Raise a hand if you’ve heard statements like this on blogs, articles and various comment forums:
- India was the greatest power in the world for thousands of years
- Muslim invaders came and destroyed Indian culture
- Indian knowledge was far ahead of its time and was the envy of the world
- India had the greatest philosophers
- India had the wisest kings
- India had the best warriors
- The British stole India’s Kohinoor! etc etc.
You get the idea..
They are made with the utmost passion and are usually followed by a tirade of how India has fallen from greatness, has embraced “western imperialism” and needs to get back to its roots. Modern society is degenerating, homosexuals are roaming freely, and women are “losing their modesty”. Honestly, I’m astounded at how often I hear such nonsense.
Let’s assume it’s all true. Obviously there’s a good amount of idealization, glorification and whitewashing, but I’m going to ignore it for now. Pretend that India was the greatest jewel on the planet for thousands of years, that all the rulers were paragons of virtue, justice and wisdom. Give in to the belief that evil Muslims came and destroyed everything great about this paradise hundreds of years ago and imposed their barbaric rule, culture and laws upon it.
I may be asking for too much I know, but bear with me. Now that we’ve descended into self delusion and absorbed this nauseatingly glorified past, I have just one question.
So…bloody…what??
Indians living today share nothing but a few bits of DNA with our long dead ancestors. We didn’t know them. They certainly didn’t know us. We have no connection to them. But still we want to somehow claim greatness based on their (supposedly) lofty stature in the past. In effect, we want to bask in undeserved glory. The reality is that the deeds of those before don’t confer superiority on us today. Those who lived and died hundreds of years ago are strangers to us.
It means nothing. We have no business to feel proud.
I’ll tell you the kind of people who look to the past to find glory and feel better about themselves. Those who have no achievements of their own. People who think themselves so worthless and without anything to brag about that they have to dig up old glories of India – imagined or not – to elevate themselves and compensate for their current failings.
The atrocities committed hundreds or thousands of years ago have no bearing today. Those responsible have long since died and crumbled to dust, beyond the reach of our laws. Even those who suffered have been extinguished. The past is past. Let bygones by bygones.
Advocates of the past justify bringing up these old non-wounds by saying we must “learn from history” and trot out that famous saying “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This might have been valid if there was a danger today of Muslim hordes overrunning India today. If there was a risk of barbarians on horses frothing at the mouth waiting to convert every Hindu into a Muslim.
But there are no such barbarians today. There is no threat. We have far bigger problems than Islamic terrorism threatening us. Perhaps we’re afraid of tackling them and so find an easy target to blame everything on. It’s the evil Sonia Gandhi and her Christian pals in Rome! It’s the minority appeasing Congress that wants to convert every Hindu into a Muslim and impose Sharia law!
If only things were that simple and the enemy was so clearly outlined. But they’re not. Nothing is simple. We have far deeper and real systemic problems which we need to address. Finding an enemy to swing a sword at is just childish. We desperately need to grow up.
“If you don’t know any specific names, you can’t say you’re in danger since “terrorist” is a very vague term unlike “Naxals” who have a charter in writing and formal membership.”
So if an unnamed terrorist belonging to a loosely organized group without a formal charter kills me, I was never in any danger from that organization? Do you realize how absurd that is? The fact that “terrorist”is a vague term is completely irrelevant. Killing is killing whether it is done by a tightly organized group with a formal charter, or by a loosely organized group without one. Period. The level of organization of a group is completely irrelevant to how potent they are. A poorly organized group could very well be more dangerous than a loosely organized group, because it has better weapons, more money, more weapons, better leadership, etc. You’re just arbitrarily adding absurd conditions to whitewash terrorism. Plus, Islamic terrorist groups are not exactly unorganized. They have leadership, objectives, strategy, etc.
“In fact, Naxals are a far more dangerous threat than so called “Terrorists” as I mentioned in my post a year ago.
Terrorism is an insignificant problem. Hardly anyone is killed compared to real threats like Naxalism.”
Repeating a lie a hundred times does not make it true. As I have said before, you demonstrate jack shit in your post.
1) You analyzed ONE year to determine the threat level to India for all time. That’s too small a sample size, as any scientist or statistician will tell you.
