Are all terrorists really Muslims?By Aakar Patel

[kaku1]

And yours was not? and what a complete oxymoron is that statement.

And have you not been paying attention to the subject that you ignored the entire reference to extremes in nationalism?
Why do you think the philosophers of old were weary of it? because it inevitably has the potential to turn from a benign love for one's land into a violent xenophobia or worse.

Are you paying attention since post 1 that what I am saying?

I am asking a very simple question, very simple, at a very basic level.

If nationalism and religion are such a bad things. Then how they capable to enter in human society so fiercely? Why we need them?

You are circling in whole argument, but not able to catch the basic thing.

 

[illusion8]

Islam was already spread out in various sects long before, a read into
Kitab Al-Milal Wa 'L-Nihal (Book of Sects and Creeds) by Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī (1086–1153 CE) @Joe Shearer recommended for you in case you have interest in the subject and free time.

So clearly the "islam" in Islam has not been a uniform equation for quite some time.

However, the rather fluid concepts of "Jihad"(notwithstanding the subjective nature of the Arabic language much like Sanskrit) and the rewards associated with it in scripture leaves a powerful motivational tool for those who have blind following(rather than the required blind faith).

So your hope is misplaced political correctness. Islamism is a rather stupid term in my view; I am someone who endeavours to offer all his prayers, studies the Quran and Hadiath, reads early Islamic history and has certain views on topics like the Shia and Qadiyani sect that would irk the liberals in society, just as I hold views against the Wahabbis and other schools of thought that would irk conservatives.. I consider myself an Islamist.

Islam,Islamism are not separate entities..
What is being dealt with today also happened a 1000 years ago if we actually bother to study history.. and is not just confined to Islam. Just because BBC is able to get you coverage today does not mean similar events in history did not occur.. what took people and word of mouth which would then be put in by scribes over a period of years takes minutes today.. that is the only difference.

The reality today is that there is a religion with a large and powerful following, which has a significant majority that now feels that it is being hunted, due to an even more significant minority that is has taken up arms for various reasons that to their leaders may have various political motives, the primary motivations for many remain the same; Fighting in the way of god, to receive the rewards for it. That , without any iota of a doubt and regardless of apologists remains an integral part of Islamic belief and hence.. Islamism.
The difference herein lies in how one looks at those integral parts, and that depends upon the level of education and exposure of the person.

I am writing an article on the mentality of the "Hindu"(dweller of the land) based on Al-Bairunis writings on the subject and will focus on the growing extremism Hindu majority in India and why it should not surprise people; and hopefully it will serve as an example that history and characteristics sometimes never change.



Read my post above to understand the concept. You mistake venues for human connection as justification for bigotry and genocide..my ego has little to do with your own depth of understanding.

The so called rewards of the afterlife.

This concept is probably the biggest brainwasher in the world at the moment.

I do believe that this concept is the or one of the causes for the Hindu extremism that one gets to see in India. The two main abrahamic religious minorities that the Hindu right wingers are up against quest for the same rewards of the afterlife by way of conversions.

 

[SQ8]

The so called rewards of the afterlife.

This concept is probably the biggest brainwasher in the world at the moment.

I do believe that this concept is the or one of the causes for the Hindu extremism that one gets to see in India. The two main abrahamic religious minorities that the Hindu right wingers are up against quest for the same rewards of the afterlife by way of conversions.

It is basic human behaviour that those of us who are dissatisfied with our lives endeavour to seek out better avenues, even if they exist in a reality that we cannot perceive.

 

[scorpionx]

^^^^^ BUMP! @Joe Shearer



The Sangh, and most Hindus, see Muslims in the same way they see themselves.

Why blame the Sangh for it?

You have a number of Indian Muslims here. Jamahir. Aamna Ali. The_Showstopper. Razia Sultana.

.

I respectfully disagree. Indian Muslims, as it has been generally assumed never occupied a monolithic identity. By any framework, be it theological, socio-economic or political, Indian Muslims always acted as any pluralistic group within its single religious confines. The original Maktabs, within twenty years since its establishment was divided into two distinguished branches, based upon differences in theological lines. Relentless ideological belligerence between the two parties had always been a consistent affair.

