cos Falloodaputra to me comes accross like someone who is living according to his experience of hollywood movies, but I had some spare moment, so I thought I should spell out some of the issues to him at the micro-level - perchance oneday he will be able to look behind the cameras scenes.
Thanks for the considered response - I understand that is is easy to fly off the handle in internet arguments, indeed I almost did so in response to your post and then pulled back a bit. The reason for my post - I don't normally post on blogs - is that I think the last few years have seen people on all sides of the argument retrench into set positions, seeing all things negatively and throwing blame about.
I know what inner city schools are like, I went to one which was about 50% Bangladeshi. It may have been somewhat underfunded at the time but not terribly so and people of all races and faiths (or lack of faiths) got opportunities which many grabbed hold of - others didn't. Neither I don't think is it true to argue it is only menial jobs. This may be the case with first generation immigrants - but it has been everywhere there has been migration, people always start at the bottom. I walk past Kings College Medical school on the way to work each morning and the students I see are probably 80% non-white and I would guess at least 20% muslim (by sight you can only identify the women beacuse of hijabs). That is our next generation of doctors.
I think Britain has offered an improved standard of living for probably all migrant groups although experiences have varied - often for cultural reasons. But by and large the country works and people have the freedom to do largely as they wish ptrovided it doesn't infringe others rights.
No its not perfect, things could be improved and in a democracy all have the right to have their say. But I think all sides to the debate should be a little more considered in the current circumstances, rather than jumping down each others throats or ignoring what we all benefit from.
Regards.
Thanks for the considered response - I understand that is is easy to fly off the handle in internet arguments, indeed I almost did so in response to your post and then pulled back a bit. The reason for my post - I don't normally post on blogs - is that I think the last few years have seen people on all sides of the argument retrench into set positions, seeing all things negatively and throwing blame about.
I know what inner city schools are like, I went to one which was about 50% Bangladeshi. It may have been somewhat underfunded at the time but not terribly so and people of all races and faiths (or lack of faiths) got opportunities which many grabbed hold of - others didn't. Neither I don't think is it true to argue it is only menial jobs. This may be the case with first generation immigrants - but it has been everywhere there has been migration, people always start at the bottom. I walk past Kings College Medical school on the way to work each morning and the students I see are probably 80% non-white and I would guess at least 20% muslim (by sight you can only identify the women beacuse of hijabs). That is our next generation of doctors.
I think Britain has offered an improved standard of living for probably all migrant groups although experiences have varied - often for cultural reasons. But by and large the country works and people have the freedom to do largely as they wish ptrovided it doesn't infringe others rights.
No its not perfect, things could be improved and in a democracy all have the right to have their say. But I think all sides to the debate should be a little more considered in the current circumstances, rather than jumping down each others throats or ignoring what we all benefit from.
Regards.
Father of Marshalsea, you are right...and your words appear more reasonable than mine. I did allow our enthusiastic "non-white white supremacist" friend - Falloodaputra - drag me close to the gutter. We should thank God in all circumstances.
But please note that the context of my points was to restrain Faloodaputra in his fantastic idea that some people (i.e. Muslims) have a monopoly on intolerance, backwardness, etc whilst others (Judeo-Christian - White) are angelic. I normally consider this type of discourse odious and unworthy of response, but I somehow fall for it.... partly because I have noticed that it is the latest trend of argument used in attacking muslims (whenever there is a terrorist attack). However, according to my diagnosis, it is not terrorist attacks or muslims misbehaving (like any other person misbehaving) that brings up these kind of discourse, rather it is a mind set (superiority complex) that is latent and when it receives the 'right' stimuli - it comes out.
Father of Marshalsea, you are right...and your words appear more reasonable than mine. I did allow our enthusiastic "non-white white supremacist" friend - Falloodaputra - drag me close to the gutter. We should thank God in all circumstances.
But please note that the context of my points was to restrain Faloodaputra in his fantastic idea that some people (i.e. Muslims) have a monopoly on intolerance, backwardness, etc whilst others (Judeo-Christian - White) are angelic. I normally consider this type of discourse odious and unworthy of response, but I somehow fall for it.... partly because I have noticed that it is the latest trend of argument used in attacking muslims (whenever there is a terrorist attack). However, according to my diagnosis, it is not terrorist attacks or muslims misbehaving (like any other person misbehaving) that brings up these kind of discourse, rather it is a mind set (superiority complex) that is latent and when it receives the 'right' stimuli - it comes out.
On a different note,
Jesus (peace be upon him).
I missed this salutation out in my post to raratonga (David Wood).
Astagfirulah!
On a different note,
Jesus (peace be upon him).
