Pharmacy Graduate Gets 17 1/2 Years for Aid to Al-Qaeda

[Vinod2070]

Can you help us remember what we are supposed to remember ? Because even our earliest texts dating back to 3000 BC dont have references to that.

He won't spoonfeed you,

Because that needs something he doesn't have.

A friggin idea of what he was talking about!

 

[AUz]

The speech given by Tarek Mehanna in court :

In the name of God the most gracious the most merciful Exactly four years ago this month I was finishing my work shift at a local hospital. As I was walking to my car I was approached by two federal agents. They said that I had a choice to make: I could do things the easy way, or I could do them the hard way. The “easy ” way, as they explained, was that I would become an informant for the government, and if I did so I would never see the inside of a courtroom or a prison cell. As for the hard way, this is it. Here I am, having spent the majority of the four years since then in a solitary cell the size of a small closet, in which I am locked down for 23 hours each day. The FBI and these prosecutors worked very hard-and the government spent millions of tax dollars – to put me in that cell, keep me there, put me on trial, and finally to have me stand here before you today to be sentenced to even more time in a cell.

In the weeks leading up to this moment, many people have offered suggestions as to what I should say to you. Some said I should plead for mercy in hopes of a light sentence, while others suggested I would be hit hard either way. But what I want to do is just talk about myself for a few minutes.

When I refused to become an informant, the government responded by charging me with the “crime” of supporting the mujahideen fighting the occupation of Muslim countries around the world. Or as they like to call them, “terrorists.” I wasn’t born in a Muslim country, though. I was born and raised right here in America and this angers many people: how is it that I can be an American and believe the things I believe, take the positions I take? Everything a man is exposed to in his environment becomes an ingredient that shapes his outlook, and I’m no different. So, in more ways than one, it’s because of America that I am who I am.

When I was six, I began putting together a massive collection of comic books. Batman implanted a concept in my mind, introduced me to a paradigm as to how the world is set up: that there are oppressors, there are the oppressed, and there are those who step up to defend the oppressed. This resonated with me so much that throughout the rest of my childhood, I gravitated towards any book that reflected that paradigm – Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and I even saw an ehical dimension to The Catcher in the Rye.

By the time I began high school and took a real history class, I was learning just how real that paradigm is in the world. I learned about the Native Americans and what befell them at the hands of European settlers. I learned about how the descendents of those European settlers were in turn oppressed under the tyranny of King George III.

I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King,
and the civil rights struggle.

I learned about Ho Chi Minh, and how the Vietnamese fought for decades to liberate themselves from one invader after another. I learned about Nelson Mandela and the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Everything I learned in those years confirmed what I was beginning to learn when I was six: that throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. With each struggle I learned about, I found myself consistently siding with the oppressed, and consistently respecting those who stepped up to defend them -regardless of nationality, regardless of religion. And I never threw my class notes away. As I stand here speaking, they are in a neat pile in my bedroom closet at home.

From all the historical figures I learned about, one stood out above the rest. I was impressed be many things about Malcolm X, but above all, I was fascinated by the idea of transformation, his transformation. I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie “X” by Spike Lee, it’s over three and a half hours long, and the Malcolm at the beginning is different from the Malcolm at the end. He starts off as an illiterate criminal, but ends up a husband, a father, a protective and eloquent leader for his people, a disciplined Muslim performing the Hajj in Makkah, and finally, a martyr. Malcolm’s life taught me that Islam is not something inherited; it’s not a culture or ethnicity. It’s a way of life, a state of mind anyone can choose no matter where they come from or how they were raised.

This led me to look deeper into Islam, and I was hooked. I was just a teenager, but Islam answered the question that the greatest scientific minds were clueless about, the question that drives the rich & famous to depression and suicide from being unable to answer: what is the purpose of life? Why do we exist in this Universe? But it also answered the question of how we’re supposed to exist. And since there’s no hierarchy or priesthood, I could directly and immediately begin digging into the texts of the Qur’an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, to begin the journey of understanding what this was all about, the implications of Islam for me as a human being, as an individual, for the people around me, for the world; and the more I learned, the more I valued Islam like a piece of gold. This was when I was a teen, but even today, despite the pressures of the last few years, I stand here before you, and everyone else in this courtroom, as a very proud Muslim.

