Rushdie and the British Establishment
Moeed Pirzada July 16, 2007
#50 Posted by SaimaShah on August 31, 2007 11:01:14 am
Moeed,
Though I appreciate your analysis and the work that went into its background. I'd like to differ with you about why Rushdie was awarded.
1. He should have been awarded a long time ago, considering other British writers of equal repute. He probably wasn't for fear of the reaction in Muslim worlds. The reason why literature is great is because it provokes people to think. In that case Satanic Verses provoked many people to think. The Islamic world's violent response to Rushdie, the Fatwa etc., in my humble opinion shows exactly what is wrong with it--sad that for a body of ideas that were so eclectic and advanced for the times has sunk to violence as a recourse for literally any problem.
2. The problem that the West has with Islam is the VIOLENCE. Nothing else is worthy of embarrassment.
3. If Muslims had behaved with dignity to the offense of the Satanic Verses, it would have proved Rushdie wrong.
4. Don't you think that the Jihad crowd, if they had stood in Hyde Park talking about exactly what is wrong with modernity, instead of bombing innocent people in subways, would have been heard?
5. It is a mark of Western liberty that the most outrageous ideas are published and discussed and a mark of the intellectual sloth and emotional cowardice in the 'Islamic' countries that nobody is free to speak their mind. But always must toady some figure in authority.
6. Don't you think that it is strange how a lot of the Fiqh that guides Islamic social behaviour today was written by a bunch of people who themselves had killed to get the power? and isn't it strange that the political state is always aligned with religion in each and every Muslim state? to ensure that the State never gives power to the people and remains imperial, submissive to a few people.
Unless Muslims/Islamic countries replace violence with cogent dialogue, it will continue to lose power.
Though I appreciate your analysis and the work that went into its background. I'd like to differ with you about why Rushdie was awarded.
1. He should have been awarded a long time ago, considering other British writers of equal repute. He probably wasn't for fear of the reaction in Muslim worlds. The reason why literature is great is because it provokes people to think. In that case Satanic Verses provoked many people to think. The Islamic world's violent response to Rushdie, the Fatwa etc., in my humble opinion shows exactly what is wrong with it--sad that for a body of ideas that were so eclectic and advanced for the times has sunk to violence as a recourse for literally any problem.
2. The problem that the West has with Islam is the VIOLENCE. Nothing else is worthy of embarrassment.
3. If Muslims had behaved with dignity to the offense of the Satanic Verses, it would have proved Rushdie wrong.
4. Don't you think that the Jihad crowd, if they had stood in Hyde Park talking about exactly what is wrong with modernity, instead of bombing innocent people in subways, would have been heard?
5. It is a mark of Western liberty that the most outrageous ideas are published and discussed and a mark of the intellectual sloth and emotional cowardice in the 'Islamic' countries that nobody is free to speak their mind. But always must toady some figure in authority.
6. Don't you think that it is strange how a lot of the Fiqh that guides Islamic social behaviour today was written by a bunch of people who themselves had killed to get the power? and isn't it strange that the political state is always aligned with religion in each and every Muslim state? to ensure that the State never gives power to the people and remains imperial, submissive to a few people.
Unless Muslims/Islamic countries replace violence with cogent dialogue, it will continue to lose power.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#49 Posted by antamazol on July 25, 2007 12:26:59 am
Dear Moeed, Hello , nice to read your article .I thought you dropped the idea of writing on this subject.
Contact please.
Contact please.
#48 Posted by echoboom on July 20, 2007 10:19:21 pm
An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values
Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use it to expose double standards on both sides
Karen Armstrong
Saturday July 21, 2007
The Guardian
In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was "polluted". Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
Article continues
This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarised world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as "incompatible with peace and social harmony". This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.
Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardised social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.
In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.
It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western "liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other". They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.
Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.
On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini's violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.
But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.
Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.
· Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism
Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use it to expose double standards on both sides
Karen Armstrong
Saturday July 21, 2007
The Guardian
In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was "polluted". Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
Article continues
This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarised world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as "incompatible with peace and social harmony". This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.
Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardised social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.
In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.
It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western "liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other". They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.
Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.
On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini's violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.
But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.
Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.
· Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism
#47 Posted by nasah on July 23, 2007 7:13:07 am
"Yet 18 years later, the decision to knight Rushdie is laced with intellectual hypocrisy, flawed judgment and narrow political expediency."(author)
this is a bunch of bull -- Rushdie was given a Knighthood not for Muslim-Kushi by Satanic Verses -- that was not an equivalent of Ghazihood for Infidel-Kushi.
Rushdie is British and a British literary giant -- with the Knighthood the Britt simple recognized the obvious -- though a little belatedly -- it was not done to put ants in Muslim pants.
The problem with us Muslims is that we are in a perpetual state of carrying red ants in our green pants even when there are no ants -- or no pants.
This business of "Chooiee tu mooiee" has to stop someday – its becoming a drag.
this is a bunch of bull -- Rushdie was given a Knighthood not for Muslim-Kushi by Satanic Verses -- that was not an equivalent of Ghazihood for Infidel-Kushi.
Rushdie is British and a British literary giant -- with the Knighthood the Britt simple recognized the obvious -- though a little belatedly -- it was not done to put ants in Muslim pants.
The problem with us Muslims is that we are in a perpetual state of carrying red ants in our green pants even when there are no ants -- or no pants.
This business of "Chooiee tu mooiee" has to stop someday – its becoming a drag.
#45 Posted by giani_240 on July 22, 2007 3:51:23 am
Re: # 44
Pity you havent met more. Suggest you make an effort to meet some of them and you will find that the press that often sensationalizes has gotten it pretty wrong and often
Now if the VHP/RSS etc were the low roaders and into Muslim bashing as a primary aim then Arjun and you should have no problem with chaddiwalas.
There is no other brand. Dont need to hide, if thats what you mean. They are really nice and simple folks once you get to meet them. They believe in simple things like love your country, all laws should apply equally to everybody, be proud of your heritage etc.
You will also find a cross-section of people - rural folks, Venture capitalists as well as gold medalists - who are members.
Dont know Dost-Mittar personlly but have enjoyed reading his interacts. Did not find any Muslim bashing in them either. Since you respect Dost-Mitter why dont you follow his example.
I am different from Dost Mitter in that he is older and he lives in Canada, I think. Dont know much else about him.
Pity you havent met more. Suggest you make an effort to meet some of them and you will find that the press that often sensationalizes has gotten it pretty wrong and often
Now if the VHP/RSS etc were the low roaders and into Muslim bashing as a primary aim then Arjun and you should have no problem with chaddiwalas.
There is no other brand. Dont need to hide, if thats what you mean. They are really nice and simple folks once you get to meet them. They believe in simple things like love your country, all laws should apply equally to everybody, be proud of your heritage etc.
You will also find a cross-section of people - rural folks, Venture capitalists as well as gold medalists - who are members.
Dont know Dost-Mittar personlly but have enjoyed reading his interacts. Did not find any Muslim bashing in them either. Since you respect Dost-Mitter why dont you follow his example.
I am different from Dost Mitter in that he is older and he lives in Canada, I think. Dont know much else about him.
#44 Posted by KaalChakra on July 21, 2007 9:14:02 am
Giani ji
I haven't met any chaddi walas, except once as a kid. So am curious to learn what distinguishes RSS/VHP folks.
You don't have a very good reputation, you know.
Or are RSS/VHP/Chaddi walas too 'respect-all' and 'love-all' typers under a different brand name?
------------------------------------------
Giani ji, having written that, re-read your #43, and think, may be, you are suggesting the "high-road" more than anything else?
That would be odd, since the whole reputation of RSS/VHP/Chaddi walas is of being 'low-roaders.'
I mean, what makes you so different from the two most respected Indians here, both committed secularists, dost-mittar sahib, and anil ji?
Something seems to be missing here, something I don't get. :(
I haven't met any chaddi walas, except once as a kid. So am curious to learn what distinguishes RSS/VHP folks.
You don't have a very good reputation, you know.
Or are RSS/VHP/Chaddi walas too 'respect-all' and 'love-all' typers under a different brand name?
------------------------------------------
Giani ji, having written that, re-read your #43, and think, may be, you are suggesting the "high-road" more than anything else?
That would be odd, since the whole reputation of RSS/VHP/Chaddi walas is of being 'low-roaders.'
I mean, what makes you so different from the two most respected Indians here, both committed secularists, dost-mittar sahib, and anil ji?
Something seems to be missing here, something I don't get. :(
#43 Posted by giani_240 on July 20, 2007 6:10:01 pm
Hi Kaal,
Please help me out by pointing out my leftist or secular leanings in my earlier posts. However, do provide the context as well.
All I am asking Hindus to do is respond and interact using deceny and the high road. This does not mean bending over.
Even Vajpayjeeji took the initiative to talk to Pervez. Now you would not call him a leftist or secular would you ?
My suggestion to Arjun was simply to read the news and ask himself one simple question.
Are Hindus and IMs better off than their neighbors and if so why? I guess I should have been very explicit to him.
Please help me out by pointing out my leftist or secular leanings in my earlier posts. However, do provide the context as well.
All I am asking Hindus to do is respond and interact using deceny and the high road. This does not mean bending over.
Even Vajpayjeeji took the initiative to talk to Pervez. Now you would not call him a leftist or secular would you ?
My suggestion to Arjun was simply to read the news and ask himself one simple question.
Are Hindus and IMs better off than their neighbors and if so why? I guess I should have been very explicit to him.
