Saddam Hussein Lives!
Haroon Moghul May 2, 2003
#140 Posted by nasah on May 14, 2003 6:38:00 pm
good to see that a healthy debate is in progress on this board regarding Desi attitudes vis a vis Afro-Americans on one hand – and the Whites on the other.
Where do we really stand -- between the twain?
we have no history with the Whites -- we have no history with the Blacks -- we came with a clean slate -- apologetic immaculate new arrivals -- (we do carry rather proudly our own dirty laundry of discrimination and bigotry from our old place) --
We are the cream of the old civilization with silver spoons in our mouths -- intellectually, culturally, educationally and economically --
do we identify ourselves with the whites or the blacks? -- or do we stand alone -- or do we HAVE to identify with someone in this country?
Are we in AWE of one community and CONTEMPTUOUS of another? –
do we mix with one and shun the other -- do we really treat the white as equals or superior to us -- and the black of lesser intellect -- and inferior to us?
do we really think that the PARITY between the blacks and the whites has ALREADY been achieved -- during the `long` span of 40 years between 1963- 2003?
-- after the DISPARITY of -- a `short` three hundreds years -- of living under subhuman conditions FORCED and ENFORCED upon -- by ONE community agaisnt the other.
do we really think -- the Black CHOSE to live under slavery by the whites for the past three hundred years
or do we really believe that the BLACKS in 2003 are deliberately CHOOSING to remain in poverty, in filth and in drugs and in high crime.
and by the way let me ask my Desi uppity brethren one question:
did my Pakistanis and Indians friends really ‘CHOOSE’ to REMAIN colonized by the British Bull Dogs for two hundred years – and loved every moment of it?
and this is what amazes me most –
when a Pakistani friend of mine who did practically nothing -- for two centuries -- to wrest his own country`s freedom -- and HIS own freedom -- from the British enslavers --
who was bestowed freedom on a platter -- rather than fought for it --
and he should be the one who disparage the blacks or the Afro-Americans for -- the LACK OF TRYING!
Where do we really stand -- between the twain?
we have no history with the Whites -- we have no history with the Blacks -- we came with a clean slate -- apologetic immaculate new arrivals -- (we do carry rather proudly our own dirty laundry of discrimination and bigotry from our old place) --
We are the cream of the old civilization with silver spoons in our mouths -- intellectually, culturally, educationally and economically --
do we identify ourselves with the whites or the blacks? -- or do we stand alone -- or do we HAVE to identify with someone in this country?
Are we in AWE of one community and CONTEMPTUOUS of another? –
do we mix with one and shun the other -- do we really treat the white as equals or superior to us -- and the black of lesser intellect -- and inferior to us?
do we really think that the PARITY between the blacks and the whites has ALREADY been achieved -- during the `long` span of 40 years between 1963- 2003?
-- after the DISPARITY of -- a `short` three hundreds years -- of living under subhuman conditions FORCED and ENFORCED upon -- by ONE community agaisnt the other.
do we really think -- the Black CHOSE to live under slavery by the whites for the past three hundred years
or do we really believe that the BLACKS in 2003 are deliberately CHOOSING to remain in poverty, in filth and in drugs and in high crime.
and by the way let me ask my Desi uppity brethren one question:
did my Pakistanis and Indians friends really ‘CHOOSE’ to REMAIN colonized by the British Bull Dogs for two hundred years – and loved every moment of it?
and this is what amazes me most –
when a Pakistani friend of mine who did practically nothing -- for two centuries -- to wrest his own country`s freedom -- and HIS own freedom -- from the British enslavers --
who was bestowed freedom on a platter -- rather than fought for it --
and he should be the one who disparage the blacks or the Afro-Americans for -- the LACK OF TRYING!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#139 Posted by soysauce on May 14, 2003 11:58:24 am
#139 Sadhana
The probelm needs to be dealt with on both fronts: creating role models (how do you do this in a discriminatory atmosphere?) and exposing & protesting racism. There are some that do both, some that do neither & some that do one or the other. There are very few white leaders talking about discrimination and fewer still doing something beyond tokenism. Appealing to the base instincts of whites wins elections. Even Bill Clinton felt he had to attack some caricature of black culture. I have great respect for Jesse Jackson. Sure the man is flawed, but he has tried to bridge the gap between blacks and whites. He also is probably the first politician of any sginficance since Dr. King to embrace poor people in general, black or white. I don`t hink his personal flaws can eclipse his accomplishment in race relations.
#137 dost-mittar
I met Professor Khorana long after he had left wisconsin. No, i was not at UW.
The probelm needs to be dealt with on both fronts: creating role models (how do you do this in a discriminatory atmosphere?) and exposing & protesting racism. There are some that do both, some that do neither & some that do one or the other. There are very few white leaders talking about discrimination and fewer still doing something beyond tokenism. Appealing to the base instincts of whites wins elections. Even Bill Clinton felt he had to attack some caricature of black culture. I have great respect for Jesse Jackson. Sure the man is flawed, but he has tried to bridge the gap between blacks and whites. He also is probably the first politician of any sginficance since Dr. King to embrace poor people in general, black or white. I don`t hink his personal flaws can eclipse his accomplishment in race relations.
#137 dost-mittar
I met Professor Khorana long after he had left wisconsin. No, i was not at UW.
#138 Posted by sadna on May 14, 2003 8:56:25 am
soysauce #135
I agree with everything you say in your post. Immigrants have an advantage of knowing two societies, that things can be different, an advantage blacks and whites who are born Americans do not have.
Coming back to the need for role models, thats why a number of black leaders who invest less in promoting positive role models in their community and more in promoting reactive positions to whites would merit understanding but ALSO merit criticism- correct?
I agree with everything you say in your post. Immigrants have an advantage of knowing two societies, that things can be different, an advantage blacks and whites who are born Americans do not have.
Coming back to the need for role models, thats why a number of black leaders who invest less in promoting positive role models in their community and more in promoting reactive positions to whites would merit understanding but ALSO merit criticism- correct?
#137 Posted by dost_mittar on May 14, 2003 6:34:55 am
soysauce:
I didn`t know that there a note of passion in my post!
But I agree 100% with your latest post and was, indeed, saying so myself when I supported the positive role played by neocon blacks. I have frequently highly praised Bill Cosby for his hugely popular TV serial which portrayed a very successful black doctor and his equally successful lawyer wife. When the show first came, the characters had probably no counterpart in real-life America. But the show provided black children with a role model different from that of sports and entertainment stars or the neighbourhood drug-peddler wearing gold chains.
ps. Were you at UW?
I didn`t know that there a note of passion in my post!
But I agree 100% with your latest post and was, indeed, saying so myself when I supported the positive role played by neocon blacks. I have frequently highly praised Bill Cosby for his hugely popular TV serial which portrayed a very successful black doctor and his equally successful lawyer wife. When the show first came, the characters had probably no counterpart in real-life America. But the show provided black children with a role model different from that of sports and entertainment stars or the neighbourhood drug-peddler wearing gold chains.
ps. Were you at UW?
#136 Posted by soysauce on May 13, 2003 10:00:20 pm
#132 Sadhana
That`s a very valid question to ask of course. Another very reasonable question that`s often asked is how come poor immigrants (say, vietnamese) do much better than blacks. I think role models are absolutely important. This is often underestimated. I see black undergrads doing better in departments with black profs. That someone who probably comes from a similar background/history has made it and is doing well in the mainstream gives the student that extra boost of confidence. Same goes for female students, including white females. Until there are significant number of black (/women) lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, executives & politicians, it`s going to be a struggle. Affirmative action is supposed to bring that about but it has been hacked at and left wheezing for life.
Why are immigrants doing so much better? Because they have seen themselves be all these things (professionals, politicians, etc.) back home. So they have the self confidence that blacks lack and their history of discrimination in the white society is of a shorter length.
If i may interject a personal note, i happened to dine with Professor Khorana once when i was a student and that left me feeling that i could accomplish just about anything. This was interesting because people of his intellectual caliber i`ve met before and since usually leave me feeling somewhat intimidated. Don`t underestimate the power of role models.
#133 dost-mittar
Ji: I hope you`ll think about what you said dispassionately.
That`s a very valid question to ask of course. Another very reasonable question that`s often asked is how come poor immigrants (say, vietnamese) do much better than blacks. I think role models are absolutely important. This is often underestimated. I see black undergrads doing better in departments with black profs. That someone who probably comes from a similar background/history has made it and is doing well in the mainstream gives the student that extra boost of confidence. Same goes for female students, including white females. Until there are significant number of black (/women) lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, executives & politicians, it`s going to be a struggle. Affirmative action is supposed to bring that about but it has been hacked at and left wheezing for life.
Why are immigrants doing so much better? Because they have seen themselves be all these things (professionals, politicians, etc.) back home. So they have the self confidence that blacks lack and their history of discrimination in the white society is of a shorter length.
If i may interject a personal note, i happened to dine with Professor Khorana once when i was a student and that left me feeling that i could accomplish just about anything. This was interesting because people of his intellectual caliber i`ve met before and since usually leave me feeling somewhat intimidated. Don`t underestimate the power of role models.
#133 dost-mittar
Ji: I hope you`ll think about what you said dispassionately.
#135 Posted by Roshan on May 13, 2003 10:00:20 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#134 Posted by Roshan on May 13, 2003 10:00:19 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#133 Posted by dost_mittar on May 13, 2003 5:05:38 pm
soysauce:
Some people call the glass half-full, other call it half-empty; I prefer to call it half-full AND half-empty.
Some people call the glass half-full, other call it half-empty; I prefer to call it half-full AND half-empty.
#132 Posted by sadna on May 13, 2003 5:04:51 pm
soysauce #130
There is a problem with the white attitude towards blacks, yes. There is often also a problem with the black attitude towards blacks.
This is a bit of a handwaving argument here since I donot have facts, which goes like this. Back in India it is sort of accepted that the reason poor people are poor and unable to improve their living standards is because of lack of opportunity, education, resources. Either there is no road, or there is no electricity or there is no water or there are no schools- or there is no credit available even if you have a steady income.
But take NY city - is any one of these things lacking? - thousands/10s of thousands come from 1000s of miles away from all over the world to take advantage of what are perceived as great opportunities to study or earn a living there - but those who are down and out in Harlem or Newark just a half-hour train ride away cannot do the same? I sometimes wonder about this.
There is a problem with the white attitude towards blacks, yes. There is often also a problem with the black attitude towards blacks.
This is a bit of a handwaving argument here since I donot have facts, which goes like this. Back in India it is sort of accepted that the reason poor people are poor and unable to improve their living standards is because of lack of opportunity, education, resources. Either there is no road, or there is no electricity or there is no water or there are no schools- or there is no credit available even if you have a steady income.
But take NY city - is any one of these things lacking? - thousands/10s of thousands come from 1000s of miles away from all over the world to take advantage of what are perceived as great opportunities to study or earn a living there - but those who are down and out in Harlem or Newark just a half-hour train ride away cannot do the same? I sometimes wonder about this.
#131 Posted by AlephNull on May 13, 2003 10:44:58 am
#128 SaminaShah
{{Desis have tended to willingly inherit white supremacy when we immigrate here. Second generation, having studied history, tend to identify themselves with people of color.}}
I can`t meaningfully comment on Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc, due to a paucity of evidence (i.e, personal experience). To the extent that `desis` include Indians, I would posit the converse:
``Desis have tended to contemptuously reject colour-coded racial hierarchies when they immigrate here. Second generation, having willy-nilly been immersed in the dominant American social discourse as impressionable children and adolescents, tend to inherit white supremacy to the degree that American society permits them.``
It is a truism that one`s attitudes to race, colour etc. will tend to follow a different trajectory depending on whether one is a desi immigrant or American-born. Beyond that, so many personal and environmental variables enter into play that generalization is fraught with peril. I submit that your original assertions teeter dangerously on the precipice of invalid generalization - if not actually falling off the edge. Only the use of the word `tended` prevents me from rejecting them absolutely. I personally know people who are clear counterexamples to both your assertions - to the extent that my converse to your thesis appears just as easily supportable as yours. I can also sketch a psychologically plausible case for a desi immigrant emphatically repudiating racial supremacist notions. If you have any scientifically tenable evidence in support of your claim, I would like to see it.
Further, one does not have to `identify with people of colour` to reject `white supremacy`. And - while even a nitwit desi immigrant ought to figure out sooner or later that his civil rights are protected today largely because African-Americans fought and bled for decades - one can, and in fact should, reject racial supremacist notions on intrinsic grounds, independent of any study of history.