2) You analyze numbers only and say that Naxalism is a bigger threat than Islam because fewer people are killed by Islamic terrorists. But so what? If fewer people are killed, it is DESPITE the intentions of the terrorist in question. It only means that Indian security forces are doing their job properly and defusing threat after threat after threat. The terrorists in question don’t become less threatening because of this, any more than jailed serial killers become less murderous simply because prison guards keep thwarting their escape attempts. The motivation is still of the same intensity. You, can’t just ignore this and expect anyone to take your half baked conclusions seriously.
3) You ignore the fact that Islamic jihad is a world wide phenomenon, and that all these Islamic terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda, Jaish e Muhammad, Hizbul Mujahideen, The Muslim Brotherhood, etc. are all connected and support each other, and receive the support of governments like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Naxalites have a much smaller network. Indian Naxals, for instance, are not supported by the Peruvian Shining path. Though they are supported by Nepal and China, this support is dwarfed by that of oil money.
4) You ignore the fact that Naxalism is fueled by poverty, whether it is in China, Nepal, or India. That’s why it has no virtually support in developed countries. In contrast, jihadi fanaticism is fueled by crude, irrational religious hatred taught by Islam, which is why even rich oil sheiks fund it, and why it is spreading in developed countries like the US and UK. So it is that much more dangerous. Maoism has only been around for a few decades, while Islam has been around for 1400 years and has killed for all that time. It’s more entrenched, and harder to get rid of. You can’t ignore the ideological component here.
5) Islamic terrorists kill people ever single day of the year, all over the world, while Naxalites are limited only to India. Jihad overseas affects Indians because, again, these jihadi terrorist organizations want the entire planet under Islam. India is also their enemy. Even if they don’t directly kill Indians, they support it.
In short, your post is laughably ignorant and superficial, which is made even more painfully apparent by your pompous proffering of your “research” as though its thoroughness automatically ends all argument. You dismiss and ignore crucial factors that need to be taken into account when comparing Naxalism and jihad. So stop referring to it as though it’s some kind of strategic gospel. It’s not even close. It’s virtually worthless, like many of your other analyses.
Also, remember that I’m not just talking about Islam. I see India’s sharia courts as a treat, I see illegal Bangladeshi immigration as a threat, I see states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as threats too. They have members who support jihad. Remember that I’m talking about Islam, not just terrorism.
In reply to Sasank
The fact that “terrorist”is a vague term is completely irrelevant. Killing is killing …
Excellent. I agree. So let’s stop calling them terrorists and call them murderers instead. We need to stop differentiating between various types of murders. Motivation is irrelevant.
You analyzed ONE year
You’re free to prove me wrong by analyzing other years. Do that and then we’ll talk.
It only means that Indian security forces are doing their job
That’s a new one! It’s the incompetence of terrorists that’s the more likely cause.
You ignore the fact that Naxalism is fueled by poverty
Refer to above. Killing is killing etc…motivations are irrelevant. The law doesn’t care about your the motivations of naxalites.
while Naxalites are limited only to India
While I live in India, they’re a bigger threat to me personally. So I naturally care more about them.
Islam has been around for 1400 years
Irrelevant.
India’s sharia courts as a threat
Where are these courts? The Indian criminal code is the same for all citizens.
I’m talking about Islam
Prove to me that Islam in general is a threat. I know lots of Muslims who are not terrorists. As I had written earlier, violent Muslims only constitute 0.01% (at best) of Muslimvfollowers. So no…Islam is not a threat.
That’s supposed to be “I’m not just talking about terrorism” in the last paragraph.
Also I meant that I see sharia courts as a threat, not treat.
“Excellent. I agree. So let’s stop calling them terrorists and call them murderers instead. We need to stop differentiating between various types of murders. Motivation is irrelevant.”
No, motivation is very much important. It is because people ignore the fact that Islamic fanatics are motivated by religious hatred that they continue to look for political or social solutions to the problem of terrorism. But the root cause is religious, and so long as people ignore that, Islamic violence and destruction will continue.
“You’re free to prove me wrong by analyzing other years. Do that and then we’ll talk.”
The fact that Islam is violent and a threat to mankind is in and of itself proof that you’re wrong.
“That’s a new one! It’s the incompetence of terrorists that’s the more likely cause.”
That’s your opinion, no doubt. But it’s not necessarily true.
“Refer to above. Killing is killing etc…motivations are irrelevant. The law doesn’t care about your the motivations of naxalites.”
The law may not. But people who want to solve the problem of Islamic hate should. You can’t solve a problem unless you correctly identify the cause. And the cause is religious hate, and it is indeed relevant.
“While I live in India, they’re a bigger threat to me personally. So I naturally care more about them.”