With that, my attention turned to what was happening to other Muslims in different parts of the world. And everywhere I looked, I saw the powers that be trying to destroy what I loved. I learned what the Soviets had done to the Muslims of Afghanistan. I learned what the Serbs had done to the Muslims of Bosnia. I learned what the Russians were doing to the Muslims of Chechnya. I learned what Israel had done in Lebanon – and what it continues to do in Palestine – with the full backing of the United States. And I learned what America itself was doing to Muslims. I learned about the Gulf War, and the depleted uranium bombs that killed thousands and caused cancer rates to skyrocket across Iraq.

I learned about the American-led sanctions that prevented food, medicine, and medical equipment from entering Iraq, and how – according to the United Nations – over half a million children perished as a result. I remember a clip from a ’60 Minutes‘ interview of Madeline Albright where she expressed her view that these dead children were “worth it.” I watched on September 11th as a group of people felt driven to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings from their outrage at the deaths of these children. I watched as America then attacked and invaded Iraq directly. I saw the effects of ’Shock & Awe’ in the opening day of the invasion – the children in hospital wards with shrapnel from American missiles sticking but of their foreheads (of course, none of this was shown on CNN).

I learned about the town of Haditha, where 24 Muslims – including a 76-year old man in a wheelchair, women, and even toddlers – were shot up and blown up in their bedclothes as the slept by US Marines. I learned about Abeer al-Janabi, a fourteen-year old Iraqi girl gang-raped by five American soldiers, who then shot her and her family in the head, then set fire to their corpses. I just want to point out, as you can see, Muslim women don’t even show their hair to unrelated men. So try to imagine this young girl from a conservative village with her dress torn off, being sexually assaulted by not one, not two, not three, not four, but five soldiers. Even today, as I sit in my jail cell, I read about the drone strikes which continue to kill Muslims daily in places like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Just last month, we all heard about the seventeen Afghan Muslims – mostly mothers and their kids – shot to death by an American soldier, who also set fire to their corpses.

These are just the stories that make it to the headlines, but one of the first concepts I learned in Islam is that of loyalty, of brotherhood – that each Muslim woman is my sister, each man is my brother, and together, we are one large body who must protect each other. In other words, I couldn’t see these things beings done to my brothers & sisters – including by America – and remain neutral. My sympathy for the oppressed continued, but was now more personal, as was my respect for those defending them.

I mentioned Paul Revere – when he went on his midnight ride, it was for the purpose of warning the people that the British were marching to Lexington to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, then on to Concord to confiscate the weapons stored there by the Minuteman. By the time they got to Concord, they found the Minuteman waiting for them, weapons in hand. They fired at the British, fought them, and beat them. From that battle came the American Revolution. There’s an Arabic word to describe what those Minutemen did that day. That word is: JIHAD, and this is what my trial was about.

All those videos and translations and childish bickering over ‘Oh, he translated this paragraph’ and ‘Oh, he edited that sentence,’ and all those exhibits revolved around a single issue: Muslims who were defending themselves against American soldiers doing to them exactly what the British did to America. It was made crystal clear at trial that I never, ever plotted to “kill Americans” at shopping malls or whatever the story was. The government’s own witnesses contradicted this claim, and we put expert after expert up on that stand, who spent hours dissecting my every written word, who explained my beliefs. Further, when I was free, the government sent an undercover agent to prod me into one of their little “terror plots,” but I refused to participate. Mysteriously, however, the jury never heard this.

So, this trial was not about my position on Muslims killing American civilians. It was about my position on Americans killing Muslim civilians, which is that Muslims should defend their lands from foreign invaders – Soviets, Americans, or Martians. This is what I believe. It’s what I’ve always believed, and what I will always believe. This is not terrorism, and it’s not extremism. It’s what the arrows on that seal above your head represent: defense of the homeland. So, I disagree with my lawyers when they say that you don’t have to agree with my beliefs – no. Anyone with commonsense and humanity has no choice but to agree with me. If someone breaks into your home to rob you and harm your family, logic dictates that you do whatever it takes to expel that invader from your home.