{{Desis have tended to willingly inherit white supremacy when we immigrate here. Second generation, having studied history, tend to identify themselves with people of color.}}
I can`t meaningfully comment on Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc, due to a paucity of evidence (i.e, personal experience). To the extent that `desis` include Indians, I would posit the converse:
``Desis have tended to contemptuously reject colour-coded racial hierarchies when they immigrate here. Second generation, having willy-nilly been immersed in the dominant American social discourse as impressionable children and adolescents, tend to inherit white supremacy to the degree that American society permits them.``
It is a truism that one`s attitudes to race, colour etc. will tend to follow a different trajectory depending on whether one is a desi immigrant or American-born. Beyond that, so many personal and environmental variables enter into play that generalization is fraught with peril. I submit that your original assertions teeter dangerously on the precipice of invalid generalization - if not actually falling off the edge. Only the use of the word `tended` prevents me from rejecting them absolutely. I personally know people who are clear counterexamples to both your assertions - to the extent that my converse to your thesis appears just as easily supportable as yours. I can also sketch a psychologically plausible case for a desi immigrant emphatically repudiating racial supremacist notions. If you have any scientifically tenable evidence in support of your claim, I would like to see it.
Further, one does not have to `identify with people of colour` to reject `white supremacy`. And - while even a nitwit desi immigrant ought to figure out sooner or later that his civil rights are protected today largely because African-Americans fought and bled for decades - one can, and in fact should, reject racial supremacist notions on intrinsic grounds, independent of any study of history.
#130 Posted by soysauce on May 13, 2003 8:49:18 am
#127 dost-mittar
Ji: first off, you`re making an assertion that has no basis in fact. Secondly, even assuming what you say is true, when you`re addressing the power structure with your complaints you don`t say i know some of it is my fault. A society that discriminates and is in denial about it, is going to take advantage of any such admission. As it is, affirmative action programs are being gutted and laws aimed at bringing about equality are being dismantled. You don`t provide one more excuse to beat you with.
Every black figure of any significance has admitted there are problems within black family structure that need to be mended (by blacks themselves). I have a feeling that you brought up Jesse Jackson because he is prominant and not because of anything he has said. I`d be glad to be proven wrong.
Ji: first off, you`re making an assertion that has no basis in fact. Secondly, even assuming what you say is true, when you`re addressing the power structure with your complaints you don`t say i know some of it is my fault. A society that discriminates and is in denial about it, is going to take advantage of any such admission. As it is, affirmative action programs are being gutted and laws aimed at bringing about equality are being dismantled. You don`t provide one more excuse to beat you with.
Every black figure of any significance has admitted there are problems within black family structure that need to be mended (by blacks themselves). I have a feeling that you brought up Jesse Jackson because he is prominant and not because of anything he has said. I`d be glad to be proven wrong.
#129 Posted by soysauce on May 13, 2003 8:49:17 am
BTW, Sendhil Mullainathan is a beautiful, pucca tamil name. Harimau Iyer, eat your heart out!
#128 Posted by dost_mittar on May 13, 2003 6:13:13 am
soysauce:
I did not deny that discrimination exists against blacks. Please read my statement again:
``The U.S is ill served now by leaders like Jesse Jackson and assorted liberal democrats who continue to blame their victimhood ALONE (caps added) and not ask their sisters and especially brothers to take responsibility for their own lives``.
I stand by this statement!
I did not deny that discrimination exists against blacks. Please read my statement again:
``The U.S is ill served now by leaders like Jesse Jackson and assorted liberal democrats who continue to blame their victimhood ALONE (caps added) and not ask their sisters and especially brothers to take responsibility for their own lives``.
I stand by this statement!
#127 Posted by Saminasha on May 13, 2003 6:13:13 am
Soysauce, Dost, Courage, Nasah, Hamidm,
Desis have tended to willingly inherit white supremacy when we immigrate here. Second generation, having studied history, tend to identify themselves with people of color.
Desis have tended to willingly inherit white supremacy when we immigrate here. Second generation, having studied history, tend to identify themselves with people of color.
#126 Posted by tahmed32 on May 13, 2003 4:24:56 am
sattar2: You continue to ignore my basic question, while heaping invective on me.
#125 Posted by soysauce on May 12, 2003 4:55:10 pm
#121 dost-mittar
Discrimination against blacks is a continuing reality, and not just some historical fact. Sendhil Mullainathan of MIT (McArthur ``genius`` grant awardee, 2002) published a paper a few months ago showing how prospective employers prefer to interview people with ``non-black names`` to those with ``black names`` but are equally well or even better qualified. Can you imagine who they`d try to hire in a face-to-face interview?
The suggestion that blacks have ghettoized themselves is at best a benign omission of history and the continuing social and economic discrimination against blacks and at worst racism which uppity desis suffer from.
Discrimination against blacks is a continuing reality, and not just some historical fact. Sendhil Mullainathan of MIT (McArthur ``genius`` grant awardee, 2002) published a paper a few months ago showing how prospective employers prefer to interview people with ``non-black names`` to those with ``black names`` but are equally well or even better qualified. Can you imagine who they`d try to hire in a face-to-face interview?
The suggestion that blacks have ghettoized themselves is at best a benign omission of history and the continuing social and economic discrimination against blacks and at worst racism which uppity desis suffer from.
#124 Posted by sattar2 on May 12, 2003 4:55:10 pm
Urstruly,
Are you upset that I lumped tahmed in the same category as you … or is it his unfounded stand on end of prophethood … that makes him dear to you? In any case, I am happy that you did learn something from me … and are not embarrassed to publicly acknowledge this.
Khariyat Sahib … am I sensing a faint trace of praise for my views … or is this a tool for you to leverage your criticism of me? From what I recall, interacting with me was always quite painful and frustrating for you … but that’s irrelevant for now.
Since you asked …I’ll comment that … tahmed Sahib is quick to criticize Ahmadis … but always fails to backup his position. We have had these discussions in the past … and he agrees to disagree … but goes back to ridiculing Ahmadis at some later time. His claims of civility and rationality remain hollow and hence, annoying. If you noticed, he actually admitted that “seal” meaning “the best” … is a valid interpretation … but he did not think through the logical ramifications of this validation … and continued to insist that it is a fact that propehthood has ended. His logic … is that of convenience. He applies it only as long as it works for him … and after that he is as clueless as any local imam.
Now, if you read his post #104, you’ll see why he deserved to be rebuked. I did not make any comments ridiculing his beliefs … but he started to talk down about my khalifaa for no reason. Why couldn’t he simply disagree without becoming obnoxious? An equally obnoxious response would be … a non-Muslim … telling tahmed to lick the boots of his prophet Mohammad and continue to be a victim of indoctrination of Quran. This is hitting below the belt … and indicates lack of civility, failure of reasoning, and marks the beginning of ignorance. Clearly you would have found such a statement more disgusting … than me rebuking tahmed. If you think about my comments in a cool manner … you’ll agree that tahmed sahib deserved to be harshly rebuked.
As a side comment, it is worth mentioning that on the issue of prophethood you actually made more sense … by quoting ahadith and other scholars to lend support to your position. I accepted your arguments as valid ones … but decided not to follow through … since the discussion was not going anywhere. But that is another matter.
Finally …
After all is said and done … you do have a good point … that I should not have been so harsh to tahmed sahib … and should have overlooked what I found disagreeable in his post. So I take back the harshness of my post … extend my apology … and hope tahmed Sahib will overlook this weakness on my part. I also hope he’ll stop ridiculing Ahmadi-Muslims … and will remain open to discussing and learning issues in an amicable manner.
#123 Posted by Urstruly on May 12, 2003 2:12:33 pm
Sattar
There was a time when interacting with you, used to be a pleasant experiance. I have learned a lot from you - I acknowledge. But why did you have to turn into a sore loser. Now, interacting with you is one of the most disgusting experience at the Chowk. What gives?
#122 Posted by sattar2 on May 12, 2003 1:09:57 pm
Tahmed Sahib (#104):
While extolling virtues of civility and logic, you at times slip into irrational, uncouth, and low-class behavior … as evidenced from your latest post. This puts in the same category as the fanatic, jahil ullema … and the rest of the ummah.
“Lawyer talk” is not your problem … it is your own stupidity that is the source of your frustration. At issue is not Ahmadis … or the khalifaa … but your own idiotic thought process … that you cannot find any basis for.
You are better off taking the “mullah route” … by resorting to twisted hadith for what you cannot justify from Quran. Poking fun at Ahmadis only makes you look like the idiot that you actually are … while you continue to exist in denial. Instead to getting upset with me … take a moment to lose your ego and reflect.
#121 Posted by dost_mittar on May 12, 2003 7:13:23 am
nasah:
hamidm has a point.
The fact that the blacks in America have been a victim of historical discrimination is, of course, undeniable. But that has been changing slowly and steadily since the 1960s, and especially with the civil rights and the affirmative action acts. The U.S is ill served now by leaders like Jesse Jackson and assorted liberal democrats who continue to blame their victimhood alone and not ask their sisters and especially brothers to take responsibility for their own lives. In this, I think the two groups from the opposite ends are doing something worthwhile, black neocons like Powell and Rice and (gasp!) the Nation of Islam of Farahkhan.
hamidm has a point.
The fact that the blacks in America have been a victim of historical discrimination is, of course, undeniable. But that has been changing slowly and steadily since the 1960s, and especially with the civil rights and the affirmative action acts. The U.S is ill served now by leaders like Jesse Jackson and assorted liberal democrats who continue to blame their victimhood alone and not ask their sisters and especially brothers to take responsibility for their own lives. In this, I think the two groups from the opposite ends are doing something worthwhile, black neocons like Powell and Rice and (gasp!) the Nation of Islam of Farahkhan.
#120 Posted by Courage on May 11, 2003 11:31:59 pm
nasah,
check out astrologyzone.com. That and astroabby.com are the only worthwhile astrology sites i`ve come across. when you read them you`ll figure out that nothing is written (as the cliched arab/muslim phrase goes:`eet ees so, because, eet ees written`) and fate is not sealed, you can change anything anytime, but there are certain tendencies.
hamidm,
your point with negro is not well-taken and not because its racist, but because you imply that different mindsets are to blame and that the mindset needs to change. this theory applies in some glaringly obvious situations, but generally speaking different mindsets makes this world interesting. the carribean is known for laid-back, chilled people, brazilians are the friendliest, kindest people i`ve come across. now if everyone thought and acted like the ugly american, the world would be a sadder place. am i off-base her ?
check out astrologyzone.com. That and astroabby.com are the only worthwhile astrology sites i`ve come across. when you read them you`ll figure out that nothing is written (as the cliched arab/muslim phrase goes:`eet ees so, because, eet ees written`) and fate is not sealed, you can change anything anytime, but there are certain tendencies.
hamidm,
your point with negro is not well-taken and not because its racist, but because you imply that different mindsets are to blame and that the mindset needs to change. this theory applies in some glaringly obvious situations, but generally speaking different mindsets makes this world interesting. the carribean is known for laid-back, chilled people, brazilians are the friendliest, kindest people i`ve come across. now if everyone thought and acted like the ugly american, the world would be a sadder place. am i off-base her ?
#119 Posted by hamidm2 on May 11, 2003 4:18:32 pm
nasah,
......... you are absolutely justified in expressing your disgust at racism and bigotry - everyone should .......... but when i say that ``negro`` is a state of mind that keeps the african american enslaved, it is not racism ........ it might be politically incorrect and insensitive, but it is the truth ............ the victim mentality and culture of entitlement is what keeps the black man down, it is not the white man anymore ............ and the same argument can be extended to the condition of the muslims the world over ................
......... i hope you get the point ........
......... you are absolutely justified in expressing your disgust at racism and bigotry - everyone should .......... but when i say that ``negro`` is a state of mind that keeps the african american enslaved, it is not racism ........ it might be politically incorrect and insensitive, but it is the truth ............ the victim mentality and culture of entitlement is what keeps the black man down, it is not the white man anymore ............ and the same argument can be extended to the condition of the muslims the world over ................
......... i hope you get the point ........
#118 Posted by nasah on May 11, 2003 4:18:31 pm
hamidm -- just bcause the african-american comedians can use the term `nigger` against each other as satire -- and James Baldwin can use the word -- does not give the right to the non KKK WHITES to call an Afroamerican -- a `nigger` -- in fact no decent white would dare to --
and of all the people it doesn`t give -- WE DESIS -- the right to call an African-American a `nigger` -- we simply CANNOT -- unless we want to walk around at midnight with a two holed hood of bigotry -- over our silly heads.
and of all the people it doesn`t give -- WE DESIS -- the right to call an African-American a `nigger` -- we simply CANNOT -- unless we want to walk around at midnight with a two holed hood of bigotry -- over our silly heads.
