Now, I understand laissez-faire. It is intriguing, to put it temperately, that so many on the far right, whether religious or fiscal, take such a disconnected approach toward human affairs. Yes, I am demonizing a population, but we have a right to free speech. Anything that happens after my essay is published isn’t my fault. Yes, I trade in debt, but what happens to the wider economy isn’t my problem. One can say or do things of morally dubious character, but walk away, in good conscience, from the consequences.
The Islamophobe is no different, although the way in which Islamophobes hate has changed. Today the Islamophobe still accuses the religion of malignancy, but makes the pretense of embracing the followers of the religion. There’s the deceit: You don’t have to say all Muslims are a menace—just note that “a few” are, while insisting very loudly that Islam is the problem. Everyone can fill in the gaps. How do we find these few? How do we screen them? Where do we put them?
The Civilized Bigotry of “Going Muslim”
This Monday, Professor Tunku Varadarajan of NYU Stern School of Business posted an article on Forbes.com, “Going Muslim.” (Disclaimer: I am an alumnus of NYU. All the same, Professor Varadarajan is actually employed by New York University, so you can count that as a disclaimer to the disclaimer.) This vitriolic piece punned, rather lamely, on the everyday “going postal”—and so the Professor decided to throw away the niceties behind which civilized bigotry hides its face. His argument: Muslims cannot be tamed. The Muslim who seems to be integrated could one day pull off a massacre.
The appearance of integration is a farce, only the latest strategy that terrorists hide behind. And since you cannot disprove a negative, every Muslim is a threat to the West. We Americans must question whether our adherence to equality has caused us to go blind to the danger every single Muslim might pose: “a seemingly integrated Muslim American—a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the US Army at Fort Hood—discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence.”
Friendly Muslims! Seemingly integrated! Beware, America. Freedom of religion might doom you:
Must we continue to be neutral in handling all people from different groups even though we know that there are differential risks posed by people of one group? The problem here is a heightened version of the airport security problem, where we check all people—including Chinese grandmothers—regardless of risk profiles. But can we afford that on a grand, national scale? (And I mean that question not merely in a financial sense, but also in terms of the price we’d pay in failing to detect a threat in time.)
There is no column to count the moral cost. If this is not hate-mongering, I admit the term has no utility.
Every major American Muslim organization has passed judgment on last week’s murders, and rightly deemed them heinous crimes against our common humanity, an offense to the civilized standard Muslims aspire to. It is one thing to say that people sin, and in their imperfection others are hurt or harmed. It is another thing to argue that any Muslim can one day turn on his closest friends, his office colleagues or neighbors, to fulfill what Varadarajan believes is Islam’s nature. I ask again: how can Islam have a nature independent of Muslims? The point being, Muslims are racialized, so that their ultimate characteristics are violence and deception.
It is hard enough to contemplate what drives a person to such a vile action as murder, but even harder to conceive of when that person apparently shares one’s faith and may have been inspired by a twisted perversion of that faith. This is the dilemma of the Muslim in the West, the reason for which Islamophobia is rightly considered a danger: we are very conscious of the consequences of marginalization. The frustration that finds no outlet, until it absolves itself of morality and seeks only an unrighteous leveling.
Dean Says: “I Would Not Censor or Rebuke Him”
But can you imagine how I, a seemingly-integrated (and, I’d like to think, friendly) alumnus of New York University, felt upon reading Varadarajan’s essay? My years at NYU were marked by a warm and welcoming atmosphere, fantastically diverse communities and an administration that was farsighted in its vision, and yet deeply involved and concerned with the lives of its students. I often brag to friends at other universities about how exceptional my education was. Now that same university plays host to a bigot whose language includes the following: “Muslims may be more extreme because their religion is founded on bellicose conquest, a contempt for infidels, and an obligation for piety that is more extensive than in other schemes.”
A number of concerned students and staff, some of them Muslim and some of them from other traditions, sought out the Dean of NYU Stern, Thomas Cooley, hoping to communicate their concern at what was being published with NYU’s name in the byline. What we received in response was astonishing. Thomas Cooley was so uninterested in the pain felt by students and alumni of the global university he works for that he had the audacity to cut and paste the same callous reply to every person who emailed him.
I reproduce in full:
Your complaint is duly noted. I read Mr. Varadarajan’s article very differently than you did. I think it is a very distorted reading to call this hate speech. In any event I would not censor it or rebuke him for having written it. We are, as you allude to, an institution that treasures free speech and open dialogue. You need to think more about what this means since you don’t seem to understand it. I would suggest that if you take issue with what Mr. Vardarajan wrote you take the issue up with him. There is space for feedback on the Forbes site.
Do what you do, then walk away from the consequences. Other than the earth-shaking irony of a University Dean accusing alumni of that same university of being unable to understand the idea of free speech (whom should we blame for that conceptual illiteracy, and when can I expect my tuition refund?) this cold-hearted dismissal suggests to American Muslims that their concerns are not worth even a polite response. (Another disclaimer: Cooley, like Varadarajan, writes for Forbes.com).
Last year, Stern School of Business brought onboard a Visiting Professor, Thio Li-Ann, also a member of Singapore’s parliament, who had argued during a 2007 parliamentary debate against legalizing sex between men and had expressed strong homophobia in her online writings. Rightly, she left over the summer, but not because the university suddenly contracted an aversion to free speech. Rather because we have a moral obligation to consider the consequences of our language beyond simple ideological commitments: A university is a community of human beings, too. For a Dean to turn to successful businessmen, accomplished alumni, and hard-working students and tell them that their feelings of marginalization are simply the result of misreading obviously inflammatory passages is inexcusable.
I am not looking for free speech to be revoked; far from it. I don’t want Varadarajan to stop writing. I would like him to change his mind, of course, but see no virtue in show trials, thought control or other instruments of conformity. I’m a writer, and have received numerous harsh comments for some of my opinions in the past. Some of my most vocal critics have been Muslims. But to defend free speech does not mean one agrees with the speech itself—that Cooley felt no desire to distance himself from Varadarajan’s words speaks volumes. Worse still, this kind of hate is defended by a senior official at a major global university, whose interests include expanding into the Muslim world. Would Cooley have responded the same way had the email come from African-American or Jewish alumni? I prefer to see consistency. I should hope the NYU administration have enough concern for its Muslim students, staff, and alumni to accord us the same respect every other community deserves.
Tags: forbes, ft hood, islamophobia, muslim, prejudice, school, students
If you get beneath the facade, Haroon Moghul's fulmination is not very different from Mohummad sending hit squads to take out Poet Asma bint marwan for questioning koranic verses.
Haroon's position - Shoot at the messengers (Forbes, Mr. Cooley, Dr. Varadarajan)and scoot rather than answer the facts Dr. Varadarajan has cited. Fort Wood was a reality. When a believer in koranic verses, plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, how should we deal with it. By saying islam has nothing to do with it?
Mr. Moghul wants to sever hate-filled koranic verses from their consequences while alleging that Mr. Cooley walks away from consequences. This when koran and many muslims are explicit about their totalitarian agenda - that loyalty to islam takes precedence over united states.
Mr. Moghul says he would not like to see Mr. Varadrajan stop writing. This is because he knows he cant enforce censorship in United States. Where muslims exercise power, muslim demand does mutate to coercive censorships on criticism of koran/mohummad under the cover of hate speech. Distance from Mr. Moghul's position on making people change thoughts, to enforcing silence by beheadings is not far. Mr. Moghul would do well to reflect on the consequences of his position that enable an environment conducive to islamic coercion.
Till muslims confront the reality of hate that koran/sira peddle towards non muslims, and work to abrogate koranic verses islamic terror motivated by koran, sunna remain clear and present dangers to our society/way of life.
Its sophistry to accuse those like Mr. Varadarajan, Mr. Cooley, Forbes that manifest the courage and intellectual honesty to highlight facts and reality. Central issue indeed is islam and the hate it represents towards its non believers.