But when that home is a Muslim land, and that invader is the US military, for some reason the standards suddenly change. Common sense is renamed ”terrorism” and the people defending themselves against those who come to kill them from across the ocean become “the terrorists” who are ”killing Americans.” The mentality that America was victimized with when British soldiers walked these streets 2 ½ centuries ago is the same mentality Muslims are victimized by as American soldiers walk their streets today. It’s the mentality of colonialism.

When Sgt. Bales shot those Afghans to death last month, all of the focus in the media was on him-his life, his stress, his PTSD, the mortgage on his home-as if he was the victim. Very little sympathy was expressed for the people he actually killed, as if they’re not real, they’re not humans. Unfortunately, this mentality trickles down to everyone in society, whether or not they realize it. Even with my lawyers, it took nearly two years of discussing, explaining, and clarifying before they were finally able to think outside the box and at least ostensibly accept the logic in what I was saying. Two years! If it took that long for people so intelligent, whose job it is to defend me, to de-program themselves, then to throw me in front of a randomly selected jury under the premise that they’re my “impartial peers,” I mean, come on. I wasn’t tried before a jury of my peers because with the mentality gripping America today, I have no peers. Counting on this fact, the government prosecuted me – not because they needed to, but simply because they could.

I learned one more thing in history class: America has historically supported the most unjust policies against its minorities – practices that were even protected by the law – only to look back later and ask: ’what were we thinking?’ Slavery, Jim Crow, the internment of the Japanese during World War II – each was widely accepted by American society, each was defended by the Supreme Court. But as time passed and America changed, both people and courts looked back and asked ’What were we thinking?’ Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the South African government, and given a life sentence. But time passed, the world changed, they realized how oppressive their policies were, that it was not he who was the terrorist, and they released him from prison. He even became president. So, everything is subjective - even this whole business of “terrorism” and who is a “terrorist.” It all depends on the time and place and who the superpower happens to be at the moment.

In your eyes, I’m a terrorist, and it’s perfectly reasonable that I be standing here in an orange jumpsuit. But one day, America will change and people will recognize this day for what it is. They will look at how hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed and maimed by the US military in foreign countries, yet somehow I’m the one going to prison for “conspiring to kill and maim” in those countries – because I support the Mujahidin defending those people. They will look back on how the government spent millions of dollars to imprison me as a ”terrorist,” yet if we were to somehow bring Abeer al-Janabi back to life in the moment she was being gang-raped by your soldiers, to put her on that witness stand and ask her who the “terrorists” are, she sure wouldn’t be pointing at me.

The government says that I was obsessed with violence, obsessed with ”killing Americans.” But, as a Muslim living in these times, I can think of a lie no more ironic.

-Tarek Mehanna

------------------------------------

Amazing!

Read the full-post here . . . . . .

The real criminals in the Tarek Mehanna case - Salon.com

 

[Rig Vedic]

^^^ His views can certainly be debated.

But before advocating violence and waging war against the state, he should have given up his US citizenship, and left the US.

If he did not want to do that his only option was to exercise free speech in the manner of Noam Chomsky.

IMHO he was also rather naive. In some of these extremist groups that he was dabbling in, the informants outnumber the actual Jihadis!

 

[Developereo]

This is broadening into an open-ended discussion, so let's bring the focus back to the claim that started it all: that Muslim converts are somehow different from Hindu converts. Let's examine some of the charges against Muslims and see if they apply equally well to large groups of Hindus in India:

1 - Adoption of foreign belief systems:

The early history for some beliefs in Hinduism is well known: they started in the IVC and north Gangetic plains. Anyone outside these regions in India who hold these beliefs is a "convert". No two ways about it, regardless of euphemisms like "assimilation", "accomodation" and "slow fusion". The only reason they are not recognized as foreign influences is because of the long time span involved, and the fact that the regions are now part of the same political entity.

2 - Loss of indigenous belief systems:

Kupgal: https://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/palaeolithic
south India's equally remarkable prehistoric period remains have only rarely received the attention they deserve.
[...]
These settlements date from the Neolithic period (3000 BC – to the beginning of the Christian era)
[...]
evidence of rituals and social ceremonies involving ringing rocks


Bhimbetka: Rock Shelters of Bhimbhetka India | ARTHISTORYWORLDS
These images are painted mainly in red, white, and yellow and are mostly of riders, religious symbols and a highly stylized script. Some religious elements include tree gods, tree spirits, or yakshas and sky chariots.