Doesn’t matter. Islamic fanaticism is a global threat, and therefore more a threat than a regional threat. That you don’t consider it threatening doesn’t change that.
“Where are these courts? The Indian criminal code is the same for all citizens.”
Really? Tell that to the Islamic court that ordered this guy’s hand chopped off.
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jul/07/islamic-court-ordered-chopping-of-profs-palm.htm
Or the Islamic court in Kashmir that tried to expel this pastor on charges of forced conversions
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-29/india/30336102_1_fresh-summons-christian-priest-conversions
Plus I’m not just talking about criminal cases. The very fact that there are Islamic courts that judge on anything at all is threatening because they encourage Islam.
“Irrelevant”
1400 years of death and killing that show no sign of stopping is indeed relevant.
“Prove to me that Islam in general is a threat. I know lots of Muslims who are not terrorists.”
I figured you’d use the “My friend is a Muslim and he’s a nice guy” excuse. That’s generally one of the ones that comes up first. Too bad your friend can’t change the fact that millions of Muslims wage violent jihad against infidels as Islam teaches. See here:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/My_Friend_is_a_Muslim_and_He%27s_Really_Nice
“As I had written earlier, violent Muslims only constitute 0.01% (at best) of Muslimvfollowers. So no…Islam is not a threat.”
Ah, the “small minority of extremists” excuse. Refuted here:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/But_it_is_Just_a_Small_Minority_of_Extremists
At any rate, it’s completely irrelevant. Whether or not Islam is or is not a threat is not based on how many Muslims are violent, but on how much damage they do, and what Islam itself really teaches. And what Islam really teaches is hate. Most people in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia were normal, but that didn’t stop these states from unleashing unspeakable evils upon the world as a result of the evil minority. Given that these violent Muslims control oppressive, destructive governments, given that they have slaughtered thousands of people the world over and rack up more dead bodies every single day, given that they kill more people in a single day than all the KKK did in half a century of racist hate, I’d say that Islam is indeed a threat.
As far as your post on Biblical violence is concerned, that is refuted here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm
and here: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/10/why-im-worried-about-islam-but-not.html
The violence in the Old Testament of the Bible is very specifically intended towards certain groups, Caananites, Jebusites, whatever and that too, for a specific time. That’s why the modern state of Israel does not stone people to death for adultery, for instance, a depressingly common practice in the Islamic world. In contrast, Islamic violence is open ended, towards any infidel or apostate, at any time. You generalize all violence in religious scriptures as being essentially the same, but the reality is that Islamic scriptures are simply more violent, verse for verse, than their Judeo-Christian counterparts.
See:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_political_violence_of_the.html
and
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html
for more details.
As far as the actual doctrinal tenets that make Islam violent see here:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm
In your old post, you mention the idea that anyone can cherry pick verses from the Quran to prove that Islam is peaceful. The problem with this is that these verses are almost inevitably Meccan verses, verses that were ‘revealed’ to the prophet Muhammad when Islam was in its infancy, when he had only a small following and could not truly hurt anyone for fear of the authorities in Mecca getting fed up with his shit. This constitutes a very small portion of the Quran. See here:
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-good-in-the-koran/
Later, Muhammad gained followers and increased in military might, and then he started doing some very bad things:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge/the-challenge/
Muhammad abrogated all of the good verses in the Quran to justify this murder, rape, and theft.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/09/definition-of-abrogation.html
It is because Muhammad’s followers are exhorted to imitate him in every way on pain of hellfire that Muslims all over the world do horrible things. For instance, when a Muslim imam brainwashes his audience, saying that that Jews are supposed to be killed,
http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3221.htm
…he’s only telling them to do what Muhammad did, and therefore what the verses in the Quran command Muslims to do. Each verse in the Quran was “revealed” to Muhammad in response to specific events in his life, which form the much touted “context” of those verses.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/satire/massacre-of-bani-quraiza-muslim-ummahs-happiest-day/
“Because Muhammad said so” is literally the reason why that Islamic court commanded that that professor’s hand get chopped off. He was lucky. The punishment is generally death.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Blasphemy#Hadith_and_Other_Islamic_Writings
So you see? The past is relevant. Muhammad died centuries ago, but his message of hate and destruction is still here, alive and kicking, if not killing.
In reply to Sasank
I disagree. Motivations are irrelevant from a law and order perspective. Dead is dead. From my point of view, I would feel just as sad if my wife died in a Naxal attack or an Islamic terrorist bombing.