I would like to point out that Koranic verses can be easily misintrepreted and construed as hate-filled. Especially by someone who has not made an effort to read it for themselves. In fact, anyone can pick out sections of any religious text that can be construed as hate-filled out of context.
I must also point out that it is the people who practice religion that distort it, as is the case for all religions. For you to pinpoint and blame a particular religion shows your ignorance on the matter. Especially since your comments make it clear that you have not even bothered to learn anything about Islam before making the above comment.
It is people like you that spread hate and ignorance. I could have easily torn apart your comment point for point but it is Islam that teaches us to turn the other check. Please educate yourself before spreading hate.
Noone has prevented you from rebutting me point by point. And you have resorted to shooting at me as you self style yourself as someone "turning the other cheek" at the instance of islam. Well, Orwell was bang on - if you substitute 'big brother' with 'islam'.
Totalitarians have a history of attacking the messenger rather than respond to facts - just as Haroon Moghul's focus was on insinuating on Mr. Cooley and Dr. Varadarajan rather than answer him.
In your warped world view, anyone who criticizes islam/mohummad/koran has not made an effort to read koranic verses themselves. So what would you do with me. I studied koranic verses and prefer criticizing it as a medieval output of dark ages, hateful towards its non believers. So I should be sent to Gulag? Or better be beheaded?
What Haroon is demanding is pernicious. He has demanded self-censorship when it pertains to islam - that is Shariah law. You guys dont want any criticism of islam/mohummad/koran even when facts stare you at your face. You want us to disrespect ourselves and our nation and truth itself so that we might respect a book that preaches hate towards its non believers!
Wow are you kidding me your comparing Big Brother to Islamists. Even Western pundits are comparing America, with its Patriot Act, to Big Brother. Did you even read the book or did you overhear people who read the book talking about it. Because if you read the book you'd know no Islamist group has the capability Big Brother had. However the US does and with the Patriot Act it actually started using their powers in the same way...get a life
Your comment similar to Mr. Haroon Moghul's shoots at the messenger and bypasses the message.
There is a difference between Western Pundits and islamists. Western Pundits dont hestitate to criticize what they consider wrong in their formulation.
An islamist dare not criticize koran, mohummad. If you read Orwell without your islamic blinkers on, you would realize this.
With followers of totalitarian ideologies like islam around with their historical legacy of violence and manifest hate of its non believers, there certainly is a case for Patriot Act.
As an entity islam indeed is worse than Orwellian big brother. Islam abuses Noble Conception of God to justify its nefarious totalitarian agenda.
Read your koran and sirah again. God willing, you may understand, Mr. Moghul's typically islamic hypocrisy.
So you mean to tell me the big bad islamist threat frightens you so much your willing to justify the patriot act, an act that infringes upon our constitutional rights in the name of security? LOL your only proving my point buddy.
Your point.. that..islam had nothing to do with fort wood. Well if only pigs could fly.
Your assertion is tenable if islam had nothing to do with fort woood and if islam had nothing to do with Sept 11 New York Attacks.
When totalitarian beliefs like islam with overt political agenda, seek to subvert our Constitution from within, its followers attack us citing that they love death more than we love life, decent people including muslims would back Patriot act with its potential short comings to the known evils such as creeping dark medieval islamic shariah and islamic terror strikes against us.
Are you gonna keep spewing unsubstantiated crap or are you actually gonna put forth some real critiques? And no just because some terrorist might cite religion as one of the motivations for violence it isn't sufficient proof for your assertions that religion is at the root of the problem
Ohhhhh Islam is the big bad boogie man...we need to have our constitutional rights limited just to be safe...LOL whose big brother again?
I like how you totally glossed over my comment where i picked apart your initial ignorant comment.
Cowards like you should pay attention to the following quote:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
*Benjamin Franklin
Read "essential liberty" for "free world" and "temporary security" for "dogmatic certitudes of koranic world". You will understand what Benjamin Franklin meant.
And did koranic logic 101 teach you to claim that others are glossing over your comment and then claim as "argument" abusing others as "coward".
When a single person does violence one will not cite the belief. When there is repetitive violence - when there are multiple attacks on us, both attempted and executed, from men that cite islam for attacking us, it is not possible to credibly shield islam from its consequences.
Yes the right to privacy within our own homes isn't an essential liberty...So to you essential liberty merely means the right to live, whether its dignified or not. So women who are kidnapped and sold into prostitution and slavery, according to you have their essential liberties. Good thinkin man.
I see your upset by the harsh tone of my last response. I'm sorry but you've yet to produce a substantive argument. I've already told you, because some claim religion behind motivations of violence it isn't sufficient proof to justify your conclusion.
Btw if you cared to do any objective research (instead of cowardly giving into your fears) you would know every single Islamist group, including Al-Qaida, that employs tactics of terrorism, list political grievances as their reason for being. The ideology utilized to unite and provide a sort of guidance in this case is religion. But Mr. Singh if you cared to pick up a book and actually read up on the subject you would know that where people endure to what they view as excessive amount of political injustice, they tend to unite behind some ideology be it secular or religious to, help drive and guide their cause. Like the punjabis in northern India who were fighting for Khalistan and assassinated Indira Gahndi.
Wow i'm surprised you still haven't brought forth a substantive argument.
Essential liberty includes the liberty to say no to koran/sirah. Examine the reality that koran/sirah peddle hate towards those who dont want to believe in it, that islam asks its followers to subjugate those who have no wish to follow it.
Of course in stead of facing this straight, Mr. Haroon would like to take the cover of hate speech and shoot at Mr. Cooley.
Argument as you have attemped is not imputing to others thoughts that they never mention. Mr. Moghul tried that with Mr. Cooley. You have attempted to do that by trying to capture what you assert as my thoughts on liberty, women. You might have as well tried to rationalise what your little book of dogmatic hate towards non believers, al koran verse 4:34 peddles on woman's rights.
You have now taken the position that there are perceived political grievances that are motivating Al Quaeda towards terror. And that Islam provides guidance to such groups. And yet, you would not want islam to be pointed out for providing guidance to terror groups. What would you call this - substantive argument? I would like to call this koranic logic 101.
"Essential liberty includes the liberty to say no to koran/sirah."
First of all your usage of "koran/sirah" highlights your ignorance. The seerah is the term used for the biographical narrative of the Prophet (s). It has no binding legal authority. Your usage of it is incorrect. I'm not sure if by seerah your actually referring to the "sunnah" which is a binding legal authority. Please stop trying to sound like you know what your talking about when clearly you are ignorant.
Also, Ben Franklin is talking about people exactly like you. Your justifying the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act under the false assumption that it's protecting you from a Muslim theocracy. LOL coughcowardcough.
"Examine the reality that koran/sirah peddle hate towards those who dont want to believe in it, that islam asks its followers to subjugate those who have no wish to follow it."
You still haven't provided a substantive argument proving your assumption that shariah mandates non-Muslims to be forcibly converted or subjugated (you can reiterate old orientalist arguments that have been largely refuted to substantiate this point but i doubt you have any interest in doing actual research). Also the historical reality that in 600 years of Ottoman rule and 230 years of Mughal there was never any kind of forced mass conversion of non-Muslims or expulsion of them from their lands contradicts your point. You don't know what your talking about. I don't think your capable of doing proper research.
I know its hard for you but try to read the following very carefully and try to understand it. My point was that violent interpretation of religion is a peripheral issue. To approach this issue effectively, the root of the problem must be addressed. The root of the problem is political not religious.
I think its safe to assume you're not going to respond with a substantive argument and I think i've done an adequate job of exposing your idiotic and baseless conclusions(which stem from your cowardice) So i think that will be all from me. I hope you grow a backbone.
Abusing the other person dont make a rational argument. I dont subscribe to koranic logic 101 of lying/abusing/coercing/terrorizing/deploying violence to make ones point.
