Is Islam violent?

http://www.politeindian.com/blog/2006/10/03/is-islam-violent/

Advertisements

73 Responses to “Is Islam violent?”

  1. Adnan Says:

    Balanced and a very thoughful post And from an Indian Muslim’s angle, I would say I am overwhelmed. Don’t get to see such understanding quite often. Thanks.

  2. Sharique Says:

    I have few things to add

    To truly grasp the significance of those verses, we need to understand the context of the revelation of this verse. Revelations came to the Prophet, when Guidance was actually needed concerning a specific situation. For this reason, knowledge of the context of revelation is absolutely necessary for the proper understanding of this verse or any verse in the Qur’an.

    I wonder why people still object to those verses in spite of numerous articles available clarifying the points. But then thats why people are prejudiced….can’t help it
    Find more here 

  3. Polite Indian Says:

    Adnan:
    Thanks for the kind words.

  4. Polite Indian Says:

    Sharique:
    Even though the context in which the verses were revealed is important, it is more important to impress that they are not relevent today. Otherwise someone llike OBL can draw a parallel between those times and current times and easily justify the use of any verse. The truth is that the use of those verse in a literal sense cannot be justified in modern times by any justification. The modern world doesn’t work like the tribes of olden times.
    So it is pragmatic to accept that those verses are violent and could have been relevant in those times but have no relevance whatsoever either today or maybe even tomorrow.

  5. Sharique Says:

    I never objected to that. Those verses were were meant specifically for those times and to use it to insinuate one’s evil intention today would be disastrous. They had to revealed at those times because of its absolutely necessity..now situation is different.

  6. Sujai Says:

    Polite Indian:
    I really liked your quote from Ram Charita Manas. And also your numbers on violent verses in each religious text. I shall provide the link to your site from my articles. Those interested in knowing the details would be impressed. Thanks.

  7. John Says:

    It is stupid to compare which one is more violent. But one thing, certain verses in Koran repeates on and on. But violent verses in Bible are all unique.

    Bible insists killing innocent people all alike. Koran prohibits such things.

    Thank you for such a great essay!

  8. pranay Says:

    Good post but what has caught my attention is the quote from Ramcharitra manas and to be frank I really have started to negate everything about it because of that line. How the hell can anyone think like that? If someone does he so clearly is a mad person and completely unworthy of being followed.

  9. Polite Indian Says:

    John:

    It is indeed stupid to compare which one is more violent. The important thing to understand is with passage of time people reject despicable stuff like this and move on with the good stuff in those books.

    pranay:
    Don’t tell me that quote from Ramcharitamanas made you angry. (I read your post about you not getting angry 🙂 )
    I think it has to be a personal thing whether to reject the whole book or reject parts of it that go contrary to logic and general good. But you are right, it is unimaginable how people can come up with things like these and that gets passed off in the religious texts. Read my other post where I have a link to Mr. Suraj Bhan’s effort to delete such slur from our scriptures.

  10. Ummair Peer-zada Says:

    Every one who visits this website should check out http://www.uah.edu/msa/quran/quranYusufali.html and read before and after verses of Quran given here. It is nothing but propaganda against Islam in this article. Also check out http://www.al-mawrid.org
    for the understanding of Islam.

  11. Polite Indian Says:

    Ummair,
    You say

    It is nothing but propaganda against Islam in this article.

    and I thought I was fighting that propoganda!

  12. Mariam Says:

    Polite Indian,

    Great Job!

    Ummair,

    What are you talking about? It’s a very well written post with very effective and valid arguments. Referring to some website wouldn’t answer your misgivings. If you have a problem with the facts do point it out so we all can benefit from it.

  13. ayn Says:

    Polite Indian wrote:

    “The article has an excellent comparision of the violent passges in both bible and quran. Bible has 853 violent passages. Now does that make it more violent than Quran? If you do a percentage comparision then Bible has 2.74% violent passages and Quran has 5.4%.”

    The article actually wrote:

    Violence and Cruelty Total

    verses Percent
    Bible 857 31173 2.75
    Quran 488 6236 7.83

    Why did you lie?

    Why do so many Muslims lie?

    Here’s the site:
    http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-
    is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

  14. ayn Says:

    Total Percentage if cruel verses:

    Bible: 2.75%

    Quran: 7.83%

    Go check out the site from where you misquoted aka lied.

  15. Sharique Says:

    ayn,
    People don’t understand simple things in life. See that site has quoted the quran but only half sentences which takes away the essence of the quote. For example (Q. 9:29). “kill the disbelievers wherever we find them”

    The full ayah from Quran is

    Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

    See the difference! Or you need further explaination?

  16. Eugene Says:

    Well, Valmiki was as thief before he was inspired to write Ramayana and after he lived a life of a hermit. But Md shed blood and lived an adulturous life and promoted such things among his followers for a great reward of 72 virgins for free sex in heaven. A good selling point.

    Then about Bible and Koran. Koran teaches to acknowledge all the books of the earlier prophets and their teachings. Same way Christians have acknowledged the previous prophets and added those 39 Jewish Books also to the Christian scriptures of 37 books from the life of Jesus & His teachings.Thus the Bible has 66 books of more than 40 authors. Look at the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Md who lived 700 yrs after Jesus. Md lived in a much reformed world and teaches things of the barbaric world of 1400Bc of Moses. So Md’s teachings takes the civilization back to 2100 yrs of bararic life. Jesus’ teachings is well suited event to this present age even though it is 2000yrs old but Md teachings are so barbaric and dates back to 2100 + 1300 =3400
    as Md lived in 700AD. Why Muslims still preach Jihad instead of preaching against it. Why Muslims
    still practice polygamy instead of preaching against it. Many Indian Muslims are much better than the Middle east muslims. Indian Muslims are better examples of a peaceful Islam than the Middle east. Why not they learn for the peaceful muslims.
    Why the muslims are not offered the freedom of speech to preach against koran if it is wrong in these aspects so atleast the Jihadis learn from the peaceful muslims.
    Why in Muslim countries like Saudi dont allow freedom of religion?
    If they have so much faith in Koran let them allow books of other religion and worship places of other religion and see how much their religion stand. Today they force Islam as Religion of “No Choice” so it is a BONDAGE and NOT FREEDOM. The basic “FREEDOM TO CHOOSE ” is not in Islam, but ISLAM MEANS PEACE” CAN THERE BE PEACE IN BONDAGE, IN SLAVERY, IN JAIL????? THINK !!!!!

  17. Paul Says:

    Is Islam a peacefull religion? Let the wise man determine so for himself. Look at the world around us.

  18. Thiagan Says:

    15/03/07

    The contents of the article is pathetically politically correct, with the right noises and with a moderate tenor. However the fact is there is no animal called moderate muslim; it is an oxxymoron. I will define a moderate muslim as one:
    > who acknowledges that all religions are equal
    > unequivocally accepts and practises gender equality
    > accepts national policies of the host countries, say in family planning,
    > renounce the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule at a future date and universal imposition of sharia
    > accept that Mohammed was a highway robber, who looted the merchant caravans for sustaining his thugs; committed innumerable murders through offensive wars; married twelve times, many of them minors; sanctioned rape on the women of the vanquished and practised it himself; sent assasins to kill a 120 year old man and a poetess for daring to critisise him; even after twelve wives, he committed many extra marital relationships;

    If any muslim accepts these reasonable demands, he will cease to be a muslim. If Indians and the West continue to be polite, Islam will take over the entire world and the Hindus will have only three options: either you convert to Islam or accept dhimmy status and pay Jazia, the protection money or be killed. See the status of Hindu minority in Pakistan and Bangladesh and at least there after learn.
    > renounces sharia and willing to be ruled by rule of law and democratic structure
    >

  19. Paul Says:

    I am all for freedom of religion,but I am against coercion and murder in the name of ANY religion.

  20. Polite Indian Says:

    Paul,
    You are right. Nobody should coerce anybody in the name of religion. In fact not only not coerce, nobody should threaten, lure in the name of religion.
    The idea is to live and let live. There are some anti social minority with a loud voice who claim to represent the vastly silent majority. This minority is there in every religion. It is this minority that needs to be fought instead of blaming the entire community.

    Thiagan,
    I believe you you are confusing moderate Muslim vs Progressive Muslim. A deeply religious practicing Muslim will be a moderate Muslim as long as he doesn’t force his views on others using violence of any kind. There is no need for this Muslim to accept Mohammed as a highway robber.
    Besides, you think your demands are reasonable but who is to decide that? Why is it necessary to accept Mohammed as a highway robber, murderer and what not?