The fact that Islam is violent and a threat to mankind
If that was true, every single Muslim in the world would be violent. I’ve already addressed this flaw in my previous comment.
Islamic fanaticism is a global threat
This is better. Do you make a distinction between “Islamic fanaticism” and “Islam” in general? Because if not, you just assume that every Muslim in the world is a fanatic terrorist. That’s laughably wrong.
1400 years of death and killing that show no sign of stopping is indeed relevant.
The past is irrelevant once more. Also, we’re living in the most peaceful time in human history.
Tell that to the Islamic court that ordered this guy’s hand chopped off.
That was illegal. When you used the word “law” I assume you’re talking about legal courts.
The very fact that there are Islamic courts that judge on anything at all is threatening because they encourage Islam.
Even Hindus and Parsis have their own civil laws in India. So this not unique to Islam. I would have no problems if 100% of India is Muslim since I have no problems with Muslims per se as long as they leave me alone.
As for the rest of your post, you have to explain to me why every single Muslim is not a terrorist as per your logic.
“I disagree. Motivations are irrelevant from a law and order perspective. Dead is dead. From my point of view, I would feel just as sad if my wife died in a Naxal attack or an Islamic terrorist bombing.”
I’m not talking about a law and order perspective. I never was. I’m really not sure why you brought that up at all, because I’m talking about a problem solving perspective. In order to solve the problem of Islamic terror, you have to know the cause. It is because people keep trying to solve it using political or social solutions that Islamic terror that it continues to exist. They keep ignoring the fact that Islam is the problem. Don’t you want to solve the problem of Islamic terror?
“If that was true, every single Muslim in the world would be violent. I’ve already addressed this flaw in my previous comment.”
Ah, yes. The “Why Aren’t All Muslims Violent?” excuse. Refuted here
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Millions_of_Muslims_in_This_Country_and_They%27re_Not_Blowing_Things_Up
and here
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm#islamnotviolent
Most Muslims don’t kill or hurt people because they haven’t read their own religious scriptures. It’s when they actually start understanding and believing them that things get hairy. That’s why these so called “moderate” Muslims are potential time bombs, or sleeper cells. Take Siraj Wahaj, for instance. He delivered the first Muslim prayer opening the US House of Representatives. Surely he’s a nice guy? Yet, he has called for the overthrow of the US government and the establishment of a caliphate in the US, and was an un indicted co conspirator in a plot to do exactly that. To date, he has not yet killed anyone, or even hurt anyone. But that doesn’t make him any less of a threat.
http://www.danielpipes.org/77/the-danger-within-militant-islam-in-america
“This is better. Do you make a distinction between “Islamic fanaticism” and “Islam” in general? Because if not, you just assume that every Muslim in the world is a fanatic terrorist. That’s laughably wrong.”
I am against Islam. Whether the ideology of Islam is or is not a threat is entirely independent of how many terrorists or fanatics there actually are. And, for the record, there are millions, as I’ve linked above.
“The past is irrelevant once more.”
No it isn’t. Muslims have been slaughtering people for thousands of years, and they aren’t stopping anytime soon. That only shows how threatening Islam is because it shows the true scale of the body count. Simply saying” It isn’t relevant” like a broken record proves nothing and is an example of the Bare Assertion Fallacy. To disconnect Islam’s past is to artificially decrease the number of victims of this sick ideology, and whitewash its threat level.
“Also, we’re living in the most peaceful time in human history.”
So? Even if you’re right, that still doesn’t change the fact that Islam is a threat. The Islamic world is one of the most oppressive, backward, violent places on the planet. It’s stuck in the medieval age. In the past two months alone, Islamic terrorists have killed hundreds of people all over the planet. They kill more people in a ONE year than the much maligned Spanish Inquisition did in 350 years, and that was during a time when everyone was backward and violent, showing exactly how much destruction and oppression is concentrated in that part of the world.
Plus, I’m not just talking about killing. I’m talking about the lack of human rights that Islam gives to women and religious minorities. I’m talking about Islam’s wholesale rejection of democracy and its advocating on mutilation as legal punishment and its endorsement of torture and human slavery. This all takes place every single day of the year in the Islamic world. So even we are living in the most peaceful time in human history, that doesn’t change the fact that Islam is a threat that needs to be removed if the world is to become more peaceful.
“That was illegal. When you used the word “law” I assume you’re talking about legal courts.”