Sirah had nothing to do with islam?..So mohu is not responsible for actions like sending hitmen to take out Poet Asma bint marwan for questioning koranic verses? Or consummating little Ayesha for fun? There were no forced mass conversions to islam? Jiziya was a welfare tax on non muslims? And non muslims never protested jiziya? Zorashtrians mass emigrated from their homes voluntarily bcoz Iran's new islamic rulers encouraged Zorashtrian faith? And in Saudi Arabia, putative HQ of islam, muslims actively encourage non muslims to construct churches, synagogues, temples? Mecca has many many old churches/temples? And your self certified little book of hate says, those that reject islam have same rights to practise and propagate their faiths as muslims? Islam's overt political agenda and double standards towards its non believers have nothing to do with violence?
Root of the problem such as the one in Fort Hood indeed is islam and the hate that koran and islam peddle towards islam's non believers.
STILL no substantive argument. Merely citing some disputed historical facts are not an argument.
I'm not getting into a "no its not, yes it is" type of argument with you. Your being childish. Especially with all that crying your doing about being abused. lol
Ontop of that you haven't responded to any of my points.
Once mind falls into the abyss cum hell-hole called fascist islam - where medieval koranic lies take primacy, where hate towards non muslims is institutionalized, where abuses/murders on non muslims on account of their thoughts/beliefs is OK but islamic book that openly preaches hate towards its non believers, can only be eulogized through a blatant lie, that it is a book of peace, what could one expect?
I see your still here howling like a mad dog and not bringing forth a real argument...i'm not surprised
"howling like a mad dog"...sorry...the name is Singh, not mohummmad - neither mohummad atta, nor khalid mohummad.
You can listen to howling worse than a dog's and braying worse than donkeys visiting any mosque, when azaan is called. And you can listen to what you call "real argument" from your little book of hate towards its non believers. And you will be surprised.
oh hey look like 10 days later and still no substantive argument. but i see you're pretty mad. i would imagine you're foaming at the mouth right now...if i were you i'd shut my mouth. its pretty clear mr. singh that ur a khalistani terrorist and probably condone the assassination of indira gandhi.
what an argument from you Mr. muslim. Not just shoot at the messenger. Behead the messenger...eh...koranic logic 102..that?
Did u read mohummad's surah taubah that ur brothers in pakistan used to justify bombing mosque/murdering little children.
You say "My point was that violent interpretation of religion is a peripheral issue. To approach this issue effectively, the root of the problem must be addressed. The root of the problem is political not religious."
No, it is not political at all; it is human nature! One believes as one does with the force that they will. I deal with this every day with Christians who believe it is their "mandate" to proselytize without even thinking of where the "other" person is coming from in terms of their own life. I have Christians who, once they hear of my "atheism," want to try to do "God's work," to speak for "Him" as though they have a direct cell phone link, and to make sure that they will "pray for me" with their condescending manners! I consider this to be a form of religious violence at a very personal level. Any person evangelizing is, to me, a problem. We have seen what the Crusades were and how they were supported. We know that there have been all kinds of religious wars in the world. To me, "going postal" is a non-sectarian, equal opportunity for all people everywhere. However, being an American exposed to the daily news, I read every day about Christians in America who kill, rape, kidnap, beat and steal from one another all of the time. Does the US press refer to these criminals as "Christians"? No, they don't. With the highest prison population per capita in the world and with this being a "Christian nation,"(Gag me with a spoon on this one!) shouldn't we, therefore, ascribe all of this criminality to Christianity? So, I guess that I could argue, even more honestly and with far more evidence, that most crime in America is "going Christian"! Now, Mr. V's views can be put into a different light, into a new perspective, if you will! Now, let's see how many Christians would accept MY view (tongue in cheek) of violence in America!
Anyse Joslin
Don't be angry, look at it as an opportunity. Ask them about the basic Christian belief that the world needs to be destroyed (hopefully in our lifetime) and everyone else outside the true religion needs to suffer. I am concerned that this belief is causing Christians to be more accepting of wars where Israel is bombing their neighbors, and the polls show the more serious Christians are, the more accepting they were of torture by the Bush administration. Ask them if they are concerned about the exposure that Christian children have to the Left Behind rapture fiction series. Does this kind of thinking make their children more open to not being environmentally conscious because they think the world will be destroyed? What about Hagee's preaching on TV about the need for us or Israel to start a war with Iran? Is it possible that if enough Christians are calling for war, the next time they put their man in the White House they might be encouraging him to actually start a war? Tell them we have nothing against Christianity, but we feel it is important to protect our children from the mental harm that can come from their beliefs.
whats up with khalistan bro?
It can easily be said that any similar crime is in some way motivated by the religious background or, more likely, religious organizations in which the perpetrator is involved. The murder of Dr. Tiller is an example of a person who was in some ways motivated by their own extremist version of Christianity.
Arguing with you (or with anyone) point-by point is a pointless exercise, unless one is desiring a workout of their debating skills, or is interested in the maintenance of a sharp mind. Otherwise, there is no moral imperative to enter into a hair-splitting debate. To generalize an entire group based on the actions of a very loud minority is either lazy or convenient. To also generalize that group based on one interpretation of that group's sacred text is at the the same.
LOL Asma bint Marwan? Judging your blind acceptance of reports that have been proven to be fabricated it looks to me that you conducted your Islamic studies under the auspices of the erudite scholars of the Middle East, Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell. I can’t think of anyone else smart enough to substantiate their ideas based on evidence that’s proven to be false. I can see you are someone who stands for the truth.
“When a believer in koranic verses, plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, how should we deal with it. By saying islam has nothing to do with it?”
I have to make a correction to your statement. What you should have said was:
When a believer in koranic verses, ACTS CONTRARY TO ITS TEACHINGS, plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers
See how much sense your making? So on what grounds are you blaming religion for his acts when he was acting contrary to its teachings? Please spare me your arguments that the Quran mandates the indiscriminate killing of all “infidels” which I’m sure you are thinking about. It’s a dumb argument. It can easily be refuted. After you’ve been refuted the only thing that would be apparent is your hatefulness and ignorance.
“Mr. Moghul wants to sever hate-filled koranic verses from their consequences”
Perhaps that would be true if verses like these didn’t exist:
“… if anyone kills a person –unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land- it is as if he kills all mankind, and if anyone saves a life it is as if he saved the lives of all mankind…” (Qur’an, 5:32)
Hmmm there’s an apparent discrepancy between the verses your referring to and th verse I just cited. How should all the verses be understood contextually because on the surface there is contradiction. We could easily resolve this by referring to the classical scholarship. However you’ve chosen not to. You’re content with maintaining baseless views to justify your hatred. However you should know that you’re only highlighting the depth of your own ignorance when trying to interpret the Quran when you don’t have any knowledge of Arabic let alone the other sciences required to interpret it.
I do give your credit though for attempting sound intellectual when putting forth childish arguments.
Mr. Singh is there any country in the western world that protects absolute freedom of speech? If this isn’t so, can you please elaborate on how this freedom is moderated then explain why this moderation shouldn’t be applied to the situation at hand.
To tell you the truth though I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually answered that absolute freedom of speech is protected, in which case I will be disappointed for wasting my time with someone of obviously sub-par intellect.
On a different note can you provide a link between Islamists and the terrorists fighting for Khalistan?
So why do so many Muslims attack the societies in which they reside? Their own as well as the "unbelievers". They seem remarkably free in their hate speech. Amazing numbers of them think they have the right and duty to kill their neighbor.
Whyzat, ums1?
Muslims attack the societies in which they reside? Yes there wasn't any crime in any western society till the evil Muslims showed up. It was because of them the western world had to build jails and prisons. This type of ignorance is astounding. Just as your not going to implicate the religion of criminals acting in the name of christianity why not do this for Islam and Muslims? Why the double standard? There are enough convicted criminals who will confirm that their interpretation of Christianity was the impetus of their crimes yet we are able to disregard it. People need to get their heads out of the ground. Your fear is being manipulated to serve ulterior purposes.