#117 Posted by nasah on May 11, 2003 1:15:30 pm
my apology for my outburst --
on Chowk people are entitiled to their bigotted, racist, fascist opinions -- and it is none of my business to get personal.
there are indeede other ways to express one`s disgust.
for a person of my age who has lived in this country for the past 43 years -- who has seen with his own eyes the racist hate, humilliation degradation perpretrated by one community against another -- in this bastion of liberty called the United States -- it pains me to death when I see the Desis doing the same to the Afro-Americans.
what the Afrosamericans have done to us desis? --
Why do WE hate them?
WHY -- an average Pakistani who has just emerged from his own two hundred years old slavery -- by his own white masters -- should treat the Afroamericans wth the same contempt that the Imperial Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan does during a lynchfest?
why?
why bring the Afroamericans in our Desi discussions -- so contempuously?
on Chowk people are entitiled to their bigotted, racist, fascist opinions -- and it is none of my business to get personal.
there are indeede other ways to express one`s disgust.
for a person of my age who has lived in this country for the past 43 years -- who has seen with his own eyes the racist hate, humilliation degradation perpretrated by one community against another -- in this bastion of liberty called the United States -- it pains me to death when I see the Desis doing the same to the Afro-Americans.
what the Afrosamericans have done to us desis? --
Why do WE hate them?
WHY -- an average Pakistani who has just emerged from his own two hundred years old slavery -- by his own white masters -- should treat the Afroamericans wth the same contempt that the Imperial Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan does during a lynchfest?
why?
why bring the Afroamericans in our Desi discussions -- so contempuously?
#116 Posted by hamidm2 on May 11, 2003 1:14:09 pm
nasah
......... i think you missed the point ........ ``nigger`` is a perfectly valid english word - african americans use it all the time to address each other ....... you don`t have to be politically correct to the part of denial ( as samina said, it is not a river in egypt) .......... ``negro`` is a state of mind that keeps the blacks and muslim women confined to the ghetto ..........
remember ............``you can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger`` (James Baldwin)..................
......... i think you missed the point ........ ``nigger`` is a perfectly valid english word - african americans use it all the time to address each other ....... you don`t have to be politically correct to the part of denial ( as samina said, it is not a river in egypt) .......... ``negro`` is a state of mind that keeps the blacks and muslim women confined to the ghetto ..........
remember ............``you can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger`` (James Baldwin)..................
#115 Posted by nasah on May 11, 2003 6:42:18 am
``the negro is a state of mind, and many who call themselves african amiericans are still negroes .... move over nigger``
excuse me for saying this -- but U R a shameless racist bastard, hamidm -- shame on you --
this is no satire -- this is gutter talk -- what`s the matter with you -- re U alright
excuse me for saying this -- but U R a shameless racist bastard, hamidm -- shame on you --
this is no satire -- this is gutter talk -- what`s the matter with you -- re U alright
#114 Posted by Saminasha on May 11, 2003 6:42:06 am
Tahmed, Hamidm2,
A little Twillighty Zone here...but yes, I`d agree with the parallel between Muslim women and African Americans...even John and Yoko broke the news with Woman is the Nigga of the World...but, we are a mightily denying bunch...as in Denial is not just a river in Egypt...
Courage,
I defer to your greater knowledge..all I know is that the zodiac system and the palmist got me all wrong...it was fun, however.... and Reiki-if I`m going to pay 100 dollares to anyone, my neck and calves better be released afterwards....have you been Rolphed?
Zafar,
Poodles are fine, but goats....poor, beautiful, stubborn creatures never get their due...however, we may dicuss! this for the next plotline. Btw, which email should I respond to? The last one was returned.
A little Twillighty Zone here...but yes, I`d agree with the parallel between Muslim women and African Americans...even John and Yoko broke the news with Woman is the Nigga of the World...but, we are a mightily denying bunch...as in Denial is not just a river in Egypt...
Courage,
I defer to your greater knowledge..all I know is that the zodiac system and the palmist got me all wrong...it was fun, however.... and Reiki-if I`m going to pay 100 dollares to anyone, my neck and calves better be released afterwards....have you been Rolphed?
Zafar,
Poodles are fine, but goats....poor, beautiful, stubborn creatures never get their due...however, we may dicuss! this for the next plotline. Btw, which email should I respond to? The last one was returned.
#113 Posted by tahmed32 on May 10, 2003 8:33:42 pm
hamidm2 #112 No kiddin`, Massa Hamidm!! All dem cottinpickin hijab women be niggers then. Lordy Lord! Ah nevah woulda guessed dat!!
#112 Posted by hamidm2 on May 10, 2003 5:58:55 pm
tahmed
...... the negro is a state of mind, and many who call themselves african amiericans are still negroes - axe them and the brothers will tell you that they are proud of being different ........... they are like our sisters in islam who inspite of having every opportunity to liberate themselves, choose to wear the demeaning hijab ............ similarly, the negro with his victim mentality insists on confining himself to the lowest rung of the social ladder with his defiant, but self-destructive, behaviour ........... in france and britain the muslim brothers have taken on the role of the negro ............here in america the muslims are well on the way to taking over the bottom rung from the african american - move over nigger!
...... the negro is a state of mind, and many who call themselves african amiericans are still negroes - axe them and the brothers will tell you that they are proud of being different ........... they are like our sisters in islam who inspite of having every opportunity to liberate themselves, choose to wear the demeaning hijab ............ similarly, the negro with his victim mentality insists on confining himself to the lowest rung of the social ladder with his defiant, but self-destructive, behaviour ........... in france and britain the muslim brothers have taken on the role of the negro ............here in america the muslims are well on the way to taking over the bottom rung from the african american - move over nigger!
#111 Posted by tahmed32 on May 10, 2003 12:34:14 pm
ZafarA: You have indeed hit the nail on the head. Or perhaps I should say you have hit ms. nightingale on the head.
#109 Posted by SR on May 10, 2003 8:55:52 am
#89 by tahmed32 [“…Applying labels to people whose viewpoints conflict with your current line of thinking is a clear marker of an immature mind…”]
I refuse to be drawn into a personal pissing match with you or anyone else. We’ll let the Chowk readership make up their own independent minds as to who among us is quick at calling people names and generally being obnoxious, overbearing, tiresome and repetitive.
[“… common sense says that (a) the Quran was written by individuals based on what they heard from the prophet; and (b) the prophet relayed what he heard from the angel … Thus: I conclude that the overall spirit of the Quran,… is indeed God given…”]
Well, that`s great. You have, at least, made the transition from the ‘dictation theory’ to the ‘inspiration theory’ of the divine origin of religious scripture. This is a far more reasonable and defendable stance than the ‘dictation theory’. But this is NOT what the majority of the faithful believe even today. I suspect Urstruly may disagree with you because it is my impression that he does believe, like most, that every word of the Quran is God’s direct word. That is what I was arguing against before you started defending your beliefs. You know what Mr. Ahmed, most of the discussion that goes on here, sir, is not really about you personally. Please beleive me and try not to be so self conscious. Its okay, no one is trying to get to you…
#88 by Urstruly [“… if they argue with you, you call them apologists and if they dont argue with you, you call them rigid fundamentalists. So no matter what they do, they are doomed. ...” ]
First, I do not consider people who espouse your kind of ideas as ‘moderate reformists’. I consider you a ‘full blooded true believer’. Please correct me if that’s untrue.
If at any time you should say that such and such is your faith, I will never argue with you. Because, before faith there is no discussion. Faith is like love. In the words of Mirza Ghalib it is like the fire that can neither be ignited at will if it not already lit, nor can it be put out if it is burning. Only fools stand in opposition against pure faith.
My problem begins when you leave the realm of faith and try to incorporate logic and common sense argument to justify or explain the tenants of faith. Faith needs no such props. Not only do you devalue your stand, you also invite criticism because though you may not see it in neutral light, its seems to others that you are resorting to mental gymnastics and logical contortions. And then when people criticize the illogic of the tenants of faith, you don’t think they are being fair. Its an impossible situation.
To conclude this discussion I shall speak to you in the language you understand. I’ll quote the Quran: La-qum-deen-a-qum-vel-ya-deen…
…SR
PS: It has, however, been a pleasure and I hope you will forgive if anything I said hurt your sensibilities.
I refuse to be drawn into a personal pissing match with you or anyone else. We’ll let the Chowk readership make up their own independent minds as to who among us is quick at calling people names and generally being obnoxious, overbearing, tiresome and repetitive.
[“… common sense says that (a) the Quran was written by individuals based on what they heard from the prophet; and (b) the prophet relayed what he heard from the angel … Thus: I conclude that the overall spirit of the Quran,… is indeed God given…”]
Well, that`s great. You have, at least, made the transition from the ‘dictation theory’ to the ‘inspiration theory’ of the divine origin of religious scripture. This is a far more reasonable and defendable stance than the ‘dictation theory’. But this is NOT what the majority of the faithful believe even today. I suspect Urstruly may disagree with you because it is my impression that he does believe, like most, that every word of the Quran is God’s direct word. That is what I was arguing against before you started defending your beliefs. You know what Mr. Ahmed, most of the discussion that goes on here, sir, is not really about you personally. Please beleive me and try not to be so self conscious. Its okay, no one is trying to get to you…
#88 by Urstruly [“… if they argue with you, you call them apologists and if they dont argue with you, you call them rigid fundamentalists. So no matter what they do, they are doomed. ...” ]
First, I do not consider people who espouse your kind of ideas as ‘moderate reformists’. I consider you a ‘full blooded true believer’. Please correct me if that’s untrue.
If at any time you should say that such and such is your faith, I will never argue with you. Because, before faith there is no discussion. Faith is like love. In the words of Mirza Ghalib it is like the fire that can neither be ignited at will if it not already lit, nor can it be put out if it is burning. Only fools stand in opposition against pure faith.
My problem begins when you leave the realm of faith and try to incorporate logic and common sense argument to justify or explain the tenants of faith. Faith needs no such props. Not only do you devalue your stand, you also invite criticism because though you may not see it in neutral light, its seems to others that you are resorting to mental gymnastics and logical contortions. And then when people criticize the illogic of the tenants of faith, you don’t think they are being fair. Its an impossible situation.
To conclude this discussion I shall speak to you in the language you understand. I’ll quote the Quran: La-qum-deen-a-qum-vel-ya-deen…
…SR
PS: It has, however, been a pleasure and I hope you will forgive if anything I said hurt your sensibilities.
#108 Posted by ZafarA on May 10, 2003 7:54:16 am
Reply Urstruly, Tahmed
Usually I try and stay out of it when you all discuss your royal family, but...
``I dont think that Benazir became corrupt because she started wearing headscarf.``
Putting on hijab in order to more efficiently steal public moneys is pretty corrupt, na - icing on the cake, IMHO - or have I misunderstood?
Usually I try and stay out of it when you all discuss your royal family, but...
``I dont think that Benazir became corrupt because she started wearing headscarf.``
Putting on hijab in order to more efficiently steal public moneys is pretty corrupt, na - icing on the cake, IMHO - or have I misunderstood?
#107 Posted by tahmed32 on May 10, 2003 7:54:09 am
sattar2 #96 I told you that I am tired of your looking for loopholes in my arguments like a lawyer, while ignoring the substance of what I wrote. I am not going to waste my time repeating the substance of what I wrote. If you wish to lick the boots of a khalifa like whatshisface naqshbandi licks the boots of other men, be my guest. Bye bye.
#106 Posted by tahmed32 on May 10, 2003 7:54:09 am
urstruly #94 Glad we agree on something. :-)
I would not however use begum wali khan as a paragon of modesty though: She was caught shoplifting women`s underwear from a UK store. I remember some pakistani politician coming gallantly to her defence by saying that she does not in fact wear underwear. He did not explain how he determined her lack of underwear. She chose some other story (claiming this was a jewish store creating trouble for her).
I would not however use begum wali khan as a paragon of modesty though: She was caught shoplifting women`s underwear from a UK store. I remember some pakistani politician coming gallantly to her defence by saying that she does not in fact wear underwear. He did not explain how he determined her lack of underwear. She chose some other story (claiming this was a jewish store creating trouble for her).