So? The only reason that court existed is because India gives Muslims the freedom to set them up. When you allow people to set up Islamic courts, and allow them to rule according to Islamic law, that’s exactly the kind of thing that they are going to do, because that’s what Islamic law promotes. Islamic courts don’t care whether something is legal according to Indian law or not, because to them, Islamic law comes from God while Indian law is man made. So long as Islamic courts are allowed to function, things like this will continue to happen. That’s why Islamic courts must be banned. If hand chopping doesn’t occur on a regular basis, its despite what Islamic law calls for, and despite what the clerics on those courts want to do. Like it or not, that guy would not have lost his hand if Islamic courts were banned.
“Even Hindus and Parsis have their own civil laws in India. So this not unique to Islam.”
Islamic civil law encourages Islam and is dangerous because of it.
” I would have no problems if 100% of India is Muslim since I have no problems with Muslims per se as long as they don’t leave me alone.”
But they won’t leave you alone. They never do. Religious minorities (and that includes atheists) suffer in every Muslim majority state on the planet. The higher the percentage of Muslims in a country, the more terror, violence, militancy, oppression and hate that country has:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675
In this case, correlation does indeed equal causation, because it is Muslims who are causing it. As their population increases, so does the hemorrhaging, because there is a higher percentage of Muslims and a smaller percentage of non Muslims for them to pick on, and therefore a weaker opposition, which continues to shrink, leading to a vicious cycle. That’s why the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as the percentage of Christians in Middle Eastern countries, has dropped drastically in the past few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan#Demography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Bangladesh#Demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Middle_East#Persecution_of_Christians_in_Middle_East
In reply to Sasank
Please don’t send me to multiple outside links. If I choose to, I too can go tell you to read some books. But since this is a discussion between us, I’d appreciate it if you just made your point succinctly using your own logic.
Now to the main point. Your contention is that only Muslims ignorant of their religion are nonviolent. This is not true. I know many Muslims were deeply religious and still abhor violence. Several of them are my friends, and so this is not hypothetical. You also persist in ignoring the statistics which show that only the truly miniscule percentage of Muslims are violent.
Did you know that Christianity allows you to kill your neighbor to see them working on a Sunday? And you still think Christianity is not as barbaric as Islam?
Islamic criminal courts are NOT legal in India. So I don’t understand how you can say that India gives them the freedom to set them up. There’s no need to ban Islamic courts since they are already illegal.
So in the end you still haven’t answered my basic question. Why are there so many educated and deeply religious Muslims who still abhor violence? Till you can explain this I see little point in continuing this discussion.
“Please don’t send me to multiple outside links. If I choose to, I too can go tell you to read some books. But since this is a discussion between us, I’d appreciate it if you just made your point succinctly using your own logic.”
My contention is that Islam is a violent, hate filled religion. I can’t prove that unless I cite Islamic doctrine as proof. If you don’t want to talk about that, fine. But if you don’t you can’t say
“But there are no such barbarians today. There is no threat. We have far bigger problems than Islamic terrorism threatening us. Perhaps we’re afraid of tackling them and so find an easy target to blame everything on. It’s the evil Sonia Gandhi and her Christian pals in Rome! It’s the minority appeasing Congress that wants to convert every Hindu into a Muslim and impose Sharia law!
If only things were that simple and the enemy was so clearly outlined. But they’re not. Nothing is simple. We have far deeper and real systemic problems which we need to address. Finding an enemy to swing a sword at is just childish. We desperately need to grow up.”
Especially not with that nauseatingly smarmy tone, as though you’ve got it all figured out. You clearly don’t. You’re speaking from a position of ignorance. And that’s fine. But your pronouncements should reflect that. You can’t simply pass judgment on things you don’t understand, let alone sneer at people who actually do understand, and are concerned about the threat.
“Now to the main point. Your contention is that only Muslims ignorant of their religion are nonviolent. This is not true. I know many Muslims were deeply religious and still abhor violence. Several of them are my friends, and so this is not hypothetical. ”
I know plenty of religious Muslims too. Some of them are my close personal friends, and have been so for years. Many Muslims are peaceful, because humans are peaceful in general. But that doesn’t change the fact that Islam teaches hate and violence. If our friends don’t know that, they don’t know Islam. Praying, fasting, donating to the poor, going on pilgrimage, wearing a burqa, none of these things actually constitute knowledge of Muhammad’s life, or Islamic history, or Islamic doctrine.
“You also persist in ignoring the statistics which show that only the truly miniscule percentage of Muslims are violent.”