Just prior to the Ft Hood incident, the FBI thwarted several plots to blow up various US locales.
Muslim societies seem to have a lot of lynch mob violence. Koran desecration riots. Also murderous sectarianism of the sort that the West seldom sees.
Also a preoccupation with land. They want to saw off a chunk of Thailand, or the Phillipines, or Michigan...
You really need to read a book. Would you like me to post for you a country-by country list of "terrorist" groups that have nothing to do with Islam.
Also the FBI likes to embellish their record of "thwarting" terrorist attempts. The Fort Dix incident in NJ was incited by an FBI "informant" who was actually inciting local disenfranchise youths into doing stupid things and set them up.
No, I think we, including the muslims, should focus on the terrorist groups that claim Islam as their inspiration.
You are parroting the familiar excuses and denials that we have come to expect from the muslim community.
No, I think we, including the muslims, should focus on the terrorist groups that claim Islam as their inspiration.
For the safety and security of abortion doctors, Jews, Arabs, Sikhs, blacks and other groups attacked by far-Right militias and similar vigilante groups across the US, I am so glad the FBI's priorities are not set by eli.
Seriously you people need to use your heads. If all 3-5 million muslims in America were really terrorists in disguise this country would be in complete chaos. Why would we be resorting to ineffective isolated incidents like Fort Hood to carry out our sinister goals? Could it be possible that these are mainly isolated incidents.
Also if your referring to the thwarted attempts of Imam Luqman's "terrorist plot" by the fbi, If you actually chose to objectively research the facts before you incite your own hatred you would know that the circumstances surrounding his death and the "facts" presented by the fbi are highly suspect.
Yeah, the FBI is always suspect.
I don't think there will be much change in this even when the US leaves. There is too much impetus to murder us. It doesn't take 3-5 million to create compete chaos.
In America we have freedom of astounding ignorance. The double standard you were speaking of is a critical part of resolving the contradictions in our religion. It is true, some crimes are justified through Christianity, such as our recent Crusade into Iraq, but for other criminals Christianity is a convenient method of having sins washed away by the church. Give us a little time because we are having trouble dealing with the way we are being manipulated to serve ulterior purposes. We thought we were trying to deal with the immorality of our wars of choice and descent into torture, but then the ulterior motives trashed our economy so we are no longer so concerned with our morality, for now we are just concerned with trying to avoiding personal financial ruin. It is hard for us to get our heads out of the ground while we are still involved in the process of burying ourselves.
"Where muslims exercise power, muslim demand does mutate to coercive censorships on criticism of koran/mohummad under the cover of hate speech."
Are you suggesting this supposed trait is something genetic? That it represents a rule without any exceptions?
And your comments are hypocritical for not considering the fact that other religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Budhism, among others, have their own religious dogma, traditions, or religious history and interpretations that are not so friendly. And there have been cases in which adherents of these religions committed crimes in the same manner of which racists blame Islams and Muslims for.
To blame Islam on crimes committed by individuals is stretching reality. But fine, lets consider ALL possible factors. Fine. So then, why is it that Islam is the only factor being considered, why is American foreign policy never considered, or the fact that thousands of civilians have been killed or had their lives ruined by Americas state terrorism, despite these being the ONLY and DIRECT reason stated by those who commit criminal acts for committing attacks? It is absolutely idiotic to blame the religion, as if you are somehow an enlightened and sophisticated person, while ignoring the fact that your country is brutally committing human rights violations and war crimes, as documented by the UN and various international human rights organizations. I think its time that the NYU professor smarten up, because he really is an idiot.
"Till muslims confront the reality of hate that koran/sira peddle towards non muslims, and work to abrogate koranic verses islamic terror motivated by koran, sunna remain clear and present dangers to our society/way of life."
I understand your frustration about Quran,s comments( hate) about non believers but i will like to know that if you think this is only confined to Quran. don,t you think that Bible also has similar comments and injunctions about non believers (you may remember crusades). So in all honesty to your beleif and views should you also not include Bible and Torah under the same category of books which spread hateabout their non believers.
My other thought is that one has to understand that non of the so called muslims wrote this book and in fact lots of muslims also has similar problems about this book as you do since it points to the consequences of human actions.
Varadarajan wrote:
"Muslims may be more extreme because their religion is founded on bellicose conquest, a contempt for infidels and an obligation for piety that is more extensive than in other schemes."
I don't know where he gets his history! But let's look at origins of America's religions that have long received public respect:
- The probably ahistorical or at least significantly modified history of the biblical book of Joshua has the founding of the nation of Israel being accomplished through genocide continuing with the warfare of the book of Judges.
- Western Christianity established its unique and free-standing identity through the Crusades, during which they killed Eastern Christians, Jews, and Muslims in a fight over land that was never theirs at any time.
- Western Christian nations were the ones that raped the planet through their brutal schemes of colonialization, the aftermath of which we must continue to deal with for as far into the future as the imagination can take us.
Contempt for infidels? Hell, it has only been within the last 30 years that Christians in general have stopped seeing each other as infidels because of different labels and divergent histories. I grew up fundamentalist in the 1960s and 70s, and it was still standard teaching that the only REAL Christians were the ones in my denomination. Everyone else had rejected Jesus and, so, were going to hell just like non-Christians. And from early on, Christianity has had councils and designed creeds to seed out the people whose belief and practice was not quite within the straight and narrow. Tolerance for different beliefs is not native to historical Christendom but is recent in its emergence.
And obligations of piety? What the hell is he talking about? Set prayer times? My closest friend is a Trappist monk. In the monastery they have strict observance of the liturgical hours and set times for labor in a schema that is very exacting. And if you want to talk about Protestant strict observance, you may not have precise hours specified, but the requirements of piety can be every bit as exacting. Orthodox Jews are very exacting about times of prayer and Shabbat law and kashrut and more. There is nothing unique about observant, traditional Islam's concerns for pious observance.
Varadarajan sets these things as uniquely Islamic things in which they are different from the rest of the world. He's full of it.
I agree, Varadarajan's piece in Forbes is hate speech. Whether the university has the right or the obligation to do anything about what an employee does on his own time is another issue. But hate speech it was.
We can smile at the various strigent demands and exclusive ideas of Christian churches because they do not have governmental power over us. So far they have not attempted to impose their regimens by acts of random violence either.
Ditto re Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. He does not and never did have governmental power over us. He also did not attempt to impose any "regimens" by an act of random violence.
If you want to talk about Islamist terrorism, leave the Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan incident out of the discussion. It is a completely separate issue, which Professor Tunku Varadarajan lumped in all together as it were the same thing.
And if you want to talk about Islamist terrorism, we have yet to see any incident even from Al Qaeda that attempts to assert Islamist (quasi-)governmental control over non-Islamic countries. Its acts of violence are aimed not at taking us over and controlling our lives but at forcing us to get out of what they perceive as "their" space and their lives, both physically and policy-wise.
Truth is, if we in the USA are concerned about our legal system and its freedoms being overthrown, we should direct our attention first and foremost at our own "Religious Right," Christians of the sort who are not satisfied with a live-and-let-live approach to life in these United States.
Poakley, look at how the muslims are treating themselves in their own miserable countries. If one of the goofier Christian churches had governmental control here, we would be in the same predicament.
Poakley, great progressive response. If we all look at ourselves and our nation and our roots, and see what we can do to fix things from our side, progress will be made. If each side is locked into vanity of seeing the problems with the others and rationalizing their own side, then things will escalate.
I think you seriously msreas the article. The author's intent was a warning. If we do not cease being PC he claims far worse things can happen in this country.
"Have we reached that point of breakdown in trust? Not yet, I think, and not by some distance; but a few more murderous incidents of the Maj. Hasan variety--a few more shouts of "Allahu Akbar" as Americans are shot dead--will push many Americans on to a dangerous cusp."
"A few more incidents"
Says who? Before Fort Hood, when was the last an American Muslim murdered a bunch of his fellow countryman as a way of accomplishing his Muslim "duty".