I missed this salutation out in my post to raratonga (David Wood).
Astagfirulah!
Hello, Anonymous, I'm baaaack! Did you miss me? In a previous post you said: "I know first hand that when a westerner goes to a muslim country, they are treated with utmost respect and offered the best of everthing even if they donâÂÂt have it."
Could the nice treatment be because the Westerner is white? Whites get good treatment everywhere, whether they go to a Muslim country or a non-Muslim country. Also, Westerners usually go to other countries as tourists or short-term visitors. They usually don't go there to settle. It's entirely appropriate to treat a guest with hospitality. But if you saw folks coming to your country with a view to living there permanently, wouldn't you feel the slightest tinge of contempt or hostility? I would.
The other side of the coin is, white Westerners apart, foreigners are not always well-treated in Muslim countries. Newspapers in South Asia are always full of sad tales of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi expatriate workers getting exploited, beaten, starved, ill-paid or not paid at all by their Gulf Arab employers. Even you must've heard of the many cases of mistreatment of Sri Lankan or Filipina maids, no?
Hello, Anonymous, I'm baaaack! Did you miss me? In a previous post you said: "I know first hand that when a westerner goes to a muslim country, they are treated with utmost respect and offered the best of everthing even if they donâÂÂt have it."
Could the nice treatment be because the Westerner is white? Whites get good treatment everywhere, whether they go to a Muslim country or a non-Muslim country. Also, Westerners usually go to other countries as tourists or short-term visitors. They usually don't go there to settle. It's entirely appropriate to treat a guest with hospitality. But if you saw folks coming to your country with a view to living there permanently, wouldn't you feel the slightest tinge of contempt or hostility? I would.
The other side of the coin is, white Westerners apart, foreigners are not always well-treated in Muslim countries. Newspapers in South Asia are always full of sad tales of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi expatriate workers getting exploited, beaten, starved, ill-paid or not paid at all by their Gulf Arab employers. Even you must've heard of the many cases of mistreatment of Sri Lankan or Filipina maids, no?
faloodaputra wrote: "Even you mustâÂÂve heard of the many cases of mistreatment of Sri Lankan or Filipina maids, no?"
Abuse of maids happens in many cultures, regardless of the employer's ethnicity or religion. One of the more recent and infamous cases of maid abuse happened last year in Malaysia, where Chinese housewife Yim Pek Ha was charged with multiple counts of abuse against Indonesian maid Nirmala Bonat.
"Bonat, 19, is being treated in Indonesia for second- and third-degree burns to her chest, back and legs caused when she was allegedly burned with an iron and scalded with boiling water." (Source)
"But if you saw folks coming to your country with a view to living there permanently, wouldnâÂÂt you feel the slightest tinge of contempt or hostility? I would."
You must not be American. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
faloodaputra wrote: "Even you mustâÂÂve heard of the many cases of mistreatment of Sri Lankan or Filipina maids, no?"
Abuse of maids happens in many cultures, regardless of the employer's ethnicity or religion. One of the more recent and infamous cases of maid abuse happened last year in Malaysia, where Chinese housewife Yim Pek Ha was charged with multiple counts of abuse against Indonesian maid Nirmala Bonat.
"Bonat, 19, is being treated in Indonesia for second- and third-degree burns to her chest, back and legs caused when she was allegedly burned with an iron and scalded with boiling water." (Source)
"But if you saw folks coming to your country with a view to living there permanently, wouldnâÂÂt you feel the slightest tinge of contempt or hostility? I would."
You must not be American. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
But if you saw folks coming to your country with a view to living there permanently, wouldnâÂÂt you feel the slightest tinge of contempt or hostility? I would
That's sad!
But if you saw folks coming to your country with a view to living there permanently, wouldnâÂÂt you feel the slightest tinge of contempt or hostility? I would
That's sad!
"ThatâÂÂs sad!" Why is it sad? Immigration is not a birthright. It's the prerogative of the host society to decide whom to let in and whom to keep out. For self-serving reasons, we immigrants want the doors to be kept wide open, always, whether it is in the interests of the host society or not. I'm personally grateful that America gave me a chance to build a better life, but I don't take this privilege for granted. I'm also pretty amazed at the relative open-mindedness of Europe and America when they allowed in millions of Third World immigrants after World WarI II. Whatever their immediate motive -- cheap labor or whatever --nobody can say it didn't benefit us, the willing and enthusiastic immigrants.
Somehow we tend to think that Europe and America owe it to us to allow us entry into their lands, but they could easily have gone the way of Japan, no? Despite labor shortages and a rapidly aging population, Japan has so far steadfastly refused to allow large-scale immigration of culturally dissimilar people.
