ganeshran Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 I agree with S=G. Its unfair to label an entire community just because of the inability of their leaders to come up with a condemnation on Osama's activities.
Asim Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 islamic fundamentalist deliberately overlook all their faults ' date='their target are non muslims ,and they want to kill or convert them to islam by any means possible including lies ,[b']propaganda and deceit thanks God USA/CIA etc etc can NEVER even imagine of doing a propaganda...
Mariyam Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 You talk about Queen's language. Have you understood my post? Or you just try to go on some hyperbol, just for the heck of it. I asked you: 1) Can you name any Muslim leader of stature who has asked the Muslim community to "not glorify Osama and not read namaaz for his demise"? First off, you are not asking for my view here. You are asking me if I know an answer to a question. Why is that so difficult to understand? :P For eg: If I ask you, Can you name the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina? I am not asking for your views. I'm asking you for a factual answer, which depending on your GK, you may or may not know. The answer to your question is No. Not in this particular case. But there have been numerous instances where Muslim leaders have spoken against terrorism. 2) I wanted to know your views that whether there's a need by any Muslim leader(s)' date=' "Secular or Not", to ask what mentioned in point 1, at all or not?[/quote'] This is asking for my views. :two_thumbs_up:, and my views you shall get. In my view, if a Muslim leader finds that some other Muslim leader has wrongly called for people in his area to "glorify Bin Laden's death" , then he should definitely try and remedy the situation, by asking the faithful to do what is right. And in this case, the right thing would be the point out that even if Osama is a coreligionist, he is wrong and should be condemned and not glorified.
Stuge Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 thanks God USA/CIA etc etc can NEVER even imagine of doing a propaganda... stop watching zaid hamid !!
straight.drive Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 You talk about Queen's language. Have you understood my post? Or you just try to go on some hyperbol, just for the heck of it. I asked you: 1) Can you name any Muslim leader of stature who has asked the Muslim community to "not glorify Osama and not read namaaz or offer prayers on his demise"? 2) I wanted to know your views that whether there's a need by any Muslim leader(s), "Secular or Not", to ask what mentioned in point 1, at all or not? Don't go on Hyperbols and don't digress using names like Shahrukh Khan etc. In any case, I can understand from where you are coming to or are going to. For you, if we discuss complicated issues, it directly means blaming "Avegarge Muslims == Terrorist Sympathsizers" etc. Which is NOT. It's not that extreme. Don't jump into conclusions. Average Hindus have kicked Hardline Hindu politicians and Hindu terrorism sympathisers and have criticised them at every forums possible. So it's not very extra ordinary to expect the same from "average Muslims". Muslims are not some group which needs to be molly coddled in every country and not necessarily the only group which is always "victimised". So please come out of any "victim" mentality if you have any. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Mate, it is too much to ask from these liberal apologists. Their only response is the ridiculous shaming language and a barrage of pointless noise. :bow::bow::bow:
straight.drive Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 sometimes i feel non muslims deserves what they get at the hands of muslim fundamentalists, care to explain PFI 's surge in kerala , I heard that they cut off a professor's hand in kerala for including a question on Mohammed in an exam paper. Is this the taste of things to come? :nervous:
Mariyam Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Mate, it is too much to ask from these liberal apologists. Their only response is the ridiculous shaming language and a barrage of pointless noise. :bow::bow::bow: The post that you quoted, was a reply by asterix to a post of mine. So I assume when you say " these liberal apologists" you mean me. If thats the case; I don't know if I am liberal or not, but I'm certainly not an apologist. I haven't done anything wrong and I have as much reason to apologize as you. In the words of a certain poster, how about driving home a point with a straight reply to the arguments here instead of pointless noise :icflove:
Homerus_Unus Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 So let me get this straight. Islamic extremism or even pan-Islamism' date=' which btw is pretty low in India as compared to her neighbours is national problem which only the "Muslim moderates" (however you define them) have to address? That is secularism?[/quote'] I never discussed this issue strictly from an Indian viewpoint. But invoking the "This is Secularism?" card is a fallacious appeal to pity. BTW, I never once made any direct correlation between "secularism" and "need for Muslim moderates to speak up." This is what wwould be fallacious strawman or moving the goalpost argument. I still stand by my statement that Muslim liberals and moderates are weaker, more lilly-livered, and more spineless amongst the other liberals and moderates of other types. So a Shabana Azmi puts the kibosh on a mullah on TV.....name me a 100 more for you are 1.5 billion. I'd say that Islamic fundamentalism in India does exist, and I'm not blowing it out of proportions. Those 26/11 attackers were definitely not working without an Indian mole. Fine, but this still is an argument from a small biased sample of people you've interacted with. Still, moving on.... I agree on all these issues, and tell you what, it's not the Muslim population in India alone that suffers from this. Almost every community, esp. the Dalit community, will identify itself with one or all of those issues. That said, may I ask if these community leaders have or discuss any solutions for these issues? I thought we were discussing radicalism in Islam, but I don't mind discussing such issues either. However if we do discuss this, sooner or later the ball is going to spin and land in the "So what is your community doing to fix this?" slot. If your community leaders actually thought about a rational solution, then they'd find out that in the end it's each individual to him/herself. End of discussion. Trust me...I don't come from a privileged community either, so I know what I'm talking about. I agree that most Muslims want peace, raise their kids, and work to pay their bills...however, like I said before, the "moderates," despite being in large numbers (by your assertion) seem to have no voice or are JUST TOO F**KING SCARED to even raise a voice against the radical elements, OR, in some cases, are found surreptitiously in agreement with such radical acts (don't tell me there are not such people). Why do you think the KKK has almost no political power it once had back in the 1930's when they had spread their tentacles in even the Union states of Indiana and Ohio? I'll tell you why. It's because American people, not their Govt., fought back via social, judicial, and political means. Not a single KKK rally today (they are allowed because of the 1st amendment) is without a group of opposing protestors. A similar parallel in our society is how the Brahmo Samaj, made up of MODERATES AND INTELLECTUALS from the populace, was able to motivate the 'aam aadmi' to rally against practices of 'sati' and child-marriage, and rallying for widows to marry,....long before Lord Bentinck put the hammer down as laws. They still did it via social, political, and judicial means. So I ask you this.: Will Mr. "Kill all the (Zionist) Juice" ever see an opposing rally...if only to correct his atrocious spelling? Is the Islamic world even capable of allowing a social, political, and judicial uprising that'll see its moderate and rational elements in positions of power (guess who's taking control in Tunisia and Egypt)? Heck, will the Islamic world be even capable of instituting democracy to propagate the same moderate and rational elements for future governance? Please answer. And yes...I still await your response on Texas. Shall we agree that you didn't know what you were talking about?
Mariyam Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 I never discussed this issue strictly from an Indian viewpoint. But invoking the "This is Secularism?" card is a fallacious appeal to pity. BTW' date=' I never once made any direct correlation between "secularism" and "need for Muslim moderates to speak up." This is what wwould be fallacious strawman or moving the goalpost argument.[/quote'] You are mighty confused here. The entire debate started off when a poster from Texas ( not you) said something that implied that the sole reason Afzal Guru wasn't executed was vote bank politics. So, I was under the impression that we were talking about things in the Indian context.
ravishingravi Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 "So I ask you this.: Will Mr. "Kill all the (Zionist) Juice" ever see an opposing rally...if only to correct his atrocious spelling? Is the Islamic world even capable of allowing a social, political, and judicial uprising that'll see its moderate and rational elements in positions of power (guess who's taking control in Tunisia and Egypt)? Heck, will the Islamic world be even capable of instituting democracy to propagate the same moderate and rational elements for future governance? Please answer." I think Mariyam this is the crux of the matter. It is not right to consider all muslims as monolith, but quite frankly there has been so little if any demonstration, criticism or protest against "Islamic" terrorism, that one can't entirely challenge those who paint the entire community with one colour. Bear in mind, I am using the term "Islamic" terrorism purposely, because the narrative for this radicalization comes from Holy Book. Now if it indeed is distortion, then surely the muslims who are I dare say are most pious should be offended to come on to the streets and voice their discontent. It seems logical, unless they are scared, which does not seem to be the case with pictorial depiction of Mohammed or to a more radical assumption, they see some justification. It is not just about terrorism. I have never seen any kind of activism against any barbaric practises ( eg :-stoning of women or punishment for rape victim ) in garb of religion.
Mariyam Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 I think Mariyam this is the crux of the matter. It is not right to consider all muslims as monolith, but quite frankly there has been so little if any demonstration, criticism or protest against "Islamic" terrorism, that one can't entirely challenge those who paint the entire community with one colour. Bear in mind, I am using the term "Islamic" terrorism purposely, because the narrative for this radicalization comes from Holy Book. Now if it indeed is distortion, then surely the muslims who are I dare say are most pious should be offended to come on to the streets and voice their discontent. It seems logical, unless they are scared, which does not seem to be the case with pictorial depiction of Mohammed or to a more radical assumption, they see some justification. It is not just about terrorism. I have never seen any kind of activism against any barbaric practises ( eg :-stoning of women or punishment for rape victim ) in garb of religion. Ravi, Let me put it this way. Indian Muslims ( very vast majority) have never considered Osama as some kind of a hero or a leading light of Islam. I don't even know if he had any necessary theological credentials to issue a fatwa. Indian Muslims never considered Osama to be the torch bearer of Islam in the first place nor did his brand of Islam (or perversion of Islam) find an acceptance in any section of Indian Muslims so where is the question of denouncing him? Why must I denounce Osama when I never ever thought of him to be worthy of my support in the first place? Why can't it be assumed that we Indian Muslims think of him as nothing more than a criminal who killed innocent people just like it is assumed for any other Indian? Not a single Indian Muslim has been associated with Al Qaeda. Isn't that proof of the fact that their methods have been rejected? Just because some news channels showed you sound bites of 1or 2 crazy moulanas spewing out some Anti-American rubbish, does it mean that the remainder 14 odd crore Muslims in India have an obligation to prove that they were not a part of Osama's dream team? If these handful of moulanas can be extrapolated to represent all of India's Muslims, then why not SRK or Azeem Premji who donate largely to charity? Why are their actions non representative? All this nonsense about " not enough" criticism is really humiliating and illogical. What is criticism anyways? Ironically and unfortunately, it’s the bullets and bombs from the Pakistani terrorists that carries a greater proof for the loyalty and sense of belonging of the Indian Muslim. At least they look at us no differently than other, like how some here on ICF do, and they snuff out our lives without sitting in judgment over our level of patriotism. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, expecting me to answer and justify about what happens in Egypt or Tunisia or where ever is absolutely unfair. The argument is not about the Islamic world. Its about India. So is saying "can you name 100, because there are 1.5 billion of you". What a load of rubbish. Some of you lack perspective. Shivani and Aaku ( big hug to both :icflove:) are roughly my age, give or take 1 or 2 years, and probably have similar ambitions in life as me and are equally not responsible for the ills plaguing their section of the society. Would you grill them about honour killings in Haryana and ask them to name 100 people who have criticized honour killings form a community of 90 crores? Its not me being discriminatory here. Its you guys.
asterix Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Politicians like Ram Vilas Paswan has won elections using Osama lookalike mascot in Bihar. Bihar has quite a sizable Muslim population. Don't know why he used Osama look alike as a mascot?
EnterTheVoid Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Well said Mariyam. Politicians like Ram Vilas Paswan has won elections using Osama lookalike mascot in Bihar. Bihar has quite a sizable Muslim population. Don't know why he used Osama look alike as a mascot? Because he's a ****wit?
asterix Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Well said Mariyam. Because he's a ****wit? He is, indeed. But why he did it and why he was allowed to do it? What was his motivation? Edit: Got some info about it. Why he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meraj_Khalid_Noor Osama’s Indian double condemns his killing But wasn’t the Qaeda chief responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people when his men attacked World Trade Center on 9/11? “There is still no proof of it. He himself has not executed any killing…But, there is proof that American forces have killed over 10 lakh people in Iraq,” says Noor, who is the president of an organisation — Rashtriya Muslim Parishad”. http://www.dailypioneer.com/336775/Osama%E2%80%99s-Indian-double-condemns-his-killing.html
The Outsider Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Politicians like Ram Vilas Paswan has won elections using Osama lookalike mascot in Bihar. Bihar has quite a sizable Muslim population. Don't know why he used Osama look alike as a mascot? Paswan was routed in the 2005 assembly elections, and so was Laloo later when this guy jumped ship and campaigned for Laloo.
asterix Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Paswan was routed in the 2005 assembly elections' date=' and so was Laloo later when this guy jumped ship and campaigned for Laloo.[/quote'] I think they were routed in 2009 election. In 2005, his party and Lalu's party did won seats to demand imposition of Presidents rule in Bihar: http://www.rediff.com/election/2005/feb/28paswan1.htm http://www.rediff.com/election/poll05.htm
The Outsider Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 I think they were routed in 2009 election. In 2005, his party and Lalu's party did won seats to demand imposition of Presidents rule in Bihar: http://www.rediff.com/election/2005/feb/28paswan1.htm http://www.rediff.com/election/poll05.htm Paswan got 25-30 seats in 2005 when he used this guy. Laloo did not use him then - he used him in the by elections later that year and was routed. And if it was such a success why did they not reuse him?
asterix Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Paswan got 25-30 seats in 2005 when he used this guy. Laloo did not use him then - he used him in the by elections later that year and was routed. And if it was such a success why did they not reuse him? Because in 2005 his party fought alone. In the next elections, after 4 years he forged an alliance with Laloo. Maybe due to alliance compulsions, he had to ditch the guy.
The Outsider Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Because in 2005 his party fought alone. In the next elections' date=' after 4 years he forged an alliance with Laloo. Maybe due to alliance compulsions, he had to ditch the guy.[/quote'] What are you talking about? Laloo himself used this guy in the 2005 by elections in November. And are you trying to imply that Laloo is someone who will consider morals at the cost of votes in the 'alliance compulsions'.
Recommended Posts