  21. Thiagan Says:

    16/03/07

    Polite Indian is again confused and refuses to accept reality. It should have established that the conditions are unreasonable or the allegations are false; it does neither. They are essential for any pluralistic and democratic society and if a moderate muslim can not accept them, he is ineligible to live in such a society. My basic question is how someone who has done all these and more can be deemed as a Prophet and the final one and how the religion he founded can be deemed as peaceful and rational. Islam is like Communism; intrinsically violent and confrontationist in content; they should be challenged and defeated. Ali Sina and Daniel Pipes are precisely doing that and they deserve support by all.

    Thiagan

  22. Polite Indian Says:

    What is the reality? If you say something or Ali Sina says something, does it become a reality? The conditions that you mention are not all reasonable. Some are and some are not.

    accepts national policies of the host countries, say in family planning,

    Why is that every policy of a nation be accepted? Why can someone in a democracy not protest/challenge against any policy? And what is this thing about host nation? Once you get a citizenship it is your nation. Where does this concept of host and guest come from?

    Thiagan, Ali Sina has an open challenge on his website. I am no Islamic scholar to debate him but I think what he is trying to do might end up being a futile excercise. I have read his debates with Islamic scholars. They have been a total waste of time. Neither Ali Sina has convinced any body nor anybody else has been able to convince Ali Sina otherwise. And that has been the result of all the debates that he has had. But all this with what result? Nothing. At least nothing on his target audiences i.e. Muslims but what it has done is provide fuel to those looking to hate Islam or who already hate Muslims. Other than that it has achieved little. On his website he has testimonies of about 100 people who left Islam and that’s it nothing more. No New debates have been added in almost six months now. I think people have stopped debating him and there is a good reason. It is a waste of time and energy.

    If Ali Sina says that Mohammed brain washed people and started a cult called Islam, who is to say people are not getting brain washed by Ali Sina? Ali Sina and his followers have a lot of energy, enthusiasm and may be goodwill. This energy needs to be channelled properly and not wasted.

    If you have the intention of reforming a society, do it from within the society. Outside pressures might act as catalysts but will never be sufficient in themselves. People like Ali Sina will, in my view, never be able to bring a significant change.

  23. Thiagan Says:

    17/03/07

    I am surprised that the PI should consider that my requirement the muslim community should accept and implement FP as unreasonable. This is precisely the hidden agenda of political Islam; democracy depends on numbers and with a higher birth rate, the majority in the host nation can be reversed, without a whimper. The policy is to inundate and intimidate flows out of Koran, which says the woman is a land for men to cultivate. Europe is fast reaching this situation and Eurabia is slowly emerging. We ignore the threat; it will be a demographic disaster for the future generations.

    An immigrant, unless he fully accepts the culture and civilisational ethos of the host country, can not be considered as an integrated citizen. Hindus are the largest minority in UK and they are fully integrated in the mainstream and are not seen separately; similar claim can not be made for the muslim minority; who is frequently profiled for alll wrong reasons.

    Ali Sina has challenged anyone, including the spurious leftist scholar Esposita, to debate and prove that his stand on Islam, Koran and muslim issues are wrong; the prize is $50,000. No one has dared; let alone succeed.

    Your fervent hope that the reforms should come from within is inappropriate in Islam; Ahmedias gave a liberal interpretation of Koran and they are the first targets for Sunni violence. This is the core problem in Islam; refusal to reform and the threat of assasination for any who advocates. Islam can only be defeated and Ali Sina, Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer are the crusaders in the war.

  24. Revathi Says:

    I havent read the whole Rama charitha manas but parts of it and found them a mixture of dramatic effects and intellectual analyses. However, it must be remembered that it is a play on the life of Rama and not a manifesto for hindus to follow (actually the best part of hindu thought is that there can be no such manifesto). I would like to know which character said these lines. If it were Ram who said that women should be beaten, then it reflects very sadly not on Rama but on Tulasi.

  25. Polite Indian Says:

    Revathi,

    I don’t know which character says that verse.

    BTW, Do you believe that Islam is violent?

  26. Polite Indian Says:

    Thiagan,

    You shouldn’t be surprised because it comes from the reasoning that govt. has no business telling me how many kids I should have or not have.

    I have been asked this question before so let me ask you. What exactly do you mean by integration?

    Regarding debates with Ali Sina, If no one dared then how come there are a couple of debates listed on his website? Who are all these people? Real or fake? If they are real then after reading these debates, it is easy to see that the debates really are a waste of time but entertaining nevertheless.

    If what you say about Islam is true, then what do you mean when you say that Islam must be defeated? Will Islam be defeated when all the Muslims convert to another religion? Will it be defeated when all the Muslims are dead? What stage will you, Mr Sina or any body consider a victory over Islam?

    My View is that this whole exercise is useless. Nothing good can come out of this.

  27. Thiagan Says:

    20/03/07

    I am surprised that you buy this argument- Government has no business to tell me the number of children I should have. The argument is patently absurd and reinforces the Karanic injunction that women are children producing factories. It is rabidly misogynist, besides being a demographic disaster. I observe that you have secularly glossed over my statement that political Islam inundates, initially to intimidate and ultimately to dominate through one person one vote rule. An Australian Imam has stipulated that every muslim woman should have four children and in 2050, muslims will be the majority in Australia; it will be a Islamic state with Shariat replacing conventional law and Australians becoming dhimmies, paying Jazia. Europe is already reeling under Islamic baby boom and the people are scared of the possibility.

    Your query about integration is naïve. There are two million Hindus living in USA and they have integrated into mainstream and they have bourgeoned into a very productive section of the society. Indhra Nooyi is the Chairman of PepsiCo; she goes to office in a business suit; attends the music festival in Cleaveland with a Conjeevaram silk saree and goes to Balaji temple in a simple saree. She manages various identities and does not allow one to intrude into another. How the employers will feel when the muslim lady software engineer come to work fully veiled; the case of one identity superimposing itself on others via. Religion and muslims will be discriminated against.

    Ali Sina has debated with many and he has won over them with considerable ease.

    The havoc muslims are creating in Europe, UK, Australia and in India are all over there in various websites. The debate is very essential for survival of civilized humanity and it can be done only by defeating Islam.

    I do not mind whether muslims are converted or dead; I merely reciprocate their hope for my future.

  28. Revathi Says:

    Dear Polite Indian,

    No, I dont think any theory in itself is violent- it is the people that are violent. I dont know enough about islam, I havent read the koran or anything (one should never read just extracts of any big text and conclude nothing unless one has atleast read half of it). There is some struggle in the islamic world today (like in the christian world during protestant reformation ) and we have to wait and see who will prevail.

  29. Polite Indian Says:

    Thiagan,

    Like it is absurd for the govt. to tell me what to eat and what not to eat, it is also absurd for the govt. to tell me how many children I should have or not have. This is way too much interference in personal life. Forget Muslims, I as a non Muslim will be disturbed by any such regulation. What is needed is to educate and spread awareness regarding FP.
    If you ask me, the biggest issue that I see is in Islam is that religion and politics are inseparable and that is a huge problem. It is because of these two intertwined to such an extent that you see such absurdities in some of the actions. Everybody is power crazy and in the Muslim world power comes to you by way of religion. That needs to change.

    As for integration, you might consider it naive but I myself have made the case for integration here https://politeindian.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/embrace-our-culture-or-leaveis-that-what-it-is/
    If you follow the discussion you will see the question of what exactly is integration is raised. There is a seemingly obvious answer to it but there is another angle to it as well. It is not a trivial issue.

    What we see as havoc in Europe, UK, Australia or anywhere else is all political and religion is used as a tool. As long as that remains we will continue to face problems. If you are referring to that then I agree. In that sense yes the political Islam needs to be defeated but then if one cannot distinguish between political and religious Islam one ends up taking a position that Ali Sina has taken.

  30. Thiagan Says:

    21/03/07

    I will again prefer to disagree. In a country like India, without an one child norm, how the state can susidise low cost education and health, infrastructure, employment opportunities etc., if one section increases its population disproportionately. This is unfair and I reiterate it means seizure of political power through demographic manipulation. I quote:
    “There you have a French family of husband and wife, both working for the government and drawing a salary of 15,000 francs and pay taxes on that. They see in the opposite flat a family of immigrant muslims quite different. How three-four wives, and twenty or so kids, and which receives 50,000 francs from welfare, of course without working. … If you add to this the noise and smell, well the French worker goes crazy. And it is not racist to say this. It is certain that having Spanish, Polish, and Portuguese working here with us creates fewer problems than having Muslims and Blacks. …”
    Jaques Chiraac
    In Europe welfare system is collapsing; muslims who are 3% of the population account for 55% of the welfare payputs. Four of the 9/11 suicide bombers have drawn more than a million dollar welfare payments in Europe, before they drove into the twin towers.