Alas, countries like Britain and The Netherlands are now finding out that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing -- by allowing all sorts of people to pour in, they are now witnessing serious strains in the social fabric of what used to be relatively homogenous populations. So now if these countries decide to start closing the gate, I for one won't be blaming them.
As for the Emma Lazarus poem, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...etc., it was written two hundred years ago (I'm not sure about the exact date, forgive me). A lot of water has flowed down New York harbor since then. In light of events since 9/11, I think they should change the words to: "Give me your fanatics, your crazies, your murderous zealots...." How does that sound?
"ThatâÂÂs sad!" Why is it sad? Immigration is not a birthright. It's the prerogative of the host society to decide whom to let in and whom to keep out. For self-serving reasons, we immigrants want the doors to be kept wide open, always, whether it is in the interests of the host society or not. I'm personally grateful that America gave me a chance to build a better life, but I don't take this privilege for granted. I'm also pretty amazed at the relative open-mindedness of Europe and America when they allowed in millions of Third World immigrants after World WarI II. Whatever their immediate motive -- cheap labor or whatever --nobody can say it didn't benefit us, the willing and enthusiastic immigrants.
Somehow we tend to think that Europe and America owe it to us to allow us entry into their lands, but they could easily have gone the way of Japan, no? Despite labor shortages and a rapidly aging population, Japan has so far steadfastly refused to allow large-scale immigration of culturally dissimilar people.
Alas, countries like Britain and The Netherlands are now finding out that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing -- by allowing all sorts of people to pour in, they are now witnessing serious strains in the social fabric of what used to be relatively homogenous populations. So now if these countries decide to start closing the gate, I for one won't be blaming them.
As for the Emma Lazarus poem, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...etc., it was written two hundred years ago (I'm not sure about the exact date, forgive me). A lot of water has flowed down New York harbor since then. In light of events since 9/11, I think they should change the words to: "Give me your fanatics, your crazies, your murderous zealots...." How does that sound?
Oh Fallooodaputra,
None of your points come across to me as rooted in any context. They seem to be rooted only in the material advantage you have gained by living as an immigrant in the US. Contrary to your thesis, I think these countries have a moral obligation to allow in immigrants, especially people from those countries where their legacy of exploitive policies, colonisation, destruction, etc are still a living reality.
I am sorry, but you are a kid.
Oh Fallooodaputra,
None of your points come across to me as rooted in any context. They seem to be rooted only in the material advantage you have gained by living as an immigrant in the US. Contrary to your thesis, I think these countries have a moral obligation to allow in immigrants, especially people from those countries where their legacy of exploitive policies, colonisation, destruction, etc are still a living reality.
I am sorry, but you are a kid.
I wish someone will delete all my posts to Faloodaputra. I have just discovered that it wasn't worth replying to this friend of ours. I have written a lot of unnecessary and silly things in responding to his posts.
I wish someone will delete all my posts to Faloodaputra. I have just discovered that it wasn't worth replying to this friend of ours. I have written a lot of unnecessary and silly things in responding to his posts.
"This essentially denies that Islam is a whole, and that people who âÂÂpick and mixâ verses from the QurâÂÂan (not to mention reports from the Sunnah literature) are either ignorant of, or just ignore, the way apparently contradictory verses and aspects of the Sunnah are resolved."
Which of the schools are you going to accept in precendence over the others then ? Where is the one true interpretation that every Muslim subscribes to ?
"Abuse of maids happens in many cultures, regardless of the employerâÂÂs ethnicity or religion."
Abuse of maids happens in many cultures and is rooted in the power imbalance implicit in such a relationship. However, when it happens disproportionately and in greater extremes in one particular nation one can legitimately ask 'Why?'.
"I think these countries have a moral obligation to allow in immigrants, especially people from those countries where their legacy of exploitive policies, colonisation, destruction, etc are still a living reality.
I am sorry, but you are a kid."
There is a historical moral obligation. However, at the same time I am not the person who was exploited, neither are those ethnic English around me the ones who did the exploiting. There are obligations on both sides, they might be unequal because of historical context, but to assume that they are a zero sum game is pretty childish.
"This essentially denies that Islam is a whole, and that people who âÂÂpick and mixâ verses from the QurâÂÂan (not to mention reports from the Sunnah literature) are either ignorant of, or just ignore, the way apparently contradictory verses and aspects of the Sunnah are resolved."
Which of the schools are you going to accept in precendence over the others then ? Where is the one true interpretation that every Muslim subscribes to ?
"Abuse of maids happens in many cultures, regardless of the employerâÂÂs ethnicity or religion."
Abuse of maids happens in many cultures and is rooted in the power imbalance implicit in such a relationship. However, when it happens disproportionately and in greater extremes in one particular nation one can legitimately ask 'Why?'.
"I think these countries have a moral obligation to allow in immigrants, especially people from those countries where their legacy of exploitive policies, colonisation, destruction, etc are still a living reality.
I am sorry, but you are a kid."
There is a historical moral obligation. However, at the same time I am not the person who was exploited, neither are those ethnic English around me the ones who did the exploiting. There are obligations on both sides, they might be unequal because of historical context, but to assume that they are a zero sum game is pretty childish.
Typo above.
I meant to day these are not historical legacies. They are ongoing realities.
Typo above.
I meant to day these are not historical legacies. They are ongoing realities.
So, you say that âÂÂnon-Muslims have a very deep misconception/ignorance concerning Islam/Muslims.â No. Non. Nao. I think it would be better (and more honest) to say instead that most âÂÂMuslims have a very deep misconception/ignorance concerning Islam/Muslims.âÂÂ
The fact is that, as we see here, Muslims are in denial. You can read a Koranic verse that tells men to beat their wives and Muslims will say we donâÂÂt understand the âÂÂtrueâ meaning of the text. You read a hadith about the prophet of Islam amputating hands, then burning eyes with hot nails, then finally letting the victim die from thirst and Muslims will look at you with a blank stare and say âÂÂSo what?â You point that violence is characteristic of Muslims all over the world and they say that is âÂÂabsurdâ even as they reading about the latest (Muslim) terror. When you talk about Koranic verses justifying violence against non-believers and designating a clearly inferior role for women, they deny the obvious, or, as above, may admit that it âÂÂseemsâ this may be true, but then they tell us that we donâÂÂt really âÂÂunderstand.âÂÂ
Yes, the world is wrong and only Muslims can see the true Islam, obviously. Just reading what the Koran says and judging people and a religion by that it says and what its followers do is really a really stupid idea. We all know that the Koran itself claims that it is simple, clear, detailed and perfect, so why would anybody except the obvious and actually believe what it means what it says. Like I said, it is not non-Muslims that donâÂÂt understand Islam, it is the Muslims that canâÂÂt see the obvious.
Kactuz
So, you say that âÂÂnon-Muslims have a very deep misconception/ignorance concerning Islam/Muslims.â No. Non. Nao. I think it would be better (and more honest) to say instead that most âÂÂMuslims have a very deep misconception/ignorance concerning Islam/Muslims.âÂÂ
The fact is that, as we see here, Muslims are in denial. You can read a Koranic verse that tells men to beat their wives and Muslims will say we donâÂÂt understand the âÂÂtrueâ meaning of the text. You read a hadith about the prophet of Islam amputating hands, then burning eyes with hot nails, then finally letting the victim die from thirst and Muslims will look at you with a blank stare and say âÂÂSo what?â You point that violence is characteristic of Muslims all over the world and they say that is âÂÂabsurdâ even as they reading about the latest (Muslim) terror. When you talk about Koranic verses justifying violence against non-believers and designating a clearly inferior role for women, they deny the obvious, or, as above, may admit that it âÂÂseemsâ this may be true, but then they tell us that we donâÂÂt really âÂÂunderstand.âÂÂ
Yes, the world is wrong and only Muslims can see the true Islam, obviously. Just reading what the Koran says and judging people and a religion by that it says and what its followers do is really a really stupid idea. We all know that the Koran itself claims that it is simple, clear, detailed and perfect, so why would anybody except the obvious and actually believe what it means what it says. Like I said, it is not non-Muslims that donâÂÂt understand Islam, it is the Muslims that canâÂÂt see the obvious.
Kactuz
IKhwanweb is the Muslim Brotherhood's only official English web site. The Main office is located in London, although Ikhwanweb has correspondents in most countries. Our staff is exclusively made of volunteers and stretched over the five continents.
The Muslim Brotherhood opinions and views can be found under the sections of MB statements and MB opinions, in addition to the Editorial Message.
Items posted under "other views" are usually different from these of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ikhwanweb does not censor any articles or comments but has the right only to remove any inappropriate words that defy public taste
Ikhwanweb is not a news website, although we report news that matter to the Muslim Brotherhood's cause. Our main misson is to present the Muslim Brotherhood vision right from the source and rebut misonceptions about the movement in western societies. We value debate on the issues and we welcome constructive criticism.
--
For More News And question about Muslim Borotherhood , please visit www.ikhwanweb.com the only offical english web site