"Allah u Akbar" Please! Most Muslims say that before they do anything.
But your right, PC is going to kill us. The very PC bullsh#t this guy is trying to peddle down our throats, they type practiced by the Stalinist and perfected by the Nazi's. Thats RealTalk.
Lately the Feds have been catching muslims before they attacked us. What was it, 4 or 5 meditated plots to blow up this or that?
Muslims are at war all over the world. They chew at Thailand, the Phillipines, themselves...
Be interesting to see what happens when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Muslims are at war all over the world. They chew at Thailand, the Phillipines, themselves..."
Have you considered writing a book about this? Can I suggest a title? "The Protocols of the Learned Mullahs of Islam"
Your point about Koranic verses is moot in this case because you have no idea why this man did what he did.
Men shoot up their workplaces all the time but it's beyond our reckoning to blame it on any faith or ideology they held.
Why is Maj. Hasan a special case? Cause he was against the war in Iraq? yeah and so is over half the country.
Cause he was Muslim? of course, because we are all apparently enjoined to murder as many infidels as we can get our bloody hands on. Yet, I wonder, how often does that happen in America. Oh, we must not be good Muslims, right Singh?
What's not talked about is the stress of his job (Psychiatrist to combat vets) and possible alienation from fellow soldiers(co-workers), all factors influencing the motives and behaviors of the men behind workplace massacres.
This is like some sort of warped exceptionalism where if a Muslim effs up we blame it on the faith at large in by association all who share in that faith.
BTW, i'm still wondering why when I first got tweets from CNN about the shooting, they claimed their were multiple shooter?.(scratches head)
Mr. Akhibrass
Hasan was emotionally stressed out?
How does he deal with it? Getting in direct contact with Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, bin laden associate and designated islamic terrorist? And yet you say, islam has nothing do with Hasan? It happens only in koranic logic 101. Pigs indeed fly there.
Something else that he so glaringly misunderstood(thus demonstrating his lack of knowledge on the subject) is that the notion of "snapped" is a misnomer. Almost all mass killers plan their massacres, sometimes months in advanced. All the school shootings, the incident of the guy who couldn't get a day and killed some women at a gym(he posted his though processing and planning on a blog. Dude even had an opened attempt), etc. "Snapping" in reality is a process, a build up of frustration and pain that is let out when the killer makes the decision to go ahead and make reality his dark, morbid thoughts. Mj. Hasan's behaviour follows a similar pattern. Most of these men plan to either be killed or turn the gun on themselves so they often behave like suicides by giving away valued possessions and saying goodbye to loved ones.
If we don't recognize that this tragedy is more in line with the circumstances of other mass killers then we could be making a grave mistake.
Yep, it is PC that is totally distorting the picture here but its not the sort of PC the Rightwing nuts would have you believe it is.
America should look at this tragic situation as an opportunity to show we have learned from the mistakes of our 9-11 response and can do better. Last time, we used the politics surrounding the attack as a reason to invade a far weaker neutral nation and try to get control of their undeveloped oil fields so that our upper class might be able to make a few trillion profit under the protection of our occupying army. We got into that country by pinning down OBL, then not capturing or killing him so that we had time to move our army into the region. The world wanted to help us after the tragedy, and help us capture and punish those responsible, but we didn't want their help, we had other plans, and we ended up making things 1000 times worse. What will we do this time, work for healing, or work to increase the hate level? We now have a rational president who has no political advantage to gain through more hate, and I do hope under his leadership we can learn something from past mistakes even though that might be politically polarizing for the country.
He writes like a snotty high school student who thinks he's saying something profound. You know, the type that eventually get pissed because no one cares what they say and then shoot up their friends. I guess it's that whole "high school" thing that causes it. Come to think of it, with that big-ass beard and adolescent writing style, we should probably be scared of him. What an idiot. I can't believe Stern hires people like that.
It is very sad and disturbing that supposed scholars (or indeed scholars) are involved in public xenophobic issues like this one as protagonists of the situation. One thing is academic liberty which grants a professor substantial leeway in exposing his or her education approach. That liberty is for the classroom or in fact, the academic circle.
Another thing is to use public media to expose points of view in a way parallel to academic liberty and then expect that the public should grant or behave as if indeed the comment, whatever it may be, is to be deemed acceptable. That is an abuse and misconception from the scholar and an unfair exposition of bigotry disguised as scholarship.
Public media is for the use of the general society and we live in an inclusive society. To characterize a behavior as: "going postal" or "going Muslim" is a derogatory, disrespectful and unfair comment that should be rejected as a common rule. One thing is to joke in private groups and another to impose those comments as part of mainstream discussion.
Religious faith should not be subject of "serious" debate including such remarks. This just complicates the frail relations that presently affect the peace and interaction between diverse creeds.
I commend Religious Dispatches for providing the means to discuss this issues from a multilateral and respectful position. In fact. this is the standard that needs to be heralded in the public discourse.
... by dividing people into "us" and "them". Could it be that the man who shot the people at Ft. Hood was simply disturbed and mentally ill. That happens to people of every gender, race, age, and religion. Who benefits from talk that arouses suspicion and hate? Are "they" out to get "us"? If we continue in this manner pretty soon there won't be anyone left to fight ... we'll "extinct" ourselves.
I think a war has begun, bcoop. "They" are out to get "us". It will probably go nuclear at some point and yes, we may extinct ourselves.
This can't cause us to go extinct. Global warming can't, and even nuclear war as envisioned today can't. These things might kill a significant number of people, but there is no chance of humans going extinct. The only thing that could have possibly done that would have been a total thermonuclear exchange between two superpowers involving tens of thousands of nukes that poison the planet with radiation and cause a nuclear winter that destroys over 99% of our future source of food. Even with that, there would probably be a tiny number of humans who survive and eventually rebuild. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs couldn't extinct us because we are more adaptable than them. These things can kill a lot of people and cause huge problems, but they can't totally wipe us out.
Am glad you have such confidence, Jim. Do you think this tiny number of survivor humans would have any religion? Or shall that go the way of the dinosaurs?
That tiny number is only in the case of total thermo exchange between US and Russia, and that didn't happen. The religion war and the other potential dangers wouldn't kill over half of the people, and probably less, so there will still be many people left. In the case of Christianity, this might help them to finally see it was foolish to bet on a Rapture that will never happen, and humanity can build from there.
In case of rapture, can I have your car? Oh wait, nevermind. I'll just take the bus. One less reason to kill Iraqis.
In other news...
Seriously, people? The comments on this article are horrifying. I thought the hatred of Christians was fierce on this thing. It's nothing compared to the hatred of Muslims! WOWZA.
As for the gent ranting about how the author is "attacking" someone who criticizes Islam...um, hi. If the professor had referred to it as "Going N!gger," would you still consider him an an irrational extremist?
It is perfectly acceptable for a member of a marginalized segment of the population to label an act offensive if he or she sees fit. Criticizing an institution is one thing. Is "going Muslim" really about criticizing the institution of Islam or more about painting a segment of the population with a single brush stroke based on the actions of a few members of said population?
Seriously, reading through many of these commments is like visiting an old Klan rally. Ahhhh, bigotry, stereotypes and hatred, unite!
Demandra, I hope you are not mocking the rapture issue. Behind the scenes, this might be the most critical part of this discussion. Our religion (Christianity) has a basic belief that the world needs to be destroyed, hopefully in our lifetime, and everyone else needs to suffer. The Jews will be our pawns in this game, and the Muslims will be the first source supplying the blood. How much damage does this belief end up doing to the American people and by extension to the world since we are the superpower? Those at the right of our religious spectrum think starting a war against Iran is critically important to their beliefs. A short time ago they had the ear of the white house. We moved our battleships into place just hoping Iran would stumble over one of our tripwires. Look what happened a short time ago when Israel was bombing Lebanon. Of course we were against the bombing, but even in PUBLIC we said Israel should not stop yet, first make sure they have finished destroying enough of the country. What infrastructure target made it so important for us not to pressure Israel to stop immediately? Perhaps it was the political situation here where we have such a strong belief in war in the Middle East because of our faith.