    I leave it to you to prove that four conditions are irrelevent to the peacefu functioning of any plural society; the society will collapse. Secularism is a jealous God; it is not enough that every one should obey; every one should obey in ALL respects. Islam can not comply and that is the reason muslims can not build or sustain a democracy.

  31. Revathi Says:

    I feel like intervening here because I know the situation in France. Most of the immigrants are muslim because all the former french colonies were in north africa. The problem of the muslim population in France is one of immigration of unskilled workers enmasse into an economy which is already pretty depressed. They dont have much alternative but to fall back on the welfare system. But it is not just the muslims but a whole lot of others who dont want to earn their living preferring welfare. Why single only the muslims here?
    Also polygamy in these cases is more african than islamic. In Africa it is common for a man to have not just four but even more wives. The french state tries to exclude all the wives except the first as legal but in practice there are children involved and so it is impossible to not let them join the bread winner. Often this leads to untenable situations like all the wives and children living in a two room apt and fights break out regulary. So here we are dealing with a cultural difference- impossible to combine it with islam. The truth is that the african continent continues to send desperate refugees to Europe and nothing is going to stop this flow except if there is political stability and economic development in Africa.

  32. Thiagan Says:

    26–3-07

    Revathi

    I will beg to disagree. Most of immigrant population is North African muslims and almost all of them unskilled. So they have to live on the state welfare payouts. Agreed, but why
    > instead of adopting French laws, they ahould still practise shariaa in the suburban colonies
    > more crimes are committed by these immigrants than any other sections of the French society
    > no efforts are made to acquire skills and qualify for jobs and compete with others
    > girls study well; they are rendered unemployable once they are veiled in a reverseable condom
    > harassing and rapig women, if they are going alone, mix with others. Samira Bellil’s book “In the Hell of Gang Rapes” samples the today France.
    > create noisy and unruly protests, burn thousands of cars and damage private and public property on trivial issues like Danish cartoons
    > how any sane man will view the intifada that lasted for twenty days, paralysing the country
    > conducting forced marriages and female genital mutilations, in utter disregard of human rights and compassion

    This can be stopped by a stern implementation of laws, that gives the message that guilty will be punished. I understand that there are 750 no go zones for the French police and the key question is in 2050,whether European Islam will evolve, a moderate version or Europe will be Islamised, shariaa imposed on every one. I vote for the latter.

  33. Polite Indian Says:

    Regarding Welfare:
    I think the welfare laws should be such as to discourage people getting on welfare for the heck of it. People should not be able to go on welfare because it is more easy to get on welfare rather than work.

    Regarding Crime:
    If a crime is committed, they should be punished. Are they going unpunished in France?

    Unruly mobs need to be contained. It seems like somehow the mob gets away with anything, be it damaging public property in the name of Danish cartoons, or be it attacking a cricketer’s house by disgruntled fan mob or be it Khairlanji, The Godhra riots, or anything else for that matter. The law and order almost always fails to contain a mob. Why? Lack of will I guess.

    As for Muslims, I think a good number of them are stuck in the 7th century. Their laws are stuck in the medieval world. That needs to change. Some of the hideous practices like female circumcision are all practices of that time that came out of ignorance. Most communities have had practices that they have come out of. It is about time that Muslim world did that too. Unlike you, I think that they can do it but if the rest of the world kept attacking them and their culture then there is no end to it. We need to support people who are trying to bring about these changes and trying to bring reform in the Muslim world.

  34. Thiagan Says:

    27/03/07

    1) Socialist governments in Rurope are responsible for the welfare mess- cradle to grave business. De3nmark now has a conservative government and is first European state to pass tough immigration laws, no welfare if you do not know Danish language, limiting welfare to five etc. Unless other states follow, Eurabia will bourgeon earlier than late.
    2) Rape is punished if the victim is non muslim; if the victim is muslim, the family will not lodge a complaint as it brings dishonour to the family. The girl will invariably secretly killed.
    3) You can not compare Gujarat with the cartoon riots, unless you wear the secularist blinkers. It was an act of constructive retalliation and they fail to recognise any other language.
    4) Marxists and Mullas can write vile abuses about Hindus and Hinduism, but we are denied to subject their books and behaviour; it is named communal.
    5) Hinduism has produced innumerable reformers upto Gandhiji; Islam has not thrown out one. I still believe that Islam, like Marxism, should be defeated; PI desire that it will self reform is without evidence or precedent.

    Since I have not confronted with any serious objection, I withdraw from the discussion.

  35. Polite Indian Says:

    Thiagan,
    You are right, I should not compare Gujarat riots to cartoon riots because the Gujarat riots were murder by the state machinery. A huge mass murder by the state machinery of its own citizen is “Constructive Retaliation”? If the people responsible for train carnage had to be brought to justice, the Modi govt had the entire state machinery at its disposal but all it could come with was genocide? That is pathetic.
    What are other incidents of “constructive Retaliation” that you can think of? Would you consider 1984 riots such a case?

    You speak of secularism as if it is a bad thing. I fail to understand that.

    As for self reform in Islam, you should look around and see how many of the reformers are active. Do a quick wikipedia search and you should see at least a 100 entries in there. Some of them are incorrect but majority are not. There are reformers from India, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan US etc.

    Tell me what you think of these incidents
    1. Formation Of Women Muslim Personal Law Board in India?
    2. Megawati becoming the president of the largest Islamic country in the world?
    3. The repeal of the Hudood Ordinace in Pakistan?
    4. What Do you think of groups like http://unitedmuslims.org/ and http://www.eteraz.org?

    These reformers haven’t achieved a whole lot yet but these things take time. As I have mentioned before, the other societies have had a bit of their share of reforms and it is the time for Muslim world to have that now. It is a delayed start but a start. Just because it hasn’t happened so far, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

    Whatever you do Thiagan, I would definitely urge you to get rid of the hate that you have for Muslims. It won’t do any good to anybody. Hatred begets hatred and violence begets violence. Do not tread that path. Think about it, humans are not inherently evil people but when people get overcome with hate, they can do inhuman acts and will also condone inhuman acts like you do for the Gujarat riots.

  36. Thiagan Says:

    28-03-07

    1) “mass murder by the state machinery of its own citizens”. Muslims are citizens of umma; a larger part of the muslim world, rather the citizens of India. That is the reason they commit the acts of terror against their own country; 7/7 train bombing in UK was entirely homwgrown. They owe less to the country and consequently the state obligation to them is decreased.
    2) Assume Hindus in Pakistan have caused a Godhra in Pakistan; I am sure at least thirty thousand Hindus would have been killed. Even without that the Hindu/Christian minority is being killed; Hindus were 30% at the time of partition and it is reduced to 5% today. 2000 only is only incomplete act. We are only doing unto them what they do unto us in Pakistan/Bangladesh.
    3) Yes, secularism is a dirty word; unless every one adheres to the God and in every way. Islam refuses religious freedom to the minorities in muslim majority countries and the secularism is shattered. West is already realising the evil effects of secularism and multi culti society, because the muslim segment refuses to play ball.
    4) Your assumption that refroms in Islam will come isa self delusional myth; I am not buying it. You only write about women being stoned to death for alleged adultery in 2006 and where are the reformers.
    5) I hate Islam because Islam hates infidels; let the muslims renounce Islam and the world will embrace them.

  37. Thiagan Says:

    28/03/07

    PI states:

    “Tell me what you think of these incidents
    1. Formation Of Women Muslim Personal Law Board in India?
    2. Megawati becoming the president of the largest Islamic country in the world?
    3. The repeal of the Hudood Ordinace in Pakistan?
    4. What Do you think of groups like http://unitedmuslims.org/ and http://www.eteraz.org? ”

    Foormation of the Board, Megawathi/Benazir/Hasina becoming head of the states are mere symbols; the real substance is what they have done for the empowerment of the muslim women. You should detail the various steps they have taken in this regard and I will be inclined to believe that reforms may be in the offing. Musharaff tried to abolish the Hudood laws and the Islamic groups opposed and stopped it. The groups you are mentioning are taquiyya, the deception, created by Islam to mislead the gullible suckers to be;lieve that reforms from within is possible. I am not falling for the mischief.