Now, before people dismiss these as just 'primitive rock paintings', keep in mind that we are talking the early period of Hinduism, circa 2nd millenium BCE, so, in the contemporary context, these were state-of-the-art indigenous religions which have now disappeared.

3 - Reverence of invaders who replaced indigenous beliefs with the foreign concepts:

The Adastya (standardized spelling) myth is crystal clear: it talks about a northern deity who crossed over to the south, killed 'evil' indignous Rakshasas, and brought enlightenment. Again, from Agastya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agastya the Muni, was born of both Gods, Mitra and Varuna, from Urvashi and is believed to be the first Brahman to cross the Vindhya Range and travel to southern India.

 

[Developereo]

Not unique to Tamil. Other south Indian languages too have a rich linguistic & cultural history quite distinct from Sanskrit.

I only gave the example of Tamils because it is well publicized, although it is natural that other groups would have similar histories.

Hinduism is not a clear cut religion like some others i.e from a single source. The chance of a forced conquest or assimilation would simply not happen because it was not required.

I accept that Hinduism has more of an inclusive, assimilative nature. However, it does not change the fact that various peoples in India practice belief systems which originated elsewhere. Hence they are "converts" to these beliefs.

The most famous reformer Adi Shankara (Shankaracharya) was from Kerala in the South. The most famous(&most important) seat of the Shankaracharyas who are the high priests of Hinduism is in Sringeri in Karnataka. Not much of a conquest that, is it? Would be a bit like the most famous place worldwide for Muslims being somewhere in Pakistan/India. That is the difference between conquest(even if non-violent) & assimilation. In one, only the beliefs of the target population changes & no influence occurs on the parent population while in the other the contact touches everyone's belief over time.

Similar parallels exist in Islam. The greatest personalities of Sufism are from Iran and Central Asia.

 

[Developereo]

Your basic assumption of Hinduism as one homogenous entity that had its Mecca somewhere is laughable and not even worth responding to. Learn something about what you talk.

Strawman argument. I never claimed Hinduism is monolithic or homogenous. Perhaps you can try reading the actual posts rather than assuming what you want to read.

As for Wikipedia, the articles provide reference to academic works. If you take issue with any specific claim, identify it and provide your own alternative view backed with relevant academic references.

 

[Tamizhan]

1 - Adoption of foreign belief systems:

The early history for some beliefs in Hinduism is well known: they started in the IVC and north Gangetic plains. Anyone outside these regions in India who hold these beliefs is a "convert".

Wrong - to be precise, that is the Vedic Hinduism you are talking about. How difficult is it to understand that Vedic Hinduism is just one facet of Hinduism and not its entirety ? for instance I follow much of Shaivite Hinduism and not the Vedic one. Many northerners are also Shaivites. So what makes of them ?

This is what I've been telling. Unlike Semitic religions which have a well defined area of origin and in the case of two even well defined founders, Hinduism is a term that was given by the invading Semitic kings who got their panties in a bunch seeing such diverse conglomeration of native faith systems, each with their quirky little differences, but all encompassing the same Dharmic values, deities and thus gave one single name: Hinduism to it.

Even before that some of our books have references to gods like Lord Muruga (who is our patron god and is supposed to have established the Tamil Sangam) who was the son of Lord Shiva (who is considered to have given the Tamil language to Tamils).

As I previously explained, what happened was a cultural interchange between two sub-cultures and not invasion/conversion business you are talking about.

Hinduism is what you people called us - we called it Sanatan Dharma.

2 - Loss of indigenous belief systems:

Kupgal: https://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/palaeolithic
south India's equally remarkable prehistoric period remains have only rarely received the attention they deserve.
[...]
These settlements date from the Neolithic period (3000 BC – to the beginning of the Christian era)
[...]
evidence of rituals and social ceremonies involving ringing rocks

How does that support any of your claim or deny any of mine ?