#42 Posted by borivili_express on July 20, 2007 12:40:49 pm
Indian/Hindu Democracy and Justice in action:
The Times of India -Breaking news, views. reviews, cricket from across India
Driven to despair
20 Jul 2007, 0030 hrs IST,Jyoti Punwani
SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
On January 10, 1993, Hajirabi Qureishi saw her husband and eldest son dragged from her house by Shiv Sainiks who used to hang around the local Sena shakha. When she tried to stop the sainiks, they pushed her off the parapet and she lost consciousness. She never saw her husband and son again.
Much before his inquiry into the 1992-93 Mumbai riots was complete, Justice Srikrishna wrote a letter to the government recommending immediate payment of compensation for missing persons in cases that he had personally investigated. The Qureishis headed that list. Hajirabi should have received Rs 4,00,000; instead she received Rs 2,00,000 eight years later for her husband. Compensation for her son Saleem Qureishi continues to form the subject matter of petitions being heard for the ump-teenth time in the Supreme Court.
Unable to cope with memories of their disappearance, Hajirabi left the Hindu-Muslim chawl that had been home for years to live in a Muslim ghetto. Every known and unknown Muslim organisation had its offices there, including SIMI. Yet they could not recruit Hajira's son Rizwan, his father's favourite.
Farooq Mapkar should have been an ideal candidate for SIMI. Shot in his shoulder on January 10, 1993, while praying inside a mosque, this bank employee saw a namazi being shot dead at point-blank range despite coming out of the mosque with his hands up. Along with the other namazis, Farooq was charged under Section 307.
Fourteen years later, Farooq continues to take leave from his job to attend court hearings in a case declared false by the Srikrishna commission. Contrast this with the case of sub-inspector Nikhil Kapse. The commission found him guilty for unprovoked firing that killed six innocent Muslims. But he was exonerated by a bunch of policemen entrusted with implementing the commission's findings.
The policemen didn't think it necessary to talk to those who testified in front of the commission about the incident involving Kapse. In these 14 years, Kapse hasn't faced a day's suspension. More than Farooq and Rizwan, Abdullah would have made the ideal jehadi. As a 12-year-old, he saw his handicapped father being dragged down the stairs of the madrassa where he taught and shot, pleading for water as he lay dying. Abdullah continued to live in the same madrassa. Eight years later, he joined the legal battle to put behind bars the policemen charged with murder for this incident. When he lost, the entire madrassa felt betrayed.
Even while lashing out at the government's indulgence towards policemen charged with murder, Abdullah was packing his bags for further studies in Deoband. He had graduated from his madrassa with flying colours, with full marks in logic. "Why don't you study law", i asked, "you could fight for your father". "My world is the hereafter", he replied. "He can't get involved in all this", added his teachers.
Mumbai's riot orphans have grown up deprived of their childhood, seen their mothers struggle alone - and often fail - to give them the education their fathers desired for them. They've seen those who led the violent mobs become ministers. A sitting judge pronounced these policemen guilty; his report became an election issue and made ministers out of nobodies, but has yet to be acted upon.
They've seen, over the last year, those who took revenge on their behalf by killing innocent Hindus, being made to pay, some even with life sentences.
Last week, as two Muslim accused in the July 11 train blasts in Mumbai confessed on TV (by a mysterious coincidence, all channels got hold of the footage exactly a year after the blasts), the news anchors screamed: "This man not only betrayed his nation, but also humanity. Doesn't your blood boil when you see this traitor"?
Narendra Modi could be accused of having done the same. No channel asks these questions about him. These double standards are now part of being a Muslim in India's "vibrant" democracy. We should be thankful hundreds of Kafeel Ahmeds haven't produced a swadeshi version of jehad.
The writer is a political commentator.
The Times of India -Breaking news, views. reviews, cricket from across India
Driven to despair
20 Jul 2007, 0030 hrs IST,Jyoti Punwani
SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
On January 10, 1993, Hajirabi Qureishi saw her husband and eldest son dragged from her house by Shiv Sainiks who used to hang around the local Sena shakha. When she tried to stop the sainiks, they pushed her off the parapet and she lost consciousness. She never saw her husband and son again.
Much before his inquiry into the 1992-93 Mumbai riots was complete, Justice Srikrishna wrote a letter to the government recommending immediate payment of compensation for missing persons in cases that he had personally investigated. The Qureishis headed that list. Hajirabi should have received Rs 4,00,000; instead she received Rs 2,00,000 eight years later for her husband. Compensation for her son Saleem Qureishi continues to form the subject matter of petitions being heard for the ump-teenth time in the Supreme Court.
Unable to cope with memories of their disappearance, Hajirabi left the Hindu-Muslim chawl that had been home for years to live in a Muslim ghetto. Every known and unknown Muslim organisation had its offices there, including SIMI. Yet they could not recruit Hajira's son Rizwan, his father's favourite.
Farooq Mapkar should have been an ideal candidate for SIMI. Shot in his shoulder on January 10, 1993, while praying inside a mosque, this bank employee saw a namazi being shot dead at point-blank range despite coming out of the mosque with his hands up. Along with the other namazis, Farooq was charged under Section 307.
Fourteen years later, Farooq continues to take leave from his job to attend court hearings in a case declared false by the Srikrishna commission. Contrast this with the case of sub-inspector Nikhil Kapse. The commission found him guilty for unprovoked firing that killed six innocent Muslims. But he was exonerated by a bunch of policemen entrusted with implementing the commission's findings.
The policemen didn't think it necessary to talk to those who testified in front of the commission about the incident involving Kapse. In these 14 years, Kapse hasn't faced a day's suspension. More than Farooq and Rizwan, Abdullah would have made the ideal jehadi. As a 12-year-old, he saw his handicapped father being dragged down the stairs of the madrassa where he taught and shot, pleading for water as he lay dying. Abdullah continued to live in the same madrassa. Eight years later, he joined the legal battle to put behind bars the policemen charged with murder for this incident. When he lost, the entire madrassa felt betrayed.
Even while lashing out at the government's indulgence towards policemen charged with murder, Abdullah was packing his bags for further studies in Deoband. He had graduated from his madrassa with flying colours, with full marks in logic. "Why don't you study law", i asked, "you could fight for your father". "My world is the hereafter", he replied. "He can't get involved in all this", added his teachers.
Mumbai's riot orphans have grown up deprived of their childhood, seen their mothers struggle alone - and often fail - to give them the education their fathers desired for them. They've seen those who led the violent mobs become ministers. A sitting judge pronounced these policemen guilty; his report became an election issue and made ministers out of nobodies, but has yet to be acted upon.
They've seen, over the last year, those who took revenge on their behalf by killing innocent Hindus, being made to pay, some even with life sentences.
Last week, as two Muslim accused in the July 11 train blasts in Mumbai confessed on TV (by a mysterious coincidence, all channels got hold of the footage exactly a year after the blasts), the news anchors screamed: "This man not only betrayed his nation, but also humanity. Doesn't your blood boil when you see this traitor"?
Narendra Modi could be accused of having done the same. No channel asks these questions about him. These double standards are now part of being a Muslim in India's "vibrant" democracy. We should be thankful hundreds of Kafeel Ahmeds haven't produced a swadeshi version of jehad.
The writer is a political commentator.
#41 Posted by KaalChakra on July 20, 2007 8:46:35 am
Giani ji
One rarely meets a chaddhi wala. So it's a privilege.
I was curious, and looked up a few of your past interacts.
Would you mind commenting on how your views differ from those of any other regular Hindu' (secularist')s and leftist's?
One rarely meets a chaddhi wala. So it's a privilege.
I was curious, and looked up a few of your past interacts.
Would you mind commenting on how your views differ from those of any other regular Hindu' (secularist')s and leftist's?
#40 Posted by giani_240 on July 19, 2007 3:27:15 pm
Yes they are and I am proud to be a chaddi wala. Alas you are a disgrace to yours I am afraid.
#39 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 19, 2007 1:45:51 pm
#37 Arjun
-sigh-
I thought that other folks talking garbage riled you up and given the chance, you could see reason. Apparently, not so.
1. I did not mention justification in my post did I? I mentioned cause and effect.
2. I did not condone any violence, rather I stated that violence in all forms is wrong. I sincerely believe that we can evolve past settling disputes by killing or maiming others.
3. If you do not see cause and effect, then you cannot elevate your thinking past what just happened. You do not have context for the causes and possible solutions. You are blinded and do nothing but fuel the agression (this applies to government sponsored violence as well as violence by smaller groups, fundamentalist religious types, and yes I am including mulsim fundoos here too).
4. I don't agree with what's going on (Israeli wall, palestinan refugee camps, islamic extremism, etc), but I can understand where it is coming from. All these activities are political moves in a larger chess game. To understand things does not mean you agree with them.
5. Why is understanding cruicial? So that we can treat the "other" as a fellow human. The most ignorant and arrogant policy is to think of the other as "inhuman", "evil", and other such things because then you can simply state that there is no reason to why they are doing what they are doing, so there is nothing to negotiate, and since they are inhuman, we can kill them all anyways. There can be no peace if we don't understand why the other is doing what is being done.
Hope you see my point of view.
-sigh-
I thought that other folks talking garbage riled you up and given the chance, you could see reason. Apparently, not so.
1. I did not mention justification in my post did I? I mentioned cause and effect.
2. I did not condone any violence, rather I stated that violence in all forms is wrong. I sincerely believe that we can evolve past settling disputes by killing or maiming others.
3. If you do not see cause and effect, then you cannot elevate your thinking past what just happened. You do not have context for the causes and possible solutions. You are blinded and do nothing but fuel the agression (this applies to government sponsored violence as well as violence by smaller groups, fundamentalist religious types, and yes I am including mulsim fundoos here too).