    Secularism is yesterday, when socialist scoundrals thrust it on the gullible, in Europe, UK and in India. Reciprocity is today; the concessions muslims want, they should give to the others in their countries.

  38. Vinaya Singh Says:

    मध्ययुगीन सोच वाले मौलाना

    g किसी के कत्ल के लिए फतवे जारी करने को मध्ययुगीन बर्बरता बता रहे हैं डा.महीप सिंह

    ——————————————————————————–

    स्वतंत्र और जनतांत्रिक देश के किसी भी सजग नागरिक के सम्मुख यह प्रश्न उठेगा कि क्या किसी व्यक्ति को यह अधिकार है कि वह किसी देशी-विदेशी व्यक्ति का सिर काट लाने के लिए लंबे-चौड़े इनाम की घोषणा करे और किसी भी आधार पर उसे न्यायोचित ठहराए? क्या उस देश का कानून उसे इस बात की अनुमति देता है? बांग्लादेश की सुपरिचित लेखिका तस्लीमा नसरीन, जो आजकल कोलकाता में निर्वासित जीवन जी रही हैं, को इन दिनों भारत के कुछ नागरिकों ने मौत की धमकी दी है। अखिल भारतीय इब्तेहाद कौंसिल के अध्यक्ष तकी रजा खान ने हुक्म जारी किया है कि नसरीन का कत्ल कर दिया जाए। उन्होंने यह घोषणा भी की है कि जो व्यक्ति यह काम करेगा उसे पांच लाख रुपये का इनाम दिया जाएगा। उन्होंने दावा किया है कि उनके इस निर्णय को आल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड का पूरा समर्थन प्राप्त है। इस संस्था के 150 प्रमुख व्यक्तियों, जिनमें उलेमा, वकील, डाक्टर, प्राध्यापक और अवकाश प्राप्त पुलिस अधिकारी है, ने नसरीन को भारत से निकालने का प्रस्ताव पारित किया है।
    कहा जाता है कि तकी रजा खान को मुसलमानों के बरेलवी संप्रदाय का व्यापक समर्थन प्राप्त है। एक पत्रकार ने जब रजा खान से यह प्रश्न किया कि क्या आप अपने फैसले पर पुनर्विचार कर सकते हैं तो उनका उत्तार था वह माफी मांगे, अपनी सारी किताबों को जला दे और तौबा करे। जब उनसे पूछा गया कि तस्लीमा की किस बात ने आपको इतना नाराज कर दिया है तो उनका उत्तार था, ”यह औरत शरीयत पर हमला करती है।” उन्होंने सरकार को धमकी देते हुए यह भी कहा कि हमने सुना है कि भारत सरकार नसरीन नागरिकता देने पर विचार कर रही है। खुदापरस्त मुसलमानों के लिए यह बहुत बुरा विचार है। यदि सरकार ने दस दिन के अंदर उसे देश से बाहर नहीं निकाला तो कयामत आ जाएगी। आल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड के सदस्य जफरयाब जिलानी का कहना है कि मुसलमान शरीयत और पैगंबर को लेकर बहुत ‘टची’ हैं और उलेमाओं का साथ देने में किसी हद तक जा सकते हैं। इस प्रकार के कुछ घटनाएं पहले भी हो चुकी हैं। सलमान रुश्दी के उपन्यास ‘सैटनिक वर्सेज’ को लेकर मुसलिम संसार बहुत उत्तोजित हुआ था। ईरान से उनकी मौत का फरमान और इनाम घोषित हुआ था। कुछ समय पहले जब डेनमार्क के एक अखबार ने हजरत मुहम्मद का कार्टून छाप दिया था तो भी अनेक देशों में बड़ी उत्तोजना फैली थी। उत्तार प्रदेश सरकार के एक मंत्री हाजी याकूब कुरैशी ने उस कार्टून बनाने वाले का सिर कलम करने वाले को पचास लाख रुपये का पारितोषिक देने की खुली घोषणा की थी। क्या यह भारतीय दंड विधान की किसी धारा के अंतर्गत गंभीर अपराध नहीं है? क्या देश का कानून यह सब देखकर मौन रह सकता है?
    कट्टरपंथियों द्वारा जिस प्रकार के फतवे आज नसरीन के लिए जारी किए गए हैं उस संबंध में वह कहती हैं कि मेरे प्राण लेने की धमकी भरे ऐसे फतवे सुनने की मुझे आदत पड़ चुकी है। ये कट्टरपंथी लोग मुझे औरत की दुर्दशा पर लिखने से नहीं रोक सकते। मैं नारी-मुक्ति के लिए संघर्ष करती रहूंगी। मैं स्त्रियों में जागरूकता उत्पन्न करना चाहती हूं जिससे वे अपने अधिकारों और आर्थिक आजादी के लिए लड़ सकें। मैंने नसरीन द्वारा लिखी कई पुस्तकें पढ़ी हैं। उनमें हजरत मुहम्मद की शान में गुस्ताखी भरा कुछ लिखा गया हो, ऐसा मुझे नहीं दिखाई दिया। तकी रजा खान जैसे लोगों ने अपने फरमान में ऐसी कोई बात स्पष्ट नहीं की है जिससे इसकी पुष्टिं होती हो। मुसलिम समाज में स्त्री का क्या स्थान है, इस संबंध में शरीयत में कही गई बातों की इस समाज में ही अलग-अलग व्याख्याएं हुई हैं और अनेक स्तरों पर मतभेद रहे हैं। क्या पति द्वारा तीन बार तलाक-तलाक कह देने से उसका उसकी पत्‍‌नी से तलाक हो जाता है? इस संदर्भ इस देश की अदालतें समय-समय पर अपना निर्णय देती रहती हैं। वर्षो पहले शाहबानों केस पर जब सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय को बदलने के लिए राजीव गांधी के प्रधानमंत्रित्व काल में संविधान में संशोधन किया गया था तो उसके विरोध में केंद्रीय मंत्री आरिफ मुहम्मद खान ने त्यागपत्र दे दिया था। जहां पाकिस्तान में स्त्रियों की स्थिति से क्षुब्ध होकर अस्मां जहांगीर जैसी मानव अधिकारों के लिए संघर्ष करने वाली अनेक महिलाएं लड़ रही है वहीं इस देश के कुछ कट्टरपंथी एक संघर्षरत लेखिका की गर्दन काटने के लिए लाखों के इनाम की घोषणा कर रहे हैं।
    पाकिस्तान में जनरल जिया के शासनकाल में 1979 में एक कानून बना था जिसे मौलवियों-मुल्लाओं ने शरीयत के अनुकूल घोषित किया था। इसे हूदूद कहते हैं। इसके मुताबिक दुष्कर्म की शिकार किसी महिला को अवैध संबंधों का दोषी ठहराया जा सकता हैं। दुष्कर्म पीड़ित महिला को आरोप साबित करने के लिए चार मुसलमान पुरुष पेश करने पड़ते हैं। यदि वह यह न कर सके तो बदचलनी कानून के तहत उसे सजा भुगतनी पड़ सकती है। पाकिस्तान के मानवाधिकार आयोग की 2002 की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार वहां हर दो घंटे बाद किसी महिला के साथ बलात्कार होता है और हर आठ घंटे में सामूहिक दुष्कर्म की घटना हो जाती है। पाकिस्तान के राष्ट्रपति जनरल परवेज मुशर्रफ भी मानते हैं कि हूदूद कानून महिलाओं के प्रति अन्याय से पूरी तरह भरा हुआ है और इसे बदलना चाहिए, किंतु वहां की कट्ंटरपंथी पार्टियां उन्हें ऐसा नहीं करने दे रही हैं। किसी भी सभ्य और लोकतांत्रिक समाज में मतभेद होते हैं। स्मृतियों और शरीयत में दी गई व्यवस्थाओं की व्याख्या में अंतर हो सकता है। मुसलमानों में अनंत फिरके है, मतभेद हैं और व्यवस्थाएं हैं। शिया और सुन्नियों की बीच हिंसक झड़पें भी होती रहती हैं, किंतु इसका अर्थ यह नहीं हैं कि उनका समाधान एक-दूसरे विरुद्ध मौत का फरमान जारी करके किया जाए। इस्लाम के अनुसार, अल्लाह के नजदीक तुम सबमें सबसे प्रतिष्ठिंत वही है जो सबसे अधिक संयमी है। कौन नहीं जानता कि आज के युग में बहुत सी मान्यताएं बदल रही है।
    शरीयत के अनुसार सूद लेना-देना दोनों हराम है, किंतु आज संसार भर के कार्य-व्यवहार में बैंकिंग का जो स्थान है उसमें सभी भागीदार हैं, मुसलमान भी। बैंकों का सारा कारोबार ही सूद के लेन-देन पर आधारित होता है। शराब पीना, नाच-गाना भी हराम है, किंतु मुसलमानों में न शराब पीने वालों की कमी है,न नाच-गाने का शौक फरमाने वालों की। इस दोष के लिए इब्तेहाद कौंसिल या आल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड के लोगों ने कितने मौत के फरमान जारी किए हैं? किसी व्यक्ति के लिए मौत का फतवा जारी करना, उसके लिए इनाम की घोषणा करना और फिर गौरव महसूस करना मध्ययुग की मानसिकता है और बर्बरता से कम नहीं हैं। नसरीन पुरुष समाज की बनाई अन्यायपूर्ण व्यवस्थाओं और समूची नारी जाति की मुक्ति के लिए जो कुछ भी लिख रही है उससे किसी व्यक्ति के मतभेद तो हो सकते हैं, किंतु उनके साथ इस प्रकार का व्यवहार करना किसी भी दृष्टिं से जायज नहीं है।