Bhimbetka: Rock Shelters of Bhimbhetka India | ARTHISTORYWORLDS
These images are painted mainly in red, white, and yellow and are mostly of riders, religious symbols and a highly stylized script. Some religious elements include tree gods, tree spirits, or yakshas and sky chariots.

Now, before people dismiss these as just 'primitive rock paintings', keep in mind that we are talking the early period of Hinduism, circa 2nd millenium BCE, so, in the contemporary context, these were state-of-the-art indigenous religions which have now disappeared.

Who said they disappeared ?

Have you ever visited South India, for starters ? I can't believe how you are typing these things with a straight face ! Perhaps you think this online title you have makes you qualified on subjects you assuredly have no knowledge of !

3 - Reverence of invaders who replaced indigenous beliefs with the foreign concepts:

The Adastya (standardized spelling) myth is crystal clear: it talks about a northern deity who crossed over to the south, killed 'evil' indignous Rakshasas, and brought enlightenment. Again, from Agastya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agastya the Muni, was born of both Gods, Mitra and Varuna, from Urvashi and is believed to be the first Brahman to cross the Vindhya Range and travel to southern India.

Now Agathiyar (Kurumuni) has become a North Indian invader. Wikipedia again.

Strawman argument. I never claimed Hinduism is monolithic or homogenous. Perhaps you can try reading the actual posts rather than assuming what you want to read.

No it is not strawman. It is actually the crux of the argument.

You are used to the thought that a religion should have one point of origin from which it spreads outwards and cannot think otherwise. Hence your argument that Hinduism was first practised in Sindhu Valley and from there sages/invaders/mickey mouse took it to different part of India.

That in itself is a blunder. There is no defined point of origin for the faith system you call as Hinduism. What you are referring to is Vedic Hinduism which is just one aspect of today's Hinduism. As I said Hinduism was the name the outsiders who got confused by all the diversity of the faith strucutres gave to the Sanatan Dharma. It was not what we ourselves called us.

 

[Tamizhan]

As for the mental gymnastics intending to equal equal the Muslim converts and the South Indians hitwall how many Arabs or Turks or Chechens or Bosnians visit any shrine in Pakistan as part of their religious obligation ? None whatsoever. But Muslims from all over the world have to go to Karbala or to Mecca to do pilgrimage.

But we certainly have south Indians visiting North Indian pilgrimage spots and North Indians visiting pilgrimage spots in South. There is a word for it.It is called interchange, mutual-influence.

 

[Developereo]

Wrong - to be precise, that is the Vedic Hinduism you are talking about. How difficult is it to understand that Vedic Hinduism is just one facet of Hinduism and not its entirety ? for instance I follow much of Shaivite Hinduism and not the Vedic one. Many northerners are also Shaivites. So what makes of them ?

See below.

How does that support any of your claim or deny any of mine ?

The article points out that this culture has disappeared from India and has received scant attention even from the archaeological world.

Now Agathiyar (Kurumuni) has become a North Indian invader. Wikipedia again.

Scholars quoted in wikipedia. Feel free to read them.

No it is not strawman. It is actually the crux of the argument
You are used to the thought that a religion should have one point of origin from which it spreads outwards. Hence your argument that Hinduism was first practised in Sindhu Valley and from there sages/invaders/mickey mouse took it to different part of India.

That in itself is a blunder. There is no defined point of origin for the faith system you call as Hinduism. What you are referring to is Vedic Hinduism which is just one aspect of today's Hinduism. As I said Hinduism was the name the outsiders who got confused by all the diversity of the faith strucutres gave to the Sanatan Dharma. It was not what we ourselves called us.

Your claims are self-contradictory. On the one hand you claim that Hinduism is a collection of disparate belief systems and, at the same time, you assert mutual influence. When disparate systems 'influence' each other, they, by definition, acquire characteristics of each other.

There are very definite archaelogical clues detailing the development of various texts, deities and belief systems within Hinduism. The second most worshipped deity in TN (Vinayaka) is a northern Vedic import and shows the extent of the conversion, or "influence" as you call it. Can you name a southern deity who is worshipped so widely in the north? Do southern lanugages and cultures have as much currency in the north that Sanskrit does in the south?