4. I don't agree with what's going on (Israeli wall, palestinan refugee camps, islamic extremism, etc), but I can understand where it is coming from. All these activities are political moves in a larger chess game. To understand things does not mean you agree with them.
5. Why is understanding cruicial? So that we can treat the "other" as a fellow human. The most ignorant and arrogant policy is to think of the other as "inhuman", "evil", and other such things because then you can simply state that there is no reason to why they are doing what they are doing, so there is nothing to negotiate, and since they are inhuman, we can kill them all anyways. There can be no peace if we don't understand why the other is doing what is being done.
Hope you see my point of view.
#38 Posted by jang on July 19, 2007 11:58:31 am
i dont know..a starbucks cashier and a representative of the united stated govt (national park service cop who gave me a speeding ticket) called me "sir". who needs the queen.
#37 Posted by arjun2 on July 19, 2007 11:46:53 am
#33 Posted by giani_240 on July 19, 2007 10:34:56 am
I am of Indian origin and a card carrying member of the VHP.
I'm sure your parents are proud of you...half of my family, the hindu half, would disown me if i had anything to do with the chaddis...
You (all) are always among the first to attack any muslim poster, and your theme is always anti-muslim - "islamofascists" or like.
why is it anti-muslim to point out the things that qualify as islamofascism..the cartoon protests, the pope thing, rushdie, brit-muslim orgs being against the teaching of the holocaust etc etc.
This isn't a small minority of extremists thing..25%, yes one out of 4, young american muslims think suicide bombing is ok..
you must be an ISI plant out to destroy whatever dialog is attempted.
why, yes...that's what I'm out to do...destroy any dialog that's attempted..specifically ones with indians going "oh the pakis are victims of terrorism, just like us"..If I can stop one indian from being a kuldip nayyar, it'll be worth it..
I am of Indian origin and a card carrying member of the VHP.
I'm sure your parents are proud of you...half of my family, the hindu half, would disown me if i had anything to do with the chaddis...
You (all) are always among the first to attack any muslim poster, and your theme is always anti-muslim - "islamofascists" or like.
why is it anti-muslim to point out the things that qualify as islamofascism..the cartoon protests, the pope thing, rushdie, brit-muslim orgs being against the teaching of the holocaust etc etc.
This isn't a small minority of extremists thing..25%, yes one out of 4, young american muslims think suicide bombing is ok..
you must be an ISI plant out to destroy whatever dialog is attempted.
why, yes...that's what I'm out to do...destroy any dialog that's attempted..specifically ones with indians going "oh the pakis are victims of terrorism, just like us"..If I can stop one indian from being a kuldip nayyar, it'll be worth it..
#36 Posted by masadi on July 19, 2007 11:41:05 am
Saima shah writes "Tomorrow Mr Rushdie may write something beautiful about Islam, then would the British govt. take back the knighthood? no"
The Knighthood is meaningless, but when its used deliberately to manipulate people's emotions, especially after a third rate writer- who happens to be a distant relative of my aunt- deliberately went out of his way to write fictionalized accounts distorting and trying to throw mud at the prophet and his family, it become mischief- especially when it is put to political use- as was when the Knighthood was given.
There is nothing in this entire episode to feel proud about, rather we need to feel ashamed at our condition that these colonial bas***** still consider us sh** to play these games with us. Rushdie can write whatever he wants, he'll get his due soon enough, but as soon as he becomes an instrument that is used to subdue parts of the "Third World", that is when like the Jihadists he becomes an instrument of the Shaitan. If he was smart enough he'd stay clear of all this but the poor bast*** is a damn fool, like Musharraf he wants to hurry his journey to the abyss...
The Knighthood is meaningless, but when its used deliberately to manipulate people's emotions, especially after a third rate writer- who happens to be a distant relative of my aunt- deliberately went out of his way to write fictionalized accounts distorting and trying to throw mud at the prophet and his family, it become mischief- especially when it is put to political use- as was when the Knighthood was given.
There is nothing in this entire episode to feel proud about, rather we need to feel ashamed at our condition that these colonial bas***** still consider us sh** to play these games with us. Rushdie can write whatever he wants, he'll get his due soon enough, but as soon as he becomes an instrument that is used to subdue parts of the "Third World", that is when like the Jihadists he becomes an instrument of the Shaitan. If he was smart enough he'd stay clear of all this but the poor bast*** is a damn fool, like Musharraf he wants to hurry his journey to the abyss...
#35 Posted by masadi on July 19, 2007 11:30:16 am
Kulharee writes " A poor moron without access to clean drinking water protesting over Rushdie affair comes across as a stupid poor moron "
No you stupid fcuk, a "poor person without access to clean water protesting over the Rushdie Affair", is protesting those same forces that trample on his humanity, deny him clean water and consider him expendible vermin. He is protesting that same injustice when he/she rails against the West that colonized him, impoverished him, and then ensured through their morons (the likes of you) that he is denied clean drinking water.
No you stupid fcuk, a "poor person without access to clean water protesting over the Rushdie Affair", is protesting those same forces that trample on his humanity, deny him clean water and consider him expendible vermin. He is protesting that same injustice when he/she rails against the West that colonized him, impoverished him, and then ensured through their morons (the likes of you) that he is denied clean drinking water.
#34 Posted by arjun2 on July 19, 2007 11:29:42 am
#32 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 19, 2007 9:12:52 am
ok..in that case, whenever the israelis take over pali land or do something bad to arabs, I'll be asking about the root cause of why the israelis were forced to do what they did. What's sauce for the goose and all that. The root cause thing cuts both ways. I'm sure the Israelis will say that pali terrorism justifies their land-grab wall.
Either you think people blowing up subways or flying planes into buildings is wrong or you don't. You can't have it both ways. If you think it's wrong, the justification shouldn't matter. Once you start accepting some justification, you're on a slippery slope. I'm sure the sunni bomber who kills a bunch of shias has some root cause he completely believes in.
Justification is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm sure the 15 relatively well off saudis who flew planes into buildings thought they had some just cause. I'm sure the british born and raised brit-pakis who blew themselves up in subways completelty believed in their cause.
ok..in that case, whenever the israelis take over pali land or do something bad to arabs, I'll be asking about the root cause of why the israelis were forced to do what they did. What's sauce for the goose and all that. The root cause thing cuts both ways. I'm sure the Israelis will say that pali terrorism justifies their land-grab wall.
Either you think people blowing up subways or flying planes into buildings is wrong or you don't. You can't have it both ways. If you think it's wrong, the justification shouldn't matter. Once you start accepting some justification, you're on a slippery slope. I'm sure the sunni bomber who kills a bunch of shias has some root cause he completely believes in.
Justification is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm sure the 15 relatively well off saudis who flew planes into buildings thought they had some just cause. I'm sure the british born and raised brit-pakis who blew themselves up in subways completelty believed in their cause.
#33 Posted by giani_240 on July 19, 2007 10:34:56 am
Hi Arjun,
I am of Indian origin and a card carrying member of the VHP. I have noticed your interacts across various posts on chowk and cant decide whether you are one person or a group of persons. But one thing I am sure of and that is you must be an ISI plant.
You (all) are always among the first to attack any muslim poster, and your theme is always anti-muslim - "islamofascists" or like. Even when serious discussion is taking place, you tend to trivialize it and start straight away on a communal theme. And it is so consistent that is why I believe that you must be an ISI plant out to destroy whatever dialog is attempted.
On one hand I could tell you - let it go, look around you and see what is happening to the 2 nation theory. Just do not keep justifying it by your diatribes.
Do not let echo and zee rile you so much. Take the high road.
Just a friendly advice on the off chance you are not a ISI plant.
giani
I am of Indian origin and a card carrying member of the VHP. I have noticed your interacts across various posts on chowk and cant decide whether you are one person or a group of persons. But one thing I am sure of and that is you must be an ISI plant.
You (all) are always among the first to attack any muslim poster, and your theme is always anti-muslim - "islamofascists" or like. Even when serious discussion is taking place, you tend to trivialize it and start straight away on a communal theme. And it is so consistent that is why I believe that you must be an ISI plant out to destroy whatever dialog is attempted.
On one hand I could tell you - let it go, look around you and see what is happening to the 2 nation theory. Just do not keep justifying it by your diatribes.
Do not let echo and zee rile you so much. Take the high road.
Just a friendly advice on the off chance you are not a ISI plant.
giani
#32 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 19, 2007 9:12:52 am
#31 Arjun
Wrong analogy there Arjun. We are talking about political cause and effect. Where a well oiled overwhelmingly strong military and economic force exerts its will on a weaker foe. The resistance from the weaker foe will be asymetrical. And by that, one means, gurilla style, no formal military, going after targets usually not acceptable in direct conflict etc etc.
I beleive all war and violence is wrong. So symmetrical or asymmetrical, both are wrong. However, one can see when a response arises, why it will arise, and how it will take place.
You are an intelligent guy (have read many of your interacts), don't let emotions blind you all the time.
--thinking
Wrong analogy there Arjun. We are talking about political cause and effect. Where a well oiled overwhelmingly strong military and economic force exerts its will on a weaker foe. The resistance from the weaker foe will be asymetrical. And by that, one means, gurilla style, no formal military, going after targets usually not acceptable in direct conflict etc etc.
I beleive all war and violence is wrong. So symmetrical or asymmetrical, both are wrong. However, one can see when a response arises, why it will arise, and how it will take place.