The threat level of an ideology is completely unrelated to the number of adherents it has. Plus, that “minuscule percentage” is still millions. And they have more influence than “moderate” Muslims, since the former control governments and are armed to the teeth, and have more money. The Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, is the largest Islamic organization in the world, and they created Hamas and Al Qaeda. That’s not a “extremist fringe” that’s “devout mainstream.” Plus, you can support hate without actually participating in it. There are supposedly “moderate” Muslim organizations in the US, like the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the Islamic Society of North America, that claim to be peaceful but actually support violence and hate. There are Muslims who never harm a fly in their entire life, yet support the cause of jihad by falsifying history (the Palestinian “nation” being an excellent example) breeding non Muslims out of existence, unknowingly or knowingly sending money to finance jihad, distorting the media to ignore or misrepresent jihad, accusing anyone who actually exposes this kind of thing as being racist/Islamophobic/bigoted/hateful/fascist, etc. Simply by promoting “moderate” Islam, by raising your kinds as Muslims, for instance, you’re supporting jihad, because Muslim kids always have the potential of actually understanding and accepting Islam’s tenets, and killing people.
“Did you know that Christianity allows you to kill your neighbor to see them working on a Sunday? And you still think Christianity is not as barbaric as Islam?”
Yes. Jesus, for all his flaws, mostly taught good things, and even those bad things weren’t blank checks for killing, raping, stealing etc. as Muhammad taught. That is why in Christian majority countries, people aren’t killed for breaking the Sabbath, even in countries where Christianity is the state religion. Mainstream Christian authorities generally agree that most OT laws were rendered unnecessary with Jesus’ death and sacrifice. Mainstream Muslim authorities, on the other hand, believe in the opposite, since Islam does not limit its commandments to a particular people, place or time, as the OT generally does. That is why the Islamic world is still in the Dark Ages, and people are in fact killed for adultery, witch craft, idolatry, etc.
In reply to Sasank
I can’t prove that unless I cite Islamic doctrine as proof.
Experience shows me that selective quotation from religious texts can be used to prove anything. Literally. There is a very large class of conservative Christians who insist that the earth is only 6000 years old as mentioned in the Bible. And yet the overwhelming majority of Christians don’t believe that.
If our friends don’t know that, they don’t know Islam.
No. The real reason is that they choose to ignore violent passages in the Koran. People’s mind is not like a sponge which blindly absorbs everything that comes into it. People accept only that which fits under the circumstances. When circumstances change, their interpretation also changes.
The threat level of an ideology is completely unrelated to the number of adherents it has.
This is obviously not true. I can make up my own religion tomorrow which is extremely violent and it would still not be a threat because no one would care to follow it.
And they have more influence than “moderate” Muslims, since the former control governments
Finally you admit that the problem is political. In countries like India and the US, extreme Islamic fanatics have no political power at all. They can only thrive in the appropriate political environment. Otherwise no.
Mainstream Christian authorities generally agree that most OT laws were rendered unnecessary
This is only a convenient interpretation. In truth, Jesus himself specifically stated that the Old Testament was still as valid as ever. And here you demonstrate an important truth. As a civilization progresses, the violent elements in a religion are “tone down” – not changed. There is every reason to believe that as the political and socioeconomic conditions of Islamic countries improves, the violent elements in Islam will suffer a similar fate.
“Islamic criminal courts are NOT legal in India. So I don’t understand how you can say that India gives them the freedom to set them up. There’s no need to ban Islamic courts since they are already illegal.”
They set up a court and run it, claiming its for civil suits, and then start using it for criminal cases. They pervert the autonomy given to them. Why do you think that no one questioned that court UNTIL that professor lost his hand? Everyone assumed it was a legal court, since after all THAT is legal. Everyone would have been shocked if India had banned ALL Islamic courts, but people like you adopt a “chalta hai” attitude,and whoops, there goes a hand. Give jihad an inch, and it grabs a mile. So that’s why there should be no Islamic courts at all, neither civil, nor criminal. No courts, no hajj subsidy, no halal meat, no burqas, nothing that promotes Islam.
In reply to Sasank
There’s certainly no reason to believe that anyone ever thought that the order to cut off the professor’s hand was legal. The very fact that the miscreants ran away shows that they knew that what they were doing was illegal.
I do agree however that we need a uniform Civil Code and that there is no place for special treatment to any religion by the government including a hajj subsidy.