  39. Vinaya Singh Says:

    Dear Polite India,

    I am working for reform in Uttar Pradesh, India and you may read more on this at http://vinay1340.wordpress.com/. I am a person to advocate freedom to embrace and practice any religion but I am slowly getting fear from Islam because of the behaviors of the most of the Muslims and Muslim’s countries. They don’t have any tolerance and force their views to adopt. I hear about modernization of ISLAM but how it’s possible, if a Maulan will issue the Fatawa to kill the reformists. Maulans are having fear, if they don’t protect Islam, it would slowly come to non-existence. Therefore, they initiate barbaric act and even don’t mind in doing the heinous crimes. I don’t have any hope, if ISLAM could be modernized any time in future. There are many in queues to martyr themselves against any kind of reform and most of the Muslims support them. Also, there are Islamic movements which are working on Islamanization of India and whole world.

    Thanks & Regards,
    Vinaya

  40. Vinaya Singh Says:

    You can read a recent Fatawa against Tasleema, a Muslim world reformist, of Bangladesh at URL: http://jagran.com/news/opinion.aspx. The worst thing is that those, so called secularists in UP, India, are supporting this and don’t want to see Maulana in jail because they would lose the Muslim votes.

    Thanks & Regards,
    Vinaya

  41. Polite Indian Says:

    Dear Vinaya,

    Yes there are Maulanas who issue fatwa at the drop of a hat. We have had a million fatwas issued and that too for very trivial reasons. Issuing any such fatwa is wrong and is not entertained by Muslim community to a great extent. First of all these fatwas are very local in nature. Second nobody wants to execute these fatwas otherwise it wouldn’t be difficult to execute these fatwas. But that is beside the point, issuing such fatwas is wrong and immoral. Moreover it reflects upon the Maulana rather than the Muslim community. There were Muslims you protested against these fatwas. An example is here.
    Anybody supporting such fatwa needs to be condemned. In India and specifically UP, people do not realize the power of the ballot. They should use that to get rid of people supporting such behavior.

    Societies take years to reform. You might not see any change in a 20-25 year time frame but even before any reform takes place, it is important to acknowledge that there is need for reforms. The conservatives and fundamentalists will almost always oppose it. That is why it is an uphill task. It is also important that any unlawful, illegal activities need to be checked. It is also OK for the world to point out flaws and problems because it helps in understanding them and then in effect working towards removing them. What is not OK is to write them off as hopeless case beyond repair and start a campaign of defeating them(whatever that means).

    Every community has faced such uphill tasks and many are facing against other social issues (Like casteism in India). Muslims in my view have just started to take stock of things and it will initiate reforms. The reforms may not happen at the pace you and I may like but they are bound to happen.

  42. Polite Indian Says:

    Thiagan,

    The fact that a Muslim women can become a head of the state is in itself a big thing if you take the ultra conservative viewpoint of Islam and Islamic countries.
    The fact that the board was formed indicates that there is dissent and a movement to provide equal rights to women.
    These leaders might not have been able to do a whole lot to improve the status of women but this doesn’t happen overnight. The first step is to recognize that it needs change.
    The fact that the repeal of Hudood ordinance was needed is an indication of acknowledging the need for change. Also the Hudood ordinance was passed. The Islamic group opposed the original version but later on agreed to a little watered down version of the bill.
    Look at the Iranian women raising their voices to have legal reforms.

    There are others who believe that Islamic reformation is in progress in one for or the other.

    As for these groups whether you want to call it taaqiya or not is up to you. Till they show some other behavior, I would like to believe that they are decent folks trying to bring about a change in the Muslim society.

  43. Thiagan Says:

    30-03-07

    I am still not given a clear answer to my definition of a moderate muslim:
    > one who acknowledges that all religions are equal
    > unequivocally accepts and practises gender equality
    > accepts national policies of the host countries, say in family planning,
    > renounces the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule at a future date and universal imposition of sharia
    > accept that Mohammed was a highway robber, who looted the merchant caravans for sustaining his thugs; committed innumerable murders through offensive wars; married twelve times, many of them minors; sanctioned rape on the women of the vanquished and practised it himself; sent assasins to kill a 120 year old man and a poetess for daring to critisise him; even after twelve wives, he committed many extra marital relationships;

    If any one accepts any of the abovce. he will cease to be a muslim. Islam is violent; any other contention is void of proof and is wishful thinking and fanciful hallucination.

  44. Jo Says:

    Brilliant post PI. Accidentally landed upon this while searching for something.

  45. Vinaya Singh Says:

    Dear Polite India,

    To be a moderate Muslim, I think he/she should agree with the first 4 points that Thiagan has commented in his post:

    1. one who acknowledges that all religions are equal
    2. unequivocally accepts and practices gender equality
    3. accepts national policies of the host countries, say in family planning,
    4. renounces the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule at a future date and universal imposition of sharia

    I agree with Thiagan above 4 points but not the last one. You have nicely presented your analysis of religions on this web site, and fantastically suggested a reform in Muslim community. This site must be recommended to visit by all and Muslims in particular. What I have found is that people practicing religions other than Islam is tolerant and has easily accepted the reforms in their respective religions for the welfare of the society. Except Islam, all other religions agree with above four points

    Thanks & Regards,
    Vinaya

  46. Thiagan Says:

    04/04/07

    Vinaya

    Whether you agree with the 5th postulate is besides the point; the fact Muhammed has committed these acts and they have been chronicled.

  47. Abdullah Says:

    Assamulaikum (May peace be on you),

    Let me try here to clarify on the points

    1. one who acknowledges that all religions are equal
    Abdullah – There is a difference between achnowledging and believing that all religions. We, as Muslims, acknowledge the existing of different religions and the right for everyone to practice thier belief.

    “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion” (Quran: Surah Kafiroon 109, Verse 06)

    “There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. ” (Quran: Surah Baqarah 2, Verse 256)

    2. unequivocally accepts and practices gender equality
    Abdullah – Let me answer here by posing a counter question – Have we (Males and Females) been created equal?
    For example, if we take any organization it has different departments like HR, Sales, and so on. Different employees are given different responsibilities. If you really want perfect equality in the company then every one of them should be doing the same work i.e. work equal time in each of the different divsions. This, however, is very impratical. Similarly, Islam treats the genders equally but the reponsibilities differ.

    3. accepts national policies of the host countries, say in family planning,
    Abdullah – Muslims would have no problem accepting policies of any nation that doesn’t go against the divine command.

    4. renounces the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule at a future date and universal imposition of sharia
    Adullah – Do you know that Muslims believe in Universal Brotherhood more than any other religion? We, as Muslims, believe that all humans have the same parent Adam and Eve and hence we are all brothers and sisters.
    Coming to the point since we believe this is the last word of Allah (Almighty God), it has to reach everyone and we are not fooled by the man made boundaries.

    5. accept that Mohammed was a highway robber, who looted the merchant caravans for sustaining his thugs; committed innumerable murders through offensive wars; married twelve times, many of them minors; sanctioned rape on the women of the vanquished and practised it himself; sent assasins to kill a 120 year old man and a poetess for daring to critisise him; even after twelve wives, he committed many extra marital relationships;
    Adbullah – I have to say that you need to read history and do not be bigoted.