You are an intelligent guy (have read many of your interacts), don't let emotions blind you all the time.
--thinking
#31 Posted by arjun2 on July 19, 2007 4:27:51 am
#27 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 18, 2007 11:59:04 am
we should not ignore the reasons that come after the "but" either.
BS...do you care about the root cause when a man rapes a women? Do you say "what he did was bad but he probably was too poor to get a real date"? I'm guessing not...
we should not ignore the reasons that come after the "but" either.
BS...do you care about the root cause when a man rapes a women? Do you say "what he did was bad but he probably was too poor to get a real date"? I'm guessing not...
#30 Posted by SaimaShah on July 19, 2007 1:35:48 am
Re: # 15
Indeed. Naguib Mahfouz was a brilliant writer.
Indeed. Naguib Mahfouz was a brilliant writer.
#29 Posted by jang on July 18, 2007 3:24:37 pm
overall this is a good thing. if knighthood is not about provocating muslims but purely literary, its a good thing to have a muslim knight. if its a challange to "muslims", thats great too. this will cause a discussion..and may the best argument win. sure there will be some bombings, but they will be there anyhow methinks.
#28 Posted by TOLKININ on July 18, 2007 12:41:28 pm
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/muslim-fundamentalists-suffering-from-col onized-mentality/
Muslim Fundamentalists Suffering From Colonized Mentality
If the hardliners hate Rushdie, they shouldn't really give a flying
f*ck whether he gets knighted, abducted by aliens, or anally probed.
Yet the fundos care very much about all those when it comes to
Rushdie. Why? Get a life, you freaking losers. He doesn't like you.
Not only that, but he actually left the faith you both once shared.
He dislikes you that much. Stop acting like a stalking ex-boyfriend
and leave him alone. The best revenge --- if that is what you want
--- is to ignore him, not keep having ejaculations every time you
hear about him. That just gives him more power over you. You'd know
all these things if you ever dated, but of course, since you forbid
that too, you have no idea how to play mind games with your exes. So
you just keep agitating to kill your ex
Muslim Fundamentalists Suffering From Colonized Mentality
If the hardliners hate Rushdie, they shouldn't really give a flying
f*ck whether he gets knighted, abducted by aliens, or anally probed.
Yet the fundos care very much about all those when it comes to
Rushdie. Why? Get a life, you freaking losers. He doesn't like you.
Not only that, but he actually left the faith you both once shared.
He dislikes you that much. Stop acting like a stalking ex-boyfriend
and leave him alone. The best revenge --- if that is what you want
--- is to ignore him, not keep having ejaculations every time you
hear about him. That just gives him more power over you. You'd know
all these things if you ever dated, but of course, since you forbid
that too, you have no idea how to play mind games with your exes. So
you just keep agitating to kill your ex
#27 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 18, 2007 11:59:04 am
#22 Harish, #23 Folio
Harish, exactly my point as well. I fear that the majority will suffer immensely due to inaction. The overall picture is more complicated however. When Arjun says that the majority says "BUT"...we should not ignore the reasons that come after the "but" either.
Overall though, freedom of speech is not so free in US and UK either. Having said that however, understanding the chess game that is taking place in world politics is much better then being outraged or offended :).
Moeed is right that the Knighthood itself is a chess move, challenging the disgruntled muslim youth. The British are worried that thier identity will be taken away (having listened to one raving mullah in UK, I don't blame the White British for thinking what they think), but at an even higher level...this is an intricate dance of cause and effect.
We may not be able to change other people's minds, but we can certainly change our own. I am willing to listen to all sides :).
-thinking
Harish, exactly my point as well. I fear that the majority will suffer immensely due to inaction. The overall picture is more complicated however. When Arjun says that the majority says "BUT"...we should not ignore the reasons that come after the "but" either.
Overall though, freedom of speech is not so free in US and UK either. Having said that however, understanding the chess game that is taking place in world politics is much better then being outraged or offended :).
Moeed is right that the Knighthood itself is a chess move, challenging the disgruntled muslim youth. The British are worried that thier identity will be taken away (having listened to one raving mullah in UK, I don't blame the White British for thinking what they think), but at an even higher level...this is an intricate dance of cause and effect.
We may not be able to change other people's minds, but we can certainly change our own. I am willing to listen to all sides :).
-thinking
#26 Posted by TOLKININ on July 18, 2007 11:09:20 am
Without debating Rushdie's literary abilities, the selection process,
whether or not one should give a flying fart about GBEs, OBEs and
other fanciful orders of the British Empire, etc. etc., just one
little comment on the freedom of speech bit.
If, to many, Islamic or sharia law seems to squelch speech that is
subversive of Islam, British law on freedom of speech also seems to be
inconsistent to some Muslims. This freedom of speech, which is based
on individual autonomy and self-governance, isn't quite as absolute as
one would believe. Critics who wish to point out this as hypocrisy,
have quoted the British government's ban on the film based on the real
life of the Saudi princess who was executed for committing adultery
(after pressure from the Saudi royal family), the temporary ban on the
Pakistani film, International Guerrillas, whose protaganist is a
dissolute drunk (supposedly Rushdie) and whose life ends when he is
struck by lightning, the cancellation by the Royal Court Theatre of
the play Perdition, to list a few. These do not provide sufficient
ethical justification for a ban on any of Rushdie's books, in my mind,
but it was a pov I read, interestingly enough, in a legal journal (and
I do not know if they were/are sufficient as legal precedents).
I am all for Freedom of Speech and unequivocally against
Off-With-His-Head Fatwas but the reality is even in liberal democratic
nations, blasphemy laws exist today. Look at this law in existence in
Massachusetts:
http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm
Where is the right balance? Is there not subjectivity intrinsically
involved with words like "wilfully"?
#25 Posted by TOLKININ on July 18, 2007 11:02:05 am
Rushdie is a pretty annoying guy to lots of people (including me, at least
every other week or so.). But with all that's going on, why should a
meaningless rank conferred on him by an arguably has-been country cause any
kind of heartburn (I mean, 'pretty damn provocative' is a bit strong, no?)
in sensible people who presumably have better things to do with their
emotional energy?
#24 Posted by iron_mask on July 18, 2007 5:02:05 am
Re: # 11
pardah hai bhai purdah
purdhe ke peeche kya hain
woh asli baat hain
pardah hai bhai purdah
purdhe ke peeche kya hain
woh asli baat hain
#23 Posted by Folio on July 18, 2007 3:14:29 am
#22 Posted by harish_hyd on July 18, 2007 3:01:52 am
I know I may be ridiculed 4 this; my guestimation is this:
10% downright free souls. They had no inhibitions abt their freedom
30% kinda liberal but fear orthodoxy and God/Mullahs and society.
40% overtly religious and mildly extremist. These ppl justify the terrorism of the loonies.
15% Extremits but Azizists i.e cowards but pretend to be bloodhounds.
5% Ready to explode extremists.
(Now I am ready to be lashed for this).
I know I may be ridiculed 4 this; my guestimation is this:
10% downright free souls. They had no inhibitions abt their freedom
30% kinda liberal but fear orthodoxy and God/Mullahs and society.
40% overtly religious and mildly extremist. These ppl justify the terrorism of the loonies.
15% Extremits but Azizists i.e cowards but pretend to be bloodhounds.
5% Ready to explode extremists.
(Now I am ready to be lashed for this).
#22 Posted by harish_hyd on July 18, 2007 3:01:52 am
#11 by thinkingstorm
Look, I am a muslim and I respect other religions. Including Hinduism and Judaism.
Yaar thanks for clarifying, but the problem is that the 0.00000001 percent of Muslims are much more vocal than the 99.99999999 percent, and this minority is much more capable of perpetrating violence and bloodshed than the majority is capable of preventing.
Look, I am a muslim and I respect other religions. Including Hinduism and Judaism.
Yaar thanks for clarifying, but the problem is that the 0.00000001 percent of Muslims are much more vocal than the 99.99999999 percent, and this minority is much more capable of perpetrating violence and bloodshed than the majority is capable of preventing.
#20 Posted by Kulharee on July 17, 2007 7:28:17 pm
The Book “Last Temptation of Christ” is by Nikos Kazantzakis, written in early 50s, who also wrote other works that did not fare well with the clergy. Scorsese only directed the movie and shouldn’t be credited with the literary work.
I think muslims thinkers and muslim world in general should be concerned more about lifting themselves out of misery than worrying about Knighthoods. A poor moron without access to clean drinking water protesting over Rushdie affair comes across as a stupid poor moron.
God, muslims are so sensitive.
I think muslims thinkers and muslim world in general should be concerned more about lifting themselves out of misery than worrying about Knighthoods. A poor moron without access to clean drinking water protesting over Rushdie affair comes across as a stupid poor moron.
God, muslims are so sensitive.
#19 Posted by Raw_Dust on July 17, 2007 4:33:20 pm
Moeed Pirzada Sahib: So this minor problem of viewing non-muslims as eternally burning in Hell (the converse of martyrdom/jihadism (Shahadat)) boils down to "identity crisis"? Interesting.
RE: #17
Mahfouz fortunately survived a brutal attack on his life by the usual suspects:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Death threats against Mafouz followed, including one from the "blind sheikh," Egyptian theologian Omar Abdul-Rahman. Like Rushdie, Mahfouz was given police protection, but in 1994 Islamic extremists almost succeeded in assassinating the 82-year-old novelist by stabbing him in the neck outside his Cairo home. He survived, permanently affected by damage to nerves in his right hand. Subsequently, he lived under constant bodyguard protection."