#105 Posted by tahmed32 on May 10, 2003 7:54:09 am
hamidm #95 I guess it is safe for you to use the word negro on chowk. In real life, the ``negro`` would probably beat the crap out of you. :-)
#104 Posted by nasah on May 10, 2003 7:54:09 am
``have you been following astrology recently ?. i read that all things are all screwy these days because of mercury being retrogade. its affecting all signs. things are supposed to improve from may 20th onwards and by june 4th all the signs should feel better.
i think some of this stuff is true``(courage)
a courageous statement indeed -- takes a lot of courage to say that --
i think some of this stuff is true``(courage)
a courageous statement indeed -- takes a lot of courage to say that --
#103 Posted by nasah on May 10, 2003 7:54:08 am
``I am a kafir, you, hamidm and SR are murtids, temporal and tahmed are munafiks, and are all going to end up in the same place... ``(dost-mitter)
and what happened to that good old mulhid -- nasah --
is he going to the `same place` -- ahead of all you guys? --
the last I heard from him -- he said he is NOT going to the `same place`:-)
and what happened to that good old mulhid -- nasah --
is he going to the `same place` -- ahead of all you guys? --
the last I heard from him -- he said he is NOT going to the `same place`:-)
#102 Posted by SameerJB on May 10, 2003 7:54:08 am
dost-mittar:
Let`s continue this and related discussions at Arian`s (is it aryan or araiN?) Mutant Muslims thread. Planets and stars are aligning there to energize mutants, pisceans and aquarians.
It was actually Jupiter at wrong alignment on August 14-15, 1947 that caused Kashmir and other Indo-Pakistan problems. Had we been given freedonm on February 29, 1947, none of the problems would have existed.
Let`s continue this and related discussions at Arian`s (is it aryan or araiN?) Mutant Muslims thread. Planets and stars are aligning there to energize mutants, pisceans and aquarians.
It was actually Jupiter at wrong alignment on August 14-15, 1947 that caused Kashmir and other Indo-Pakistan problems. Had we been given freedonm on February 29, 1947, none of the problems would have existed.
#101 Posted by nasah on May 10, 2003 12:41:48 am
``just as negroes were``(hamidm2)
negroes?
Hamidm MiaN -- negroes no longer live in the United States.
negroes?
Hamidm MiaN -- negroes no longer live in the United States.
#100 Posted by dost_mittar on May 10, 2003 12:41:48 am
SameerJB:
Around here, nobody pays any great attention to Hijab anymore. It`s simply accepted part of the multicultural scene. So what if it is a symbol of their commitment to their religion. Isn`t turban a symbol of religious commitment by Sikhs, the awkward dhotis, shaven heads and tufts a symbol of Hare Krishna Hindus, funny hats and hairlocks a symbol of Hasisdic jews?...one could go on and on.
Why go after a symptom rather than the root cause, which was correctly identified by SR as the early childhood training that forbids people to question anything in the book? Until that happens, I am a kafir, you, hamidm and SR are murtids, temporal and tahmed are munafiks, and are all going to end up in the same place...
Around here, nobody pays any great attention to Hijab anymore. It`s simply accepted part of the multicultural scene. So what if it is a symbol of their commitment to their religion. Isn`t turban a symbol of religious commitment by Sikhs, the awkward dhotis, shaven heads and tufts a symbol of Hare Krishna Hindus, funny hats and hairlocks a symbol of Hasisdic jews?...one could go on and on.
Why go after a symptom rather than the root cause, which was correctly identified by SR as the early childhood training that forbids people to question anything in the book? Until that happens, I am a kafir, you, hamidm and SR are murtids, temporal and tahmed are munafiks, and are all going to end up in the same place...
#99 Posted by ZafarA on May 10, 2003 12:41:48 am
Reply Saminasha #92
May I suggest a Passover equivalent, in which we each consume a page of good advice of whose wisdom and relevance we are aware, but which we do not intend to follow. (Stuff like: quit smoking, take up exercise, be polite to mother-in-law, treat women and men as equals, recycle, take public transport...)
This page can stand in for the bitter herbs, and will, of course, be followed by goat curry, goat salad and goat mousse. My point is that once we have memorialised this in a ritual we can avoid the issue for the rest of the year.
What about Pinkyfeld? Would the story line admit a poodle better than it would a goat, and if so, do you think the connection would be immediately apparent to our target audience. (Mr Urstruly? What do you think?)
Best regards
May I suggest a Passover equivalent, in which we each consume a page of good advice of whose wisdom and relevance we are aware, but which we do not intend to follow. (Stuff like: quit smoking, take up exercise, be polite to mother-in-law, treat women and men as equals, recycle, take public transport...)
This page can stand in for the bitter herbs, and will, of course, be followed by goat curry, goat salad and goat mousse. My point is that once we have memorialised this in a ritual we can avoid the issue for the rest of the year.
What about Pinkyfeld? Would the story line admit a poodle better than it would a goat, and if so, do you think the connection would be immediately apparent to our target audience. (Mr Urstruly? What do you think?)
Best regards
#98 Posted by Courage on May 10, 2003 12:41:48 am
SaminaSha92:
wow, i`m going to read that post again.
off-topic, but have you been following astrology recently ?. i read that all things are all screwy these days because of mercury being retrogade. its affecting all signs. things are supposed to improve from may 20th onwards and by june 4th all the signs should feel better.
i think some of this stuff is true. i mean we know what physical affect invisible rays have on us, like ultraviolet and the cellphone electromagnetic fields and if you know about rekki, then you know how it trys to help by making sure energies flow in and out properly through us, the indian concept of chakras is similar and yoga is supposed to help too. we also know what mood swing affects drugs have on us, by the chemical imbalances they cause in our minds, you know, mushrooms and certain plants. so the astrological theory is that at the time of our birth certain planets were in certain positions and their particular rays and energies `initialized` us, so to say. so even though all people of the same sign aren`t the exactly the same they take on the affects caused by the individual planets that were either retro or active during the time of our birth. its not a science as yet.
regards
wow, i`m going to read that post again.
off-topic, but have you been following astrology recently ?. i read that all things are all screwy these days because of mercury being retrogade. its affecting all signs. things are supposed to improve from may 20th onwards and by june 4th all the signs should feel better.
i think some of this stuff is true. i mean we know what physical affect invisible rays have on us, like ultraviolet and the cellphone electromagnetic fields and if you know about rekki, then you know how it trys to help by making sure energies flow in and out properly through us, the indian concept of chakras is similar and yoga is supposed to help too. we also know what mood swing affects drugs have on us, by the chemical imbalances they cause in our minds, you know, mushrooms and certain plants. so the astrological theory is that at the time of our birth certain planets were in certain positions and their particular rays and energies `initialized` us, so to say. so even though all people of the same sign aren`t the exactly the same they take on the affects caused by the individual planets that were either retro or active during the time of our birth. its not a science as yet.
regards
#97 Posted by Courage on May 10, 2003 12:41:47 am
ZafarA,
A peice of goat trivia, theres an annual festival in Ireland called Puck Fair, where the goat is celebrated. For more info visit Puck Fair on houston street, near lafayette st. ny, ny
A peice of goat trivia, theres an annual festival in Ireland called Puck Fair, where the goat is celebrated. For more info visit Puck Fair on houston street, near lafayette st. ny, ny
#96 Posted by hamidm2 on May 9, 2003 5:59:08 pm
..... modesty! ............ what the heck does this mean? ...... is this one of those things that `` you will recognize it when you see it`` ............this is tpypical islamist sophistry ...... there is nothing modest about the hijab - it is a militant symbol of fundamentalist islam that is at odds with modernity and has nothing to do with personal values ............ some muslim women are conditioned to wear the hijab just as negroes were conditioned to step off the sidewalk when they saw a white man approaching ........ others are rabid religious bigots who are out to prove a point .......... it is about as benign as the hoods of the kkk !.................
#95 Posted by sattar2 on May 9, 2003 5:59:08 pm
Tahmed Sahib,
After reading your latest post, a few clarifications are in order.
Simply stated, you have been unable to validate your belief in end of prophethood. You offered your opinion on the subject … but could not support it by reasoning. Furthermore, your opinions are negated by the spirit and content of Quran, as I showed.
You later argued that the prophethood issue is not important. This is like the captain abandoning a sinking ship … since on numerous occasions you have criticized Ahmadi-Muslims on basis of this issue. You Sahib, are now backsliding … and failing to acknowledge flaws in your reasoning. Your position indicates that … your beliefs have command over your rationality … while you continue to extol the virtues of logic and reasoning.
I hope you take my comments in a good-spirited manner … and not feel personally insulted by them. The idea is not to unnecessarily berate you … but to make it clear … that you should not criticize others … if you cannot backup your statements with sound reasoning. Regards.
#94 Posted by Urstruly on May 9, 2003 2:27:48 pm
tahmad
It is a fair commentary and I partially agree with it. But keep in mind that Begum Nasim Wali Khan, Begum Abida Hussain, Begum Rana Liaqat Ali Khan also refused to dress ``modestly`` and yet they are respected by as many people as they are hated by but not for their un-modesty. I think we have different perspectives on ``slap on face thing``. I dont think that Benazir became corrupt because she started wearing headscarf.
#93 Posted by tahmed32 on May 9, 2003 11:54:26 am
urstruly #90 Lets be honest: Benazir ``wore modesty`` (i.e. put a covering over her head) as a political device to negate attempts by mullahs to portray her as a loose woman, as mullahs are all to eager to do whenever they find a women whom they think would be vulnerable to their taunts. Benazir`s ``modesty`` was not a mark of Benazir`s purity, but a mark of the ``napak`` nature of many Pakistanis men who oppress women under their control, and taunt women not under their control, given any opportunity.
Benazir`s ``modesty`` was a slap on the face of all such men in Pakistan. And no reflection on Benazir, who immodestly considers herself the rightful heir to the throne in Pakistan, even after she and her husband looted the nations wealth.
Benazir`s ``modesty`` was a slap on the face of all such men in Pakistan. And no reflection on Benazir, who immodestly considers herself the rightful heir to the throne in Pakistan, even after she and her husband looted the nations wealth.
#92 Posted by Saminasha on May 9, 2003 11:54:25 am
Zafar,
Actually, in the narrative of the Goat Who Ate the Quran, a astrologist interpretation might build upon theories of the Bloomian Anxiety of Influence, which is that in order to reign supreme over the exploitaton of man (and here I mean, patriarchical MEN), the goat had to eat the text to disappear it-goat practitioners honor this herstoric moment by eating non grass matter. Our collective societies have sublimated this moment by attributing this goat-centric social action by attributing it to the Dog-as in, ``the dog ate my homework and therefore I didnt do it`` which is shorthand for, I was too lazy to do whats good for me. Therefore the moment/significance of the goat act, while not being entirely lost, lie at just beneath our collective discourse.
The Bloomian Psychozodiacal interpretation similarly maintain that goats are known zodiacally to be the most stingy and ambitious and this was an obvious power play on the part of the goat-which is why men have had to kill and eat them to remove the threat of any other goat displacing male hegemony among the animal and human kingdom.
Actually, in the narrative of the Goat Who Ate the Quran, a astrologist interpretation might build upon theories of the Bloomian Anxiety of Influence, which is that in order to reign supreme over the exploitaton of man (and here I mean, patriarchical MEN), the goat had to eat the text to disappear it-goat practitioners honor this herstoric moment by eating non grass matter. Our collective societies have sublimated this moment by attributing this goat-centric social action by attributing it to the Dog-as in, ``the dog ate my homework and therefore I didnt do it`` which is shorthand for, I was too lazy to do whats good for me. Therefore the moment/significance of the goat act, while not being entirely lost, lie at just beneath our collective discourse.
The Bloomian Psychozodiacal interpretation similarly maintain that goats are known zodiacally to be the most stingy and ambitious and this was an obvious power play on the part of the goat-which is why men have had to kill and eat them to remove the threat of any other goat displacing male hegemony among the animal and human kingdom.
#91 Posted by tahmed32 on May 9, 2003 10:51:18 am
SR #86 Applying labels to people whose viewpoints conflict with your current line of thinking is a clear marker of an immature mind. So congratulations on applying the label of ``reformists``.
Coming to what you write ``It is asserted that each and every single word of the Quran is the unadultrated direct dictation of God (via Gabriel) ``
Who asserts this? I certainly dont, since common sense says that (a) the Quran was written by individuals based on what they heard from the prophet; and (b) the prophet relayed what he heard from the angel (per our muslim belief). Since the prophet never claimed to be anything more than an ordinary human, and since the scribes were the same, it stands to reason that the assertion you present above is irrational.