America will be under a curse until we can get our religion to stop this horrible belief in destruction. Eventually the belief will go away. I hope it is soon, and we don't have to stay under this curse for another thousand years.
Might not need war. North America blows up every 640,000 years or so, and we are nearing that milestone. Yellowstone could do us in. Or maybe too many bees die.
Russia was too smart to attack us. Am not sure the muslims will be so restrained.
Any attack we might now be facing would not be with tens of thousands of nukes, so it can't kill everyone. Even a giant volcanic erruption that blows up our continent and causes an ice age would not have the radiation poisoning of a nuclear winter, so there will still be many opportunities for people to survive.
Do you all know any Muslims personally? Have you discussed with them the meaning of the Koran? Have you asked them how they interpret this tragic event?
Professor Varadarajan's comments are typical, as are the Dean's. The professor is continuing the the narrative of Indian Hindu-Muslim infighting, and the dean is continuing the narrative of the "free speech is sacrosanct in academia." I am bored by this entire dialogue. As Americans, we have the opportunity to reject these old and tired notions.
Everything dynamic and very positively!
Muscle Might
Every major American Muslim organization has passed judgment on last week’s murders, and rightly deemed them heinous crimes against our common humanity, an offense to the civilized standard Muslims aspire to.
I certainly have not heard these denouncements, and I would like to. One of the things that bothers me about Islamic-based terrorism is that the institutional religion seems to be silent on the subject. It seems to be giving tacit approval by it's silence.
There is no doubt in my mind, if the reports I've read are correct, that Major Hassan was acting on behalf of his religion. Why else, "allahu akbar?"
When Christians commit crimes in the name of religion, it is roundly denounced by the rest of us, and by our leaders. Why don't Muslim leaders denounce the crimes committed in the name of their religion too?
Lindy, that's the drill. When something blows up, the muslim orgs say they are shocked, shocked, that such things happen and that islam is the nicest, kindest, most wonderful peaceful little chimpanzee in the world.
eli, I never received that order from my al-Qaeda Twitter-feed. I should check to see if it arrived. By the way, how is your new book going? Are you gonna take my advice and title it: "The Protocols of the Learned Ayatollahs of the Taliban"?
Irfsol, an AQ sheik in SA recently called upon Sunnis to rise up and slay the Shia. Suggest a title for that. Or for the various projects against the Bahai, Amadiyah, Hazaras... it goes on and on.
I certainly have not heard these denouncements, and I would like to.
Start watching more than just Fox News.
One of the things that bothers me about Islamic-based terrorism is that the institutional religion seems to be silent on the subject. It seems to be giving tacit approval by it's silence.
Are you waiting for the Islamic Pope in Mecca to say something? Islam is not a religion with a hierarchy.
When Christians commit crimes in the name of religion, it is roundly denounced by the rest of us, and by our leaders.
True. Just ask all those victims of child sexual assault and their families. I've been a lawyer for one and I can tell you the Church rarely apologises and almost never compensates without a court order that a victim can only get after spending a huge amount in legal fees. But I don't use that as a reason to judge my Catholic mother-in-law and my many Catholic colleagues.
Suppose there arose in the US a very powerful church, say a blend of Mormons, pentecostals and snake handlers - the Pemorsnaks - and they seized control of government and law.
We would be whipped for cocoa as well as beer. Catholics would be driven underground. Women with short haircuts would be imprisoned until their hair reached the middle of their backs. Rattlesnakes would attend all services.
For second or third offenses, one could be hanged for cocoa, whipped for pixie dos and burned at the stake for saying mass.
We would resemble say, Somalia or Saudi Arabia. It is theocracy that is the evil.
Wow! judging by the responders, hatred and bigotry is alive and thriving.
Since we already have a "going muslim" term established, let's call the killing of thousands of muslims in a train while the local governments looked on in complete apathy, and that state's governer actually let off without consequences "pulling a hindu".
Let's call the twice a year shooting spree in USA on some campus or public place a "pulling a Christian".
Perhaps even when that Asian American boy killed so many students in a University in Virginia, "going asian american". The list goes on and on.
In every era of human history, greatest loss of life and society was justified in the name of religion.....ALL RELIGIONS!!!. But humans survive and emerge stronger from catastrophes.
The hindu professor's original article and S Singh's myopic disdain of Islam and his blatant disregard of all Muslims will definitely enrage the entire Muslim World. But as you read these opinions, the choice is very simple, you either pen down an equally scathing, sarcastic remark or look the other way.
Millions of Muslims call America their home and they are no more likely to randomly kill and blow people around them just because another hate filled anti Islam article is thrown in the mix.
Thousands of muslims killed on a train? Have you got your massacres mixed up? A muslim mob burned alive 50 or so Hindus that were on a train. Hindus killed muslims in retaliation.
Hindus are bitter about muslims. So are other people - Armenians, Cypriots, Copts - muslims as monsters of murderous intolerance and chaos is nothing new.
Wow nice logic. So since 50 hindus were killed in some sort of communal riots the real facts of which are skewed, the carnage unleashed by the hindu terrorist group vhp in which 2500 people were killed and women were raped and caused the the displacement of 5000 Muslim families is justified according to you.
I see your content with getting your news from biased sources. If you would really like to read up on the gujrat riots you should look at third party news sources. I think your content with news sources that reinforce your ignorant and hate though.
Btw the official facts surrounding the godhra train incident your referring to are highly suspect. Here you go:
http://www.ipcs.org/article_details.php?articleNo=1637
the information presented in the link contradict your ill-informed conclusions about the incident.
"the official facts surrounding the godhra train incident your referring to are highly suspect"
No, it is not. It was a pre-planned conspiracy by muslims.link
I can hardly wait until the muslims here get enough confidence to do their first Koran desecration riot, and lynch mobs return to the US.
I would like to ask Professor Varadarajan if he has a background in International Affairs or Political Science upon which he can validly base his arguments? The fact that is being ignored by our so called elites in this country is that it isn't Islam, the Quran, or Prophet Muhammad's teachings that are leading people to extreme actions. It is flawed foreign policy, destructive foreign wars and daily bombardment of hateful news against Muslims that is the greatest motivator. Why don't we focus our energy on resolving these issues rather than putting Islam on trial when it isn't a root cause.
Why can't people give credit to leading Muslim American organizations and the millions they represent that have condemned an attack even on a military base. Hundred's of thousands of Muslims have died due to U.S. funded wars around the world yet we still have the humanity to see that these soldiers are also humans and were unjustly killed. This is true Islam, defending Justice no matter how much injustice you have have suffered yourself.
May we be protected from leaders who lead others astray.
This was an interesting article on the Islamic stance on this attack:
http://tinyurl.com/yko7za4
As for comments about the Southern Philippines and Thailand. I three words for you, "Result of Colonialism", many of the conflicts we see in the developing world are a direct result of colonialism and mis-drawing of boundaries which don't reflect ethnic demographics. Please truly educate yourselves instead of regurgitating the hate media.
I work at NYU, and I was offended by the Forbes column. I also believe very strongly in freedom of speech and intellectual freedom, but I don't think the Dean's reaction is properly protecting those values. Here's the comment I sent to him:
Dean Cooley,
I'm writing as a member of the NYU faculty who found Prof. Varadarajan's Forbes column on "going Muslim" offensive. I agree with you that free speech is a vital aspect of academia and American society as a whole, and that Prof. Varadarajan is entitled to his opinion, however bigoted. The real reason I'm writing is your response to Haroon Moghul and others who have contacted you about the matter.