Naguib Mahfouz link on Wikipedia
RE: #17
Mahfouz fortunately survived a brutal attack on his life by the usual suspects:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Death threats against Mafouz followed, including one from the "blind sheikh," Egyptian theologian Omar Abdul-Rahman. Like Rushdie, Mahfouz was given police protection, but in 1994 Islamic extremists almost succeeded in assassinating the 82-year-old novelist by stabbing him in the neck outside his Cairo home. He survived, permanently affected by damage to nerves in his right hand. Subsequently, he lived under constant bodyguard protection."
Naguib Mahfouz link on Wikipedia
#18 Posted by neembu on July 17, 2007 4:20:11 pm
ts,
that's right, and will state again as I have in the past, that Mahfouz, Edward Said, the Abu-Lughods, Eqbal Ahmed were staunch defenders of Rushdie's right to have written TSV. If I'm not mistaken, Mahfouz had challenged Ayotallah Khomeini's fatwa to which some fundamentalists opined that they should have killed Mahfouz first-he would not have fathered Rushdie.
Sure, the Queen knighted Rushdie. But she's also recognized Harry Potter...which has not been received well by the Church...lets see how they react....
that's right, and will state again as I have in the past, that Mahfouz, Edward Said, the Abu-Lughods, Eqbal Ahmed were staunch defenders of Rushdie's right to have written TSV. If I'm not mistaken, Mahfouz had challenged Ayotallah Khomeini's fatwa to which some fundamentalists opined that they should have killed Mahfouz first-he would not have fathered Rushdie.
Sure, the Queen knighted Rushdie. But she's also recognized Harry Potter...which has not been received well by the Church...lets see how they react....
#17 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 17, 2007 3:31:04 pm
#15 neembu
Unfortunately Najeeb Mahfouz passed away not that long ago. Brilliant writer and film director.
Unfortunately Najeeb Mahfouz passed away not that long ago. Brilliant writer and film director.
#16 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 17, 2007 3:28:49 pm
Re: # 13
True, a lot of the silence and lack of action does make fundamentalism run amok (much to the misery of the very people that were silent).
Some of the BUT is pointing out the CAUSE in the cause and effect. You cannot ignore cause either in a rational understanding of things.
-thinking
True, a lot of the silence and lack of action does make fundamentalism run amok (much to the misery of the very people that were silent).
Some of the BUT is pointing out the CAUSE in the cause and effect. You cannot ignore cause either in a rational understanding of things.
-thinking
#15 Posted by neembu on July 17, 2007 2:38:58 pm
re: 12
Rushdie is also a unfailingly sharp critic of the West and Western biases. Readers may find his satire of materialism, celebrity culture, hybridity in his collection of short stories EastWest. He is truly in the pantheon of Morrison, Borges, Marquez, Sembene, Almodovar, Soyinka, Wa Thi'ongo -artists who have transcended their genres, their cultures, their languages and yes, their religions. Ultimately, I'd argue that each is a humanist.
And no one has mentioned the genius of Naguib Mahfouz, a brilliant writer who is harassed by the Egyptian govt. itself.
Rushdie is also a unfailingly sharp critic of the West and Western biases. Readers may find his satire of materialism, celebrity culture, hybridity in his collection of short stories EastWest. He is truly in the pantheon of Morrison, Borges, Marquez, Sembene, Almodovar, Soyinka, Wa Thi'ongo -artists who have transcended their genres, their cultures, their languages and yes, their religions. Ultimately, I'd argue that each is a humanist.
And no one has mentioned the genius of Naguib Mahfouz, a brilliant writer who is harassed by the Egyptian govt. itself.
#14 Posted by philosopher on July 17, 2007 2:26:01 pm
Re:#13 Posted by arjun2
(((((bad BUT if you didn't oppress muslims in iraq/afghanistan/kashmir...
The "but" part provides justification...))))
And His excelency maharaaj arjun justifies oppression of muslims in iraq/afghanistan/kashmir because it makes her feel good. He enjoys the sight of muslims being killed on t.v channells while drinking bacardi gao-muttar flavour and eating gao-goaber kababs (non-veg).
(((((bad BUT if you didn't oppress muslims in iraq/afghanistan/kashmir...
The "but" part provides justification...))))
And His excelency maharaaj arjun justifies oppression of muslims in iraq/afghanistan/kashmir because it makes her feel good. He enjoys the sight of muslims being killed on t.v channells while drinking bacardi gao-muttar flavour and eating gao-goaber kababs (non-veg).
#13 Posted by arjun2 on July 17, 2007 2:19:50 pm
#11 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 17, 2007 11:13:56 am
But if you total all the people "outraged" at these things...that go and burn things and riot...it would not account to a 0.00000001 percent of the muslim population.
The majority of the other 99.99% are enablers..these are the people who say suicide bombing is bad BUT if you didn't oppress muslims in iraq/afghanistan/kashmir...
The "but" part provides justification...
But if you total all the people "outraged" at these things...that go and burn things and riot...it would not account to a 0.00000001 percent of the muslim population.
The majority of the other 99.99% are enablers..these are the people who say suicide bombing is bad BUT if you didn't oppress muslims in iraq/afghanistan/kashmir...
The "but" part provides justification...
#12 Posted by SaimaShah on July 17, 2007 1:24:44 pm
Dear Moeed
I found the knighting of Rusdie an amusing interplay of messages. The irony was supreme. Unfortunately Rushdie a brilliant author has become the key element in the messages to and fro about who is a good muslim and who is not. The protests in Islamabad over the knighting were also similar, they too sent a message about who is a good muslim and who is a bad muslim.
To be a good Muslim for some people, a deep unwavering, illogical, literal and dogmatic faith in the 'quran' or rather its interpretations is necessary. There is no room for reflection or questioning in this world view.
All 'others' are seen as enemies and the world of true Islam a victim of others' hatred. This is a frightening and scary message for the rest of the world. It is also a dangerous lie for Muslims to believe in, because it keeps their populations ignorant and subdued.
For others, it is important to give the message that 'good' Muslims are those who don't believe at all in 'the book', and in fact are willing to ridicule the naive faith of millions in a book, after learning better from the West. This is as brutal and cruel as the dogma of the believers. Both are fundamentalist and ultimately inhuman.
Taking a compassionate view of both sides helps to put things in perspective. A writer is always exploring ideas. Tomorrow Mr Rushdie may write something beautiful about Islam, then would the British govt. take back the knighthood? no. What is done is done, and there is great good in it. Those who understand messages, yet have a bigger message to give, can change the very messages. I think the world of Islam should be proud that a 'Muslim' writer used the grand literary traditions of Persian Muslims to write wonderful books about Muslim people. There are only a handful of books about Muslim communities and it is a great honour to Pakistan/India/kashmir and the Middle East that he wrote about these worlds. It was after him, that a whole generation of writers from that part of the world came on to the center stage.
The third world has been badly suppressed through colonialism for the last several hundred years. If authors like Rushdie have to joke and ridicule it to educate the world, let him. If I were a leader in the Muslim world, I'd honour and congratulate Mr Rushdie and let him know that I hope that one day he may write about the great beauty of my culture in the same way that he wrote of its ugliness. After all, wherever there is great ugliness there must have been great beauty.
I found the knighting of Rusdie an amusing interplay of messages. The irony was supreme. Unfortunately Rushdie a brilliant author has become the key element in the messages to and fro about who is a good muslim and who is not. The protests in Islamabad over the knighting were also similar, they too sent a message about who is a good muslim and who is a bad muslim.
To be a good Muslim for some people, a deep unwavering, illogical, literal and dogmatic faith in the 'quran' or rather its interpretations is necessary. There is no room for reflection or questioning in this world view.
All 'others' are seen as enemies and the world of true Islam a victim of others' hatred. This is a frightening and scary message for the rest of the world. It is also a dangerous lie for Muslims to believe in, because it keeps their populations ignorant and subdued.
For others, it is important to give the message that 'good' Muslims are those who don't believe at all in 'the book', and in fact are willing to ridicule the naive faith of millions in a book, after learning better from the West. This is as brutal and cruel as the dogma of the believers. Both are fundamentalist and ultimately inhuman.
Taking a compassionate view of both sides helps to put things in perspective. A writer is always exploring ideas. Tomorrow Mr Rushdie may write something beautiful about Islam, then would the British govt. take back the knighthood? no. What is done is done, and there is great good in it. Those who understand messages, yet have a bigger message to give, can change the very messages. I think the world of Islam should be proud that a 'Muslim' writer used the grand literary traditions of Persian Muslims to write wonderful books about Muslim people. There are only a handful of books about Muslim communities and it is a great honour to Pakistan/India/kashmir and the Middle East that he wrote about these worlds. It was after him, that a whole generation of writers from that part of the world came on to the center stage.
The third world has been badly suppressed through colonialism for the last several hundred years. If authors like Rushdie have to joke and ridicule it to educate the world, let him. If I were a leader in the Muslim world, I'd honour and congratulate Mr Rushdie and let him know that I hope that one day he may write about the great beauty of my culture in the same way that he wrote of its ugliness. After all, wherever there is great ugliness there must have been great beauty.
#11 Posted by thinkingstorm on July 17, 2007 11:13:56 am
re: Harish
Look, I am a muslim and I respect other religions. Including Hinduism and Judaism.
Unfortunately, the reactionary fundamentalist forces are outspoken and make a lot of noise. But if you total all the people "outraged" at these things...that go and burn things and riot...it would not account to a 0.00000001 percent of the muslim population. If these voices were not so vocal, like the hindus, we would be offended, and the world would carry on.