“Experience shows me that selective quotation from religious texts can be used to prove anything. Literally. There is a very large class of conservative Christians who insist that the earth is only 6000 years old as mentioned in the Bible. And yet the overwhelming majority of Christians don’t believe that.”
The Bible is vague enough to support that kind of thing. The Quran is very specific; there’s virtually no room for peaceful interpretations, because the Islamic scriptures anticipate this peaceful interpretation and reject it. It is important to remember here that, unlike the Bible, which was written by many people over many times using different types of writing (poetry, allegory, etc.) the Quran was recited by one man, and to fit his purposes. Muhammad only had one life, and his actions are the ultimate guide for those who want to know how to be good Muslims. That’s why there are virtually no Christians who are against some sort of peaceful interpretation of Christianity, but millions of Muslims around the world who reject “peaceful Islam” because Muhammad unambiguously rejected it.
The moderates who advocate a peaceful interpretation are inevitably outnumbered by the violent ones as the Islamic population goes, precisely because there so little ambiguity. We know this because that’s what happened in every single “moderate” Islamic state, whether it is Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, or Indonesia, which are all either fanatical, or spiraling downward. Sooner or later, they collapse into hate and oppression, because Islam promotes it.
“No. The real reason is that they choose to ignore violent passages in the Koran. People’s mind is not like a sponge which blindly absorbs everything that comes into it. People accept only that which fits under the circumstances. When circumstances change, their interpretation also changes.”
People ignore it because they don’t know Islam prohibits ignoring it on pain of execution in this life, and hellfire in the next. So they are indeed ignorant. If circumstances were all that mattered, there would be no native born jihadists in the West, because the “circumstances” support peace, freedom, and human rights. The socioeconomic conditions are better in the West, so, theoretically, there should be no jihad. And yet the jihadist tribe is increasing. Why? because people don’t WANT to ignore the violent message. They want to practice it, because they get hellfire if they don’t, and heavenly rewards if they do. People who ignore it do so because they respect Western freedoms. But Islam teaches that Western freedoms are man made nonsense that have to be eliminated in favor of God’s law, again, on pain of death in this life, and hell in the next. So there is literally no theological motivation to be peaceful.
“This is obviously not true. I can make up my own religion tomorrow which is extremely violent and it would still not be a threat because no one would care to follow it.”
I should have said “not necessarily related to the threat level of that ideology.” You wouldn’t be a threat at first. But then you’d slowly, stealthily gain adherents, as Muslims are doing in the West and in India. And then you’d be more and more of a threat. However, even if you were alone, and you had the political power, money, and thuggish muscle of jihadists, you’d be a threat, even if you had no adherents. Your fanatical mindset alone would cause you to use your resources for hate, and make you a threat.
“Finally you admit that the problem is political. In countries like India and the US, extreme Islamic fanatics have no political power at all. They can only thrive in the appropriate political environment. Otherwise no.”
Oh yes they do indeed have political strength in India and the West. In fact, its precisely because India and the West support concepts like freedom speech, press, religion, and assembly that it is very easy for Muslims to gain large followings. Pakistan, for instance, would never have come into being if India had Muslims banned from practicing Islam, meeting in public places, printing pro Pakistani literature, etc. Yet they did, and that is what allowed Muslims to create Pakistan, the terror capital of the world. That’s why the amount of native hate and fanaticism in the West is growing. The problem is ideological; Islam is what’s causing this Muslims to pervert Western concepts to promote jihad.
“This is only a convenient interpretation. In truth, Jesus himself specifically stated that the Old Testament was still as valid as ever. And here you demonstrate an important truth. As a civilization progresses, the violent elements in a religion are “tone down” – not changed. There is every reason to believe that as the political and socioeconomic conditions of Islamic countries improves, the violent elements in Islam will suffer a similar fate.”
And this is where history is important. 1400 years and Islam has only gotten more violent and destructive, now that Muslims have access to guns, bombs, airplanes, and concepts like political correctness, freedom of religion, etc that they can pervert to serve the cause of jihad. The Muslim world is still stuck in a 7th century mindset, precisely because, even though the “political and socioeconomic conditions of Islamic countries” has improved, Islam has not changed. Why do you think Western educated sheikhs and millionaires like Osama bin Laden support jihad? Because that’s what Islam teaches. It’s not ambiguous or open to interpretations, like Christianity is. It’s main exemplar was a monster, not a mostly decent person like Jesus. While some Christians may want a Christian state, Muslims have a theologically mandated duty to fight for one. While some Christians may want to kill people, there’s enough ambiguity to convince them not to, unlike in Islam. If Christians don’t like Christianity, they can leave. If Muslims leave, Islam says to kill them. Christians voluntarily try to do as Jesus did, but Muslims have to act as Muhammad did or be executed. This all happens in the West too; it transcends political systems.