You wrote to Mr. Moghul:
"I read Mr. Varadarajan’s article..." [etc., you can read this above]
Leaving aside the condescending and patronizing tone of this response, your refusal to distance NYU from Prof. Varadarajan's column gives an implication that you, and by connection NYU Stern, and by connection NYU as a whole, agrees with the sentiments contained therein. As long as NYU's name appears in his bio, he's a representative of this institution, and the institution as a whole is tarnished by his bigotry. Why should any Muslims who are considering attending Stern want to attend classes with a professor who views them as ticking timebombs? Why would Muslim alumni want to donate money to an institution that won't distance itself from obvious religious bigotry? Is any collegiality possible between Muslim scholars and a professor who is on record as distrusting them out-of-hand?
I would further recommend that, if you are having so much trouble comprehending what people find offensive about Prof. Varadarajan's column, that perhaps it's you who needs to do some more thinking on this matter. A professor has a right to his opinions, but an institution committed to diversity has a duty to distance itself from
bigotry. Intellectual freedom can only thrive if the institution is neutral, and in this matter Stern appears to have taken a side.
I hope that you will do the right thing in this matter, and distance NYU as an institution from the opinions of this individual representative.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Mckee
Official Story: There were chemical weapons in Iraq.
Unofficial Story: it was a big lie hiding the aim of colonialisation of iraq.
Fact: unofficial story.
OS: The US has liberated Iraq
US: US has been raped iraqi womens, killed more than one million, caused millions of orphanes.
F: both are true.
OS: Guantamolo and Abu Gharib is obligation for security
US: Brutal, unhumanitarian acts are a western style throug out the history as in africa, WWII, Genoside of Indianamericans.
F: US
OS: offending muslims is freedom of speech.
US: another double standart by western: Connoting the truth of babies killed by Israel is a crime of hate. A proffessor had been fired in US, since he had been talking the facts which are now a UN Report.
Well, many many stroies can be told, the point is that the more different stories, the more reasons for fundemantalists to find terrorism volunteers as in the case of TURKEY.
OS: There is no nation called Kurd, Just a clan of turks
US: Kurds are living in mesopotamia for thousands of years.
OS: PKK is a cause that armed by hostile states to divide Turkey.
US: PKK is the result of the outrageous assimilation policy of Turkish State.
Result: Now Turkish State is admitting crimes executed by a gang network of important and prestigious people invaded critical state institutions called ergenekon and alike gladio of Italy that manipulates the state in its direction with some tools including physcological manipulation and terrorism. Now their trial is going on ( both gladio and ergenekon are founded by the US).
Lesson:When stories has reached to a consensus, PKK is now eliminating itself quitting terror, and arms and finally surrending.
I am a turkish muslim. I wrote just for giving you a point of view.
I hope for the US to make consensus between the stories by thelp of Obama, not only in the US, but all over the world becos The US is writing official stories by her absolute economical margin in the world.
Only true stories will bring a real democracy and real liberty to the US. By the way it is very challenging problem since the corporatocracy of the US is much more powerfull.
^ To Truestory,
Great comment, this shows how the media really has betrayed the public worldwide. Ever since the decline of independent journalism all we ever receive is the official story, when in fact, it's the obligation of the media to investigate the official story and find out if it's true. People today are being told that Muslims are responsible for more terrorist attacks around the world than any other people. A complete lie. The truth is that Muslims are being treated like the Communists of the past to justify another Cold War.
The heart of this issue is that the status quo is not working for Muslims around the world and they want to improve their international status. Those in power benefiting from the status quo view this as a zero sum game. They think that true improvement for Muslim peoples will cause a decline in currently powerful nations. I hope that we can have a balance in the world where no one benefits at the expense of others and that we aren't fed lies to keep us ignorant and gullible.
Peace.
Another writer mentions the "consummation of marriage with little Ayesha", and unfortunately this is one of the very real problems with Islam: child brides and in particular the consummation of marriage (i.e., sexual intercourse) with child brides.
Islamic scholars admit that Islam has no minimum age of marriage. While I've no doubt that most Muslim men who marry pre-pubescent children do so without intent to child molestation, the fact is that nothing in the religion of Islam actually prevents a child molestor of girls from marrying every one of his victims first and thus gaining a kind of societal approval for what in any other culture would be considered a crime against children.
Obviously this is not something which will ever change in Islam, which makes Islam problematic for international conventions on the rights of children and against cruelty to children.
Obviously you have no understanding of history and do not understand how to properly analyze society. According to Islamic law children can consummate a marriage at the onset of puberty. This was the norm of semetic cultures and is in accordance with natural human disposition. Where did your conception of "underage" come from? Why is it morally incorrect for a man to sleep with a woman under the age of 18? Who made 18 the morally correct number or even 15 according to UN standards? Are you really gonna go forward with your ignorant assumption by applying your transient conception of age of consent retro-actively onto people of a completely different place and time? Grow up and learn how to properly assess these issues before exposing your ignorance and sounding like a moron.
Thanks to Against Ignorance, peace.
To, webgiant: Here, the discussion isabout the thin red line between crime of hate and freedom of speech. Not arguing a religion. But your attack requires an answer: is there a limit in bible? minimum age of marriage is limited in Islam. it is identified as being adult (rashid) and defined as capability of distinguishing right and false. This age is now accepted as 18 in most of the countries and some at some countries it is 15.
arguing religions, let me ask a question:
How a religion can say a newburn baby is sinner? what kind of sin, a baby can do? sin of crying? a terrific slander to babies and kids! they are angel, they even recognise what is happening. In christian religion a baby is sinner and where sinners go when they die? Hell? tragic end for newburn babies, even they do not know what is happening?
analyse that!
Is Fort Hood the first incident of a stressed individual cracking up and killing innocents with a hail of bullets? It certainly seems to be the first where the man's family religion is being blamed rather than the man or his circumstances. Every year 2 or 3 such incidents happen in Malls,schools,other places, but no one even mentions the offenders religion.Even in the recent Halocaust Museum shooting, none blamed Christianity. Muslims have condemned Fort Hood as much,or more,than others, but seem to want consistency and objectivity in such unfortunate tragedies. We need to realise that when we blame billions of innocents for the act of one guilty, not only are we being irrational and unjust, we are also unwittingly pushing these innocents towards the path of the guilty.Is that in our personal or social or national interest? Please reflect before you reply.
The shooter's religion is mentioned if the shooter mentions it. If a shooter had been saying "in the name of Jesus I shoot you" or handed out Bibles just prior to his rampage, yes, they will mention his religion.
Muslims want us to ignore what they are ignoring and sorry, we won't do that.
US has been raped iraqi womens, killed more than one million, caused millions of orphanes.
What Bush Had said. "we have god's mission. we act in the name of god. this cusade will go on"
Some other terrorist acting in the name of christianty, just google the you will find. Just remember god's soldiers against abortion...
Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements; including the Lambs of Christ.[47]:105–120 A group called Concerned Christians were deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999, believing that their deaths would "lead them to heaven."
As your nazist (religionally) mind can see any other nazist can claim like you: christianity is the source of terrorism!
Truestory, you make a good point about President Bush saying God was talking to him and leading him to fight the war, and he called it a modern day crusade. We dealt with this issue back then, and it turns out our crusaders were in military uniform, and their fighters were more disorganized and wearing street clothes, so they were illegal combatants, and that means terrorists, and that made it was legal for us to torture them and their friends. You can't just blame this on a few rich people wanting to profit from the war and become more rich because after Roe v Wade our religion has been supporting those rich people down the line, so if you disagree with what we are doing then you are fighting against Christianity.
No Jim, what im talkin about is rapes, killing babies in the name of christianity in Iraq!
Terorism is always terrorism no matter motivated by christianity or islam, no matter made by state or group; all of them are terrorism! What israel state is doing in Gazza by killing babies, bombing hospiatls is also terrorism. What aborigin reactors doing by burning clinics in the name of christianity is also terrorism. And what uncontrolled, deceived groups founded by Osama are doing also terroism by killing innocent people. All the mentioned states and groups are acting in the name of their religion. But some nazists tend to only see one side of the story!