-thinking
Look, I am a muslim and I respect other religions. Including Hinduism and Judaism.
Unfortunately, the reactionary fundamentalist forces are outspoken and make a lot of noise. But if you total all the people "outraged" at these things...that go and burn things and riot...it would not account to a 0.00000001 percent of the muslim population. If these voices were not so vocal, like the hindus, we would be offended, and the world would carry on.
-thinking
#10 Posted by arjun2 on July 17, 2007 10:23:43 am
#8 Posted by echoboom on July 17, 2007 7:51:15 am
You're al-clutching at al-straws...
You're al-clutching at al-straws...
#8 Posted by echoboom on July 17, 2007 7:51:15 am
#6 Posted by neembu on July 17, 2007 5:33:18 am
__________________________________________________________
You, and others, might find this fascinating
____________________________________________________________
Islam in America
MUSLIMS IN THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS
by
Dr. Youssef Mroueh
Introduction
Numerous evidence suggests that Muslims from Spain and West Africa arrived in the Americas at least five centuries before Co1umbus. It is recorded, for example that in the mid-tenth century during the rule of the Umayed Caliph Abdul-Rahman III (929-961), Muslims of African origin sailed westward from the Spanish port of Delba (Palos) into the “Ocean of darkness an fog.” They returned after a long absence with much booty from a “strange and curious land.” It is evident that people of Muslim origin are known to have accompanied Columbus and subsequent Spanish explorers to the New World.
The last Muslim stronghold in Spain, Granada, fell to the Christians in 1492 CE, just before the Spanish inquisition was launched. To escape persecution, many non-Christians fled or embraced Catholicism. At least two documents imply the presence of Muslims in Spanish America before 1550 CE. Despite the fact that a decree issued in 1539 CE, by Charles V, King of Spain, forbade the grandsons of Muslims who had been burned at the stake to migrate to the West Indies. This decree was ratified in 1543 CE, and an order for the expulsion of all Muslims from overseas Spanish territories was subsequently published. Many references on the Muslim arrival in the Americas are available. They are summarized in the following notes:
Historic Documents
l. A Muslim historian and geographer Abul-Hassan Ali Ibn Al-Hussain Al-Masudi (871 - 957 CE) wrote in his book ‘Muruj Adh-dhahab wa Maadin al-Jawhar’ (The Meadows of Gold and Quarries of Jewels) that during the rule of the Muslim Caliph of Spain Abdullah Ibn Muhammad (888 - 912 CE), a Muslim navigator Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad of Cordoba, Spain sailed from Delba (Palos) in 889 CE, crossed the Atlantic, reached an unknown territory (Ard Majhoola) and returned with fabulous treasures. In Al-Masudi's map of the world there is a large area in the ocean of darkness and fog (the Atlantic ocean) which he referred to as the unknown territory (the Americas).
2. A Muslim historian Abu Bakr Ibn Umar Al-Gutiyya narrated that during the reign of the Muslim Caliph of Spain, Hisham II (976 -1009 CE), another Muslim navigator Ibn Farrukh of Granada sailed from Kadesh (February 999 CE) into the Atlantic, landed in Gando (Great Canary Islands) visiting King Guanariga, and continued westward where he saw and named two islands, Capraria and Pluitana. He arrived back in Spain in May 999 CE.
3. Columbus sailed from Palos (Delba), Spain. He was bound for Gomera (Canary Islands) - Gomera is an Arabic word meaning ‘small firebrand’ - there he fell in love with Beatriz Bobadilla, daughter of the first captain General of the island (the family name Bobadilla is derived from the Arab Islamic name Abouabdilla). Nevertheless, the Bobadilla clan was not easy to ignore. Another Bobadilla (Francisco), later as the royal commissioner, put Columbus in chains and transferred him from Santo Domingo back to Spain (November 1500 CE). The Bobadilla family was related to Abbadid dynasty of Seville (1031 -1091 CE).
On October 12, 1492 CE, Columbus landed on a little island in the Bahamas that was called Guanahani by the natives. Renamed San Salvador by Columbus, Guanahani is derived from Mandinka and modified Arabic words. Guana (Ikhwana) means ‘brothers’ and Hani is an Arabic name. Therefore the original name of the island was ‘Hani Brothers.’
Ferdinand Columbus, the son of Christopher, wrote about the blacks seen by his father in Honduras: “The people who live farther east of Pointe Cavinas, as far as Cape Gracios a Dios, are almost black in color.” At the same time in this very same region, lived a tribe of Muslim natives known as Almamy. In Mandinka and Arabic languages Almamy was the designation of “Al-Imam” or “Al-Imamu,” the person who leads the Prayer, or in some cases, the chief of the community, and/or a member of the Imami Muslim community.
4. A renowned American historian and linguist Leo Weiner of Harvard University, in his book Africa and The Discovery of America (1920) wrote that Columbus was well aware of the Mandinka presence in the New World and that the West African Muslims had spread throughout the Caribbean, Central, South and North American territories, including Canada, where they were trading and intermarrying with the Iroquois and Algonquin Indians.
Geographic Explorations
1. The famous Muslim geographer and cartographer Al-Sharif Al-Idrisi (1099 - 1166 CE) wrote in his famous book ‘Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi-Ikhtiraq al-Afaq (Excursion of the longing in crossing horizons) that a group of seafarers (from North Africa) sailed into the sea of darkness and fog (the Atlantic ocean) from Lisbon (Portugal), in order to discover what was in it and what extent were its limits. They finally reached an island that had people and cultivation....on the fourth day, a translator spoke to them in the Arabic language.
2. The Muslim reference books mentioned a well-documented description of a journey across the sea of fog and darkness by Shaikh Zayn-eddine Ali ben Fadhel Al-Mazandarani. His journey started from Tarfay (south Morocco) during the reign of the King Abu-Yacoub Sidi Youssef (1286 - 1307 CE) sixth of the Marinid dynasty, to Green Island in the Caribbean sea in 1291 CE (690 AH). The details of his ocean journey are mentioned in Islamic references, and many Muslim scholars are aware of this recorded historical event.
3. The Muslim historian Chihab Addine Abul-Abbas Ahmad ben Fadhl Al-Umari (1300 - 1384 CE, 700 - 786 AH) described in detail the geographical explorations beyond the sea of fog and darkness of Male’s sultans in his famous book ‘Masaalik al-absaar fi Mamaalik al-amsaar (The Pathways of Sights in The Provinces of Kingdoms).
4. Sultan Mansa Kankan Musa (1312 - 1337 CE) was the world renowned Mandinka monarch of the West African Islamic empire of Mali. While traveling to Makkah on his famous Hajj in 1324 CE, he informed the scholars of the Mamluk Bahri Sultan court (an-Nasir-eddin Muhammad III, 1309 - 1340 CE) in Cairo that his brother, Sultan Abu Bakari I (1285 - 1312 CE) had undertaken two expeditions into the Atlantic ocean. When the sultan did not return to Timbuktu from the second voyage of 1311 CE, Mansa Musa became sultan of the empire.
5.Columbus and early Spanish and Portuguese explorers were able to voyage across the Atlantic (a distance of 24,000 Kilometers) thanks to Muslim geographical and navigational information, in particular maps made by Muslim traders, including Al-Masudi (871 - 957 CE) in his book ‘Akhbar Az-Zaman’ (History of The World) which is based on material gathered in Africa and Asia. As a matter of fact, Columbus had two captains of Muslim origin during his first transatlantic voyage: Martin Alonso Pinzon was the captain of the Pinta, and his brother Vicente Yanex Pinzon was the captain of the Nina. They were wealthy, expert ship outfitters who helped organize the Columbus expedition and repaired the flagship Santa Maria. They did this at their own expense for both commercial and political reasons. The Pinzon family was related to Abuzayan Muhammad III (1362 - 66 CE), the Moroccan sultan of the Marinid dynasty (1196 - 1465 CE).
Arabic (Islamic) Inscriptions
l. Anthropologists have proven that the Mandinkas under Mansa Musa's instructions explored many parts of North America via the Mississippi and other rivers systems. At Four Corners, Arizona, writings show that they even brought elephants from Africa to the area.
2. Columbus admitted in his papers that on Monday, October 21, 1492 CE while his ship was sailing near Gibara on the north-east coast of Cuba, he saw a mosque on the top of a beautiful mountain. The ruins of mosques and minarets with inscriptions of Qur'anic verses have been discovered in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada.
3. During his second voyage, Columbus was told by the Indians of Espanola (Haiti), that Black people had been to the island before his arrival. For proof they presented Columbus with the spears of these African Muslims. These weapons were tipped with a yellow metal that the Indians called Guanine, a word of West African derivation meaning ‘gold alloy.’ Oddly enough, it is related to the Arabic world ‘Ghinaa’ which means ‘Wealth.’ Columbus brought some Guanines back to Spain and had them tested. He learned that the metal was 18 parts gold (56.25 percent), six parts silver (18.75 percent and eight parts copper (25 percent), the same ratio as the metal produced in African metal shops of Guinea.
4. In 1498 CE, on his third voyage to the New World, Columbus landed in Trinidad. Later, he sighted the South American continent, where some of his crew went ashore and found natives using colorful handkerchiefs of symmetrically woven cotton. Columbus noticed the these handkerchiefs resembled the head dresses and loincloths of Guinea in their colors, style and function. He referred to them as Almayzars. Almayzar is an Arabic word for ‘wrapper,’ ‘cover,’ ‘apron’ and or ‘skirting,’ which was the cloth the Moors (Spanish or North African Muslims) imported from West Africa (Guinea) into Morocco, Spain and Portugal.