In reply to Sasank
The Bible is vague enough to support that kind of thing.
It’s not. In fact the calculations are quite specific. There is enough reason to believe that any text can be interpreted in any way one chooses regardless of specificity. The human capacity to twist is quite vast after all.
The moderates who advocate a peaceful interpretation are inevitably outnumbered by the violent ones
This is demonstrably false. The very fact that nonviolent Muslims greatly outnumber the violent ones is proof enough.
People ignore it because they don’t know Islam prohibits ignoring it on pain of execution in this life
As I said, we’re talking about well-educated Muslims who are very aware of what the Scripture says. There are ways around everything.
Oh yes they do indeed have political strength in India and the West.
We can easily put this to the test. Can you show me one or two popular Islamist blogs which advocate violence? They can be either Indian or US blogs and they should have a wide fan following. Since political power flows from popular support, you shouldn’t have much difficulty finding examples if your assertion is true.
Whew!
Just completed a marathon reading session this Sunday afternoon.
Both of you (Bhagwad and Sasank) have succeeded in confusing me totally.
It was a like a long Wimbledon tennis match rally.
My head turned one way now and the otherway the next moment as I followed (or tried to follow) the arguments just as spectators do at Wimbledon following the movement of the ball back and forth.
Thanks to Sasank for all those links.
I plan to follow them up later.
It was a civilized debate with both of you fanatically sticking to your respective viewpoints and refusing to be persuaded by the other.
I wish our Parliamentarians could argue like the two of you.
Mercifully you both kept your gloves on.
Thanks for a lively afternoon reading session that I consider well spent
Regards
GV
In reply to G Vishwanath
For a much more even-tempered discussion, refer the Bhagwad-Ketan Panchal debates, either here or on Ketan Panchal’s blog ( I forget which- Bhagwad pls post the link if you’re interested).
Sasank gets real close to abusive with his “smarmy condescension” “sickening pathetic life” etc. Bhagwad does a very good job of ignoring these. Ketan doesnt let his emotions take over and so does a better job of marshalling his points.
Regardless, I’m on Bhagwad’s side of this debate. All I can concede to the Sasank-Ketan camp is that currently, there is more of a problem to the world with “Is” terrorism than Bhagwad is willing to admit. I suspect the “myth” part is a deliberate attempt to provoke reactions and it sure is working Bhagwad :-)
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
Ah yes – the Ketan debates :). Seems like a long time ago now! Here is a link to one of those marathons:
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/abuses-in-blog-comments.html/
Another one on Islamic terrorism GV has already found :)
In reply to G Vishwanath
My blushes GV :)
Thanks Jai for the tip.
Of course I enjoyed reading the views of Ketan, Sunil, you and others even if I didn’t find all of them entirely convincing every time.
But neither has Bhagwad been entirely convincing.
Both sides served a few aces, and there were a few faults or double faults too here and there from either side.
Sasank, in my opinion was the most skilled in presentation of his views, whether right or wrong.
He has been amazingly articulate. He comes across as passionate in his beliefs.
While he may not have been “even tempered” , at least he wasn’t abusive.
This was a volatile subject and it is easy to get inflamed and I am glad that did not happen.
I also appreciate Bhagwad for not getting provoked, even though some of Sasanks statements were provocative.
Bhagwad occasionally comes across as somewhat naive even if they appear modern and progressive.
Unintentionally perhaps he also appears to be spokesman for the congress wallas, and the BJP wallas will love to cite his views as an example of “sickularism”.
I dont buy all his arguments and feel he is giving too much benefit of doubt to the extremists.
I also feel his comparisons to accident rates are inappropriate.
I am sure, several years from now, he will have different views.
He has perhhaps not yet met a full blooded Talibani!
I will look up the debate you mentioned later.
If some one can spoon feed me the link, that would be nice indeed.
Anyway I enjoyed this debate.
I am happy with my casual and unplanned foray into this blog and have liked what I read and hope to make frequent future visits too.
Thanks to all of you for a memorable and uninterrupted blog reading session today.
Regards
GV
In reply to G Vishwanath
Here’s a link to one of the classic debates :)
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/abuses-in-blog-comments.html/