  48. Vinaya Singh Says:

    Dear Abdullah,

    Based on your answers, it seems like you are a moderate Muslim and your interpretation of Islam is as a good and general Muslim rather than a learned Muslim. Learned Muslims who ruled the Afghanistan have destroyed the historical statue of Budhdha and many other Hindu’s Temples because as per their interpretation of Islam, other religions practicing are against the Islam and people who practice them are Kafirs. Those learned Muslim scholars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran etc. advocate the Islamic rule world wide. I am not sure how those learned Muslim scholars interpret the Islam just opposite of you. If all religions are equal, the government of Saudi should allow building the place of worship of all religions there. You can see all other countries allow this where there is no Islamic rule.

    If you know about a rule called Hudud in Pakistan, proposed by learned Muslim Scholars and enacted by Pak government, you may come to know how women are treated and respected in Islam. The rule says that if a woman can’t prove a case of rape a rape, she should be punished as corrupt woman. I am not sure how you can compare this equality with your analogy of office work.

    There are some policies which could be used for the welfare of societies. For example, in India, population is growing like anything but resources are limited. There are many people dying hungry. If we could not control the population in India, one day there may come disaster. So like we use umbrella to protect ourselves from sun and rain, we have scientific mechanism to protect the growth of population too. I found that the most of the learned Muslim scholars say it against the Islam. Don’t you think that population growth was suitable at Prophet’s time but not now and we should change ourselves for the welfare of whole society.

    You know what, we public come to know about Islam because of the act of the learned Muslim Scholars act and we believe them that there interpretation of Islam is the right one. Their acts make people hate Islam and fear with Islam.

    Thanks & Regards
    Vinaya

  49. Thiagan Says:

    10/04/07

    Abdullah says – There is a difference between acknowledging and believing that all religions are equal. We, as Muslims, acknowledge the existing of different religions and the right for everyone to practice thier belief.
    “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion” (Quran: Surah Kafiroon 109, Verse 06)
    “There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. ” (Quran: Surah Baqarah 2, Verse 256)

    Thiagan asks – He does not accept that all religions are equal; though he is willing to tolerate them. The verse first quoted originated when Mohammed was in Mecca and is one of the peaceful verses. He has not acquired any followers; he did not have any money; he wanted friendship with other Jewish and Arab tribes. He then moved to Medina and married a rich lady; slowly followers came and adequate funds became available by many raids and more successes followed. The verses , thereafter, became more violent. I am not quoting the verses; they are available in abundance in the website of Ali Sina.
    Abdullah says – Let me answer here by posing a counter question – Have we (Males and Females) been created equal?
    For example, if we take any organization it has different departments like HR, Sales, and so on. Different employees are given different responsibilities. If you really want perfect equality in the company then every one of them should be doing the same work i.e. work equal time in each of the different divisions. This, however, is very impractical. Similarly, Islam treats the genders equally but the responsibilities differ.
    Thiagan asks – I am aware that men and women are different; and in your analogy, men and women can co work in any of the divisions and they are paid according to a common criteria. I am not talking about responsibilities; I am talking about the rights. Do the muslim women have the same rights as men. You may not accept, because Koraan treats women as deficient.
    \Abdullah says – Muslims would have no problem accepting policies of any nation that doesn’t go against the divine command.
    Thiagan asks – I specified the issue of family planning and your sidestepping it indicates that the muslims will not adopt family planning. It creates three problems:
    > you will disproportionately increase the size of the muslims in a host country and strive to achieve the majority; > you are not worried about the financial burden cast on the big family, consequent deprivation, lack of education and resulting in the muslims being unemployed and unemployable. > you do not worry that they will become a permanent drag on the society. This is because of religious reasons. This sounds crazy. This problem is world over.
    Adullah says – Do you know that Muslims believe in Universal Brotherhood more than any other religion? We, as Muslims, believe that all humans have the same parent Adam and Eve and hence we are all brothers and sisters.
    Coming to the point since we believe this is the last word of Allah (Almighty God), it has to reach everyone and we are not fooled by the man made boundaries.
    Thiagan asks – This Universal Brotherhood does not include the infidels; who have only three options in Islam – get killed or accept dhimmy status and pay jaziya , the protection tax and convert to Islam. How does the last word of Allah reach every one, I trust the earlier verses explain. The refusal to accept the man made boundaries is fraught with the dangerous connotation; that a muslim in USA does not accept the status of an American citizen or at least it is inferior to his membership of Universal Brotherhood or Umma. I note that you are sidestepping the issue of shariat. This also sounds crazy.
    To sum up, for the friend Shri.Abdulla, the view that all religions are equal is not acceptable; women can not have the same rights as men; they will not adopt national policies like family planning, with the avowed intention to inundate, to intimidate and ultimately to dominate; for him muslim identity will subsume other identities. Sir, I do not consider you as a moderate muslim, because you do not follow the dictum – Do unto others what you want them to do unto you. You are political Islamist – one who wants to take over the world through sheer numbers or at least you are an abettor and militant Islam, by bringing more world scrutiny, is creating trouble for your plans.

  50. Thiagan Says:

    11/04/07

    PI says

    ” Societies take years to reform. You might not see any change in a 20-25 year time frame but even before any reform takes place, it is important to acknowledge that there is need for reforms. The conservatives and fundamentalists will almost always oppose it. That is why it is an uphill task. It is also important that any unlawful, illegal activities need to be checked. It is also OK for the world to point out flaws and problems because it helps in understanding them and then in effect working towards removing them. What is not OK is to write them off as hopeless case beyond repair and start a campaign of defeating them(whatever that means).

    Every community has faced such uphill tasks and many are facing against other social issues (Like casteism in India). Muslims in my view have just started to take stock of things and it will initiate reforms. The reforms may not happen at the pace you and I may like but they are bound to happen.”

    Thiagan retorts:

    Societies indeed take years to reform. It took hundred years for Indians to abolish sati. There is law agaoinst untouchability in India and there is an active public opinion to support the efforts towards its eradication. And Hinduism had the capacity to produce a Raja Ram Mohan Roy, a Gandhiji, a Vivekananda etc. Where is the evidence that Islam has the capacity to produce one person of that wisdom, and stature? Where is the precedent? Islam has the potential only for destruction and death; the problem, as I mentioned, is theological and their mind has been closed and sealed by a man called Mohammed.
    PI says it will take 20-30 years for reforms to come from within. In 20-30 years, the muslims will become the majority in many states in Europe and they will impose shariat. Is this acceptable?
    That is why we contend that Islam is an evil ideology and should be defeated and now.

  51. Vinaya Singh Says:

    Dear Thiagan, you are a genius and your analyses are brilliant.

  52. Thiagan Says:

    17/04/07

    Thiagan wrote in comment No.37
    ” Muslims are citizens of umma; a larger part of the muslim world, rather the citizens of India. ”

    Abdulla confirms in comment no.49
    “Coming to the point since we believe this is the last word of Allah (Almighty God), it has to reach everyone and we are not fooled by the man made boundaries.”

    Do you need any further proof that they owe to the muslim brotherhood more than to India.

  53. Thiagan Says:

    20/04/07
    PI writes:
    The fact that a Muslim women can become a head of the state is in itself a big thing if you take the ultra conservative viewpoint of Islam and Islamic countries.

    Thiagan says:
    I am happy to inform you that both Hasina and Khaleeda have been banished from Bangladesh; all the three leaders have now been thrown out of their countries. You still believe that reforms are possible from within? Please accept that it is an evil ideology with a billion brain washed followers, waging a violent jihad against human civilisation. It is a cultural HIV aids virus.

  54. Thiagan Says:

    25/04/07

    I have been posting quite a few comments on the topic “Is Islam violent.” The debate appears nearing the end and I have, to the best possible extent, answered various questions raised by the readers and PI. I wish to highlight six aspects as a summary :

    1) It is futile to say that the violent verses are misinterpreted. I have proved that in 18th century, the ambassador of the Barbary states told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, which clearly establishes that the violence is ingrained in Islam. Please refer to comment No.17 under the heading “Islam and Non Muslims” in PI.

    2) It is again futile to say that violent verses are event related. Abdulla did not accept and no muslim will accept that these verses are event related and do not have eternal application. It is not the way the billion believers understand the verses; it is not way it is taught in madraassas and it is not way it is preached in mosques, books and CDs. If we are to overlook the violence being preached, it will be biggest civilisational threat to the mankind in its history.