As for the mental gymnastics intending to equal equal the Muslim converts and the South Indians hitwall how many Arabs or Turks or Chechens or Bosnians visit any shrine in Pakistan as part of their religious obligation ? None whatsoever. But Muslims from all over the world have to go to Karbala or to Mecca to do pilgrimage.

But we certainly have south Indians visiting North Indian pilgrimage spots and North Indians visiting pilgrimage spots in South. There is a word for it.It is called interchange, mutual-influence.

There are parallels in Islam. Sufi saints and shrines are from various parts including Iran, Cantral Asia and even India. People who visit sufi shrines do visit them all over the place.

P.S. Forgot to add the (gasp!) wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayakas

 

[Capt.Popeye]

As for the mental gymnastics intending to equal equal the Muslim converts and the South Indians hitwall how many Arabs or Turks or Chechens or Bosnians visit any shrine in Pakistan as part of their religious obligation ? None whatsoever. But Muslims from all over the world have to go to Karbala or to Mecca to do pilgrimage.

But we certainly have south Indians visiting North Indian pilgrimage spots and North Indians visiting pilgrimage spots in South. There is a word for it.It is called interchange, mutual-influence.

People brought up in an unilateral unipolar rigidly doctrinaire system have no clue what that means.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^^ His views can certainly be debated.

But before advocating violence and waging war against the state, he should have given up his US citizenship, and left the US.

If he did not want to do that his only option was to exercise free speech in the manner of Noam Chomsky.

IMHO he was also rather naive. In some of these extremist groups that he was dabbling in, the informants outnumber the actual Jihadis!

Pretty self serving and one sided tirade!

Being self righteous is a specialty with these folks. Even the 9/11 bombers and a suicide bomber about to explode would be full of self righteousness.

 

[fallstuff]

He also went to train for terrorism, and lied to federal authorities too. He has much to answer for.

Prosecutors actually had no proof on that.

The main issue he had was translation of alleged Al qaida material and posting of the same online. People viewing that material was being considered as distrubution of the same. Actually Supreme Court does say that if the act is done without any co-ordianaion or contact from any banned group, than the act is actually protected speech. However, there are overlapping of other lawful resstrictions about distribution of materials such as certain provisions under the Patriot Act.

You do realize a jury will convict a Turkey sandwich if terrorism is attached to the complaint.

 

[Vinod2070]

As for the mental gymnastics intending to equal equal the Muslim converts and the South Indians hitwall how many Arabs or Turks or Chechens or Bosnians visit any shrine in Pakistan as part of their religious obligation ? None whatsoever. But Muslims from all over the world have to go to Karbala or to Mecca to do pilgrimage.

But we certainly have south Indians visiting North Indian pilgrimage spots and North Indians visiting pilgrimage spots in South. There is a word for it.It is called interchange, mutual-influence.

Well, you hit the nail on the head.

Disregarding this absurd comparison, in my opinion a convert is a state of being and doesn't so much depend on how many years or generations have passed before conversion.

The state can be identified by some characteristics. E.g.

Insecurity: Leading to identity crisis and much else we can clearly witness

The need to be more loyal than the king (related to the above)

Denial and rejection of one's past.

And some more can be added to the list.

One is no longer a convert when one is comfortable under the skin, comfortable with the new identity or faith or whatever, doesn't feel the need to disown and denigrate and reject his past, can reconcile the duality without being insecure or ashamed of it, can isolate the "conversion" part and not let it effect the whole of his being etc.

Now, whether our friends demonstrate these characteristics or not is for them and us to see and make our own judgments.

For me, it is as clear as mud.

Now, the reason for this insecurity is not far to seek. It has something to do with the nature of Islam itself.

“Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his language is Arabic.

His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his.

The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil.”

For example, you won't see a Pakistani or Indian convert to Christianity claiming to have ruled India (or South America or Africa or Arabia), just because some Europeans did.

You won't see them claiming that they are a separate nation, just because they adopted a different way to reach the divine.

You will see many Churches in Kerala even having Aartis! Many Christians keep their Hindu names. They are comfortable with duality of their faith and their traditions.