During this voyage, Columbus was surprised that the married women wore cotton panties (bragas) and he wondered where these natives learned their modesty. Hernando Cortez, Spanish conqueror, described the dress of the Indian women as long veils and the dress of Indian men as ‘breechcloth painted in the style of Moorish draperies.’ Ferdinand Columbus called the native cotton garments ‘breechclothes of the same design and cloth as the shawls worn by the Moorish women of Granada.’ Even the similarity of the children's hammocks to those found in North Africa was uncanny.
5. Dr. Barry Fell (Harvard University) introduced in his book Saga America - 1980 solid scientific evidence supporting the arrival, centuries before Columbus, of Muslims from North and West Africa. Dr. Fell discovered the existence of Muslim schools at Valley of Fire, Allan Springs, Logomarsino, Keyhole Canyon, Washoe and Hickison Summit Pass (Nevada), Mesa Verde (Colorado), Mimbres Valley (New Mexico) and Tipper Canoe (Indiana) dating back to 700-800 CE. Engraved on rocks in the old western US, he found texts, diagrams and charts representing the last surviving fragments of what was once a system of schools - at both an elementary and higher levels. The language of instruction was North African Arabic written with old Kufic Arabic script. The subjects of instruction included writing, reading, arithmetic, religion, history, geography, mathematics, astronomy and sea navigation.
The descendants of the Muslim visitors of North America are members of the present Iroquois, Algonquin, Anasazi, Hohokam and Olmec native people.
6. There are 565 names of places (villages, towns, cities, mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.) in USA (484) and Canada (81) which are derived from Islamic and Arabic roots. These places were originally named by the natives in pre-Columbian period. Some of these names carried holy meanings such as: Mecca (Indiana) - 720 inhabitants, Makkah Indian tribe (Washington), Medina (Idaho) - 2100, Medina (NY) - 8500, Medina and Hazen (North Dakota) - 1100 and 5000, respectively, Medina (Ohio) - 12,000, Medina (Tennessee) - 1100, Medina (Texas) - 26,000, Medina (Ontario) -1200, Mahomet (Illinois) - 3200, Mona (Utah) - 1100, Arva (Ontario) - 700, and many others. A careful study of the names of the native Indian tribes revealed that many names are derived from Arab and Islamic roots and origins, i.e. Anasazi, Apache, Arawak, Arikana, Chavin Cherokee, Cree, Hohokam, Hupa, Hopi, Makkah, Mahigan, Mohawk, Nazca, Zulu, Zuni, etc.
Dr. Youssef Mroueh
Courtesy BIC, UK and MSANews/MSANet, USA. Explanatory text in [...] and the web version by Dr. A. Zahoor.
__________________________________________________________
You, and others, might find this fascinating
____________________________________________________________
Islam in America
MUSLIMS IN THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS
by
Dr. Youssef Mroueh
Introduction
Numerous evidence suggests that Muslims from Spain and West Africa arrived in the Americas at least five centuries before Co1umbus. It is recorded, for example that in the mid-tenth century during the rule of the Umayed Caliph Abdul-Rahman III (929-961), Muslims of African origin sailed westward from the Spanish port of Delba (Palos) into the “Ocean of darkness an fog.” They returned after a long absence with much booty from a “strange and curious land.” It is evident that people of Muslim origin are known to have accompanied Columbus and subsequent Spanish explorers to the New World.
The last Muslim stronghold in Spain, Granada, fell to the Christians in 1492 CE, just before the Spanish inquisition was launched. To escape persecution, many non-Christians fled or embraced Catholicism. At least two documents imply the presence of Muslims in Spanish America before 1550 CE. Despite the fact that a decree issued in 1539 CE, by Charles V, King of Spain, forbade the grandsons of Muslims who had been burned at the stake to migrate to the West Indies. This decree was ratified in 1543 CE, and an order for the expulsion of all Muslims from overseas Spanish territories was subsequently published. Many references on the Muslim arrival in the Americas are available. They are summarized in the following notes:
Historic Documents
l. A Muslim historian and geographer Abul-Hassan Ali Ibn Al-Hussain Al-Masudi (871 - 957 CE) wrote in his book ‘Muruj Adh-dhahab wa Maadin al-Jawhar’ (The Meadows of Gold and Quarries of Jewels) that during the rule of the Muslim Caliph of Spain Abdullah Ibn Muhammad (888 - 912 CE), a Muslim navigator Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad of Cordoba, Spain sailed from Delba (Palos) in 889 CE, crossed the Atlantic, reached an unknown territory (Ard Majhoola) and returned with fabulous treasures. In Al-Masudi's map of the world there is a large area in the ocean of darkness and fog (the Atlantic ocean) which he referred to as the unknown territory (the Americas).
2. A Muslim historian Abu Bakr Ibn Umar Al-Gutiyya narrated that during the reign of the Muslim Caliph of Spain, Hisham II (976 -1009 CE), another Muslim navigator Ibn Farrukh of Granada sailed from Kadesh (February 999 CE) into the Atlantic, landed in Gando (Great Canary Islands) visiting King Guanariga, and continued westward where he saw and named two islands, Capraria and Pluitana. He arrived back in Spain in May 999 CE.
3. Columbus sailed from Palos (Delba), Spain. He was bound for Gomera (Canary Islands) - Gomera is an Arabic word meaning ‘small firebrand’ - there he fell in love with Beatriz Bobadilla, daughter of the first captain General of the island (the family name Bobadilla is derived from the Arab Islamic name Abouabdilla). Nevertheless, the Bobadilla clan was not easy to ignore. Another Bobadilla (Francisco), later as the royal commissioner, put Columbus in chains and transferred him from Santo Domingo back to Spain (November 1500 CE). The Bobadilla family was related to Abbadid dynasty of Seville (1031 -1091 CE).
On October 12, 1492 CE, Columbus landed on a little island in the Bahamas that was called Guanahani by the natives. Renamed San Salvador by Columbus, Guanahani is derived from Mandinka and modified Arabic words. Guana (Ikhwana) means ‘brothers’ and Hani is an Arabic name. Therefore the original name of the island was ‘Hani Brothers.’
Ferdinand Columbus, the son of Christopher, wrote about the blacks seen by his father in Honduras: “The people who live farther east of Pointe Cavinas, as far as Cape Gracios a Dios, are almost black in color.” At the same time in this very same region, lived a tribe of Muslim natives known as Almamy. In Mandinka and Arabic languages Almamy was the designation of “Al-Imam” or “Al-Imamu,” the person who leads the Prayer, or in some cases, the chief of the community, and/or a member of the Imami Muslim community.
4. A renowned American historian and linguist Leo Weiner of Harvard University, in his book Africa and The Discovery of America (1920) wrote that Columbus was well aware of the Mandinka presence in the New World and that the West African Muslims had spread throughout the Caribbean, Central, South and North American territories, including Canada, where they were trading and intermarrying with the Iroquois and Algonquin Indians.
Geographic Explorations
1. The famous Muslim geographer and cartographer Al-Sharif Al-Idrisi (1099 - 1166 CE) wrote in his famous book ‘Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi-Ikhtiraq al-Afaq (Excursion of the longing in crossing horizons) that a group of seafarers (from North Africa) sailed into the sea of darkness and fog (the Atlantic ocean) from Lisbon (Portugal), in order to discover what was in it and what extent were its limits. They finally reached an island that had people and cultivation....on the fourth day, a translator spoke to them in the Arabic language.
2. The Muslim reference books mentioned a well-documented description of a journey across the sea of fog and darkness by Shaikh Zayn-eddine Ali ben Fadhel Al-Mazandarani. His journey started from Tarfay (south Morocco) during the reign of the King Abu-Yacoub Sidi Youssef (1286 - 1307 CE) sixth of the Marinid dynasty, to Green Island in the Caribbean sea in 1291 CE (690 AH). The details of his ocean journey are mentioned in Islamic references, and many Muslim scholars are aware of this recorded historical event.
3. The Muslim historian Chihab Addine Abul-Abbas Ahmad ben Fadhl Al-Umari (1300 - 1384 CE, 700 - 786 AH) described in detail the geographical explorations beyond the sea of fog and darkness of Male’s sultans in his famous book ‘Masaalik al-absaar fi Mamaalik al-amsaar (The Pathways of Sights in The Provinces of Kingdoms).
4. Sultan Mansa Kankan Musa (1312 - 1337 CE) was the world renowned Mandinka monarch of the West African Islamic empire of Mali. While traveling to Makkah on his famous Hajj in 1324 CE, he informed the scholars of the Mamluk Bahri Sultan court (an-Nasir-eddin Muhammad III, 1309 - 1340 CE) in Cairo that his brother, Sultan Abu Bakari I (1285 - 1312 CE) had undertaken two expeditions into the Atlantic ocean. When the sultan did not return to Timbuktu from the second voyage of 1311 CE, Mansa Musa became sultan of the empire.
5.Columbus and early Spanish and Portuguese explorers were able to voyage across the Atlantic (a distance of 24,000 Kilometers) thanks to Muslim geographical and navigational information, in particular maps made by Muslim traders, including Al-Masudi (871 - 957 CE) in his book ‘Akhbar Az-Zaman’ (History of The World) which is based on material gathered in Africa and Asia. As a matter of fact, Columbus had two captains of Muslim origin during his first transatlantic voyage: Martin Alonso Pinzon was the captain of the Pinta, and his brother Vicente Yanex Pinzon was the captain of the Nina. They were wealthy, expert ship outfitters who helped organize the Columbus expedition and repaired the flagship Santa Maria. They did this at their own expense for both commercial and political reasons. The Pinzon family was related to Abuzayan Muhammad III (1362 - 66 CE), the Moroccan sultan of the Marinid dynasty (1196 - 1465 CE).