"There are a lot of similarities between Muslim and Christian extremists - but why is it that some Christians only criticize Islam as being a "religion of violence"? Perhaps because the connections between those Christians and the Christian terrorists are so close that it would be unwise to draw any attention to it, so it's better just to pretend that only Islam is violent."
I don't think you can draw attention to it. When it comes to religion, we have ADD.
Reed, I don't think US society is so static that you can divide it into
"the rich" and "the poor". The society is more fluid than that.
The left may also disempower people by telling them they are victims at the mercy of social forces and cannot rise by their own efforts.
When people talk about "Christian violence" they keep dragging out the same 2 guys, Scott and Timothy. Christians don't throw huge murderous "communal riots". Yet.
Hitler thought Christianity was too wimpy for Nazis and wanted to replace it with Islam, or the old Germanic paganism.
When the money changers get control of religion, things are simple, but it can be hard to see because part of the money gets invested in making things seem complex.
Money changers are always in control of the church, or I dare say, the mosque. Your religion is your own.
You will see many many people, and many groups, organzations. whatever, First lie there is no1 killing people in the name of christianity. When i show you those terorists, then say a few, and do not accept some of them as terroism, and whenever a muslim kills, mud into islam: that proves only how your minds became nazist! when i mention about nazism im not talkin about hitler im talking about a mindset which categorise people and prejudge them because what they are, prejudge what they are. There is no difference between saying jews are killing innocent babies because it is what they told in torah , or saying muslims kills innocent people since islam says, or saying enquisitions shows what christianity is, or saying enquisitions shows how cruel and primitive christianity is. all of them were killed innocent people in the name of their god! your blind eyes or nazist minds can not see that! WTF? If a muslim kills an innocent for islam, it is the fault of islam, but if jews kills an innocent baby for Mosis, it is self-deffence, if a christian kills innocent people it is their fault.
Let me end with a qoran sentence:
Whoever kills one person, he is alike killed all humanbeing, whoever salvates a person, he is alike salvated all the humanbeing.
Just shame on you who muds without knowledge and totally by prejudges which all brainwashing of their media and education system!
If you say the trueth; Israel state (not jews) is killing babies with chemical mass destruction weapons; your answer will be you are anti-semitic, dont you know if iran bombs israel. Where iran has bombed so far? But israil and use bombed a lot of place and killed hnderds of thousands innocent people!
If you say Islam, (not muslims wants people to make terror, this will be your explanation not nazist approach huh?
If you have conscinece you will explore trueth, you will not be deceived by your media monkeys. Do not be an sheep in a fold, believing every lie emposed to you!
Or if you do not have a conscience do whatever you want. make more genosides, kill all muslims if you can!
as you will closed to trueth you will accept the true history, innumerous genoside made by western (christians), in europe, in endulus, in africa, in australia, in america, in india, allover the world
At one level what you say in your post is true. These three religions have all been killing, they primarily kill each other, and they collectively are guilty of making the world the dangerous place it is today. At another level, there are subtle differences in the killings. The Jews kill because they don't want to appear weak, and if anyone is to be exterminated they don't want it to be them. The Muslims kill because they feel their land, their natural resources, and their way of life are being threatened by a superior power. The Christians led by the American superpower kill because they are trying to establish a world order where everyone (meaning the rich) can increase their level of profit. The human species expands by exploiting the envoronment, any and all environments, and Americans are just better at this than anyone else.
The only solution to this problem will be found in the American political system. If we can get contol over our greed, and start to run the world for the benefit of humankind in genenral, and make Israel agree to a two state solution, then Muslims can relax a little and live their lives and the world can have peace. If we don't, then we can take the whole world down with because we can kill everyone else much more effeciently than they can kill us, and whatever they try to do to bring peace won't work because our rich people will never be satisfied as long as there are environments that haven't been exploited to the max.
Jim, it is good to see we can build consensus in common sense. But let me remind some facts:
-anti abortion terror movement has nothing to do with order.
-American superpower attemption for commonwealth of the world is a big lie, let's say partially lie. You must know the power of american power of weapon indusrty as lobby, oil companies as lobby. The wars make them richer not homeless people without health insurance in new york.
-Most pollution of environment sourced by The US and Europe, not from people of africa which starving but The US companies still try to sell weapons to them using briberries. The companies are innocent, they have to think their stockholders!
- Let's assume the attemption has perfect aims, would that give the right to kill innocent people? To rape poor ladies?
- Let's keep the assumption, which aim is higher, self-deffence for invasion or invasion? Palestinian people had had those lands and their lans are keeped invade non-stop by settlers by the hands of israil State and ressitants are blamed to be terroists, their homes destroyed. Have you heard Rachel Corrie who is an american girl resisted against Israel destruction bulldozzers and crashed her 17 year old bones under pallets just like many other palestinans?
- Does the fear of extermination gives right of making extermination and killing babies and women? In Israel, media are celebrating the score of killed babies and children at Gazza Invasion.
- Some Israel parties are demonstrate establishment of US as example saying that they have killed 100 million american indian to secure the land so why dont we.
Now let's come to another issue best or better.
4 Million orphanes at Iraq eats democracy everyday. many of the one million widows in Iraq feels american freedom inside their vagina! 100 millions of people africa paying weapon fees to eat them just in order american weapon companies to make money for free citizens of america! do not say this is their fault, they even do not have school and their policymakers are bribbed by american companies or if they do not accept then assasinated. read the book "confessions of an economic hitman" written by John Perkins, former cia agent. Whenever people of africa resist they are named as terrorist countries!
Dear friend, this system does not work for africa, for islam world, for christian world, for noone! this system works for just a few richest families and biggest companies. To change this unbalance towards commonwealth of all nations of the world is in our hands. What we need to do is not much:
- first step is to investigate truth beyond the stories emposed to us.
- second step is to tell these facts to our friends and encourage them to do what we did. tHat is all.
- if you are an activist you may be organised to affect governments to act benefits of all nations.
Well, indeed Obama is trying to do some good actions, but can he resist to the companies band?
I feel pains of an new yorker homeless people living by fortune as i feel pain of palestinan baby affected by phosphore bomb and lost his arms as well as i feel pains of people orphanes lost their parents at 9/11 terrorist attack.
We must, we have to unite our pains, integrate common humanistic feelings. Then we can build a world in peace and wealth. Our compass should be our conscience, we must be able to say that if my profit damages someone else's life then i am a killer.
Peace, friend
What can we do that will help? Uniting in our pain and integrating common humanistic feelings sounds good, but I don't think that would be enough. It doesn't seem to work. Talking about the facts with our friends doesn't work for me, it just upsets people. I don't know what to do. Perhaps this is a time to just listen. I appreciate you putting in the effort to work with the language because you are raising so many important issues, things that are good for us to hear. Perhaps that is a first step.
Of course, to learn biting truth is boring, disturbing and it would not attract anyone. Then do no talk about facts. Alternative plan is to access truth by personally
1. If u follow news, keep in mind this media group is a company group including oil and weapon industry firms, so they have to consider their profit. Therefore it is simply true they manipulate the news. So you can easily read between the lines of manipulated news.
2. Knowing (1.) try to get news from alternative channels.
3. Now, you have correct information, if someone else tries to tell you media lies, then you can demonstrate reality against manipulations.
Believe me friend, this little attitude will make change firstly you, next your friends and it will spread at a geometrical rate.
So key is to access true stories from different channels.
It is very hard in this world while almost all news agencies are western. But thanks to internet it is easy.
i must be very happy since i confused a cu of matrix with socrates. But i know this motto at least 10 years before the movie. now im very confused.
I have heard people complain about hearing what they don't want to hear. Not so much the first time, you say one thing and they say someting else. If you try to keep things focused on the biting truth, they find it so boring, they have already heard that once and they never want to hear it again. They want to keep hearing things they agree with. For things they disagree with, once is more than enough.
Geometrical spread rate might eventually become fast, but it starts slow. I guess that is just the geometry of geometrical rate. What if you make the change first, but then you have no friends to change?
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.