Coming back to Muslim converts, you see this phenomenon in most places like Egypt, Iran, Syria etc. They all lost their ancient civilizations and belief systems almost completely.

However it gets magnified in the case of the Indian subcontinent and the reason is that the majority here didn't convert but stuck to their faith and identity. This created its own issues that you won't see in Iran etc. The need for keeping the "not so new" identity means you are forced to vehemently hate and reject the previous one and hate the people who didn't reject the identity all the time. Everything has to be seen through this narrow prism.

Just as an example, many Iranians celebrate Navroz (despite opposition from the Ayatollahs) as it is part of their ancient culture and religion. It is also celebrated by some Pakistani Shia even though they were never Zoroastrians. You can't even say they celebrate it for secular reasons as then it would be not limited to some sects who feel more aligned to Iran.

So, yes, I guess as long as the characteristics of being a "convert" are observed, it is fair to call it as it is.

It is not denigration or anything.

 

[yahya07]

What happened in Australia was a general xenophobic acts of some idiotic neighbourhood bullies...no way Govt sponsored or not even supported by the majority of the Australians..

I'm not trolling...just stating the facts as they were...Truth is muslims dont integrate into other societies and think that integrating means anti-islam..I have seen people in this forum itself define "integration" as a synonym of "conversion"...thinking so you try to build more walls around you and with the acts of some of the crazzies from your community its fuels the hate of the natives..and why not ?

Please look inward why the world at large is growing wary of Muslims instead of silly conspiracy theories about the zionist world planning to persecute the innocent momin.

dude i can tell you for a fact that australians are very racist towards indians, more so than any other ethnic group. bashing and robbing of indian students and cab drivers is so common that i even have friends who've done it lol. not to mean but i just want to burst your bubble that aussies have any particular respect for indians.

 

[Tamizhan]

See below.

Your claims are self-contradictory. On the one hand you claim that Hinduism is a collection of disparate belief systems and, at the same time, you assert mutual influence. When disparate systems 'influence' each other, they, by definition, acquire characteristics of each other.

On the other hand you are just shifting goal posts. Now how does your current stand (acceptance they are slightly disparate faith structures which mutually influenced each other and both of which are in existance and practise today) stand against your initial assertion that South Indians were having a pre-Hindu religion and then one day the North Indian invader came and civilized us, giving us our religion, language etc and our pre-Hinduism religion is completely destroyed ? It doesn't stand up.

No my claims are not self-contradictory, but your thinking is not able to expand horizons. You insist on viewing Sanatan Dharma through the prism of Islam. And I can't make you think outside that prism given that you have spent 25+ years practising an abrahamaic religion.

1) There are very definite archaelogical clues detailing the development of various texts, deities and belief systems within Hinduism. 2) The second most worshipped deity in TN (Vinayaka) is a northern Vedic import and shows the extent of the conversion, or "influence" as you call it. Can you name a southern deity who is worshipped so widely in the north? 3)Do southern lanugages and cultures have as much currency in the north that Sanskrit does in the south?

1) What are those 'archaelogical clues' ? Care to point out ?

2) Now Pillaiyar has become a Northern Vedic import ? You never cease to amaze me. I will not even bother with that.

3) When did language become an indicator of faith. You , sir are thoroughly confused as to what you are arguing and bringing in unrelated things to digress from the main topic you initially raised.

The article points out that this culture has disappeared from India and has received scant attention even from the archaeological world.

LOL. Culture has disappeared. ? This is why I asked have you visited South India ? Have you been to the villages to see the religious practises ?

No the culture has not disappeared and is alive and kicking.

There are parallels in Islam. Sufi saints and shrines are from various parts including Iran, Cantral Asia and even India. People who visit sufi shrines do visit them all over the place.

Sufis are considered shirk by the Saudis.

P.S. Forgot to add the (gasp!) wikipedia link: Vinayakas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what is that supposed to mean ?

You have wikipedia knowledge regarding Hindu deities and I have real puranic knowledge. Find some else to waste your time.

First understand that Vedic Hinduism which originated in IVC area is just one facet of Hinduism and does not constitute its entirety. And we South Indians dont follow much Vedic Hinduism. So that lays your initial laughable assertion to rest.

I'm done with you.