Arabic (Islamic) Inscriptions
l. Anthropologists have proven that the Mandinkas under Mansa Musa's instructions explored many parts of North America via the Mississippi and other rivers systems. At Four Corners, Arizona, writings show that they even brought elephants from Africa to the area.
2. Columbus admitted in his papers that on Monday, October 21, 1492 CE while his ship was sailing near Gibara on the north-east coast of Cuba, he saw a mosque on the top of a beautiful mountain. The ruins of mosques and minarets with inscriptions of Qur'anic verses have been discovered in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada.
3. During his second voyage, Columbus was told by the Indians of Espanola (Haiti), that Black people had been to the island before his arrival. For proof they presented Columbus with the spears of these African Muslims. These weapons were tipped with a yellow metal that the Indians called Guanine, a word of West African derivation meaning ‘gold alloy.’ Oddly enough, it is related to the Arabic world ‘Ghinaa’ which means ‘Wealth.’ Columbus brought some Guanines back to Spain and had them tested. He learned that the metal was 18 parts gold (56.25 percent), six parts silver (18.75 percent and eight parts copper (25 percent), the same ratio as the metal produced in African metal shops of Guinea.
4. In 1498 CE, on his third voyage to the New World, Columbus landed in Trinidad. Later, he sighted the South American continent, where some of his crew went ashore and found natives using colorful handkerchiefs of symmetrically woven cotton. Columbus noticed the these handkerchiefs resembled the head dresses and loincloths of Guinea in their colors, style and function. He referred to them as Almayzars. Almayzar is an Arabic word for ‘wrapper,’ ‘cover,’ ‘apron’ and or ‘skirting,’ which was the cloth the Moors (Spanish or North African Muslims) imported from West Africa (Guinea) into Morocco, Spain and Portugal.
During this voyage, Columbus was surprised that the married women wore cotton panties (bragas) and he wondered where these natives learned their modesty. Hernando Cortez, Spanish conqueror, described the dress of the Indian women as long veils and the dress of Indian men as ‘breechcloth painted in the style of Moorish draperies.’ Ferdinand Columbus called the native cotton garments ‘breechclothes of the same design and cloth as the shawls worn by the Moorish women of Granada.’ Even the similarity of the children's hammocks to those found in North Africa was uncanny.
5. Dr. Barry Fell (Harvard University) introduced in his book Saga America - 1980 solid scientific evidence supporting the arrival, centuries before Columbus, of Muslims from North and West Africa. Dr. Fell discovered the existence of Muslim schools at Valley of Fire, Allan Springs, Logomarsino, Keyhole Canyon, Washoe and Hickison Summit Pass (Nevada), Mesa Verde (Colorado), Mimbres Valley (New Mexico) and Tipper Canoe (Indiana) dating back to 700-800 CE. Engraved on rocks in the old western US, he found texts, diagrams and charts representing the last surviving fragments of what was once a system of schools - at both an elementary and higher levels. The language of instruction was North African Arabic written with old Kufic Arabic script. The subjects of instruction included writing, reading, arithmetic, religion, history, geography, mathematics, astronomy and sea navigation.
The descendants of the Muslim visitors of North America are members of the present Iroquois, Algonquin, Anasazi, Hohokam and Olmec native people.
6. There are 565 names of places (villages, towns, cities, mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.) in USA (484) and Canada (81) which are derived from Islamic and Arabic roots. These places were originally named by the natives in pre-Columbian period. Some of these names carried holy meanings such as: Mecca (Indiana) - 720 inhabitants, Makkah Indian tribe (Washington), Medina (Idaho) - 2100, Medina (NY) - 8500, Medina and Hazen (North Dakota) - 1100 and 5000, respectively, Medina (Ohio) - 12,000, Medina (Tennessee) - 1100, Medina (Texas) - 26,000, Medina (Ontario) -1200, Mahomet (Illinois) - 3200, Mona (Utah) - 1100, Arva (Ontario) - 700, and many others. A careful study of the names of the native Indian tribes revealed that many names are derived from Arab and Islamic roots and origins, i.e. Anasazi, Apache, Arawak, Arikana, Chavin Cherokee, Cree, Hohokam, Hupa, Hopi, Makkah, Mahigan, Mohawk, Nazca, Zulu, Zuni, etc.
Dr. Youssef Mroueh
Courtesy BIC, UK and MSANews/MSANet, USA. Explanatory text in [...] and the web version by Dr. A. Zahoor.
#7 Posted by nauman72 on July 17, 2007 7:04:41 am
The timing of knighting Salman Rushdie is critical. But this is not all about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The hatred of Muslims towards West is mainly due to the imperialist policies of the latter. Incidentally the fatwa came from Iran. The same Iran which had a democratic government under the leadership of Dr. Mossadeq who nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company (British Petroleum) in 1953. CIA staged a coup against him and the Islamic revolution in Iran was a result of highhandedness of the Shah of Iran. Thus British establishment is not only responsible for knighting Rushdie but also for the Islamic revolution in Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq
#6 Posted by neembu on July 17, 2007 5:33:18 am
"...Or the kind of Muslim immigrants that first arrived at its shores?..."
May I respectfully point out that the first Muslims that "arrived" at North America's shores were not South Asian or Middle Eastern immigrants, but enslaved Africans?
May I respectfully point out that the first Muslims that "arrived" at North America's shores were not South Asian or Middle Eastern immigrants, but enslaved Africans?
#5 Posted by Chennai on July 17, 2007 4:52:05 am
Pirzada-"This only shows the depth of chaos and depravity to which a once proud imperial power has unwittingly allowed itself to sink under the comradeship of Tony Blair."
Lets hope Gordie Brown does better.......like giving Tasleema Nasrin British citizenship.........
Lets hope Gordie Brown does better.......like giving Tasleema Nasrin British citizenship.........
#4 Posted by harish_hyd on July 17, 2007 4:43:22 am
In the past, images of Hindu gods like Ganesha and Shiva were carried on toilet seats and even footwear. Were Hindus offended? Yes of course, they were. But did they go to town burning everything they found? Nope. Do Muslims respect other religions? In my experience, only common courtesy prevents them from expressing their outright disgust at other religions and their practices. Even so, they subtly try to express why Islam is better than any other religion. Why then do they expect others to respect Islam and Prophet Mohammed?
#3 Posted by arjun2 on July 17, 2007 4:15:51 am
Muslims in Britain — who first sparked the controversy — and elsewhere were stunned by what they saw as ridicule and derision of the Holy Prophet
OOh...the allah given right of the practioners of the religion of peace to not be offended was violated...
The identity crisis of youth of mostly Pakistani-origin has proved a fertile ground for Islamisation
yes..the propensity among brit-pakis to blow up subways, make plans to poison a whole bunch of people and carry around signs demanding the beheading of anyone who insults islam is caused by an "identity crisis"...as in the west thought they are civilized while, in fact, they are islamofascists
#2 Posted by Dash_Dot on July 17, 2007 4:06:28 am
Interesting synopsis of the debate in Pakistan, with an excursion to other parts of the world. As Beady says, ockam's razor should have been taken to it, to get to the real meat of the argument or lex parsimoniae should have have been applied to it.
Here is an example: Waldheim was made President of Austria. He was found out to be a closet nazi. Did the RoW burn books, issue fatwas and death threats? He was boycotted, and in fact never made a state visit to any country of note, and was not invited to any other country or meeting. The poor guy did not even go to the UNGA (the same UN he headed) as HoS. There is a quantum difference between the reactions. The Muslim mind has been shown, once more to be that of a reactionary, regressive child, which clearly it is not.
Now that Rushdie has be Knighted, how would the Islamic World deal with it? What is the image the Islamic World wants the rest of the world to have? These are far more important questions then just the sort of post-facto navel-gazing exercise being conducted (and this article is one such example).
Here is an example: Waldheim was made President of Austria. He was found out to be a closet nazi. Did the RoW burn books, issue fatwas and death threats? He was boycotted, and in fact never made a state visit to any country of note, and was not invited to any other country or meeting. The poor guy did not even go to the UNGA (the same UN he headed) as HoS. There is a quantum difference between the reactions. The Muslim mind has been shown, once more to be that of a reactionary, regressive child, which clearly it is not.
Now that Rushdie has be Knighted, how would the Islamic World deal with it? What is the image the Islamic World wants the rest of the world to have? These are far more important questions then just the sort of post-facto navel-gazing exercise being conducted (and this article is one such example).
#1 Posted by beady on July 17, 2007 1:44:17 am
Pirzada sahib, a very interesting take on the Rushdie affair. Nice conjectural article based upon interesting assumptions but perhaps you might have forgotten to shave it with occam's razor :)
cheers
bd
cheers
bd
#0 Posted by arjun2 on July 19, 2007 9:15:06 pm
watch this video. Scroll to 3:16 to hear what the sufi dude has to say about this root cause BS.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =EODjAGD2yN0
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun29: #12 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: Congratulaltions, Geelani Saheb: Mehbooba has... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: #318 Posted by tahmed32... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- vatanparast: Yes rf786 Saheb, one... MQM - History and
- KaalChakra: DM ji, the same... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- tahmed32: #72 "When we look... MQM - History and
- _arjun29: #97 Posted by... Reforming Religious Fundamentalists
- tahmed32: #317 pinku: if self-serving... Historian Amaresh Misra on