Logic would say what you said: the prophet received the message from an angel. This is our muslim belief, and you can reject this belief if you wish and assume it was due to a trance of some kind. And the prophet faithfully relayed the message the best he could, since that is what he was tasked to do (he was NOT tasked to oversee implementation, incidentally, as the Quran says and this exposes the hollowness of Maudoodism and of the Islamists). And the scribes by and large (I AM assuming this, and I think this is a reasonably safe assumption given the checks and balances at work) did their job.
Thus: I conclude that the overall spirit of the Quran, which i s indeed one of great humanity and profound appreciation of the universe around us, is indeed God given. And this exposes the hollowness not just of the Islamists but also of people like you and other Islam haters who claim the Quran preaches evil by pulling out odd-verses as convenient, while ignoring the overall spirit.
Coming to what you write ``It is asserted that each and every single word of the Quran is the unadultrated direct dictation of God (via Gabriel) ``
Who asserts this? I certainly dont, since common sense says that (a) the Quran was written by individuals based on what they heard from the prophet; and (b) the prophet relayed what he heard from the angel (per our muslim belief). Since the prophet never claimed to be anything more than an ordinary human, and since the scribes were the same, it stands to reason that the assertion you present above is irrational.
Logic would say what you said: the prophet received the message from an angel. This is our muslim belief, and you can reject this belief if you wish and assume it was due to a trance of some kind. And the prophet faithfully relayed the message the best he could, since that is what he was tasked to do (he was NOT tasked to oversee implementation, incidentally, as the Quran says and this exposes the hollowness of Maudoodism and of the Islamists). And the scribes by and large (I AM assuming this, and I think this is a reasonably safe assumption given the checks and balances at work) did their job.
Thus: I conclude that the overall spirit of the Quran, which i s indeed one of great humanity and profound appreciation of the universe around us, is indeed God given. And this exposes the hollowness not just of the Islamists but also of people like you and other Islam haters who claim the Quran preaches evil by pulling out odd-verses as convenient, while ignoring the overall spirit.
#90 Posted by Urstruly on May 9, 2003 10:51:18 am
I think I will have to agree with faziiet # 71 where he says `` Hijabi women don`t become CEOs? Yeah. Sure. Cuz MEN don`t let them.
And that is what the empirical evidence suggests. A brief look into history will tell us that as US was struggling to get out of ``Dogs and Blacks Not Allowed`` mindset, a woman in Paksitan was running for Presidency. Interestingly, enough the religious political entities were supporting her, while a General with the support of people of secular and modern outlook was making sure that she didn`t win. She used to wear, modestly. This is not just one case. Benazir, a woman, has become Prime Minister, not once but twice after forming alliance with religious parties. She wears modestly. No religious party, even the extremist nuts never challenged the leadership of these two ladies,just because they were women. Another lady held another most powerful position in Paksitan for decades. Kaneez Fatima, she has been a Collective Bargaining Agent for some of the most powerful labor unions in Paksitan such as Railways, Shipyard, and steel Mills. She wore modestly. The Surgeon General of Paksitan was a lady, who also rose to the rank of Paksitan`s first Major General (or was it Lt. General?). Women in Paksitan have wore modestly and have become legislators, human rights activists, lawyers, and what not. No woman has ever been denied a position just because she wore modestly or she didn`t.
So are women discriminated in Paksitan? yeah sure, like everywhere else. Are women raped in Paksitan? yeah sure, like everywhere else and in West who proclaims to be the champion of women`s rights they are raped by the second. Do they wear modestly. No. Is there a connection. You tell me?
#89 Posted by soysauce on May 9, 2003 10:51:18 am
#81 SR
Beautifully said!
That an insignificant aspect of the universe would believe that its every single action is mandated and monitored by a/the creator is the height of conceit and a cry for attention...
Beautifully said!
That an insignificant aspect of the universe would believe that its every single action is mandated and monitored by a/the creator is the height of conceit and a cry for attention...
#88 Posted by Urstruly on May 9, 2003 8:57:03 am
SR#86 writes ``The `reformists` have to make up their minds because they cannot have it both ways. ``
No Sir, I think it is you who have to make up your mind. See if they argue with you, you call them apologists and if they dont argue with you, you call them rigid fundamentalists. So no matter what they do, they are doomed. You cannot have it both ways. Why don`t you take their arguments on their own merits. Are you afraid of something?
#87 Posted by ZafarA on May 9, 2003 7:33:43 am
I want you all to know that I am COMPLETELY COMPLETELY taken with this goat story, and I would count it as a great personal favour if any of you were able to tell me more about said goat and baqi kahani.
(Goat is which star sign? Which Chinese year animal? Also goat? Favourite colour? Favourite fillum star? Philosophical leanings? etc.)
I remain ladies and gents, absolutely gagging for more, and of course your obedient servant.
(Samina, this goat must be inducted into the Pinkyfeld saga. Pleeeeeease.)
(Goat is which star sign? Which Chinese year animal? Also goat? Favourite colour? Favourite fillum star? Philosophical leanings? etc.)
I remain ladies and gents, absolutely gagging for more, and of course your obedient servant.
(Samina, this goat must be inducted into the Pinkyfeld saga. Pleeeeeease.)
#86 Posted by SR on May 9, 2003 7:22:32 am
Taking single issues from the Quran for analysis ... not fair ... because ``over all spirit`` is kinder and gentler
The moderate and reform minded Muslims have long asked for this treatment without being willing to make the necessary concession. Let me explain.
If one was to claim that Quran is just a collection of the sayings of the Prophet when he was in a `altered state of trance` then this apporach would be perfectly reasonable. But the trouble is that the claim made is absolutely fantastic: It is asserted that each and every single word of the Quran is the unadultrated direct dictation of God (via Gabriel)
This sets the standard as very high and that is the reason why every word can be justifiably put under the microscope. If only this absurd and outrageous claim is dropped and Quran is humanized, then all the criticism (the sort `reforms` object against becomes) becomes unreasonable, because the Prophet, after all, was a human and such things (i.e., inconsistencies, anachronisms, contradictions and irrelevencies) are to be expected and no reasonable person would redicule them any more then they would redicule such material in the Iliad, Puranas, Vedas, Torah or Bible etc.
The `reformists` have to make up their minds because they cannot have it both ways. I have far greater respect for the beliefs of people who are die-hard faithfuls than I do for the confused ideas of some of the so-called `modern islamists`. At least fundamentalist makes no appoligies for his faith, regardless of argument agsinst it. At least he is willing to go down with the sinking ship resisting to the end.
...SR
The moderate and reform minded Muslims have long asked for this treatment without being willing to make the necessary concession. Let me explain.
If one was to claim that Quran is just a collection of the sayings of the Prophet when he was in a `altered state of trance` then this apporach would be perfectly reasonable. But the trouble is that the claim made is absolutely fantastic: It is asserted that each and every single word of the Quran is the unadultrated direct dictation of God (via Gabriel)
This sets the standard as very high and that is the reason why every word can be justifiably put under the microscope. If only this absurd and outrageous claim is dropped and Quran is humanized, then all the criticism (the sort `reforms` object against becomes) becomes unreasonable, because the Prophet, after all, was a human and such things (i.e., inconsistencies, anachronisms, contradictions and irrelevencies) are to be expected and no reasonable person would redicule them any more then they would redicule such material in the Iliad, Puranas, Vedas, Torah or Bible etc.
The `reformists` have to make up their minds because they cannot have it both ways. I have far greater respect for the beliefs of people who are die-hard faithfuls than I do for the confused ideas of some of the so-called `modern islamists`. At least fundamentalist makes no appoligies for his faith, regardless of argument agsinst it. At least he is willing to go down with the sinking ship resisting to the end.
...SR
#85 Posted by SameerJB on May 9, 2003 7:22:31 am
dost-mittar:
Ii is not a piece of cloth covering head per se. Many women all around the world make statement of their womanhood in variety of ways. Many older ladies even in the west wear scarfs or fashionable hats just as women in south asia have been wearing dopatta without any problem. However, hijab is different on at least three points: First, it is a symbol of women`s protection imposed by men - men controling their destinies. Men to this day are not ready to treat women equal as the nrgligible number of women in powerful positions suggest. How can then hijab be an honest effort to bring respect to women? Moreover, top 10-20 men in such decision-making positions had at least 5-10 times as many women in their harems. They would be - and many event suggest that they were jealously guarding their own loot of women - more interested to protect their own harem from the rest and hijab helped to do just that.
Second, hijab is not a voluntary thing though many women do wear it voluntarily. It is part of a big parcel, a big rotten deal, always on the look out for ways to encroach in all affairs of life. Pashtun women have been wearing a white chaddar for a longtime without any problem but Zia, fundamentalists and current NWFP assembly is imposing it as state policy. In Kashmir, some women were murdered recently for not wearing hijab. It is like that bedoin, camel and tent story. Once bedoin gave an inch to camel, camel took it as green light to take over the tent. Similarly for women, wearing hijab has been hisotrically and still is a green light for Islamist and fundamentalist men to continue expansion or encroachment in other areas in addition to relegating women to the lower status chosen for them by men in the name of god.
Third, hijab is a symbol as much as a real thing. It is to be worn on sleeve (call it head). A wman wearing hijab or person wearing brown shirt or red tie in itself means nothing to worry about but red tie worn as Mao`s red cap, a brown shirt for sympathy with Hitler and nazism and hijab a symbol of Muslim women (another identification to prove that Ummah does exist across national and cultural barriers) backed by religious heirarchy, history and dogma are wrong.
Actually underwear-free world of Muslim men is stronger backer of hijab for women than women themselves. I do not care or it does not matter if such practices are truly Islamic, quranic, biblical, talmudic, vedic or not, whatever is practiced in the name of religion is the religion in practice. Those who feel part of it or all of it problematic and requires introspection have many possible choices to deal with it. Most oftenly given here is to fall back to original or follow the true spirit of Islam or quran. Some suggest reinterpretation, ijtehad, ijma etc. It took several centuries for Europe to follow this path to break free, despite the consitutional equality, detesting it by well-intentioed Hindus for centuries, caste-system is still persistent to large extent. The correction from within is a slow process stretching over centuries and thus inefficient. Throwing the baby with bath water and bath tub as well, is the efficient way to deal with the rotten deals.
Here Muslims can not even agree if goat ate holy leaves or not, let alone the whole mythical detailed accounts of early Islamic history. That is mostly mythical - fictitious. The characters are created and word are put in their mouths as much as two centuries later. All of this stuff is cooked up much later by vested interests to help maintain two meccans families to rule for the next 500 years.
Ii is not a piece of cloth covering head per se. Many women all around the world make statement of their womanhood in variety of ways. Many older ladies even in the west wear scarfs or fashionable hats just as women in south asia have been wearing dopatta without any problem. However, hijab is different on at least three points: First, it is a symbol of women`s protection imposed by men - men controling their destinies. Men to this day are not ready to treat women equal as the nrgligible number of women in powerful positions suggest. How can then hijab be an honest effort to bring respect to women? Moreover, top 10-20 men in such decision-making positions had at least 5-10 times as many women in their harems. They would be - and many event suggest that they were jealously guarding their own loot of women - more interested to protect their own harem from the rest and hijab helped to do just that.
Second, hijab is not a voluntary thing though many women do wear it voluntarily. It is part of a big parcel, a big rotten deal, always on the look out for ways to encroach in all affairs of life. Pashtun women have been wearing a white chaddar for a longtime without any problem but Zia, fundamentalists and current NWFP assembly is imposing it as state policy. In Kashmir, some women were murdered recently for not wearing hijab. It is like that bedoin, camel and tent story. Once bedoin gave an inch to camel, camel took it as green light to take over the tent. Similarly for women, wearing hijab has been hisotrically and still is a green light for Islamist and fundamentalist men to continue expansion or encroachment in other areas in addition to relegating women to the lower status chosen for them by men in the name of god.
Third, hijab is a symbol as much as a real thing. It is to be worn on sleeve (call it head). A wman wearing hijab or person wearing brown shirt or red tie in itself means nothing to worry about but red tie worn as Mao`s red cap, a brown shirt for sympathy with Hitler and nazism and hijab a symbol of Muslim women (another identification to prove that Ummah does exist across national and cultural barriers) backed by religious heirarchy, history and dogma are wrong.
Actually underwear-free world of Muslim men is stronger backer of hijab for women than women themselves. I do not care or it does not matter if such practices are truly Islamic, quranic, biblical, talmudic, vedic or not, whatever is practiced in the name of religion is the religion in practice. Those who feel part of it or all of it problematic and requires introspection have many possible choices to deal with it. Most oftenly given here is to fall back to original or follow the true spirit of Islam or quran. Some suggest reinterpretation, ijtehad, ijma etc. It took several centuries for Europe to follow this path to break free, despite the consitutional equality, detesting it by well-intentioed Hindus for centuries, caste-system is still persistent to large extent. The correction from within is a slow process stretching over centuries and thus inefficient. Throwing the baby with bath water and bath tub as well, is the efficient way to deal with the rotten deals.
Here Muslims can not even agree if goat ate holy leaves or not, let alone the whole mythical detailed accounts of early Islamic history. That is mostly mythical - fictitious. The characters are created and word are put in their mouths as much as two centuries later. All of this stuff is cooked up much later by vested interests to help maintain two meccans families to rule for the next 500 years.
#84 Posted by tahmed32 on May 8, 2003 10:35:43 pm
sattar2 #79 I will let you have the last word. Not because I think it makes sense, but because I am getting tired of your looking for loopholes like a lawyer in everything I say, in taking every inch and making it a mile. Regards.
#83 Posted by tahmed32 on May 8, 2003 10:35:43 pm
dost mittar #78 My problem with women wearing the hijab in the west is that it is so fake and teh opposite of the concept of modest dress. It is fake because in Pakistan women dont traditionally wear the hijab. So they are certainly not merely continuing a form of dress they are accustomed do. They come to the west, and some (about 10 percent I think) start wearing it. And it is immodest since it has the opposite affect of what modesty in dress is supposed to be about: i.e. dress that does not make you conspicuous.
#82 Posted by tahmed32 on May 8, 2003 10:35:43 pm
dost mittar #78 Agreed. The overall spirit of the Quran is what should be taught, and that is definitely very humane. You can take bits and pieces out of any religious book (not just in Islam) and claim the opposite of what the message is all about. The Bible and the Torah are not free from such passages as are routinely mentioned about the Quran. Yet because their overall spirit is what is emphasized, these passages are not an issue.
#81 Posted by SR on May 8, 2003 9:24:00 pm
Every Muslim child should be introduced to a little astronomy before they swallow za-li-kal-kitabou-la-reh-ba-fe bait, hook, line and sinker.
If the Almighty Creator of the universe would, in fact, condescend to communicate with this very recently evolved semi-intelligent species of the Third Planet orbiting a mediocre star that was situated in the outer periphery of the spiral arm of an ordinary galaxy, then surely such a Super Being could find ways to get the message across without ambiguity. After all, there is no controversy over whether the sun is shining at a particular time and place, is there? In like manner, the All Knowing, All Powerful, could make it “loud and clear” even for the dumbest of the dumb and the skeptic of all ages. If the Super Being was really serious about getting a message through, we would not be having these arguments. Now THAT would have been a real miracle, for all to see and instinctively know.
Bishop Birkley once asked Bertrand Russell to set aside his skepticism and assume for a moment that God actually existed and that he (Russell) was standing before Him on the Day of Judgement.
“What,” Bishop Birkley asked, “will your answer be to the Lord for being a disbeleiver?”
“I shall say to Him,” Russell responded without hesitation, “Sir, you did not give me enough evidence.”
…SR
If the Almighty Creator of the universe would, in fact, condescend to communicate with this very recently evolved semi-intelligent species of the Third Planet orbiting a mediocre star that was situated in the outer periphery of the spiral arm of an ordinary galaxy, then surely such a Super Being could find ways to get the message across without ambiguity. After all, there is no controversy over whether the sun is shining at a particular time and place, is there? In like manner, the All Knowing, All Powerful, could make it “loud and clear” even for the dumbest of the dumb and the skeptic of all ages. If the Super Being was really serious about getting a message through, we would not be having these arguments. Now THAT would have been a real miracle, for all to see and instinctively know.
Bishop Birkley once asked Bertrand Russell to set aside his skepticism and assume for a moment that God actually existed and that he (Russell) was standing before Him on the Day of Judgement.
“What,” Bishop Birkley asked, “will your answer be to the Lord for being a disbeleiver?”
“I shall say to Him,” Russell responded without hesitation, “Sir, you did not give me enough evidence.”
…SR
#80 Posted by sattar2 on May 8, 2003 7:49:27 pm
Tahmed Sahib …
As a few parting comments … I would like to point out some of your unreasonable assertions:
If seal “could be” interpreted as of highest status (no need of “could only be” here)… it means that Mohammad being the last prophet is a conjecture, which, without supporting arguments, remains merely a conjecture.
You earlier attempted to support this conjecture by the “individual responsibility” argument. As I pointed out, your argument is negated by Quran (I think you agree, although you did not comment).
Your interpretation of “sealed, signed, and delivered” … is not convincing either … and only muddies the water. Sealed, signed, and delivered does not imply end of prophethood … just as seal of poets (khatam-ul-shu’ra) does not mean a poet “sealed, signed, and delivered”. You are relying on your opinion here … and are unable to support it with reasoning. Do not forget that a seal, an official imprint of authority and authenticity, also denotes high status in Arabic language.
Moving on …
You trivialize the matter by saying that … if sattar feels that he needs help in religious guidance, that’s fine with tahmed. Your position once again is counter to the spirit of Quran.
Prophets are raised not because a person feels need for guidance … but because Allah Almighty sees it fit. An Israelite in the times of Jesus would have been wrong in rejecting prophethood of Jesus and maintaining that he (the Israelite) does not need religious guidance. I am not discussing Mirza Sahib here … but only prophethood in general. My point is that … just as accepting Jesus as a prophet was incumbent upon an Israelite then, accepting a new prophet, if Allah were to raise one today, would be incumbent upon the people nowadays. I think you’d agree that this is a fair statement.
However, owing to individual responsibility, you are also free to reject anyone you choose to (including Moses, Mohammad, Jesus, and Mirza Sahib [wink]). The matter rests between you and Allah only … and He alone is the Judge of one’s intentions and actions.
On a lighter note … you have really let Urstruly down on this one. The only reason why he has refrained from declaring you a heretic and an ignominious scoundrel (i.e., a closet Ahmadi) was your unequivocal stance that prophethood has ended. Now that you accept the counterpoint as a potentially valid one, you risk being branded as an apostate. Be careful … such declarations are known to cause serious health problems … esp. in the “land of the pure”.
#79 Posted by dost_mittar on May 8, 2003 7:49:27 pm
Tahmed:
``no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat``
...this is news to me. In the UP urdu, the word hazrat is/was commonly used in ordinary conversation, often with mock respect, like in ``arre zara un hazrat kau bulaana!``
``no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat``
...this is news to me. In the UP urdu, the word hazrat is/was commonly used in ordinary conversation, often with mock respect, like in ``arre zara un hazrat kau bulaana!``
#78 Posted by dost_mittar on May 8, 2003 7:49:26 pm
Tahmed:
``no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat``
...this is news to me. In the UP urdu, the word hazrat is/was commonly used in ordinary conversation, often with mock respect, like in ``arre zara un hazrat kau bulaana!``
Hijab:
I think hijab should be well within the limits of a permissible, multicultural society. A woman wearing hijab poses no threat to anyone. It is simply a matter of personal preference dictated by one`s religion and culture.
As a non-muslim, I would rather that muslims start thinking of themselves as the citizens of their respective countries -Pakistanis, Indians, Canadians, Americans, French, British- first and members of an umma second.
My second wish would be that the madrassas stop teaching certain ayahs of quraan which, to use an understatement, do not encourage friendly attitude towards non-muslims, instead of trying to spin-doctor them to mean something other than they very obviously do. The quraan repeatedly states that it was revealed in Arabic so that its meaning was clear to the people. So, why the spin-doctoring?
``no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat``
...this is news to me. In the UP urdu, the word hazrat is/was commonly used in ordinary conversation, often with mock respect, like in ``arre zara un hazrat kau bulaana!``
Hijab:
I think hijab should be well within the limits of a permissible, multicultural society. A woman wearing hijab poses no threat to anyone. It is simply a matter of personal preference dictated by one`s religion and culture.
As a non-muslim, I would rather that muslims start thinking of themselves as the citizens of their respective countries -Pakistanis, Indians, Canadians, Americans, French, British- first and members of an umma second.
My second wish would be that the madrassas stop teaching certain ayahs of quraan which, to use an understatement, do not encourage friendly attitude towards non-muslims, instead of trying to spin-doctor them to mean something other than they very obviously do. The quraan repeatedly states that it was revealed in Arabic so that its meaning was clear to the people. So, why the spin-doctoring?
#77 Posted by tahmed32 on May 8, 2003 4:43:41 pm
sattar2 #76 No need to do the victory dance. I said ``could be`` interpreted the way you do, not ``could only be`` interpreted the way you do. I in fact think that a more logical interpretation is ``seal`` as in ``sealed, signed and delivered``. Either way, I dont think this one phrase matters all that much. But if this ``could be`` pleases you, dont let me come in the way of your pleasure.
Since you also accept the concept of individual responsibility, then I think you and I have no more quarrel. If you feel the need to get help for religious guidance from someone you regard as a prophet that is fine. As long as you respect my right to reject anyone who thinks I need his help in understanding what God really meant to say.
This ``anyone`` incidentally includes not just Mr. Mirza (no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat). This also includes all the maulvis, aalims, faazils, mard-e-momins (like zia), mard-e-momin wnannabes (like nawaz sharif), jamaatias, the mufti of the islamabad (un)islamic university, the grand mufti of egypt, or the black robed ayatollahs of qum, syeds, qureshis, pirs, malangs, or any other of the zillions of spokesmen for God who float around in muslim countries. And this includes all the mess they have made with their voodoo economics and their voodoo laws and other voodoo stuff they claim the bakri ate and therefore cannot be found in the Quran.
Anyway, you are a good man and I wish you all the best.
Since you also accept the concept of individual responsibility, then I think you and I have no more quarrel. If you feel the need to get help for religious guidance from someone you regard as a prophet that is fine. As long as you respect my right to reject anyone who thinks I need his help in understanding what God really meant to say.
This ``anyone`` incidentally includes not just Mr. Mirza (no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat). This also includes all the maulvis, aalims, faazils, mard-e-momins (like zia), mard-e-momin wnannabes (like nawaz sharif), jamaatias, the mufti of the islamabad (un)islamic university, the grand mufti of egypt, or the black robed ayatollahs of qum, syeds, qureshis, pirs, malangs, or any other of the zillions of spokesmen for God who float around in muslim countries. And this includes all the mess they have made with their voodoo economics and their voodoo laws and other voodoo stuff they claim the bakri ate and therefore cannot be found in the Quran.
Anyway, you are a good man and I wish you all the best.
#76 Posted by soysauce on May 8, 2003 3:02:57 pm
#71 faziiet
What`s the point of wearing a hijab in france? Is it a statement, I`m different from you. I`m better than you? Or is it to say, I`m an immigrant who came here to be different? Or is it, I`m here and I reject your culture? At best it`s a confused statement and at worst, it`s an in-your-face taunting of the host community. That said, things will eventually change. When the second and subsequent generations begin to claim to be french, there will be some give and take.
Islam is new to france. How to deal with some aggressive manifestations of it is an ongoing process. Official france also has to take into account how much of the accomodation of the public expression of what still is an alien culture would play into the hands of the ultra-right.
Now I`m going to ask a slippery-slope question. What about full body veil. Should that be OK too? If not, why not? If it is OK, how about someone wanting to walk around naked in the streets. Should that be permitted? Who should decide and why?
What`s the point of wearing a hijab in france? Is it a statement, I`m different from you. I`m better than you? Or is it to say, I`m an immigrant who came here to be different? Or is it, I`m here and I reject your culture? At best it`s a confused statement and at worst, it`s an in-your-face taunting of the host community. That said, things will eventually change. When the second and subsequent generations begin to claim to be french, there will be some give and take.
Islam is new to france. How to deal with some aggressive manifestations of it is an ongoing process. Official france also has to take into account how much of the accomodation of the public expression of what still is an alien culture would play into the hands of the ultra-right.
Now I`m going to ask a slippery-slope question. What about full body veil. Should that be OK too? If not, why not? If it is OK, how about someone wanting to walk around naked in the streets. Should that be permitted? Who should decide and why?
#75 Posted by tahmed32 on May 8, 2003 3:02:57 pm
hamidm2#70 and sameerJB: I re-read hamidm`s post, and I did go too far in accusing you of being close-minded. What I had in mind was an interaction further down on this board where I felt hamidm insisted on interpreting islam the way the mullah interprets it (namely, that the message of Islam equals the words of the Quran PLUS stuff the bakri ate up). In doing so hamidm is quite correct in rejecting it. However, I refuse to accept the bakri part (that is, the sharia, sunnah, tradition and the whole christmas tree of stuff that has been added through the centuries by ordinary men to reflect their personal preferences, conveniences, prejudices). I say this because logic dictates that if one calls oneself a muslim, one accepts only the Quran. And one interprets the Quran in terms of overall spirit - since the Quran is not a legal document or a computer program but more like a book of poetry (as I was explaining to dostmittar on another board).
Anyway: I do think you would be better off not letting the mullah run away with Islam. Indeed, the Quran is the most potent weapon against sharia laws, blasphemy laws, the whole Islamist mindset that pervades among too many muslims. Since it explicitly denies any political role to religion. Even the beloved symbol of the Islamist - the hijab - has no basis in the Quran (which explicitly calls only for women to be modest and cover their breasts - does not refer to covering the head, much less dressing up in a tent). The hijab is in fact taken from the Byzantines, and started over a hundred years after the prophets death.
So: separate the mullah and the islamists from the Quran. Expose them for what they are: half-brained chauvinists who have no clue what they are talking about. third world men who are having incredible difficulty understanding today`s world. What I am complaining about is the willingness with which you let them use islam as a substitute for any sense in what they say.
Anyway: I do think you would be better off not letting the mullah run away with Islam. Indeed, the Quran is the most potent weapon against sharia laws, blasphemy laws, the whole Islamist mindset that pervades among too many muslims. Since it explicitly denies any political role to religion. Even the beloved symbol of the Islamist - the hijab - has no basis in the Quran (which explicitly calls only for women to be modest and cover their breasts - does not refer to covering the head, much less dressing up in a tent). The hijab is in fact taken from the Byzantines, and started over a hundred years after the prophets death.
So: separate the mullah and the islamists from the Quran. Expose them for what they are: half-brained chauvinists who have no clue what they are talking about. third world men who are having incredible difficulty understanding today`s world. What I am complaining about is the willingness with which you let them use islam as a substitute for any sense in what they say.
#74 Posted by sattar2 on May 8, 2003 3:02:57 pm
tahmed Sahib (#67) …
Touch down! After going in circles for a long time … you have finally accepted the validity of “seal of prophets” as the “prophet of the highest status”. I can now thump my chest and do the victory dance. However, a few comments are worth making …
You state that … “seal of prophethood could be interpreted as being something other than the fact that mohammed was a final prophet”
This statement reflects the command your belief has over your rationality (take this with a pinch of salt). If “seal” can imply “highest status” … than the “fact” the Mohammad is the last prophet … is no longer a fact, but an interpretation … subject to further scrutiny.
To support your interpretation you state that spirit of Quran is towards individual responsibility … and hence there is no need for prophets for guidance. This interpretation is negated by Quran … which maintains that coming of prophets does not conflict with individual responsibility at all.
Quran mentions prophets … Moses, Jacob, Jesus, Mohammad and others … sent for guidance of people. Quran clearly indicates that people remain responsible for their actions. Spirit of Torah is also toward individual responsibility … while prophets were still sent to the followers as needed.
I hope you see the flaw in your reasoning … and incorrect assumptions you associate with coming of prophets.
#73 Posted by hamidm2 on May 8, 2003 3:02:56 pm
faziiet
ISNA a moderate group? ............ have you ever looked through their publications?.......... it promotes an islamic identity for american muslims based on orthodox islamic values which are contrary to mainstream american values ....it promotes religious nonsense with emphasis on ``personal morality`` combined with a jihadic support for lost causes all over the world ..........
......other religions like judaism, hindooism and christianity also have groups like this, but that represent the lunatic fringe .........the JDL, RSS and KKK are prime examples ............ however, the difference is that ISNA represents the ``mainstream`` ........... muslim groups that promote pluralism, modernity, equal rights for women, free markets, sex without guilt and liberal democracy do not exist, and by definition cannot exist .......... the ``living miracle`` of the koran ensures that we do not move past the seventh century .............
ISNA a moderate group? ............ have you ever looked through their publications?.......... it promotes an islamic identity for american muslims based on orthodox islamic values which are contrary to mainstream american values ....it promotes religious nonsense with emphasis on ``personal morality`` combined with a jihadic support for lost causes all over the world ..........
......other religions like judaism, hindooism and christianity also have groups like this, but that represent the lunatic fringe .........the JDL, RSS and KKK are prime examples ............ however, the difference is that ISNA represents the ``mainstream`` ........... muslim groups that promote pluralism, modernity, equal rights for women, free markets, sex without guilt and liberal democracy do not exist, and by definition cannot exist .......... the ``living miracle`` of the koran ensures that we do not move past the seventh century .............
#72 Posted by SR on May 8, 2003 3:02:33 pm
Re: hamidm #70 [“… matter of hijab, which is the root cause of all evil, …. is a symbol of militant islam and symbolizes the second class status of women in islamic society …”]
O ye misguided one, will you never learn?
Can’t you see that the veil is actually a great advantage for women. It is proof positive that Islam actually grants greater advantage to women by putting men at a handicap.
Really, think about it. The sisters can see everything from behind the veil, whereas the poor brothers are lost in a guessing game. Imagine the advantage one could have in a game of poker (which only kafirs play astagh-firullah, no Muslim will touch, inshallah) if the opponent could not see the expressions on one`s face. It (the veil) confers the advantage of `stealth` technology to the sisters, such that the radar of the kafirs or even the non-pious brothers cannot decipher them. It is a `cloaking device` (which the Klingons of Star Trek emulated). Not only does it protect but also promotes the freedom of women. Yes, the sisters, al-hamd-o-lillah, have the final laugh in the end. They can operate in stealth while the movements of the brothers are there to see for all in plain view.
Thus Al-hamd-o-lillah, all the `loose character` Americans whose Presidents also admit to having “lust in their hearts” are frustrated in their ignoble lust for the sisters as our sacred Islamic tradition (hijab) protects the sisters from their evil eyes while at the same time safeguarding the moral virtues of the ummah by protecting the hearts of the brothers from shaitan-ir-rejeem`s evil agenda.
Fabay-ayeh-aalaah-e-raab-e-kuma-tu-qazibaan!
…SR
O ye misguided one, will you never learn?
Can’t you see that the veil is actually a great advantage for women. It is proof positive that Islam actually grants greater advantage to women by putting men at a handicap.
Really, think about it. The sisters can see everything from behind the veil, whereas the poor brothers are lost in a guessing game. Imagine the advantage one could have in a game of poker (which only kafirs play astagh-firullah, no Muslim will touch, inshallah) if the opponent could not see the expressions on one`s face. It (the veil) confers the advantage of `stealth` technology to the sisters, such that the radar of the kafirs or even the non-pious brothers cannot decipher them. It is a `cloaking device` (which the Klingons of Star Trek emulated). Not only does it protect but also promotes the freedom of women. Yes, the sisters, al-hamd-o-lillah, have the final laugh in the end. They can operate in stealth while the movements of the brothers are there to see for all in plain view.
Thus Al-hamd-o-lillah, all the `loose character` Americans whose Presidents also admit to having “lust in their hearts” are frustrated in their ignoble lust for the sisters as our sacred Islamic tradition (hijab) protects the sisters from their evil eyes while at the same time safeguarding the moral virtues of the ummah by protecting the hearts of the brothers from shaitan-ir-rejeem`s evil agenda.
Fabay-ayeh-aalaah-e-raab-e-kuma-tu-qazibaan!
…SR
#71 Posted by faziiet on May 8, 2003 11:04:47 am
Re: no 69
Hijabi women don`t become CEOs? Yeah. Sure. Cuz MEN don`t let them.
I know hijabis who are medical professionals, who attend the best universities throughout the world, top-notch institutions from Cairo to New York City and they`re proud of it. Women who choose to cover, who make it a part of their lives and understand why they do it, are dentists, lawyers, surgeons, teachers, principals, magazine writers and editors.
In fact, Turkey`s Merve Kavakci, a woman who wore hijab, got herself elected to Parliament. It was a gang of close-minded secular men, secular fascists basically, who prevented her from taking the seat the people elected her to. She went back to America and now continues to work in a politically active career.
The vice-President of America`s largest Muslim organization, ISNA, is a Canadian convert who wears hijab. She is on route to become President. The head of a moderate group, claiming hundreds if not thousands of mosques, will be a woman. That`s close enough to a CEO.
Are you comparing Muslims who are religious to Nazis?
Well, since I wrote the above article, I can say: Does anybody even pay attention to a word of what is being said? The idea is to distinguish useless intolerance from constructive activism within a religious framework, for that`s the only way I believe can carry people in the Muslim world forward. Sorry, SameerJB, but if that`s Nazism... then Heil Allah.
Hijabi women don`t become CEOs? Yeah. Sure. Cuz MEN don`t let them.
I know hijabis who are medical professionals, who attend the best universities throughout the world, top-notch institutions from Cairo to New York City and they`re proud of it. Women who choose to cover, who make it a part of their lives and understand why they do it, are dentists, lawyers, surgeons, teachers, principals, magazine writers and editors.
In fact, Turkey`s Merve Kavakci, a woman who wore hijab, got herself elected to Parliament. It was a gang of close-minded secular men, secular fascists basically, who prevented her from taking the seat the people elected her to. She went back to America and now continues to work in a politically active career.
The vice-President of America`s largest Muslim organization, ISNA, is a Canadian convert who wears hijab. She is on route to become President. The head of a moderate group, claiming hundreds if not thousands of mosques, will be a woman. That`s close enough to a CEO.
Are you comparing Muslims who are religious to Nazis?
Well, since I wrote the above article, I can say: Does anybody even pay attention to a word of what is being said? The idea is to distinguish useless intolerance from constructive activism within a religious framework, for that`s the only way I believe can carry people in the Muslim world forward. Sorry, SameerJB, but if that`s Nazism... then Heil Allah.
#70 Posted by hamidm2 on May 8, 2003 11:03:54 am
tahmed
... sameerjb is right on the money when he says, ``One can not be considered close-minded for refusing to accept a rotten deal. ``
...... the people who push this ``rotten deal`` and call it a ``living miracle`` are the ones who are close-minded ......... it is wrong to accept the senseless diktats of religion because they are supposedly the word of god or his prophet ……. i am amazed by how even “moderate” muslims are unwilling to admit that some of this stuff is way of the mark …… for example, hardly any are willing to let go of the notion that laws should not be based on the Koran and sunnah ….. some, like you, might be willing to look for more “modern” interpretations and hope to find wriggle room, but no one has the gonads to call for a clear separation of mosque and state ……… even the simple matter of hijab, which is the root cause of all evil, is disguised as a matter of personal choice ……. the fact of the matter is that hijab is a symbol of militant islam and symbolizes the second class status of women in islamic society ……… muslim women in the west who “willingly” don the scarf are making a political statement – it is the equivalent of the nazi brown shirt……..
... sameerjb is right on the money when he says, ``One can not be considered close-minded for refusing to accept a rotten deal. ``
...... the people who push this ``rotten deal`` and call it a ``living miracle`` are the ones who are close-minded ......... it is wrong to accept the senseless diktats of religion because they are supposedly the word of god or his prophet ……. i am amazed by how even “moderate” muslims are unwilling to admit that some of this stuff is way of the mark …… for example, hardly any are willing to let go of the notion that laws should not be based on the Koran and sunnah ….. some, like you, might be willing to look for more “modern” interpretations and hope to find wriggle room, but no one has the gonads to call for a clear separation of mosque and state ……… even the simple matter of hijab, which is the root cause of all evil, is disguised as a matter of personal choice ……. the fact of the matter is that hijab is a symbol of militant islam and symbolizes the second class status of women in islamic society ……… muslim women in the west who “willingly” don the scarf are making a political statement – it is the equivalent of the nazi brown shirt……..
#69 Posted by SameerJB on May 8, 2003 9:03:00 am
The logic of close-mindedness expressed in posts #63 and #66, ``You my friend are as incapable of logic, as close-minded in your views, as any mullah`` is laughable, the least. You would have labeled the same close-mindedness to those opposing nazism and Hitler some 60 years ago. You should also label all scientists close-minded since they refuse vehemently palmistry, magic, myths, astrology, jinns etc. And please be open inded to scientology (refusing medicine), white superemacy groups, cannibals, lices, mosquitoes, rats.............even rats try to leave a sinking ship. Why should a person leaving or trying to pinpoint the causes of sinking of a sinking ship or sliding ideology be considered close-minded.
Throughout history when a culture migrated to different environment, it adepted and adopted many local customs and traditions. Hijab is not like sari or panjabi suit; it is related to the lower status for women that is unacceptable in French society at present. Hijab wearing do not sing, dance, travel alone, become CEOs, preside meeetings of men, play sports, take part in sporting competitions and the list goes on and on. The French society is not willing to allow such tendencies in large segment of their society. They have achieved many of these liberties hard way and through centuries of struggle against such medieval values.
Make sure, you understand what close-minded means. Close minded are those who make their decisions on the basis of beliefs independent of empirical data to support their assumptions. Close-minded are those who, on one hand accept mythical historical accounts without question and reject any contrary evidence and empirical data on the other.
One can not be considered close-minded for refusing to accept a rotten deal.
Throughout history when a culture migrated to different environment, it adepted and adopted many local customs and traditions. Hijab is not like sari or panjabi suit; it is related to the lower status for women that is unacceptable in French society at present. Hijab wearing do not sing, dance, travel alone, become CEOs, preside meeetings of men, play sports, take part in sporting competitions and the list goes on and on. The French society is not willing to allow such tendencies in large segment of their society. They have achieved many of these liberties hard way and through centuries of struggle against such medieval values.
Make sure, you understand what close-minded means. Close minded are those who make their decisions on the basis of beliefs independent of empirical data to support their assumptions. Close-minded are those who, on one hand accept mythical historical accounts without question and reject any contrary evidence and empirical data on the other.
One can not be considered close-minded for refusing to accept a rotten deal.
#68 Posted by dost_mittar on May 8, 2003 7:38:45 am
faziiet#63
Please note that the remark in #62 re. bringing Islam into the 21st century referred to the kind of introspection going on in the discussion here and not to what the posted article suggested.
Please note that the remark in #62 re. bringing Islam into the 21st century referred to the kind of introspection going on in the discussion here and not to what the posted article suggested.
#67 Posted by tahmed32 on May 8, 2003 7:38:35 am
hamidm #65 I think your post provides a perfect example of what faziett #63 is writing about when he/she writes that `` am happy that many people here have confirmed my thoughts that Islam-bashers and Islam-haters are just as intolerant and thick, not to mention biased and obtuse, as the fundamentalists they claim to oppose.``
You my friend are as incapable of logic, as close-minded in your views, as any mullah.
You my friend are as incapable of logic, as close-minded in your views, as any mullah.
#66 Posted by tahmed32 on May 8, 2003 7:38:35 am
sattar2 #61 I thought a bit again after reading your post, and will agree that ``seal of prophethood`` could be interpreted as being something other than the fact that mohammed was a final prophet.
I remain sceptical of this need to have ``junior prophets`` come later - you explained that once to me in terms of the need to do provide guidance to mankind, but I found that to be an unconvincing argument. From everything I have read in the Quran, the entire spirit of the Quran is clearly towards individual responsibility and strong discouragement of looking towards other men for religious guidance (e.g. ``on Judgement Day God will ask, where are those men you looked towards for guidance`` or words to the effect).
Anyway, I think we have gone around in enough circles on this, and after reading all these dumb posts from close-minded people (islam bashers as well as islam chauvinists), I think I will stick to having a bit of fun with them only on chowk.
And I think this story about the goat eating parts they wished were in the Quran but are not is about as good as it gets for a laugh. So, you can interpret the Quran as you wish, and a good day to you.
I remain sceptical of this need to have ``junior prophets`` come later - you explained that once to me in terms of the need to do provide guidance to mankind, but I found that to be an unconvincing argument. From everything I have read in the Quran, the entire spirit of the Quran is clearly towards individual responsibility and strong discouragement of looking towards other men for religious guidance (e.g. ``on Judgement Day God will ask, where are those men you looked towards for guidance`` or words to the effect).
Anyway, I think we have gone around in enough circles on this, and after reading all these dumb posts from close-minded people (islam bashers as well as islam chauvinists), I think I will stick to having a bit of fun with them only on chowk.
And I think this story about the goat eating parts they wished were in the Quran but are not is about as good as it gets for a laugh. So, you can interpret the Quran as you wish, and a good day to you.
#65 Posted by sattar2 on May 7, 2003 8:40:32 pm
Urstruly,
And look where this mind-numbing memorization of Quran has taken the ummah …
Despite claiming to follow the “religion of peace” … your mullah insist on waging jihad against the polytheists, killing the blasphemers and adulterers, and executing the apostates. You folks have turned into animals … consumed with hatred and violence … and blame the Jews, the Ahmadis, and the white-man for your problems. If you are going to live like a loser, at least try to be good at making excuses.
Maybe one day your much-awaited Imam Mahdi will show up … and fight the one-eyed monster riding a giant fire-breathing donkey … and lead the ummah to final victory by killing all the jews and white folks … but until my underwater options fully recover, I am staying away from any life-threatening fights … be it against a cluster bomb, or a Mossad agent, or the noisy next door bimbo … and I don’t give two hoots about which side your Issa-ibne-Marriam is on. I recently read Maudoodi’s account of what will happen at this Armageddon … and I now understand why you jamaatis are so screwed up.
You can delude yourself that ummah is going places … reality is that they are only getting deeper in the gutter of ignorance and violence. Keep memorizing Quran … and continue telling yourself that truckloads of chicks await you, as you cry out calls for jihad. Partial ignorance can be quite painful … but complete ignorance is a bliss.
#64 Posted by hamidm2 on May 7, 2003 8:40:32 pm
unfortunately urstruly speaks for the majority of the muslims today when he says, `` The Qura`n in its form that we see today is a living miracle. Denying this fact reveals only ones ignorance and arrogance and not his scholarship.``
.............. folks like me, sameer, sac and sr are would qualify as heretics and temporal is getting perilously close with his attempt to rationalize the book as nothing more than a ``starting point`` ....... for a true believer it is the beginning and the end ..........reform from within is not possinble .........now it is upto the civilized world to change this upside down view and beat some sense into the ummah ......... and it will happen, because the world cannot afford let this poison spread ......
.............. folks like me, sameer, sac and sr are would qualify as heretics and temporal is getting perilously close with his attempt to rationalize the book as nothing more than a ``starting point`` ....... for a true believer it is the beginning and the end ..........reform from within is not possinble .........now it is upto the civilized world to change this upside down view and beat some sense into the ummah ......... and it will happen, because the world cannot afford let this poison spread ......
#63 Posted by faziiet on May 7, 2003 8:40:31 pm
I am happy that many people here have confirmed my thoughts that Islam-bashers and Islam-haters are just as intolerant and thick, not to mention biased and obtuse, as the fundamentalists they claim to oppose. Below me, re: #62... talking about how France`s Islamic Council will ``bring Islam into the 21st century``?
Well, neither France nor #62 is going to bring Islam anywhere. What`s so great and forward-thinking about a government that denies women the right to wear headscarves in ID photos, or, similarly, thinks it can decide that Muslim women shouldn`t wear the headscarf.
This is the same France that allows girls to wear crosses, but not scarves. Somehow, one is worse than the other. Though if I remember right, the Church had more to do with oppression in france than Islam ever did.
There`s little difference between a government mandating a type of dress and a government forbidding it.
Just rotten fundos on both sides.
Well, neither France nor #62 is going to bring Islam anywhere. What`s so great and forward-thinking about a government that denies women the right to wear headscarves in ID photos, or, similarly, thinks it can decide that Muslim women shouldn`t wear the headscarf.
This is the same France that allows girls to wear crosses, but not scarves. Somehow, one is worse than the other. Though if I remember right, the Church had more to do with oppression in france than Islam ever did.
There`s little difference between a government mandating a type of dress and a government forbidding it.
Just rotten fundos on both sides.
#62 Posted by dost_mittar on May 7, 2003 2:10:46 pm
I have been following this fascinating this thread. This is the kind of introspection which will bring Islam into the 21st century.
I thought the readers will find the following report in today`s New York Times intereseting:L
ETTER FROM EUROPE
France Envisions a Citizenry of Model Muslims
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
ARIS, May 6 — The French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, was booed and whistled at when he said at the annual conference of one of this country`s most important Muslim groups last month that Muslim women would have to go bareheaded when posing for pictures for their identity cards.
He did not seem to notice — or perhaps chose to ignore — that a vast majority of the women in the audience were wearing head scarves. A few of them had even swathed their faces in black and hidden their hands under black gloves.
And perhaps the law-and-order interior minister can be forgiven for overlooking the shopping bags on sale at a score of kiosks, the ones with the silhouette of a woman wearing a veil and the phrase ``I love my veil`` in English and Arabic.
In a largely secular continent still trying to come to grips with Islam, France, with its large Muslim population and long colonial history with Algeria, is something of a bellwether. But even here, it is unclear how — or even whether — the tensions between secularism and Muslim piety will be resolved.
In a sense, France`s center-right government is trying to create a model Muslim citizenry. President Jacques Chirac has spoken about his vision of a ``tolerant`` Islam. Mr. Sarkozy said recently, ``There is no room for fundamentalism at the Republic`s table.``
For them, model Muslims would be French-speaking and law-abiding. They would celebrate the 1905 French law that requires total separation between church and state. They would attend mosques presided over by clerics who are French-trained and avoid politics in their sermons.
Model Muslim women would not try to wear head scarves in the workplace; model Muslim girls would not try to wear head scarves to school. Most important, model Muslims would call themselves French first and Muslim second.
The thinking goes something like this: Muslims must be integrated into French society to avoid a culture clash that could contribute to terrorism. So the French government has embarked on a two-pronged strategy that will give Muslims what French leaders call ``a place at the table,`` but monitor and regulate their activities at the same time.
This strategy lay behind Mr. Sarkozy`s campaign to put together an official Islamic council led by a ``moderate,`` suit-and-tie-wearing mosque rector to interact with the French state. It also underlies Mr. Sarkozy`s belief that the only way France can stop radical foreign clerics from preaching on French soil is to create a home-grown variety that identifies more with French culture and tradition. It is the reason French intelligence has assigned operatives to monitor sermons in mosques and prayer centers every Friday.
The idea of the French state regulating a religious community is rooted in Napoleon`s bold concordat concluded with the papacy in 1802. While the concordat recognized Catholicism as the ``preferred religion`` of France, it also forced the pope to accept nationalization of church property in France, gave the state the right to appoint bishops, polic
I thought the readers will find the following report in today`s New York Times intereseting:L
ETTER FROM EUROPE
France Envisions a Citizenry of Model Muslims
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
ARIS, May 6 — The French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, was booed and whistled at when he said at the annual conference of one of this country`s most important Muslim groups last month that Muslim women would have to go bareheaded when posing for pictures for their identity cards.
He did not seem to notice — or perhaps chose to ignore — that a vast majority of the women in the audience were wearing head scarves. A few of them had even swathed their faces in black and hidden their hands under black gloves.
And perhaps the law-and-order interior minister can be forgiven for overlooking the shopping bags on sale at a score of kiosks, the ones with the silhouette of a woman wearing a veil and the phrase ``I love my veil`` in English and Arabic.
In a largely secular continent still trying to come to grips with Islam, France, with its large Muslim population and long colonial history with Algeria, is something of a bellwether. But even here, it is unclear how — or even whether — the tensions between secularism and Muslim piety will be resolved.
In a sense, France`s center-right government is trying to create a model Muslim citizenry. President Jacques Chirac has spoken about his vision of a ``tolerant`` Islam. Mr. Sarkozy said recently, ``There is no room for fundamentalism at the Republic`s table.``
For them, model Muslims would be French-speaking and law-abiding. They would celebrate the 1905 French law that requires total separation between church and state. They would attend mosques presided over by clerics who are French-trained and avoid politics in their sermons.
Model Muslim women would not try to wear head scarves in the workplace; model Muslim girls would not try to wear head scarves to school. Most important, model Muslims would call themselves French first and Muslim second.
The thinking goes something like this: Muslims must be integrated into French society to avoid a culture clash that could contribute to terrorism. So the French government has embarked on a two-pronged strategy that will give Muslims what French leaders call ``a place at the table,`` but monitor and regulate their activities at the same time.
This strategy lay behind Mr. Sarkozy`s campaign to put together an official Islamic council led by a ``moderate,`` suit-and-tie-wearing mosque rector to interact with the French state. It also underlies Mr. Sarkozy`s belief that the only way France can stop radical foreign clerics from preaching on French soil is to create a home-grown variety that identifies more with French culture and tradition. It is the reason French intelligence has assigned operatives to monitor sermons in mosques and prayer centers every Friday.
The idea of the French state regulating a religious community is rooted in Napoleon`s bold concordat concluded with the papacy in 1802. While the concordat recognized Catholicism as the ``preferred religion`` of France, it also forced the pope to accept nationalization of church property in France, gave the state the right to appoint bishops, polic