    3) It is again futile to believe that there are moderate muslims. There are two versions of muslims- suicide bombers and the sleepers. I posed five conditions for some one to be qualified as a moderate muslim:

    > who acknowledges that all religions are equal
    > unequivocally accepts and practises gender equality
    > accepts national policies of the host countries, say in family planning,
    > renounce the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule at a future date and universal imposition of sharia
    > accept that Mohammed was a highway robber, who looted the merchant caravans for sustaining his thugs; committed innumerable murders through offensive wars; married twelve times, many of them minors; sanctioned rape on the women of the vanquished and practised it himself; sent assassins to kill a 120 year old man and a poetess for daring to critisise him; even after twelve wives, he committed many extra marital relationships;

    I agree item no.5 is rather harsh; not false. But even the earlier four conditions are not acceptable to Shri.Abdulla. and for him

    > all religions are not equal and he can only tolerate other religions. Left unsaid is this is the stand so long as they are in a minority; in a muslim majority state, other religions can not exist.
    > gender equality is not acceptable. Women. Koraan says “men have a degree (of advantage) over them” 2:228 ; that the witness of woman is worth half of that of man 2:282; that women inherit half of their male siblings, 4:11-12; that a man can marry two or three or four women 4:3; that if a women becomes captive in a war, her Muslim master is allowed to rape her 33:50; that if a woman is not totally submissive to her husband she will enter Hell 66:10; that women are “tilth” for their husbands (to cultivate them) 2:223; that men are in charge of women, as if women were imbeciles or minors who could not take care of themselves; that they must be obedient to their husbands or be admonished (verbally abused), banished from the bed (psychologically abused) and beaten (physically abused) 4:34.
    > national family planning policy is not acceptable as it against the dictates of Allah. Left unsaid is what I have already said in comment No.51.
    > renouncing world domination and sharia imposition are unacceptable. This is precisely the aim of Islam. Shri.Abdulla is a person of muslim faith; he will not detonate bombs but he will aspire for the world domination of Islam. I am a practising Hindu and I do not hope that USA should be Hinduised one day and I consider all my efforts should be directed towards the end.

    Now, again I ask PI, where is the moderate muslim?

    4) It is again futile to say the violence is perpetrated due to Palestine, Kashmir and Chechenya problems. Please read the comment No.17 under the heading Islam and Non Muslims and let me have your response.
    5) It is futile to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and the followers can co exist with other religionists in peace and prosperity. No muslim majority country has produced a successful plural society in history and such a society does not exist even today. Malaysia, a supposedly moderate muslim state, is slowly inching towards extremism and secularism in Indonesia is under serious threat. The army in Turkey is ensuring that the country remains secular and again it is under serious threat.
    6) It is again futile to expect that Islam can be reformed from within. As I mentioned earlier Hinduism has produced reformers like Ramanujar, Adhi Sankara, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Vivekananda, Gandhji etc. Islam has been intellectually sterilised 1200 years ago by an old man named Mohammed. It can not be reformed; it should be demolished. It should go the way Communism went.

    I therefore submit that Islam, as an ideology, is evil and should be defeated. This can be done by an active propaganda about its evil nature; stubbornly refusing compliance for its unreasonable demands; forcing them to accept and practise family planning, on conditions of financial and other penalty; a confederation of other religions demanding and making Islam accept reciprocity in religious matters and to subject Islam, its Holy Book and its founder to an intense scrutiny and exposure. This will make Islam to crumble like Communism. The world had an advantage in dealing with Communism – the theory of MAD or mutually aided destruction worked; both feared mutual annihilation. The world has no such leverage with Islam; it loves death and hates life.
    I have made the final submissions and I want PI’s verdict. I thank PI for its generosity to give me the space to debate.

  55. Polite Indian Says:

    Thiagan

    1) It is futile to say that the violent verses are misinterpreted.

    I don’t understand why you say so. Bible has a lot of violent versus and of the same kind and so does Talmud. Literal usage of such verses from any of these religions of the book doesn’t mean a thing. These verse are not stressed upon by the Christians and the Jews. And a time will come when the Muslims will stop doing it too.

    1) It is again futile to say that violent verses are event related. Abdulla did not accept and no muslim will accept that these verses are event related and do not have eternal application.

    You can look at comment #3 and Comment #5. These comments are from a Muslim and he accepts that they are event related and do not have eternal application.

    It is again futile to believe that there are moderate muslims. There are two versions of muslims- suicide bombers and the sleepers. I posed five conditions for some one to be qualified as a moderate muslim:

    I have given you examples of moderate Muslims before. Not only that there are reformists working to reform Islam as well. These reformists have not been able to achieve much so far but the good thing is they exist and are working passionately towards it. Ali Eteraz is one He has started a community towards it. Tariq Ramadan is another. Here is another article that talks about lot of reformers. Here is one more

    The conditions that you have put forth are good except the 5th one. That one is actually ridiculous. It is like asking a Hindu to accept that Rama was misogynist (because of Agni Pariksha), Shiva is a marijuana addict. All gods are alcoholic (Soma ras) and womanizers (Apsaras). It sounds downright stupid to make such statements and so does yours.

    If you chose to believe that it is futile to give any credibility to Islam you are free to believe it.
    If the people I wrote about do not look like reformers to you then you can never find one in Islam. Also if it hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean it cannot happen ever.

    I can relate to some of the concerns raised by you in various posts but in no way can I relate to the solutions you propose.

    BTW, it has been great to read your views on the subject even though they are diametrically opposite to mine. You are always welcome here to post your views on any topic you chose to.

  56. A well wisher of world Says:

    What is the final conclusion of this debate? Articles referred in this debate above and the continued debates on act of followers of ISLAM in the various parts of world suggest that the ISLAM is really a violent religion and Muslims must work together to reform this religion.

  57. Hindu Says:

    Hey All !!
    I think u all r really crazy or some of u wanna play dumb..The facts are straight – Till the time muslims r gonna b on this earth they r gonna b a prob fr themselves n fr the non muslims..its time fr hindus n other religions to wake up..How can u all simply forget the torture n pain the hindus n the other’s hav gone thru during the muslim rule…Wake UP everyone n stop being nice to muslims n its time to take action !! This is a known fact dat Muslims hate other religions n this is always gonna b lik dat…All the other religions in the world need to reunite n kill each n every muslim..then only the wold can live peacefully..There is simply no other solution where u lik it or not !!
    Sujal plz stop being nice to Muslims..coz its of no use ..u know it ..Its the Hindus who r targeted everywhere..its the hindus who always hav to keep quite n b taken fr a ride by others…Fr all the probs in this world..the Muslims need to b killed n Pakistan needs to b nuked so that the World can live peacefully once n for all or else all the non muslims in this world r gonna die soon

  58. Thiagan Says:

    10/07/07

    Now it is the turn of the doctors to detonate bombs in airports, crowded localities etc., notwithstanding any Hippocratic oaths. They are highly educated, well employed in government service and respected in public and they resort to terrorism. The reason is, what I have repeatedly stated and what PI has repeatedly disclaimed, is Islam, its theology, the life of Mohammed, the history of the people and the message spread in
    mosques and madraassas is all evil. I will take the PI comments:
    “I don’t understand why you say so. Bible has a lot of violent versus and of the same kind and so does Talmud. Literal usage of such verses from any of these religions of the book doesn’t mean a thing. These verse are not stressed upon by the Christians and the Jews. And a time will come when the Muslims will stop doing it too.”

    I have already stated that the violent verses in the Bible are followed by the peaceful verses in the New Testament; Jesus comes with the message of love thy neighbour etc. In Koraan, it is the opposite; the peaceful verses are supeceded by the latter day violent verses. Christianity has undergone the reform process; Judaism never needed any as it is not a converting religion like Hinduism and is not worried about the market share. With the escalating terror strikes and with the promise of more, the time for reforms is now or else it will be a disaster.

    “I have given you examples of moderate Muslims before. Not only that there are reformists working to reform Islam as well. These reformists have not been able to achieve much so far but the good thing is they exist and are working passionately towards it.”

    I wanted a reformer of consequence, like Gandhiji and do you sincerely believe that Islam has the capacity to produce one. I differ.

    “The conditions that you have put forth are good except the 5th one. That one is actually ridiculous. It is like asking a Hindu to accept that Rama was misogynist (because of Agni Pariksha), Shiva is a marijuana addict. All gods are alcoholic (Soma ras) and womanizers (Apsaras). It sounds downright stupid to make such statements and so does yours.”

