The Dragon In My Garage

Jake Shimabukuro: Dragon


The following is an excerpt from The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In the Dark by Carl Sagan.

---

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

10 Myths About Secular Humanism

While My Guitar Gently Weeps - George Harrison

by Matt Cherry & Molleen Matsumura

---

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 1.

---

Have you heard that "secular humanists are molesting your children"? According to one pamphlet they are. Have you been told secular humanism is a conspiracy by the filthy rich to pervert American life? That's what some religious leaders claim. They portray secular humanism as an insidious cancer eating away at everything good and decent. Think this "secular humanism" sounds too bad to be true? You're right.

These claims and many others are part of a mythology about secular humanism that bears no relation to reality. Yet they are all that many people ever hear about secular humanism. It's time to respond to the lies and myths. Let's set the record straight.

First, though, we have an admission to make. Some of the charges against secular humanism are true! Yes, it's true that "secular humanists don't believe in a God or an afterlife." It's true that "secular humanism encourages people to think for themselves and question authority." It's true that "secular humanism says the morality of actions should be judged by their consequences in this world."

Secular humanists plead guilty as charged to these and many other claims that show the genuine and radical differences between humanism and revealed religion. In fact, we are proud of these differences, and want to see them publicized and debated. But in addition to legitimate discussion and disagreement, there is often an attempt to demonize secular humanists. As Eric Hoffer said, in The True Believer, "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." For many religious conservatives, secular humanism is that devil.

Even the most outrageous falsehoods can be sincerely believed. The person demonizing you may be misinformed, not malicious. They may even be willing to learn. Liberal religionists might come to realize they often have more in common with secular humanism than with traditional religion. It is therefore important to respond to false claims and show what secular humanism really means.

One myth about secular humanism that we should deal with straight away is that it is a monolithic dogma. It isn't. There is no central authority and no process for indoctrinating or converting people to secular humanism. People come to secular humanism by following their own curiosity and reasoning.

In fact secular humanism is not so much a body of beliefs as a method for reaching understanding. It is an approach to life that tries to be positive, rational, realistic, and open-minded. A common approach to issues often leads to common answers. Where we describe what humanists believe, we are not expressing a doctrine or view from on high, but doing our best to state the consensus shared by our fellow secular humanists.

1. Secular humanists have no morals.

If you believe the myth that you cannot have morality without religion and God, then you are forced to one of two conclusions. Either you can say humanists have no morals, or you can concede that they have a moral code but insist they must have gotten it from religion. We'll deal with these positions in turn. Let's start by explaining humanist ethics.

Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world.

Humanist and religious morality share many basic principles because in fact both are underpinned by the fundamental human moral sense summarized in the Golden Rule: treat others with the same consideration as you would have them treat you. Humanists recognize that the common moral decencies - for example, people should not lie, steal, or kill; and they should be honest, generous, and cooperative - really are conducive to human welfare.

However, there are differences between humanist and religious moralities. Humanists realize that individuals alone cannot solve all our problems, but instead of turning to the supernatural, we believe that problems are solved by people working together, relying on understanding and creativity. That is why humanists are committed to promoting human values, human understanding, and human development. Humanists also emphasize the importance of self-determination - the right of individuals to control their own lives, so long as they do not harm others. Secular humanists, therefore, often promote causes where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice regarding sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia.

Secular humanists disagree that, without God, life can have no meaning or purpose. We believe that people create their own meaning and purpose in life. The value and significance of life comes from how we live life, not from some supposed transcendent realm. Humanists believe the meaning of life is to live a life of meaning.

The moral differences between secular humanism and religion do not justify the allegation that secular humanist have no morals. This claim is not an argument, just an insult. It merely represents the human tendency to see one's opponents as amoral.

2. Secular humanism derives its ethics from Christianity.

Some knowledge of philosophy, world history, or comparative religion should dispel this myth.

Nonreligious, humanistic moral systems existed before Christianity and independently of any monotheistic traditions. For example, consider India's materialist philosophers of 3,000 years ago (the Lokayata), the Confucians in ancient China, and the Epicureans, Skeptics, and Stoics of classical Greece and Rome.

Furthermore, the common moral decencies are found throughout the cultures of the world. Similar moral codes have evolved irrespective of religious belief or nonbelief, and Judeo-Christian morality is not unique. Scholars have found little if any original moral thinking in the Bible - the Ten Commandments were laid down by Hammurabi before Moses, just as Confucius stated the Golden Rule more than 500 years before it was attributed to Jesus.

On the other hand, liberal Christianity has been deeply influenced by humanism. The most important moral and political concepts of the modern era have developed out of humanistic thinking. You will search the Bible in vain for opposition to slavery or support for democracy and equality of the sexes!

3. The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion.

This myth is based on a misunderstanding about how Supreme Court decisions are written, and was finally laid to rest by a Federal Circuit Court ruling issued in 1994.

In the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Such footnotes, known as "dicta," are written to provide factual background to the legal principles in a decision. These dicta never have the force of law. They are merely comments.

The claim that secular humanism can be considered a religion for legal purposes was finally considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District. In this 1994 case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case; they refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion.

"But," you might ask, "even if secular humanism isn't a religion for legal purposes, isn't it really a religion in practical terms?" No. Look at it this way: Suppose Justice Black had been writing about an issue of interstate commerce in agricultural products, and in a footnote he included "apples" in a list of root crops. He would be wrong. It wouldn't matter what laws were involved-apples are fruits, not roots! As a factual matter, he was partly wrong about Buddhism because some branches of Buddhism do worship the Buddha as a deity. And he was wrong about secular humanism.

Secular humanism is not a religion by any definition: There are no supernatural beliefs, no creeds that all humanists are required to accept, no sacred texts or required rituals. Humanists are not expected or required to have "faith" in what is said by any authority, living or dead, human or "supernatural."

People may find values and meaning in life through either humanistic or religious worldviews. But religions claim that meaning is based on a god or the supernatural, while humanists derive their meaning and values from the natural world. Secular humanism is a naturalistic, nonreligious worldview.

4. Secular humanism worships humankind.

The idea that "humanists replace God with Man" seems to arise from a tendency among many Christians to assume that other religions and worldviews have a structure and content that parallels Christianity. So, since "Christians" worship Christ, humanists must worship humans.

But secular humanism is not a religion and humanists don't worship anything. We are far too realistic to worship humanity. While we recognize that all human beings have the potential to do good, we also realize that the potential exists for acts of great evil. Humanity's constant challenge is to understand itself and improve itself.

5. Secular humanists believe all of nature should be subjugated to human desires and interests.

This myth is more likely to worry progressive thinkers than religious conservatives. Perhaps it arises from taking the name "humanist" too literally. The point is that humanism is a naturalistic philosophy, not supernaturalistic. We don't pretend that our ethics and values are divine: we recognize that they are human, and therefore part of nature.

While individual secular humanists differ in how much value they place on the welfare of other species, we all accept that the human species has evolved by the same natural processes as every other species. We understand that some of our most treasured traits, such as language and the ability to understand and care for others, are on an evolutionary continuum with communicative and cooperative behaviors of other animals. We do not think humans are the result of a special creation, separate from the rest of the animal world. The naturalistic humanist approach is a much better basis for understanding that humans have a moral responsibility towards the rest of the natural world, than the biblical view that humans "have dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

6. Secular humanism is the same as communism.

To which we can add the allegations that "secular humanism is a socialist political movement" and - brace yourself - "the Nazis were humanists."

Believe it or not, sometimes people make all these claims at once! Perhaps that should not be surprising when dealing with wild smear tactics.

Secular humanism is not a political movement, and secular humanists cover a wide spectrum of political views. In America, some secular humanists are active in the Democratic Party, many others are staunch Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, Greens, etc. One political view that secular humanists do share is unswerving support for democracy, freedom, and human rights. All secular humanists are utterly opposed to totalitarian systems like communism and fascism.

7. Secular humanists are unpatriotic.

The accusation that secular humanists are unpatriotic or unAmerican is often combined with the myth that "the United States was created as a Christian Nation." So let's start by dismantling that claim.

The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights contain no references to God or Christianity. Their only references to religion establish freedom of religion and separation of church and state: Article VI of the Constitution says there may be no religious tests for office, and the First Amendment stipulates that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ..." The motto on the Great Seal of the United States, unchanged since its adoption in 1782, is E Pluribus Unum ("From Many, One"). The Pledge of Allegiance did not contain an oath to God, until it was added in the 1950s McCarthyite era. It was also at that time that the motto "In God We Trust" was first printed on U.S. dollars. The myth that the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation is perhaps best refuted by the words of the U.S. Senate itself. In 1797 the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

In fact the remarkable thing about the United States is precisely that it was created as a secular republic organized around the rights and freedoms of its citizens. It was founded not on links of ethnicity or religion, but on the basis of shared philosophical principles and ideals. Derived from the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment, these principles are essentially secular and humanist.

The United States is based on values dear to the hearts of secular humanists, who have sacrificed, fought, and died beside their fellow Americans in defense of these great principles. The myth that secular humanists are unAmerican is an insult to the patriotism and distinguished service of millions of people.

8. Secular humanists want to outlaw religion.

Secular humanists don't believe the one, final, absolute truth has been revealed to them. On the contrary, we believe that all beliefs are fallible and provisional, and that diversity and dialogue are essential to the process of learning and developing. Thus we value tolerance, pluralism, and open-mindedness as positive and beneficial qualities in society. Humanists are staunch supporters of freedom of religion, belief, and conscience, as laid out in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights protect the freedom of religious belief equally with the freedom of nonreligious belief, the freedom of religion equally with the freedom from religion.

Secular humanists would actually oppose advocacy of their worldview by schools or the government because that would violate the neutrality of a secular society, and the rights of religious believers. Secular humanists believe that a healthy society supports a variety of worldviews, just as it supports a variety of political parties. We also believe that religious and philosophical views should be every bit as open to debate and discussion as political beliefs.

9. Secular humanism is the official religion of the public education system.

In some ways this myth is rather flattering! Secular humanists would surely be proud to accept sole credit for schools teaching, say, science, sex education, and objective history. But we must share the credit with millions of Christians, Jews, and others who value good education.

The truth is, it's much easier for the far Religious Right to scare the faithful into making financial contributions by blaming secular humanists for the "evils" of sex education or education about evolution than by blaming their fellow Christians. Related myths are that secular humanism is the official religion of the government, the media, the universities, and anyone else who refuses to support a favorite dogma. All these claims make the same mistake: they confuse neutrality with hostility. That's a good tactic if you want to create a persecution complex, but it disregards the fact that neutrality toward different worldviews is the best protection from persecution in our democratic society. Separating church and state doesn't mean that the state promotes atheism and humanism, but that it provides equal protection to all beliefs, as people of many religions who are at the forefront of the battle to defend the "Wall of Separation" will be the first to tell you.

10. Secular humanists don't exist. They are a bogeyman made up by religious conservatives.

Maybe this myth is a reaction to the tendency of some religious conservatives to label everything they dislike as "secular humanism." In that sense it's true! The amoral, power-hungry "secular humanist" conspiracy described by some religious conservatives is a myth. But the vibrant movement that champions a moral approach to living based on reason and happiness is alive and growing.

So our response to this myth is twofold. Yes Virginia, there are secular humanists. But no, there is no bogeyman.

American Islam by Paul M. Barrett

Jake Shimabukuro LIVE Concert: While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Among the Believers

American Islam: The Struggle for the Soul of a Religion
by Paul M. Barrett
Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 320 pp. $25.00

Paul Barrett, formerly a reporter for the Wall Street Journal and now an editor at Business Week, became convinced in the aftermath of September 11 that we needed to learn much more about Islam in our own country, and so wrote a series of engaging profiles of American Muslims for his paper. Adding to them while on a sabbatical in 2004, he has now produced this book, whose aim is to explore what, for adherents of the Muslim faith, a “normal life” means at this turbulent moment in the history of the United States.

Barrett begins with a broad overview. He informs us that 59 percent of American Muslims hold college degrees, far above the American average of 27 percent. Most are white-collar workers or professionals, with a median family income that is 20 percent above the national norm. As for their ethnic breakdown, 34 percent are South Asians, 26 percent Arab-Americans, and 20 percent native-born American blacks, primarily converts. The remainder are principally from “Africa, Iran, Turkey and elsewhere.” About 85 percent are Sunni, mirroring the Sunni-Shiite proportion in the world at large.

This demographic sketch is followed by in-depth profiles of seven widely different individuals, whom Barrett designates according to their callings in life: “Publisher,” “Scholar,” “Activist,” “Feminist,” and so forth.

The publisher is Osama Siblani, a gregarious Shiite who arrived in Dearborn, Michigan from Lebanon in 1976, made and lost money, and in 1984 started the Arab American News, the largest Arab-oriented paper in America. A figure sought out by Michigan’s politicians, Siblani praises the American Dream—“It doesn’t matter who you are,” “You can make something of yourself”—but has gradually become radicalized. He openly supports Hizballah, for example, and his paper, Barrett writes, often projects “a grim conspiratorial world.”

Siraj Wahhaj, a Brooklyn-based African-American imam, is Barrett’s activist and “unquestionably a star in American Islam.” To criminals and others in the underclass, he stresses “personal responsibility and hard work” and condemns “liquor, drugs, gambling, and pornography.” But Wahhaj combines this stress on personal renewal with the hope that America will adopt Islamic law, including the stoning of adulterers and amputating the hands of thieves. He refuses to condemn Osama bin Laden.

Barrett’s feminist is the Indian-born Asra Nomani, whom he met when she too worked at the Journal and who was a friend of their late colleague Daniel Pearl, butchered by Islamist extremists in Pakistan. For years she has fought to persuade her mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, to allow women to use the front entrance and pray together with men. Her campaign has been noisy, drawing national media attention, but has met with limited success.

Having introduced us to these and others in his cast of characters, Barrett offers, in a concluding chapter entitled “The Way Ahead,” his thoughts on the troubles besetting American Muslims since 9/11. Here he emphasizes the pressures they have had to bear, especially the widespread suspicion that has fallen on them and the increased surveillance to which they are subjected.

He also provides a set of proposals designed to improve their lot. Among other things, Barrett calls on national politicians to denounce “Islam-hating Christian fundamentalists” like Pat Robertson, demands an end to the abuse of detainees, asks prosecutors to show restraint in terrorism-related cases, and urges the White House to pressure Israel to make concessions.

_____________

By spending months with his subjects, Barrett hoped to bring them alive, with all their virtues, vices, foibles, and hopes. As he writes, he wanted to make them “real and three-dimensional, as opposed to . . . merely talking points or op-ed pieces.” In this, he succeeds admirably. But his journalistic approach to American Islam in general has its distinct limitations.

Summarizing a slew of sources, for example, Barrett suggests that there are 3 to 6 million Muslims in the United States. The lower figure in this range is derived from survey data; the higher one is methodologically suspect. Instead of merely citing dueling experts, a book-length study of Islam in America should reasonably be expected to reach careful conclusions of its own.

According to Barrett, again, there is “a broad consensus that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world and in the country.” As for the world, this assertion would be true only if we excluded many faster-growing smaller religions and measured by rates of growth rather than by absolute numbers; Christianity is currently adding more adherents than Islam. And as for America, reliable estimates show that Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as Sikhism and Baha’i, are growing faster than Islam.

More to the point, and more problematic, is that Barrett’s artfully drawn profiles, while they do illustrate the diversity of American Islam, tell us little about who, in the words of his subtitle, is actually winning the “struggle for the soul of a religion.” Yet this is something that, in an age of extremism and terror, most of his readers would dearly like to know.

Even as Barrett declines to answer the question directly, some of his profiles give cause for concern. Those among his subjects who are involved with mosques, for example, tend to be more attuned to radical fundamentalist thinking than those who are not; mosque leadership is still further along the spectrum. Although the moderates among Barrett’s subjects may be more typical of Muslims in general, comparatively they lack organizational clout or rank-and-file support.

_____________

As Barrett notes, the many students who come from the Middle East to study in the U.S. tend to exercise a radicalizing effect on American Muslims. There is a reason for that. “If there is one source of influence that bears special responsibility for exporting the Muslim world’s worst ideas to the West,” he writes, “it is our equivocal ally Saudi Arabia.” Half of American mosques have received Saudi money, and “Saudi publishers inundate American mosques with books and pamphlets” pushing the fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine. Throughout American Islam, one finds numerous examples of the baneful influence of Saudi texts, tapes, videos, students, imams, websites, and money.

Yet Barrett’s recommendations ignore these influences entirely. Most of his proposals are, in fact, entirely divorced from the human landscape he presents, seeming instead to fall from the sky. An example is his call to condemn “Islam-hating Christian fundamentalists” so as to protect Muslim sensibilities. This draws on almost nothing he has offered in his text apart from a few disgruntled asides of his own.

In any case, shielding Muslim sensibilities these days would seem to be a full-time job. As newspaper headlines make clear, some Muslims are upset by Salman Rushdie novels, Danish cartoons, German operas, papal pronouncements, and portrayals of Muhammad in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and in the chamber of the Supreme Court. Nor is that all. Most Muslims, Barrett informs us, also frown “on accommodating homosexuality and permitting abortion.” To be consistent, should he not also be urging gay-rights and pro-abortion activists to quiet down? And what about the famed Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who in his current best-selling book The God Delusion describes Islam as “analogous to a carnivorous gene complex”?

The same observation can be made of Barrett’s out-of-nowhere appeal to the White House to apply pressure on Israel. This, too, is a point whose relevance he never demonstrates, any more than he debates the actual pros and cons of U.S. policy toward Israel. Instead, it seems to be tacked on as a kind of afterthought—presumably as a way to assuage the ire of Islamic radicals.

But why should Islamic radicals be allowed to hold U.S. foreign policy hostage in the first place? And if we start with Israel, then why not similarly adjust our policies toward Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Darfur, India, or any of the numerous other areas around the world concerning which radical Muslims hold sharply defined views? And why stop with foreign policy? Are we likewise to step gingerly around those who advocate the stoning of adulterers?

Of course, the proper way to treat putatively offended sensibilities is not to silence ourselves but to demand that, like other newcomers to our shores, American Muslims adjust to living equably in an opinionated, boisterous, free society in which being contradicted, criticized, and calumniated is the normal order of things. This, indeed, is exactly what many of Barrett’s subjects have done. American Islam has great value in illustrating for us the diversity of American Muslims. It is a pity that its conclusions and recommendations should not only be at such variance with the reality it describes but should contribute so little to solving the very real problems that it brings to light.

Muzzling in the Name of Islam

while my guitar gently weeps special edition

From the September 29, 2007 WashingtonPost.com

October 1, 2007

by Paul Marshall

Some of the world's most repressive governments are attempting to use a controversy over a Swedish cartoon to provide legitimacy for their suppression of their critics in the name of respect for Islam. In particular, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is seeking to rewrite international human rights standards to curtail any freedom of expression that threatens their more authoritarian members.

In August, Swedish artist Lars Vilks drew a cartoon with Mohammed's head on a dog's body. He is now in hiding after Al Qaeda in Iraq placed a bounty of $100,000 on his head (with a $50,000 bonus if his throat is slit) and police told him he was no longer safe at home. As with the 2005 Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoons, and the knighting of Salman Rushdie, Muslim ambassadors and the OIC have not only demanded an apology from the Swedes, but are also pushing Western countries to restrict press freedom in the name of preventing "insults" to Islam.

The Iranian foreign ministry protested to Sweden, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserted that "Zionists," "an organized minority who have infiltrated the world," were behind the affair. Pakistan complained and said that "the right to freedom of expression" is inconsistent with "defamation of religions and prophets." The Turkish Ministry of Religious Affairs called for rules specifying new limits of press freedom.

These calls were renewed in September when a U.N. report said that Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be reinterpreted by "adopting complementary standards on the interrelations between freedom of expression, freedom of religion and non-discrimination." Speaking for the OIC, Pakistani diplomat Marghoob Saleem Butt then criticized "unrestricted and disrespectful enjoyment of freedom of expression."

The issues here go beyond the right of cartoonists to offend people. They go to the heart of repression in much of the Muslim world. Islamists and authoritarian governments now routinely use accusations of blasphemy to repress writers, journalists, political dissidents and, perhaps politically most important, religious reformers.

On Sept. 22, three political dissidents in Iran, Ehsan Mansouri, Majid Tavakoli and Ahmad Ghassaban, were put on trial for writing articles against "Islamic holy values." Iran's most prominent dissident, Akbar Ganji, was himself imprisoned on charges including "spreading propaganda against the Islamic system." In August, Taslima Nasreen, who had to flee Bangladesh for her life because her feminist writings were accused of being "against Islam," was investigated in India for hurting Muslims' "religious sentiments."

Egypt has been unusually active of late in imprisoning its critics in the name of Islam. On Aug. 8, it arrested Adel Fawzy Faltas and Peter Ezzat, who work for the Canada-based Middle East Christian Association, on the grounds that, in seeking to defend human rights, they had "insulted Islam." Egyptian State Security has also intensified its interrogation of Quranist Muslims, whose view of Islam stresses political freedom. One of them, Amr Tharwat, had coordinated the monitoring of Egypt's June Shura Council elections on behalf of the pro-democracy Ibn Khaldun Center, headed by prominent Egyptian democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim. Prominent Egyptian 'blogger' Abdel Kareem Soliman was sentenced earlier this year to three years for "insulting Islam."

Saudi Arabian democracy activists Ali al-Demaini, Abdullah al-Hamed, and Matruk al-Faleh were originally imprisoned on charges of using "unIslamic terminology," such as 'democracy' and 'human rights,' when they called for a written constitution. Saudi teacher Mohammad al-Harbi was sentenced to 40 months in jail and 750 lashes for "mocking religion" after discussing the Bible in class and saying that the Jews were right. He was released only after an international outcry led King Abdullah to pardon him. The Indonesian Ulema Council, considered the country's highest Islamic authority, issued a fatwa banning the Liberal Islamic Network, which teaches an open interpretation of the Koran. Then the radical Islam Defenders Front has threatened Ulil Abshar Abdulla, the network's founder.

Of course, these are not the only threats in repressive states' arsenals. In Egypt activists and critics have been imprisoned for forgery and damaging Egypt's image abroad. Saudi Arabia and Iran use a host of restrictive measures. But blasphemy charges are a potent weapon and are used systematically to silence and destroy religious minorities, authors and journalists and democracy activists. As the late Naguib Mahfouz, the only Arab winner of the Nobel Prize in literature, and whose novel Children of Gebelawi was banned in Egypt for blasphemy, put it: "no blasphemy harms Islam and Muslims so much as the call for murdering a writer."

Repressive laws, supplemented and reinforced by terrorists, vigilantes and mob violence, are a fundamental barrier to open discussion and dissent, and so to democracy and free societies, within the Muslim world. When politics and religion are intertwined, there can be no political freedom without religious freedom, including the right to criticize religious ideas. Hence, removing legal bans on blasphemy and 'insulting Islam' is vital to protecting an open debate that could lead to other reforms.

If, in the name of false toleration and religious sensitivity, free nations do not firmly condemn and resist these totalitarian strictures, we will abet the isolation of reformist Muslims, and condemn them to silence behind what Sen. Joseph Lieberman has aptly termed a "theological iron curtain."

Email Paul Marshall

© Copyright 2007 Hudson Institute, Inc.

02/10: Khairy will kick his butt, just you wait.....

Category: General

Posted by: Raja Petra

Zorro Unmasked


pic courtesy of Mob's Crib

Most of us are familiar with this non-practising lawyer who loves to hear his own voice and trumpets His Master's Voice. Read what he has been mouthing (whenever the PM is not around) to one main stream media:

PETALING JAYA, MALAYSIA: Lawyers who participated in the "Walk for Justice" should join the opposition party, so that I know how to handle them, said Minister in the Prime Minister Department. Parenthesis mine: (You cant handle the opposition.....you only bully....or your Speaker will say it is not urgent matter....you call that handling.....and you mean you are the only one in the BN who will handle any opposition. Your colleagues, just sit and sleep?)

"Those who participated in the "Walk for Justice", their brains are like opposition party. (At least they have brains, you like the bully-elephant have the smallest, they say.) It is better for them to register as members of opposition party. I will be more delighted if they (Bar Council) register as an Opposition party. So that I know how to handle them," he told Sin Chew Daily when contacted today. (Hail to the almighty de facto law minister....how can you handle the opposition, when you could not handle taxi licences?????,,,,,,,,this reminds me of a she-Minister who asked a Citizen Nades to stand for election against her......sheesh....another Pundat.)

"I will ignore them as if they are non-governmental organizations (NGOS)," he continued. (NGOs.....he is belittling you again.....reminds me of schoolboys arguing.....)
"
He said the Bar Council does not need to organize the "Walk for Justice" because the council could contact or meet him at first. (The Bar Council only speaks/negotiates/dialogue with intelligent people.....you are just a loud-mouth mouth-piece......you need to learn to be civil before anybody will want to be seen with you, much less talk to you....sheessssh. Podah!)

"They can meet me (for submission of memorandum) after calling me. But why don't they call me?" he asked. (Ayahhhhh! why you so char one? Who are you? They want to give it to Pak Lah, not to office-boy loh. So blur one lah you. Don't you know neither the Bar Council nor any right-minded Malaysians want to have anything to do with you. You got licence or not to receive memorandum from professional bodies?)

He said the Bar Council should investigate the authenticity of the video clip before they organized the "Walk for Justice". (Hello, you clever or Najib? He already appointed 3 fellas to investigate. Even if the Bar Council gets the truth....you will say they are not qualified...they are like the opposition. Even if the tapes are proved authentic, the retired MB who sits as speaker will say it is not urgent matter. Luckily Najib chose and not you. You would have chosen the one-eyed guy and the leaky Sabahan.....birds of a feather flock together mah......Correct, Corek, Correct!)

Commenting on the Bar’s demand that the Government set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry immediately to investigate the above issue, he said :"I object to it. We do not need to set up a Royal Commission." (You object? Who you? Khairy will kick your butt, trying to wield power from his FIL! Seriously you need a break.....because whatever comes out from you, both front and back will fill the tank below.


This shit-sucking-storage tank generously donated by KERP (read the caution).

But I can only dedicate the picture below to you because you cannot deserve anything better.



After hearing all the trash that is coming out from Government's machais, lets hear something refreshing from none other than Law Professor Azmi Sharom, whom Zorro was proud to share the same panel table during the Bangsa Malaysia do.



We need a Royal Commission to determine the legitimacy of the entire judiciary, and we need it now.

Judiciary must be protected

ANALYSIS
By AZMI SHAROM
(extracts from his column)

The government has to set up a Royal Commission with the necessary powers to thoroughly investigate the entire judiciary, as there is a desperate need to clean house and to do so comprehensively.

Let’s just take a look at how low the legal system has sunk. The judge who was supposed to be at the other end of the videotaped phone conversation, in true Bart Simpson style, told the de facto Minister of Law that it wasn’t him. The Minister then told this to the press.

My question is: “So what”? Does that mean the next time someone is accused of murder or corruption, all he needs to say is “I didn’t do it”?

Who cares what the judge said. If the video is not a fake (and it looks mighty authentic to me, no Tian Chua Photoshop trickery here), the suspects must be cross-examined.

And to top it off, the Minister tried to deflect the situation by saying that an opposition political party released the videotape and therefore there had to be a political agenda.

I’m sorry YB, but I don’t care who came up and delivered the video. If it is true, it shows that we need major changes in our judiciary and no political blame shifting is going to alter that.

Two things struck me during Wednesday’s “Walk for Justice”. First, the demand for a Royal Commission is more than reasonable, it is necessary.

Secondly, standing there in Putrajaya, first in the scorching sun and then the chilling rain, I could not have been prouder. Amongst the crowd were ex-students who came up and said hello.

28/09: The true breadth of Islamic fundamentalism

Category: General

Posted by: Raja Petra

Farouk A. Peru

‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ is a phrase that anyone who follows the discourse of global politics these days will be familiar with. Islamic Fundamentalism has been blamed for several terrorist incidents all over the world and the proof of its existence can be seen by the presence of its adherents, who call for a violent jihad for a number of reasons. The author agrees that Islamic Fundamentalism is a menace to global society and must be eliminated for the sake of world peace.

The purpose of this essay is to propose a new definition of Islamic Fundamentalism by including attitudes which are not usually considered fundamentalist. We must remember that words acquire meanings through usage and because of the huge media coverage terrorist acts get and the fact that ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ as a phrase is widely used in these reports, the phrase has come to have a narrow meaning. That helps to obfuscate the true breadth of Islamic Fundamentalism.

This brings us to the question of what is ‘fundamentalism’ and what is its opposite, which we identify from popular usage as ‘moderation’ (as in Moderate Islam).

What is fundamentalism if not only terrorism? For the term to accurately represent the reality of what it signifies in the world, it must also identify the potential sources of what brings about violent acts and not simply violent acts themselves. Therefore, fundamentalism is an exclusivist attitude. It revels in not only being right but being the only right. Because of this, it needs an ‘other’ on which it focuses feelings of negativity and this other is not usually not an ethical other but rather a nominal other. Islamic Fundamentalism cares not that the West has values that are very similar to the Quran but focuses on the nominal existence of something other than itself, that is The West as a separate existence.

Islamic Fundamentalism as an exclusivist attitude manifests in a few different forms:

1. The desire to resurrect the Islamic Empire. Fundamentalists believe that the Islamic empire is the most superior form of political expression and civilisational existence. They look to the historical Islamic Caliphate as the epoch of political existence and desire its return.

2. The movement towards the total implementation of Shariah Laws. They view Shariah laws as an absolute entity validated by God and thus obligated upon everyone . Their endeavour is to bring about Shariah laws as an exclusive legal system because every other legal system is viewed as man-made and thus illegitimate.

3. The attachment for the pan-arabic socio-culture called ‘The Ummah’. While Muslims share a common bond due to their cultural origins and this makes them an entity, Islamic Fundamentalists see this entity as absolute and is in a conflicting dynamic with people not from this cultural origin. Muslim Fundamentalists living with non-Muslims in a given polity will find themselves supporting any polity of a similar cultural origin over their own nation.

These three manifestations are attitudes held by Muslim individuals and organisations. They do not normally manifest in violent activities but certainly, their attitude of exclusivism brings about feelings of dissociation from the rest of the world and feelings of superiority with accompanied arrogance.

Therefore, by definition and behaviour, Muslim (by which we refer to those of a certain socio-cultural origin) individuals and organisations that exhibit these positions must be seen as Islamic Fundamentalists and treated accordingly.

What is the opposite of Islamic Fundamentalism if we adopt the aforementioned definition? A logical answer would be ‘Islamic Inclusivism’. ‘Islamic Inclusivism’ would be an attitude displayed by Muslim individuals and organisations that accept and embrace other organisations in the course of a common goal.

Does original Islam (Islam from its criteria and as practised by Mohamed) accept Islamic incluvism and if so, what are the common goal which Islamic inclusivism can share with the rest of the world? We will analyse that in the next article ‘Islamic Inclusivism and Original Islam’.

theantijihadist wrote:

Key question: Is Islamic 'fundamentalism' Islam?

I look forward to the next installment and hope to see a definitive answer to this crucial question.

cruzeiro wrote:

Good question, AJ.

I would be inclined to believe that "Islamic Fundamentalism" is a term used to identify a cultural or socio-political aspect of certain Muslim societies that aren't in harmony with the prevailing larger host community.

It isn't exactly a "sect" or "brand" of Islam - you see it in all sects. In fact even in all other religions.

Is it Islam? Yes and No.

It is Islam to those who espouse it, and isn't, to those who don't - it's as simple as that. And they each have their own "convenient" (maybe, literal) interpretations of scripture to justify their ideologies.

As for the three "manifestations" of Islamic "fundamentalism" given by Farouk, I could agree with it although it is a little "narrow" - I think there are more characteristics that are "peculiar" to them.

After all this is "religion" you're talking about .... so what do you expect, eh?

farouk wrote:

theantijihadist wrote:
Key question: Is Islamic 'fundamentalism' Islam?

I look forward to the next installment and hope to see a definitive answer to this crucial question.
-------------

Firstly, good to see you back. I was worried that you were banned.

It is indeed a crucial question but I think our friend Cruz has the answer:

========================================
cruzeiro wrote:
I would be inclined to believe that "Islamic Fundamentalism" is a term used to identify a cultural or socio-political aspect of certain Muslim societies that aren't in harmony with the prevailing larger host community.
It isn't exactly a "sect" or "brand" of Islam - you see it in all sects. In fact even in all other religions.
--------------

I would agree and invoke Communism and Stalinism as analogies to Islam and Islamic Fundamentalism respectively.

========================================
Is it Islam? Yes and No.

It is Islam to those who espouse it, and isn't, to those who don't - it's as simple as that. And they each have their own "convenient" (maybe, literal) interpretations of scripture to justify their ideologies.
---------------

I believe that 'Islam' like a house as in a building. All sorts of people can come to live in a house, even dangerous people sometimes.

However, the original owner of this house had some principles which should contrasted against the Islamic Fundamentalists. When this comparison is made, one should see that exclusivism has little to do with Islam, or should have be so.

========================================
As for the three "manifestations" of Islamic "fundamentalism" given by Farouk, I could agree with it although it is a little "narrow" - I think there are more characteristics that are "peculiar" to them.
---------------

Ah, my theory is still in fetal stage and so I'd be grateful for a further exposition.

28/09 20:16:26

cruzeiro wrote:

The word 'fundamentalist' doesn't mean 'one who follows fundamentals'. It has come to acquire a whole other meaning.
=======================

TDM would differ with you on that!

And would plead ignorance to what it means in general use .... ;-)

29/09 09:43:45

25/09: Can there be a discussion on Islam that’s not STUPID???

Category: General

Posted by: Raja Petra

159 Comments

Farish A. Noor

It is interesting to reflect on the asinine times we live in, particularly if like me, you are involved in that nebulous thing called ‘Inter-cultural dialogue’. Over the past four weeks I have been engaged in numerous rounds of dialogues between Western Europeans and Muslim migrant communities in Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin, and in every single one of these encounters I came across stereotypes of Muslims and Islam that were so shallow and puerile that I am almost embarrassed to recount them here. Worst still these pedestrian musings on Islam and Muslims were not the offerings of everyday punters, but those who claimed to be well-known and admired scholars and historians.

In one of these exchanges I was told the following: that ‘Islam is a fascist, woman-hating, Christian-killing, gay-bashing macho male ideology of hatred that was built on fourteen centuries of conquest and bloodshed, murder and rape. That is why there cannot be integration of Muslims into Europe, because the Muslims that we have here are the savages of the Arab world who are barbaric, violent and brutal. They do not believe in reason and the Enlightenment and Islamic civilisation has not produced anything scientific, rational or humane.’ Try substituting the word ‘Muslim’ for ‘blacks’ and one would see how far-fetched and racist such claims really are.

Now why is it that whenever we speak of Islam and Muslims today some of us think they have the licence to drop their IQ level by a hundred points or so? Is talk on Islam a licence to say anything dumb, offensive, and provocative, just for the sake of riling up the masses and grabbing a few headlines? A politician in Holland has even stated that there should be a ban on any reading of the Qur’an, on the grounds that it can be compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Others claim that all Muslims are determined primarily by their religion which happens to be irrational, unscientific and anti-Enlightenment.

I was struck by the wilful blindness of these so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘rational’ Europeans themselves, and their inability to put things in relative perspective and to interrogate their own presuppositions about themselves. In my own work as an academic-activist I have tried to deconstruct the grand narratives of official history, be it on the level of the state or religion. I am also aware of the fact that the writing of history is a contested process and that more often than not the writing of history is done by the victors and not the defeated marginalised voices of any community. Is it a surprise then that the history of the West has been only a history of white, male, middle-classed voices? Where is the history of women and women’s participation in politics, economics and nation-building? Only recently with the advances made by Feminist historiography and deconstructive history by the likes of Simon Schama have we seen the writing of history that is inclusive, plural and popular.

Now the conscious historian will inform you that there were (and remain) counter-currents to such dominant grand narratives all along, both in the West and in the Muslim world -- as there are liberal progressive counter-currents against orthodox conservative Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism. Furthermore, all civilisations and cultures exist in relational terms and develop in relation with and to others: It would be farcical to claim that the European Enlightenment was merely an auto-generated case of isolated genius, for we all know that European civilisation developed by interaction with Muslim civilisation; as did Muslim civilisation develop in relation with and to Chinese, Indian and Persian civilisation.

Of course today Muslims the world over are hostage to a history that is determined either by ruling elites or their conservative lackeys such as the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. From the pens of these conservative sectarians, we get only a static account of Muslim history that is told from the point of view of Kings, Sultans and dictators -- such as the history of Iraq that was written during the time of Saddam Hussein, or the skewered history of Arabia written by the pro-establishment Wahabbis. But here again the question needs to be raised: How was this historical erasure made possible, and who were the agents behind such erasure? Well, unfortunately the finger of blame also points to the ‘enlightened’ West, who regarded dictators like Saddam Hussein and the Saudi royal family as their strategic allies.

The rise of conservative, fundamentalist, sectarian and violent Islam was aided and abetted by Western states during the Cold War, leading to the rise of men like Saddam Hussein, the anti-Soviet Mujahideen and later the Taliban who have done so much to destroy the plural legacy of the Muslim world. Yet today Western liberals accuse Muslims of having no history and that their own history is one of violence. Where is the enlightened spirit of auto-critique and self-awareness here? Surely liberals in the West should not be surprised to see the rise of fundamentalist Muslim regimes the world over when it has been their own Western governments that have supported those very same anti-Christian, anti-women, anti-gay regimes in the first place, ostensibly for the sake of strategic alliances but fundamentally to safeguard the West’s much-needed supply of oil?

I am by no means excusing fundamentalist conservative Muslims here, for there are indeed right-wing Muslims who can only be described as fascist in the real sense of the word. But in the same way that Muslims today need to get out of their shell and stare reality in the face, so do Europeans who claim to be ever-so enlightened and liberal. Europe’s Enlightenment project created not only its own discontents but also anomalies.

To suggest that every single European today is the product of this historical process would be so simplistic as to beggar belief, and borders on the ridiculous. For should that be the case, then perhaps we can ask how enlightened were the Europeans when they colonised Asia and Africa? Look at the world map and see how so many patches of the earth today -- ranging from North America to Australia -- are reminders of a colonial expansion that was motivated by irrational greed, irrational racism, irrational hatred for the other, and not the values of reason or universal humanism. Tell me, was it Kant or Descartes who told the colonisers to invade and occupy Australia, and exterminate the aborigines of Tasmania and then hang their heads as trophies? Or skin the bodies of North American Indians to make boots and tobacco pouches? Where was the European Enlightenment then? Asleep?

cruzeiro wrote:

I sense a frustrated Farish ... going on bashing history of the white domination.

You have missed the whole point Farish dear - while you rave and rant against history of the wrongs committed by them, you immerse yourself in the civilisation and philosophy they have brought. So, don't bother lashing out - your frustration should be directed at those for whom you choose to be an apologist.

Whatever said and done I sense that you cannot write in defense of the attitude of "Islamist Hegemonists" worldwide.

Just stop being an apologist for "Islamism" that has deviant and sick ideologies, Farish - and everything will be fine!

25/09 14:40:11

temenggong wrote:

That is because the islam that all of us have seen so far, and heard so far, is horrible. There is not one good thing we have seen, not one good person all of us in the world can proudly extol. NOT ONE.

But we have seen and heard the contrary. And a lot of worldwide whining that muslims and islam are misunderstood and misrepresented. I don't think so.

25/09 14:41:44

Bunda wrote:

History is history. What is important is the now. Perceptions that Islam is a backward religion should be countered by reason and rationale.

Use Turkey as an example. The President of Turkey has already reiterated that Turkey would not go the way of Malaysia, and abandon its secular traditions.

Turkey is the model Islamic country, where religion and government policy do not mix. Where religion is considered a personal matter between God and the individual.

Turkey is as modern as you would find an Islamic country. Go visit it and you would be amazed at the difference. The people are not any less religious, but it is tempered by secularism.

Turkey is the guiding light for Islamic countries, not Malaysia. Heck, in Turkey you can find synagogues and Jews walking the streets.

~~~

25/09 15:02:49

batsman wrote:

Cruzeiro - BTW I think this passage written by Ali shariati applies to you exactly. It is as if it were custom made for you....

Assimilation: This is at the root of all the troubles and constraints facing the non-Western and Muslim countries. Applies to the conduct of an individual who, intentionally or unintentionally, starts imitating the mannerisms of someone else. A person exhibiting this weakness forgets his own background, national character and culture or, if he remembers them at all, recalls them with contempt. Obsessively, and with no reservation, he denies himself in order to transform his identity. Hoping to attain the distinctions, and the grandeur, which he sees in another, the assimilator attempts to rid himself of perceived shameful associations with his original society and culture.

Alienation: The process of forgetting or becoming unfamiliar with or indifferent to one's self. That is, one loses the self and directs perceptions from within another person or thing. This grave social and spiritual illness manifests itself in many different shapes and forms and depends on many factors. One factor alienating a human being is the tools with which he works. Sociology and psychology report that a man, during his lifetime gradually tends to forget his real, independant identity as he increases his contact with a certain tool or profession more and more every day. He begins perceiving his tools in place of his selfhood.

25/09 15:14:19

cruzeiro wrote:

batsman wrote:
Cruzeiro - BTW I think this passage written by Ali shariati applies to you exactly. It is as if it were custom made for you....
===========

What a narrow, biased and negative definition and perception of the two words!

I could easily take him on that, should the occasion arise - but of course these guys will be evasive, and run for cover to scriptures in a debate ...

He's definitely not a linguistic or a sociology "expert" in my book!

It appears that he is in "defense" of the "isolationism" practised my many a muslim worldwide!

25/09 15:27:57

batsman wrote:

Cruzeiro - I really look forward to your counter arguments. In the meantime you are just dumping on Shariati\'s ideas without refuting them intelligently. Is that an admission of defeat?

25/09 15:53:43

cruzeiro wrote:

Dear batsman,
The question of defeat doesn't arise here!

All I say is, the definition is flawed and caters to an isolationist mindset, with sectarian interests.

He speaks of assimilation as something that is a weakness, that looks upon your personal heritage with contempt - in my book, it could be considered a strength, where I would look upon my heritage with pride.

As for alienation, he only speaks of "alienation from self" in order to reinforce "isolationism to preserve self" - not isolationism from prevalent culture or norms in a new land.

What the two definitions don't acknowledge is the fact that one can assimilate himself to a certain society, without losing one's heritage and identity, as the millions of Indian hindus from India have assimilated into American and European society. Moreover, they have done it without causing any social upheaval or strife – and they are very much appreciated by the others. Believe me when I tell you that they are just as Hindu and Indian as ever, despite the fact that they speak, act and think like the people of their country of domicile. The same however, cannot be said of many a Muslim. Why is that so?

Why then do Muslims have this “delusion of persecution” amidst their isolationism and hegemony? Why are they so quick to point the finger at the new societies that have welcomed them in the first place, and demand what no other race or religion have in the past?

I could go on and on, but it would be pointless, should you be blinded by “cultural norms” and refuse do understand.

The above, is why I would regard his definition as “hogwash”!

25/09 18:55:01

cruzeiro wrote:

In fact, I would argue the West is crying out for more Islam, the Islam of reason, the Islam of diversity, the Islam of inclusiveness; the revival of its intellectual and plural past.
==============

proarte 1,

Many Muslims wouldn't see it that way, as they have already subscribed to the idea that the "west" is out to destroy their brand of "Islam", and they seek confrontation.

Many a "bridge-builder" however chicken out from expressly condemning this primitive ideology and isolationist behaviour, by actually being evasive about it!

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many intelligent sociologists (not all) become "instantaneously, ridiculously stupid" when they start being apologists for the "anti-social elements" of their "perceived brothers".

25/09 19:02:09

Shahidan wrote:

The first member of the moronic brigade to respond to Farish's article says' "Whatever said and done I sense that you cannot write in defense of the attitude of "Islamist Hegemonists" worldwide.”

There are some 700 military bases worldwide established by US imperialism, mostly in the South and many in oil producing Muslim nations. Hegemony is not an empty concept without a real material basis. When Cruziero can provide evidence that there is indeed a real material basis for ‘Islamist Hegemonists’, and that Islamist Hegemonists have attacked the West and established military bases there, he would have made a case.

Meanwhile, the evidence is overwhelmingly against such a notion, other than proving that this is yet another baseless figment of imagination of members of the moronic brigade.

How low can bigotry go when you have another member of the moronic brigade, tememggong, write such mindless nonsense, “That is because the islam that all of us have seen so far, and heard so far, is horrible. There is not one good thing we have seen, not one good person all of us in the world can proudly extol. NOT ONE.“

To start with, temonggong, you are insulting all Muslims with your hate message, including the host of the site on which you spew your crap. Not only do you exhibit your ignorance, but you also are an ingrate for insulting your Muslim host who expects some intelligent and rational postings from discussants on MT. But then, you can’t help it as you are a member of the moronic brigade. You are a megaphone of the warmongers of empire and remain their ever loyal coloured scum.

25/09 20:20:47

cruzeiro wrote:

Oooh! Shahidan, I'm "impressed" with your ignorance and foul language ..... keep it up!

You'll successfully prove the "purity" of the Islamist sectarianism and isolationism in Europe (ones who cannot assimilate), while you bedevil the worldwide military and economic domination of the "west".

Coming from you, such abusive language could be considered flattery!

Never mind what I say, man- just keep calling me names, or you could launch a"jihad" while you bay for blood like your counterparts worldwide (and you want proof? You must be very "intelligent"!).

Keep it up, Shahidan!

25/09 20:40:50

temenggong wrote:

Shahidan does have a reading problem after all, as he missed this:

"the islam that all of us have seen so far"

Very well if you insist on defaming islam, show us your fines examples. We are looking for Mandelas, Martin Luther KIng, Gandhi, Einstein, Salk, Picasso, Mozart, Borobudur, etc - something that ENRICHED the world, outstanding (meaning stands out), something all of us in the world, whatever the race or religion, proudly imbibe and extol!.

Go ahead, take you time.

25/09 20:54:39

batsman wrote:

Cruzeiro - You claim Dr Shariati is not a linguistic or sociology "expert", yet he writes for a world wide intellectual audience and is not apt to make mistakes with his definition of "assimilation" and "alienation". You on the other hand applies not only a layman's definition to the 2 words, but actually your own. Please look up a simple concise dictionary if your want to continue this debate otherwise you are wasting my time. BTW while you are looking up the dictionary, try searching for the word "philistine". It describes you very well.

25/09 22:00:14

batsman wrote:

temenggong - nobody is saying that Muslims are innocent and pure. Just because they are not conducting their own defense in an intelligent way, does not mean they are not victims of western aggression. Muslims are not doing very well in winning friends and allies. Instead they seem to intent in turning people against them. Muslims are also introverted and apt to fight amongst themselves and practice some hair raising traditions. In the same vein, blacks, red indians and aborigines as well as incas and aztecs also screwed up their own defence by not being able to appeal to the white man's value system. This does not mean they are not victims of western aggression. The jews seem to be the only ones successful in defence, and they have managed to paint themselves as lily white innocent victims. Remember even Shakespeare never thought highly of them in his time, but then jews during Shakespeare's time never really got the hang of their own self-defence yet.

25/09 22:10:59

cruzeiro wrote:

Dear batsman,

You may call me what you like.

You may disagree with me just as I disagree with Shariati's definition - that's your right.

However, please take note that I have illustrated the fallacy in Shariati's definition using reality (i.e. the Indian diaspora), even if he speaks to God himself. He too can make mistakes!

And you can go on calling me names just as your "brethren" love to do, as a "self-defense mechanism", instead of indulging in a discussion.

Peace!

26/09 13:21:08

cruzeiro wrote:

Oh BTW, I never did define the two words - I merely pointed out the error in his "constipated" definition!

26/09 13:25:42

cruzeiro wrote:

shardik wrote:
I merely point out that this `fastest growing` stuff is open to debate.
If you take base figures the bahais and sikhs could well claim to be fastest growing.
===============

"Difficult" isn't it?

Is it any wonder why the title of the article is as it is?

26/09 13:42:45

temenggong wrote:

Batsman,

What you say is quite true but as each day passes the muslims make it worse for themselves. Witness Iraq, Pakistan and even Malaysia. The rest of the world has quite come to accept and appreciate the freedoms and stability of world values and made it their own, but not quite the muslims.

Dear LChuah,

Thank you. I was trying to make a point, and I think..



..I think you got it.

The image the muslim world has given to the world is that of authoritation and dictatorship regimes, arab and muslim belligerance, intolerance, virulent racism, bigotry, anti jew, anti christian, iconoclasm without knowing a thing about iconography, inability to assimilate into foreign cultures, dominance when in majority, believers of conspiracies, etc. On top of that today they give the added impression of terrorists, making it worse.

In the past it was one of war, conquests, rape and plunder, iconoclasm, ethnic cleaning of minorities, appropriation of others advancements as their own, etc.

This is the impression THEY gave in the name of religion.That is what all the world has seen so far, and heard so far, which is horrible. Nothing for the rest of the world to imbibe or extol, rather to be ashamed and condemn.

Today this image is still being reinforced daily in Iraq, Sudan and of course Malaysia, supposedly the model of muslim nation, where hypocrisy rules. So the rest of the world is revolting.

The world needs to see a genuine new image of islam, where eg. saudi royalty funds the construction of temples and churches in Mecca, donate to poor in south america, Malaysia recognising Israel, Pakistan reestablishes democracy, total religious and political freedoms in muslim majority nations, etc.

We are not seeing that. We are continuing to see whining, long, long whines, blaming the world for not seeing the beauty of islam. Well, where is it?

26/09 16:30:18

Shahidan wrote:

Typical dimwitted responses from both cruzeiro and temenggong for being criticized for posting bigoted anti-Islamic diatribe. Now let me dissect their comments to further prove that my description of their contribution to MT as bigoted and mindless is fully justified.

Cruzeiro said in a pathetic effort at sarcasm, “I'm "impressed" with your ignorance and foul language ..... keep it up!”

I have re-read my posting and can’t imagine what he refers to as my foul language. He accused Farish Noor of ‘… being an apologist for "Islamism" that deviant and sick ideologies’ , despite the unequivocal statement by farish, “I am by no means excusing fundamentalist conservative Muslims here, for there are indeed right-wing Muslims who can only be described as fascist in the real sense of the word. But in the same way that Muslims today need to get out of their shell and stare reality in the face, so do Europeans who claim to be ever-so enlightened and liberal.”

Cruzeiro proving here that he is so blinded by bigotry that he cannot recognise Farish’s statement disassociating himself from the fundamentalist right-wing Muslims. This is partly due to a refusal to acknowledge that on the fringes of every religious group you will find extremists and that these extremists are not representative of the broad majority. Or is cruzeiro offended out by Farish’s ‘…bashing history of the white domination.’ The house slave mindset so eloquently described by Malcom X comes to mind when you hear blind defence of ‘white domination’ from an Asian colonial apoligist. Ah, yes, he does suffer from a colonial mentality for he chastises farish for his ‘…rave and rant against history of the wrongs committed by them (meaning white domination or imperiailism), you immerse yourself in the civilisation and philosophy they have brought.’ Classic. So, according to cruzeiro, we would have remained savages, assuming we were savages before we were colonised, which he is obviously doing,1 had it not been for the ‘civilisation and philosophy’ brought to us Asians, Africans and Latin Americans by imperialism.

What deep insights the following statement from cruzeiro contains will take some deciphering, particularly as I have never associated myself with Islamist sectarianism and have declared I write from a secularist internationalist perspective, he writes, “You'll successfully prove the "purity" of the Islamist sectarianism and isolationism in Europe (ones who cannot assimilate), while you bedevil the worldwide military and economic domination of the "west".” What the hell do you mean?

26/09 17:30:07

Shahidan wrote:

And to cap it all, here is another gem from cruzeiro, totally ignoring my challenge to provide proof of any Muslim nation attacking the West and establishing military bases there. Instead of a rational response, he launches into a mindless diatribe, as he writes, “Never mind what I say, man- just keep calling me names, or you could launch a"jihad" while you bay for blood like your counterparts worldwide (and you want proof? You must be very "intelligent"!).” Cruzeiro keeps on harping about all Muslims ‘baying for blood’ worldwide and yet is unable to give proof of any miliary attacks against the West, terrorist groups notwithstanding. At least two million non-combatant Iraqis have been killed by the civilised US and its allies since the first Gulf War. It is the West that has launched wars against nations with majority Muslim populations, yet, the likes of Cruzeiro think it is Muslims who are the aggressors. Such is the power of propaganda.

26/09 17:31:10

cruzeiro wrote:

Yes, Shahidan, Yes.
Whatever lah - have it your way .....
and yes, you can go on calling names.

26/09 17:55:10

cruzeiro wrote:

Jovan - what was that about rats again?

26/09 18:00:14

Shahidan wrote:

Cruzeiro wrote, "Yes, Shahidan, Yes.
Whatever lah - have it your way .....
and yes, you can go on calling names."

You condemn hundreds of millions of Muslims and have the gall to complain about being called names?

26/09 18:10:25

cruzeiro wrote:

Who's complaining?
Who condemned anybody?
You having a fever or something?
Okaylah - have it your way .....

26/09 18:25:51

cruzeiro wrote:

Dr. Sa’d Bin Tefia, a journalist and the former Minister of Information in Kuwait, recently wrote an excellent article in which he posed the question: “Where are the Fatwas Against bin Laden?” In his article he compared the lack of a fatwa against bin Laden to the fatwa that called for the killing of Salman Rushdie. He concluded his article by saying:

But let us put aside the [subject of the] fatwa. Have any protests been held condemning bin Laden’s actions in any of the Islamic capital cities? Perhaps there were some that demonstrated in his favor. The [Muslim] satellite stations competed amongst themselves in broadcasting his sermons and fatwas, instead of preventing their dissemination as they did in the case of Rushdie’s book. Have we earmarked a reward for anyone who kills bin Laden as we did for anyone who kills Rushdie on account of his book? With our equivocal stance on bin Laden we from the very start left the world with the impression that we are all bin Laden.

Only when such self-critical voices are heard more often in the Arab world will the problem of radical Islamism and terrorism be seriously confronted. Until then, the insurgency in Iraq will continue to serve the Islamists, who unfortunately benefit from increasing support from Arab Muslim youngsters who are attracted to the apocalyptic nature of the radical Islamist discourse that preaches Global Jihad.

26/09 18:27:00

Shahidan wrote:

Cruzeiro, there are more than 700 US military bases around the globe, many of which are in oil producing Muslim majority countries. Why do you insist Muslims are the aggressors? If you believe they are indeed the aggressors, why do you not give proof as to which Muslim country has attacked the US or its Western allies and established military bases there, say, in the last 100 years?

During the last 100 years, almost all the Muslim countries have been attacked and subjugated by the West. Millions of people have been killed through these imperialist adventures. Yet, you and your fellow bigots keep insisting that the Muslims are the aggressors. You keep spewing the hate site materials on MT. Why don't you do yourself a favour and widen your reading, don't restrict your reading to the hate sites. Ask suv, he will be able to help you widen your sources of reading.

I have not read anything posted by you in which you condemn your colonial master's aggression around the globe, I stand to be corrected in case I have missed such a posting by you. On the contrary, you seem to believe that they brought civilisation to these countries, which were in fact already civilised.

26/09 19:02:34

cruzeiro wrote:

Dear Shahidan,
I'm making a last ditch attempt at trying to "communicate" with you.

What you have repeatedly brought up is the issue of conventional war, which is quite different from the issue at hand.

The problem with the inability of the Muslim communities to assimilate to Western or any other foreign society, is the "ideological war" that they have chosen to wage against the prevailing societies. Not the conventional war that is taking place elsewhere.

This is further worsened by the "theological glamour" that is associated with isolationism and hostility that is practised in many Muslim immigrant communities.

This has led to the stagnation and regression in the evolution of the "Islamist" mindset.

There have been many communities worldwide that have suffered the same fate as Muslim countries in the past - but they have progressed and moved on without playing the victim and taking it to their new homelands.

As I have illustrated in the case of Hindu vs Muslim members of the Indian diaspora, peaceful integration and assimilation into western societies can be as easy or difficult as one would want it to be.

The conflict arises when smaller communities try to assert their influence in a prevailing societies in an "unwelcome manner" without really understanding, but demanding that they be understood.

I shall cut and paste an excerpt from the book "Current Trends in Islamist Ideology" Vol.II. You may draw your own conclusions

If you still do not see the point the westerner (and many others) is concerned about, I rest my case and would just let it be.

26/09 21:36:48

cruzeiro wrote:

IT IS COMMONLY SAID THAT THE WEST HAS EMERGED as a key battleground in the war of ideas with radical Islam. Some even say, perhaps with a little exaggeration, that the West is today the primary theater of ideological conflict. This analysis expresses both a fear and a hope.

The obvious fear is that various ideological forces—emanating from abroad, but also from within the West itself—will conspire to radicalize portions of the Western Muslim population, resulting in a range of possible threats to the future of European and American democracy, from political challenges like the growth of “parallel societies” to the related security threat of “homegrown jihad.” Such threats are clear and present, as the September 11 attacks, which were piloted by Muslims radicalized in Europe, and most recently, the bombings in the UK, carried out by British-born jihadis who received their ideological indoctrination in the mosques and prayer circles of “Londonistan,” have each demonstrated. They are also threats that are here to stay for as long as radical ideology continues to hold even the slightest sway over the minds of Western Muslims.

The hope is that Western Muslims will develop an Islamic solution to radicalism, one that combines religious fidelity with an allegiance to the principles, institutions, and sovereignty of liberal democratic government. This solution—a “European Islam” or “American Islam,” as many have called it—would serve as an ideological bulwark against both internal and external sources of extremist ideology. Some speculate it might even provide a moderate and democratic alternative to extremism that could, in time, be “exported” to the strongholds of radical Islam in the wider world.

With so much at stake, the future of Western Islam has been the subject of much discussion in recent years. Surely, many Western Muslims have come forward against radicalism to defend their countries and their faith. It is also clear that the majority of European and American Muslims simply seek to live and worship freely, and to participate, in their own unique way, as equal citizens in the life of Western democracies. And yet, progress toward the development of a politically moderate and well-organized Western Islam has met with stiff resistance from Islamists abroad as well as from within the West itself.

Within the West, resistance has largely come from two separate and often deeply conflicting strains of ideological Islam—that of the Salafists, and that of the mainstream or “Wassatiyya” Islamism of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. The differences between these two Islamisms are several, but perhaps foremost are the disparate ways in which they interpret the Sharia and how this, in turn, structures their respective attitudes toward assimilation and citizenship in the West.

26/09 21:37:39

cruzeiro wrote:

The Salafists adhere to a “literalist” interpretation of Islamic scripture and to a political theology that views Muslims in the West as travelers in enemy territory, a realm they variously speak of as a “Land of Kufr” or as a “Land of War.” Some Western-based Salafist groups openly espouse jihad, whereas others, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, concentrate on ideological activities, believing that fulfillment of the religious duty of jihad should be postponed until the day when their numbers are sufficient enough for a full offensive. They reject all participation in the life of Western societies; for them, the unity of the Muslim Nation is paramount, and any Muslim who endeavors to divide it—religiously or politically—is guilty of apostasy, that unforgivable Islamic sin.

In contrast to the Salafists, mainstream Islamists have followed a more conciliatory course in their dealings with the West. Nowadays, this stream is commonly associated with its most prominent spokesperson, Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Qatar-based Egyptian Sunni cleric, popular Al Jazeera preacher, and reputed spiritual steward of the International Muslim Brotherhood. Qaradawi describes his faith doctrine, “Wassatiyya,” a broad intellectual movement that emerged with Egypt’s “New Islamists” in the 1990s, as a “middle way” between rejection of Islam and extremism.

Ideologically speaking, the Wassatiyya movement is rooted deeply in the Salafist thought of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his teachings on the “wholesomeness of Islam,” which holds that Sharia must dominate every realm of human activity and thought, from culture to politics. Unlike the Salafists, however, the Wassatiyya scholars emphasize the use of ijtihad, or discernment in Sharia matters independent of what is literally prescribed in Islamic scripture. As a result, Wassatiyya jurisprudence reflects a certain modernist orientation, one that has allowed its adherents to adopt a much more pragmatic approach to the task of assimilating to the realities of life in Western democracies. It has also allowed a certain intellectual creativity to develop within Wassatiyya circles, which has included, among other things, a revaluation of the traditional Islamic concept of the West as a Land of War. Instead, based on the idea that Islam is a universal message, available and open to all, the Wassatiyya Islamists speak of the West as a realm for Islamic proselytizing, or as a land of the religious call, a “Land of Dawa.”

26/09 21:37:52

cruzeiro wrote:

If it interests you, for further reading, you may visit
http://www.hudson.org/

26/09 21:39:55

cruzeiro wrote:

gorshan,
It is very difficult, when one is unable to differentiate between theology, religion, culture and politics.

The problem here is that of culture and politics - not theology or religion.

The whole issue is often sidetracked into religion, and becomes "explosive" and "sensitive" to the defensive party.

Due to "social norms" those who often take the route of religion as a defensive mechanism often end up instantaneously irrational and amazingly stupid however educated they are - no matter which religion it may be.

This has been a problem for a very long time with various schools of thought.

Good night.

26/09 21:56:43

FFT wrote:

Ah...and what I said previously in another Farish Noor column is reinforced.

We are all blessed with a bountiful supply of Farish's who seek to lecture the West on interacting with Islam and Muslims in a "civilized" manner.....a wise choice, for if Farish and his ilk were to actually lecture the Muslims on behaving in a less erratic manner, there may be an all-around losing of heads on both sides. One figuratively, the other literally.

Therein lies the real problem with Islam and Muslims.

26/09 22:09:36

batsman wrote:

Dear Cruzeiro - Regarding the "Indian diaspora" let me quote another example. Some time ago a Malaysian Indian living in Britain condemned the Muslims immmigrants for not assimilating into Britain and becoming more British. This is the same hypocrite who complained loudly of being made 2nd class citizens in Malaysia and the inability of the constitution to protect Indian rights. Can you see the stinking rank hypocrisy here? Refusing to assimilate into Malaysian society and then condemning others for not wanting to assimilate into British society? Such a person is just a stinking piece of white man's turd. I hope you are not the same type.

26/09 23:29:52

shardik wrote:

Cruzeiro wrote, "Yes, Shahidan, Yes.
Whatever lah - have it your way .....
and yes, you can go on calling names."
______________________________________
DPM Najib in a previous furore with regards to Malaysia-Today has been quoted by MggPillai as having said:

`Dato' Seri Najib kicked the ball first to insist to insist none should openly debate if Muslims could slander the followers of other religions`

27/09 10:02:38

cruzeiro wrote:

Refusing to assimilate into Malaysian society and then condemning others for not wanting to assimilate into British society?
====================

Dear batsman,
White man's turd or not, you've made a grave error in your comparison.

My comparison was between the hindus and muslims of the Indian diaspora, and the different levels of integration of the same ethnic group into a society.

The comparison with Malaysia is grossly inadequate and improper.

In Malaysia, we have the white man's turd (as you call it) practicing a "divide and rule" policy, with a Never Ending Policy with an "Islamisation" policy for the benefit of the elite - all while hoodwinking their own people.

People of other races are prevented from integration via "policies" designed for polarisation, so as to play one against the other.

Whatever said and done, these communities that you claim did not integrate into Malaysian society, have contributed immensely to the prosperity and well-being.

This can hardly be a claim made by the communities in Europe/ UK that you so "defend" for their inadequacies, despite the abundant opportunities to do so.

These opportunities might be sorely lacking (in comparison) in this great nation of ours, if you would care to take a closer look!

Now I hope you see where the turd that stinks is, my friend!

27/09 10:55:55

SKC wrote:

To All,
Hey don't any of you people get sick of all the above, we here in MT has gone countless round, on this issue, and everyone is more or less still saying the same thing, again and again, is all your faith so weak that u need to bash others just to justify your own. And please do not tell me you are defending yours from being bash, because I only see bashing all over the place, almost no constructive statement at all. Sad day, when most of us has degenerate to this stage.

27/09 10:59:56

cruzeiro wrote:

Dear SKC,
If "bashing" the attitudes of a certain group of people, who are hostile towards the established social-political systems and norms in their newly found land of freedom and opportunity, is an attack on the religion of Islam - I'm guilty as charged, and I apologize.

27/09 11:18:20

SKC wrote:

Dear cruzeiro,
It is not me u need to apologize to, if apology is needed at all.
I was just hopping more Malaysian will wake up and concentrate on the right issue.
feeling very depressed today, any way good day to you.

27/09 11:34:58

cruzeiro wrote:

Why depressed?
Life is good, and we can only try to make it better.
Would love to help you out (with prozac/ xanax if necessary!) - but online susahlah.

BTW, do I even need to apologize for commenting on attitudes? I seriously doubt it .... attitudes don't make the religion - the reverse is possible, though - and I never commented on that!

27/09 11:47:03

batsman wrote:

Dear Cruzeiro - You feel discriminated against and forced to give up what you hold near and dear in Malaysia, but you don't allow Muslims to feel the same way in Britain. Instead blaming them for not trying to assimilate. If you don't understand assimilation by now, it may just be you are just hypocritical by nature. Read about how Indians treat Muslims in India and try to absolve your conscience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

27/09 12:13:35

cruzeiro wrote:

Once again, batsman - you reasons are weak at best, and your reasons, flawed.

The circumstances are very different - the opportunities are sorely lacking in Malaysia, when compared to Britain.

As far as India is concerned, I know very well how things are, as I have lived among both communities there. What you read may not be entirely true - in fact I can vouch for the fact that the vast majority of Muslims in India are happy for not having "crossed-over" to Islamic Pakistan!

Hope you realize that major problem among the Muslims in India has been brought upon them by their very own "leaders" - hope you read this part of the article that you refer to -

Consequently, rabble rousers claiming to represent the community have thrust themselves to the fore.

To be true, mass migration during partition robbed the community of potential leaders - most Muslim civil servants, teachers, doctors and professionals crossed over.

But the failure to throw up credible leaders has meant low community participation in the political processes and government - of the 543 MPs in India's lower house of parliament, only 36 are Muslims.

Also, as Ramachandra Guha says, the "vicissitudes of India-Pakistan relations and Pakistan's treatment of its minorities" ensured that Muslims remained a "vulnerable" community.

Now tell me - who's hypocritical?

27/09 12:29:44

menteri wrote:

Maybe the religion, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy. Twenty-first century believers have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, or we can reform the religion to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past.

Or maybe we should no longer allow extremists to use our religion as a weapon and carry out all the stupidities. We must protect our future generations from being brainwashed by the radicals. If we do not stop the spread of fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.

27/09 16:07:28

cruzeiro wrote:

The topic was about Islam and not Muslim.

=========

Cantona!

I'm so glad that you said that - Herein lies the problem!

I believe you are mistaken - the topic was never about Islam, and it was only you and those who are "defensive" who think it is.

It is and always has been about MUSLIMS!

The whole discussion becomes "stupid" when you think it is about Islam.

Yes menteri,
Many Muslims must learn to live with the times and adapt to society, instead of crying foul when they are having a better deal as a minority in a foreign land when compared to their places of origin.

Likewise, we non-malays here, appreciate what we have even when we fight for the betterment of our beautiful nation when we peacefully express our discontent about wasteful and myopic economic policies of the Government.

Defending the State against the Government's impropriety should never be misconstrued as "unpatriotic".

In fact it is the highest form of patriotism.

27/09 16:43:14

batsman wrote:

Dear Cruzeiro - Wow! Making your own pronouncements and taking them as factual truth - undeniable immense ego. Comparing Britain and Malaysia merely by number of opportunities - sucking up to wealth. Ignoring Paki-bashing, Jack Straw's position on the hijab, Tony Blair's position on "English" values, isolation of Muslims into slums through policy of multi-culturalism, etc - prejudice and tendency to shut both eyes to the truth. Excusing discrimination of Muslims in India with invented stories - speaking with forked tongue. You really have some serious character problems, don't you???

27/09 16:53:08

menteri wrote:

Can there be no discussion on Islam
that’s STUPID???

27/09 17:00:30

batsman wrote:

BTW Cruzeiro - Can you answer this question on behalf of your English masters - why if they celebrate the Sikhs wearing their turbans can they not tolerate Muslim women wearing the hijab?

27/09 17:00:39

NCantona wrote:

Well..thanks for pin pointing my mistake Cruizeiro.....

So wat...y are we always blaming it onto a religion. I'm a non-muslim but I have no grudge against Islam or Muslims.

If you say Muslims are terorrist, even Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and all other people from other religioins also are terrorists.

As I said it, religion is never a problem. Is the people who is the problem? The problem with us is we see everything from the view point of religion or race. Just look at teh criminal as a normal being and find the problem. That is civil law.

Mother Theresa is a Christian but she isn't a terrorist. Bush is Christian too but i'm assured all of you would say he's a terrorist. So because of Bush is a terrorist you can't say all the Chrstians are bad.

Same goes to Islam or Muslim. As far as i know, we are still showing the same shallow mind set. The way they practice or the behaviour the practicioner shows has a very heavy implication on that religion. And when they do it, in the name of religion, it turns uglier.

27/09 17:04:38

batsman wrote:

menteri - very obviously great emotions are involved and great many things are at stake. If prejudice and denigration is a prelude to violent aggression or genocide in Europe, then great emotions are naturally involved.

In Malaysia, given the problems we have there cannot be a solution without all the races giving ground in some way. If power is to be shared which I think we all support, it must be made damned sure that power held by each racial group will not be used to break the country apart. We are just hammering and whacking away to ensure that all the rough edges are ironed out and each accept the other without disgust and prejudice. I love you brother Cruzeiro! hehehehe

27/09 17:12:18

cruzeiro wrote:

Batsman,
You're a cheeky one, aren't you? I'm beginning to like your style .... don't worry - I'm straight!

I have never denied the existence of "prejudice" - be very certain about that.

In India, Europe, US or even in Timbuktu.

If you want to compare, of course we can.

The fact however remains that these so called "prejudice" far greater in many an "Islamic" nation. In fact many immigrant Muslims (mostly first generation) who claim these "ill-treatment" (and rightfully so) do not enjoy the same level of liberty or quality of life as in their countries of origin.

Pardon me for quoting "my European Masters" (as you claim they are), but why don't these Muslim nations that support the "Islamic" rights, practice "reciprocity"? Why don't you fight for "reciprocity"? Only hypocrites don't - and most "Islamic Nations" don't! So what's stopping them? Islam?

No, my friend - it's Muslims, politics and their prejudice towards people that they have been indoctrinated to believe, to be less than human. Have you taken a look at the Saudi education curriculum? It's disgusting - children are taught that Jews are apes and Christians are swine! That too at a very tender age!

Don't for a minute doubt that these "stories" of persecution in Islamic countries are fabricated - exaggerated maybe. Why is it that many Muslims choose to live in denial of this fact? Are Muslims so blinded by the indoctrination that all Muslims cannot be anything, but righteous?

I wouldn't bother to even start speaking of the persecution that all religious minorities are subjected to in many "Islamic" nations.

These are not only other religious minorities only that we speak about - even their level of tolerance for different sects and "dissent" within Islam, leaves much to be desired. Go to Hudson.org (forget the "Islamophobe" websites), and see what I mean.

At the end of the day, it is a culture of intolerance that seeks refuge and justification in scripture, which is a problem. And the American hegemony has increased its popularity among the unthinking young - thus feeding the "Islamophobe" sentiments. Unwittingly, they have played into the hands of "the enemy" and facilitated the "enemy's" actions! And when you resort to defending the irrational actions of "extremists" in the name of "muslim brotherhood" , you too have unwittingly played the apologist for the extremists, and fallen victim to their "religious propaganda".

Remember batsman - it ISN'T about Islam - it IS about the culture of intolerance and reactionary violence among Muslims that is under attack.

You speak of turbans - well I'm sure they have no problems with that ......
The hijab, is entirely another matter - to allow for that, the Muslims in general, would have to first win the trust of the larger community. But no! They demand it while threatening violence! Is that reasonable?

Menteri,
I wonder if you just intend to quote the writer, or you're making a statement.
The problem is, most of these discussions aren't really about Islam - it's about emerging/ politicised "Muslim culture" which has difficulty in adjusting with the times.

It very often gets sidetracked by the defensive, angry and insecure Muslim, and becomes "stupid"!

There is nothing in Islam that prevents Muslims from being reasonable - it is only those with ulterior motives that seek to convince people otherwise.

With that, I rest my case.

Thank you guys - you've been great!

27/09 19:29:31

SKC wrote:

Ahhhhhhhhh at least this article has reach a bright note, I have enjoy all your discussion from 27th 1100hr's onwards. This has make me feel a lot better, there is hope for Malaysia yet.

28/09 09:47:33