In socio-economic and political context, Indian Muslims were far from having a compressed identity. All India Momin conference, an organization started as a political voice of the Julaha weaver community who comprised of almost 90% of the weavers in the Gangetic plain resented the Muslim League for its elitist urban character. It always identified itself sympathetic to the anti-feudalistic ideologies of Gandhi led Congress and vehemently opposed any sort of solution other than Purna Swaraj, as they saw it fit to secure their economic interests and promotion in social status, demands that never left Congress at ease. All India Momin group associated itself with other Politico-Islamic fundamentalist groups like Jamiat Ulama I Hind, the Khaksars and Majlis e ahrar, groups that were staunch opponents of Muslim League.

Another event that might be relevant in this context is the case of Shah Bano verdict and the consequent events in 1985-86. Although the government saw the fundamentalist groups as the sole representative of Indian Muslims and decided to bend its knee before the fundamentalist orthodoxy, a large number of Muslim women, educated and professional elites saw no dissimilarity between the Supreme Court verdict and Islamic principles. Muslims women’s groups in Calcutta, Bombay, Trivandrum and Patna condemned AIPMLB and Committee of the Protection of rights of Muslim Women was formed in Calcutta. Bandh was called by Muslim women groups on 4th October’85 as a mark of protest. Liberal Muslim intelligentsia and scholars of Islamic law like A G Noorani, Ashgar Ali Engineer, Murtaza Fazal Ali or M H Beg rejected the Bill and defended the rights of Muslim women. What was and still seen as an essentially unanimous ‘Muslim’ refusal to reforms is in reality a mixed bag of response from different parts of the community itself. So, this very assertion that Indian Muslims always act as a monolithic, compact group to secure political or economic interests is nothing but a sweeping generalization of any casual observer of history and politics.

Ask them a simple question. India first or Islam first

Sorry to say, that's a stupid question to ask after 70 years of Independence.

 

[SQ8]

Are you paying attention since post 1 that what I am saying?

I am asking a very simple question, very simple, at a very basic level.

If nationalism and religion are such a bad things. Then how they capable to enter in human society so fiercely? Why we need them?

You are circling in whole argument, but not able to catch the basic thing.

The same reason we resort to tribal, racial and even "andriod/IOS" ideals. It is you who are circling, I am looking at you from the top of the circle sipping a pina colada.

 

[kaku1]

The same reason we resort to tribal, racial and even "andriod/IOS" ideals. It is you who are circling, I am looking at you from the top of the circle sipping a pina colada.

Facepalm, leave it.

 

[SQ8]

Sorry to say, that's a stupid question to ask after 70 years of Independence.

Not really, at least from a blind followers perspective.. akin to them asking "Will you or wont you cut your testicles off, I dont care about the rest".. The term "Why?" does not exist in their vocabulary or intellect.

 

[maniac@666]

The LTTE leadership comprised of both Christians and Hindus. They did not fight for either of these religions. They fought for Tamil nationalism.What should we call them?

and tamil muslims also,they fought alongside.

 

[SQ8]

Facepalm, leave it.

Clearly, no ego there

 

[kaku1]

Clearly, no ego there

None.

 

[illusion8]

It is basic human behaviour that those of us who are dissatisfied with our lives endeavour to seek out better avenues, even if they exist in a reality that we cannot perceive.

It's the number one killer...both of victims and of the brainwashed, a remote second is a bunch of selected and edited videos of atrocities on muslims "throughout the world" carried out by the infidels. Someone serious in the Muslim and the christian world need to rectify this...and come up with the reality that when you kill innocents you don't get heaven and neither do you get heaven when you lure someone into conversion.

 

[SQ8]

lure someone into conversion.

Now that is a very subjective argument. What may be luring from your PoV may be actual salvation(spiritual or financial) for another. Technically you cannot protest against free will, can you?
Take Islamic terror organizations; their initial bait has more to do with helping people correct their faith.. the terror bit comes later. You cannot take away religious freedom of choice under the pretext of "losing" people to the other side.
If those being converted are doing it for the money you still have NO RIGHT to stop them, no HUMAN justification to do so.
If a person chooses to sell their country out you qualify them as a traitor and then shoot them because they are working AGAINST the interest of the collective. Here the collective isnt uniform at all, so how can one justify one's personal choice that in essence still does not hurt the entire collective(unless the Indian constitution is altered to show the statement that Hinduism is to be the ONLY region in India and no others are to be allowed) and also hurts their fellow man in the process. This would work for say certain Islamic Terror organizations who bait young minds into Terror since their motivation is to hurt their fellow man, but has little basis for Christian conversions. So regardless of Lures or Baits, conversion is NOT illegal nor unethical if its intention is only to advance a creed and not harm fellow men.. which is a rather wobbly ethical and moral stilt that it stands on, but it stands on it nevertheless.

The whole ghar wapsi drama too is not incorrect as long as people were not coerced into it.. regardless of whether they came out of true faith in Hinduism or a guaranteed 5000rs.

 

[illusion8]

Now that is a very subjective argument. What may be luring from your PoV may be actual salvation(spiritual or financial) for another. Technically you cannot protest against free will, can you?
Take Islamic terror organizations; their initial bait has more to do with helping people correct their faith.. the terror bit comes later. You cannot take away religious freedom of choice under the pretext of "losing" people to the other side.
If those being converted are doing it for the money you still have NO RIGHT to stop them, no HUMAN justification to do so.
If a person chooses to sell their country out you qualify them as a traitor and then shoot them because they are working AGAINST the interest of the collective. Here the collective isnt uniform at all, so how can one justify one's personal choice that in essence still does not hurt the entire collective(unless the Indian constitution is altered to show the statement that Hinduism is to be the ONLY region in India and no others are to be allowed) and also hurts their fellow man in the process. This would work for say certain Islamic Terror organizations who bait young minds into Terror since their motivation is to hurt their fellow man, but has little basis for Christian conversions. So regardless of Lures or Baits, conversion is NOT illegal nor unethical if its intention is only to advance a creed and not harm fellow men.. which is a rather wobbly ethical and moral stilt that it stands on, but it stands on it nevertheless.

The whole ghar wapsi drama too is not incorrect as long as people were not coerced into it.. regardless of whether they came out of true faith in Hinduism or a guaranteed 5000rs.

True, religion is a personal choice, but if one sees objectively as to what's happening on the ground then one can see the hypocrisy behind it. Who are the targets for conversions? the poor and illiterate tribals for e.g. Do they bring any sort of benefits to the abhramic religion to which they got lured to get converted by way of some monetory benefits? no they don't ...other than making the numbers which gets points accumulated in the books of the local masjid and the local mullah or the local ramshackle house cum church - the custodians of which later gets back to his masters sitting abroad in saudi arabia or any western country who promptly send them the annual fat donation.

This donation is then used to build a better masjid or a church with an attached religious school to lure in more destitute people and literally teach them the sins of paganism or worshipping "stones and trees and animals", which these people and their ancestors have been doing for thousands of years.

The law against conversion is in effect in some states - at least in Tamil Nadu, it's not the right to conversion or the right to choose which is in question here but the motivation and the zeal of the convertor that is to be questioned. Which happens to be huge foreign monetory benefits from qatari and saudi donars and the christian ngo's, and of course the "rewards of the afterlife".

Does these foreign religions go with the tribal culture - I would argue that it doesn't. Tribals usually live off the land and worship and protect both the flora and fauna zealously. That concept lacks in both the abramic religions leading to conflicts of interest and a death of their cultures and roots and their highly guarded way of life.

In turn what do they get to learn? stories and books about people whom they have no clue about and have never seen in their life? a bunch of stuff and concepts and rituals that is compleltey alien to the land and the people? alien languages, outfits, food habits - arabic, latin, arab culture, western culture - start praying to gods who are not even in the same continent...they supreme god and their chief sitting is the deserts of arabia or the Vatican city in faraway rome which they or their ancestors have never seen nor will they...other than when the Indian government provides the money for a free hajj - that is if they are lucky to draw the long straw.

Neither the converter is doing it in god faith and bringing any difference to the lifestyle of the convertee - in fact making him an alien in his own land and among his own people.

Neither does the convertee who in most cases lacks the mental fortitude to know what's he getting into.

Suffice it to say, large number of hindus who converted to islam aren't leading a rosy life because of their conversion, neither are the christian convertees.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Islam was already spread out in various sects long before, a read into
Kitab Al-Milal Wa 'L-Nihal (Book of Sects and Creeds) by Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī (1086–1153 CE) @Joe Shearer recommended for you in case you have interest in the subject and free time.

So clearly the "islam" in Islam has not been a uniform equation for quite some time.

However, the rather fluid concepts of "Jihad"(notwithstanding the subjective nature of the Arabic language much like Sanskrit) and the rewards associated with it in scripture leaves a powerful motivational tool for those who have blind following(rather than the required blind faith).

So your hope is misplaced political correctness. Islamism is a rather stupid term in my view; I am someone who endeavours to offer all his prayers, studies the Quran and Hadiath, reads early Islamic history and has certain views on topics like the Shia and Qadiyani sect that would irk the liberals in society, just as I hold views against the Wahabbis and other schools of thought that would irk conservatives.. I consider myself an Islamist.

Islam,Islamism are not separate entities..
What is being dealt with today also happened a 1000 years ago if we actually bother to study history.. and is not just confined to Islam. Just because BBC is able to get you coverage today does not mean similar events in history did not occur.. what took people and word of mouth which would then be put in by scribes over a period of years takes minutes today.. that is the only difference.

The reality today is that there is a religion with a large and powerful following, which has a significant majority that now feels that it is being hunted, due to an even more significant minority that is has taken up arms for various reasons that to their leaders may have various political motives, the primary motivations for many remain the same; Fighting in the way of god, to receive the rewards for it. That , without any iota of a doubt and regardless of apologists remains an integral part of Islamic belief and hence.. Islamism.
The difference herein lies in how one looks at those integral parts, and that depends upon the level of education and exposure of the person.

I am writing an article on the mentality of the "Hindu"(dweller of the land) based on Al-Bairunis writings on the subject and will focus on the growing extremism Hindu majority in India and why it should not surprise people; and hopefully it will serve as an example that history and characteristics sometimes never change.



Read my post above to understand the concept. You mistake venues for human connection as justification for bigotry and genocide..my ego has little to do with your own depth of understanding.

You sound like a mix of Reza Aslan and Tariq Fatah. In any case, regardless of you being a devout Muslim, you would be considered a Hindutvavadi in India by our media and liberals.

Now that is a very subjective argument. What may be luring from your PoV may be actual salvation(spiritual or financial) for another. Technically you cannot protest against free will, can you?
Take Islamic terror organizations; their initial bait has more to do with helping people correct their faith.. the terror bit comes later. You cannot take away religious freedom of choice under the pretext of "losing" people to the other side.
If those being converted are doing it for the money you still have NO RIGHT to stop them, no HUMAN justification to do so.
If a person chooses to sell their country out you qualify them as a traitor and then shoot them because they are working AGAINST the interest of the collective. Here the collective isnt uniform at all, so how can one justify one's personal choice that in essence still does not hurt the entire collective(unless the Indian constitution is altered to show the statement that Hinduism is to be the ONLY region in India and no others are to be allowed) and also hurts their fellow man in the process. This would work for say certain Islamic Terror organizations who bait young minds into Terror since their motivation is to hurt their fellow man, but has little basis for Christian conversions. So regardless of Lures or Baits, conversion is NOT illegal nor unethical if its intention is only to advance a creed and not harm fellow men.. which is a rather wobbly ethical and moral stilt that it stands on, but it stands on it nevertheless.

The whole ghar wapsi drama too is not incorrect as long as people were not coerced into it.. regardless of whether they came out of true faith in Hinduism or a guaranteed 5000rs.

No. On this our constitution is clear. If monetary or other incentives are involved, it is a case of fraud. Not conversion.

Sorry to say, that's a stupid question to ask after 70 years of Independence.

I often wonder, in which world do you live in dada?

 

[Joe Shearer]

You sound like a mix of Reza Aslan and Tariq Fatah. In any case, regardless of you being a devout Muslim, you would be considered a Hindutvavadi in India by our media and liberals.


No. On this our constitution is clear. If monetary or other incentives are involved, it is a case of fraud. Not conversion.[1]


I often wonder, in which world do you live in dada? [2]

[1] Our Constitution is indeed clear. Article 25 clearly states the position. Every legislation brought in against conversion is a state legislation, and they are controversial themselves, as they contradict Article 25, a fundamental part of the constitution, in some aspects. You are wrong in claiming that our constitution is clear on this, that if monetary or other incentives are involved, it is a case of fraud. It is the local laws that stipulate this.

What you may be referring to is the Supreme Court judgement that forced conversions did not enjoy the protection of Article 25. This is quite different from monetary and other incentives being barred, and conversions under those inducements amounting to fraud. It is also quite different from claiming that either under the Constitution or under some interpretation, conversion has been ruled out.

[2] You could not answer his point, a point famously made in public by your demi-god himself. After nearly 70 years, how do you have the temerity and gall to ask this question? How, for that matter, do you evade your shameful position by asking the other person what world he lives in? What world do you live in, where you do not see the reality of a huge mass of people supportive of the common objectives and policies and ways of the country?