    It has taken so much of arguments to convince PI that the four conditions are good; which PI did not accept earlier because of political correctness, unwillingness to hurt the feelings of muslims and disinclination to accept that your hopes of peaceful Islam stand belied. Mohammed has done all those listed and much more and it has been documented by his own followers. The difference between Mohammed and Ram etc. is Mohammed lived 1200 years back; while Ram etc are mythological figures with stories around them made for artistic/ poetic allurements. These are very minor and inconsequential; as against pedophile, rape, robbery, slavery etc.

    I can claim to have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that:

    > it is futile to believe that verses are misinterpreted

    > it is futile to believe that the verses are event related

    > it is futile to believe that there are moderate muslims

    > it is futile to believe that Islamic violence is because of Kashmir, Palestine, Chechenia etc

    > it is futile to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and its followers can peacefully co exist with people of other faiths

    > it is futile to believe that internal reforms will come in Islam

    I have submitted my closing arguments.

  59. Amit Says:

    PI: I don’t understand why you say so. Bible has a lot of violent versus and of the same kind and so does Talmud. Literal usage of such verses from any of these religions of the book doesn’t mean a thing. These verse are not stressed upon by the Christians and the Jews. And a time will come when the Muslims will stop doing it too.

    And what do you suggest that democratic countries do till that time comes? Sit back, relax and twiddle their thumbs while some Muslims perpetrate violent acts?

    In today’s world, are Christians or Jews using Bible or Talmud to justify violence? It’s only Muslims who use Quran to justify their violence. Go to a library (or amazon.com) and try to find some books that discuss, debate, and criticize Christianity and the violence done – Inquisition, witch-hunt, inequality, persecution, you name it. Now try the same for Islam.

    Also, to take your example of RamCharitManas, you yourself criticized a shloka in it though you failed to provide the context or who said it (some in-depth research on issues before you state them is considered a good idea). Did you have any Hindu leader call for your death-sentence? Hinduism is very open to criticism as multiple reforms have shown. Now try doing the same for Quran or any Islamic religious text. Even if you offer the somewhat specious argument that you are not a Muslim and don’t have the right or knowledge, I’d suggest you look up as to what was the Muslim world’s reaction to Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen’s books. Indian government has been very accommodating to all religions including Muslims. Is it wrong to ask that Hindus living in Muslim countries get fair treatment? Tolerance is not a one-way road, nor is the supply of it endless.

    When people like you and Sujai fail to criticize one act but not the other simply based on religion, that is called double standards. In a democratic society, we are trying to eliminate all that and achieve fairness and equality for all through peaceful means. Why not have an open and honest debate on these issues? Why avoid it?

    PI: regarding Sheikh Hasina, Begum Zia etc.
    Keep in mind that both of them are related to very famous and popular leaders, and that’s how political dynasties work (India, Sri Lanka, B’desh, Pakistan, USA – Kennedy, Bush). It’s just easier to have a family member be the next leader. That in and of itself does not prove that Islam grants equal rights to women. Have you not read about Taslima Nasreen and what she went through? Why ignore it when cases like that are staring you in the face? Or, do your secular principles prevent you from defending Taslima Nasreen and criticizing Muslims who called for her death? If you are uncomfortable doing that, then please say so instead of hiding behind words like secularism etc. A little honesty please.

    PI: secularism
    Yes, secularism is great. But I’d suggest you look up the definition of secularism and how it works in democracies. Secularism does not mean giving special favors to one section of the society based on their religion. I’d also suggest you read up on Haj subsidy, Shah Bano case and Universal Civil Code if you haven’t already. Maybe you should have some words of praise for BJP (whatever their other shortcomings) for at least being honest and starting a debate!! That’s democracy for you.
    In the US, there are people of different religions, but the law applies the same to everyone – just because some religions allow polygamy does not mean it is lawful in the US. That’s how secularism should be applied, not the pseudo-secularism that Congress has been practicing for decades in return for Muslim votes. Also look up China and Tibet and the atrocities there, and that will tell you much about Communism in today’s world.

    You yourself say that violence is not justified in societies (or was it that you don’t condone violence – there is a subtle difference), so then why be afraid to criticize violent acts when you see them around you? Or, should it be only Hindu violence that you criticize but not Muslim violence? What kind of logic is that? Is that even fair? Is that a secular principle?

    Sujai seems to have some of the same mistaken ideas as you have, and while I don’t hate Muslims, I do think they need a serious reform soon. And educated people like you do a disservice with your PC and intellectually dishonest arguments and being apologists for violent acts. You both should probably read up a lot on ideas and principles like democracy, human rights, gender equality, secularism and open debate.
    Also, I’ll preempt your argument that Western foreign policies are at fault. I 100% agree with that, and in a democracy, there are ways and means (slow I know) to hold government and elected officials accountable, and I prefer that to blowing up innocent people to make a point.

    Cheers,
    -Amit

  60. Amit Says:

    You both should probably read up a lot on ideas and principles like democracy, human rights, gender equality, secularism and open debate.
    Forgot to add ‘freedom of speech’ to the list.

  61. Polite Indian Says:

    Amit, First of all welcome to the blog. This is your first time here and I suggest spend some time around the blog before assuming anything about me.

    Sujai seems to have some of the same mistaken ideas as you have, and while I don’t hate Muslims, I do think they need a serious reform soon. And educated people like you do a disservice with your PC and intellectually dishonest arguments and being apologists for violent acts. You both should probably read up a lot on ideas and principles like democracy, human rights, gender equality, secularism and open debate.

    I have been following your comments at Sujai’s blog. It is better that he respond to you.

    This is your first comment here and you already have made so many assumptions.
    How did you decide that I am an apologist for violent acts?
    Where did I say that Muslims/Islam doesn’t need a reform? In fact I have always maintained that they need reform why do you think I am talking about reformists.

    And what do you suggest that democratic countries do till that time comes? Sit back, relax and twiddle their thumbs while some Muslims perpetrate violent acts?

    Honestly, I will engage with you if you come with an open mind. You talk about open debate/discussion but don’t seem to understand what it means. If you tone down your comments, get rid of your assumptions then we can have a discussion. Show some openness in your comments and I will respond accordingly. If you keep accusing without any reason I don’t think that is inviting enough for a discussion.

    If you go through the comments Thiagan and I have diametrically opposite views but nowhere have we labeled/attacked each other personally.

    If you think you have it in you to have a civil debate please continue and I shall respond.

    Remember – Say what you have to say but say politely!

  62. Amit Says:

    Yes, I will tone down my voice. 🙂

    I actually did read your post (and a couple of other posts), and your and Thiagan’s discussion on this post, though I haven’t read all your posts. So I agree that I made a mistake if I based my comments on simply this one post.

  63. Thiagan Says:

    13/07/07

    PI

    Did you notice that no muslim raeder of the blog has come forward to endorse the four conditions. Are they unreasonable; then they could have criticised and they did not do that also. Does it mean all the muslims do not accept them and they have different plans for co-religionists? The silence is portentous.

  64. Amit Says:

    In my earlier message, “Universal Civil Code” should be “uniform civil code.” Sorry for that mistake.

  65. Amit Says:

    PI, I came across this article recently that gives a history of UCC in India and issues related to it. It’s factual and well worth a read.
    http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ucc.htm

  66. Polite Indian Says:

    Amit,

    I read that article. My views on UCC are in a post that I made on it here.

  67. Thiagan Says:

    20/07/07

    Shall I contribute an article on fatwaas and Art.370. Will they be publishhed as guest writers?

  68. Polite Indian Says:

    You are welcome. I will publish them.

    I am in the process of moving this blog to its own domain http://www.politeindian.com/blog
    I should be done by the weekend and then you can send me the articles I will publish them.

  69. B Shantanu Says:

    PoliteIndian: Good attempt at starting this much needed debate.

    You and several of your readers would find a similar discussion on my blog very interesting:

    http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/08/discussion-on-hindutva-islam-zakir-naik-godhra/

    Thiagan: If you do not mind, I would also like to have a copy of your articles on fatwaas and Art 370. My email id is jai.dharma AT gmail.com

    Thanks.

  70. Polite Indian Says:

    Shantanu,

    Thanks for the link. It is an interesting discussion.

    Thiagan,

    It seems the move to its own domain will take some time. So go ahead and send your article I will publish it.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: