I‘m pretty lukewarm on Thomas Friedman overall but he’s built quite a franchise on turning a good phrase or 2 and he does occasionally deliver some solid bits. Lately, in a media environment where every other article about Islam involves beheading, suicide bombs or sharia, he’s been doing a great job of recognizing the important & emerging pockets of liberalism in Muslim society writ large. In Iraq, for example, he recently noted an important reversal of the usual storyline for what happens to an intellectual who violates Arab society’s norms –
Here’s a story you don’t see very often. Iraq’s highest court told the Iraqi Parliament last Monday that it had no right to strip one of its members of immunity so he could be prosecuted for an alleged crime: visiting Israel for a seminar on counterterrorism. The Iraqi justices said the Sunni lawmaker, Mithal al-Alusi, had committed no crime and told the Parliament to back off.
Combatting Islamophobia His Own Way…
That’s not all. The Iraqi newspaper Al-Umma al-Iraqiyya carried an open letter signed by 400 Iraqi intellectuals, both Kurdish and Arab, defending Alusi. That takes a lot of courage and a lot of press freedom. I can’t imagine any other Arab country today where independent judges would tell the government it could not prosecute a parliamentarian for visiting Israel — and intellectuals would openly defend him in the press.
More stories like this & I believe Islamophobia worldwide would be taken down a notch or two. Towards the same end, Friedman has a great column this week about the Indian Muslim community’s response to the Mumbai attackers & how it contrasts with too many Arab Muslims –
All nine [of the Mumbai attackers] are still in the morgue because the leadership of India’s Muslim community has called them by their real name — “murderers” not “martyrs” — and is refusing to allow them to be buried in the main Muslim cemetery of Mumbai, the 7.5-acre Bada Kabrastan graveyard, run by the Muslim Jama Masjid Trust.
“People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim,” Hanif Nalkhande, a spokesman for the trust, told The Times of London. Eventually, one assumes, they will have to be buried, but the Mumbai Muslims remain defiant.
To be sure, Mumbai’s Muslims are a vulnerable minority in a predominantly Hindu country. Nevertheless, their in-your-face defiance of the Islamist terrorists stands out. It stands out against a dismal landscape of predominantly Sunni Muslim suicide murderers who have attacked civilians in mosques and markets — from Iraq to Pakistan to Afghanistan — but who have been treated by mainstream Arab media, like Al Jazeera, or by extremist Islamist spiritual leaders and Web sites, as “martyrs” whose actions deserve praise.
The symbolic gesture is interesting on many levels. In our politically correct world, a lot of social commentary first focuses on identifying majorities vis à vis minorities (or rich vs poor, white vs non-white, west vs. the rest, bank vs subprime borrower, etc.). The all too common implication being that the powerless aren’t entirely responsible for their “bad” behavior because circumstances created by the powerful made them do it.
 |
|
There is no truth, only competing agendas…. |
The problem is that at the extreme, this makes all standards of behavior & intent relative. To leverage Lenin’s classic formulation, determining right vs. wrong becomes first a question of “who? whom?” rather than “what.” Many of the “yes.. but’s” when talking about the cartoon rioters, for ex., rather explicitly hedged between Who/Whom (Westerners did something to Islam) and What (fighting Free Speech). Some rap lyrics can go platinum coming from the right mouth or be a hate crime coming from the wrong one.
Heck, depending on how deeply one buys into Who/Whom, the idea that Friedman – clearly non-desi and non-Muslim – should praise (i.e. judge) Desi Muslims might even be insulting.
However, what the Mumbai terror attacks remind us is that even in our multi-cultural, tolerant ideal world, we still ultimately require some universals (e.g. “don’t shoot up hotel guests”) that society must “intolerantly” judge & enforce regardless of Who/Whom. Friedman’s piece comes from this vein when it recognizes universals, that minorities still exercise volition, and are often a more proximate variable than anything the majority can do.
And so despite umpteen transgressions against them, the Muslim minority of India isn’t quietly rationalizing that somehow the Hindu majority “made” these terrorists do their deeds. They’re instead expressly disavowing the Mumbai 9. The result is an important step for the minority to productively and peacefully continue to engage the majority in common society –
When a culture and a faith community delegitimizes this kind of behavior, openly, loudly and consistently, it is more important than metal detectors or extra police. Religion and culture are the most important sources of restraint in a society.
It is why so few, if any, Indian Muslims are known to have joined Al Qaeda. And it is why, as outrageously expensive and as uncertain the outcome, trying to build decent, pluralistic societies in places like Iraq is not as crazy as it seems. It takes a village, and without Arab-Muslim societies where the villagers feel ownership over their lives and empowered to take on their own extremists — militarily and ideologically — this trend will not go away.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
As Friedman notes, the message it sends other Muslims is as important as the message it sends other Indians. As I argued with Yeh Hum Naheen, disaffected young men are a fact of life in every society on the planet. What determines where they land on the long continuum from schoolyard punk to international terrorist is the social narrative they draw their “juice” from. Given Islam’s traditional insistence on a clean, expedient burial, 9 bodies rotting in a morgue for nearly 3 months is a pretty graphic signal to aspiring copycats. Far from being hailed as martyrs, future terrorists are being told that Desi Muslims consider them chumps.
Huh? Saudi is on my long-term hit-list b/c of the Kaaba–Egypt & Syria, though, used to be Christian (no former Hindu temples there, so far as I know), so they are not on my go-to list (they’re left to the Euro’s).
Talk about sublimation: Imperialism is now a “desire to participate in modernity”? Yes, and America does not export terror, only peace and democracy.
What “whole political-economic system” are you even talking about? All of the Muslim world? I understand you have bought into the U.S. media’s spoon fed reductive news cycle, but really, at least try to appear like you know what you are talking about.
NO ONE is going into any crisis–the Arab world and other Muslim nations are doing just fine. It is America that is going through crisis. India is the one in crisis–the majority of its population lives in poverty. Just being able to throw in English words all the time doesn’t make you a world player. In contrast, there is free health care for Muslims through out the Arab world and Indonesia and Malaysia are developed nations, not wanna-be-developed like India. At least the Arab world has a handle on its sewage system. How about getting some toilets working before trying to cozy up with the big league bullies in the schoolyard?
SecularPlease. You are welcome to cite all the examples of Islamic “terror” you want. The reality is that more Muslim nations have fought radical Islam and for longer than any western nation. I can counter with examples of Hindu treatment of Muslims, or American and Israel terrorism–AKA SLAUGHTER–against Muslim–from Algeria, Syria, Iran, to Afghanistan. I like how your heart bleeds for the people at the Chabad house. How about the 1300 Gazans killed over a mere 22 days in January? What about the complete and utter destruction of Gaza? What about that slaughter?
Friedman’s exaltation of Indian Muslims is just typical American propganda–India, the new pal–can do no wrong.
I like how the attacks in India is front page news even now, and the horrific attacks in Pakistan (the daily drone attacks by militant Americans as well as the Islamic militant attacks in Islamabad, etc.) are not even mentioned. How about some studies on how Indonesia deals with Aceh or Bangladesh with Banglabhai, etc.? The fact is that Muslims around the world have stepped up to the plate far more than Indian Muslims, the latter has been mostly silent or absent. What Friedman likes about Indian Muslims is how freaking QUIET they are. and they are quiet because they are a poor, disempowered minority in an aggressively Hindu country.
Anyway, this site is extremely pro-Hindu, so I will save my breath. Carry on with the Muslim bashing.
103 · rob said
rawls wouldn’t have it any other way, i am sure 🙂
personally, i think wahabbism is great because the u.s. hasn’t outlawed the wahabbi groups in saudi arabia.
OK, ostrich.
104 · Nilufar said
nilufar, between you and rob, i think the crazy quotient balances out just fine.
97 · Nilufar said
The “Ummah” can’t even establish a modicum of peace among itself. What Americans are in Algeria or Somalia or Yemen?
A couple of years ago in Spain it was believed that pulling out of Iraq would have prevented the Madrid train bombings, and then it was discovered that the bombers had been planning the Madrid attacks for years, even before the Iraq war. This jihad against the lost paradise of Andalusia, a “Muslim Land,” raises the question of what constitutes a Muslim land. Similar fantasies stir up enfeebled virgin Jihadis who lament what the Mughals had and lost. What is a Muslim land? A place with no Christians, Hindus, Atheists, etc?
Thanks so much for being oh-so-in the middle of the road, b/c, besides being the perfect spot for road-kill, it’s also admirable to locate oneself equidistant between right and wrong.
You know Nilufar, considering how many pakistanis like to style themselves as arabs, I don’t know if I’d be throwing around the wannabe smear too much…
Anyhow, look, either you are a troll or, even more tragically, deeply in denial about religious extremism emanating from pakistan. the idea of pakistan fighting islamic fundamentalism is laughable considering it’s been encouraging it since it first sent off jihadi tribals to invade kashmir in 1948, who btw, so honorably raped and plundered their coreligionists on their way to Srinagar.
In contrast to some of the other commentators, I tried to reach out to you in good faith and without insulting you; however, when you trivialize the serialized slaughter of mumbai by referring to it in quotes as “terror” and attempt to downplay the gravity of the threat facing your country of origin (which is of its own doing having spawned the taliban), then there’s not much else to say.
Also, please don’t talk to me about the hindu treatment of muslims when pakistan has virtually wiped out its hindu population retaining only a tiny portion for humiliating sexual slavery…and Bangaldesh is not far behind. In contrast, the muslim population in India has actually grown, the khan triumvirate continues to dominate bollywood and the revered billionaire head of the IT giant Wipro is a muslim. Please get back to me when Pakistan has registered anything on any of those indicators. I know it must be difficult for many pakistanis who are confused by the lack of a national identity and purpose beyond hating India (and are despondent by the state of affairs in their homeland), but if you really think the muslim word and pakistan in particular is not facing a crisis, I would like to refer you to your nearest non-gulf money news source.
there is no need to call the likes of rob enfeebled!
No need to personalize things there, and if you weren’t so anti-Semitic, you might learn a bit from Freud in terms of projecting on me! 😉
112 · rob said
🙂 now hindu fanatics are semites too.
112 · rob said
sad comment on the state of the world that hurling around “anti-american” alone just doesn’t have the cachet it used to, and one has to resort to anti-semitic as the first shot. whatever happened to the glory days of “cheese-eating surrender monkey”?
he..he. you must be a troll. have fun.
Sure. Afghanistan, Pakistan,Iraq, Sudan, Somalia. All doing brilliant.Good for you.
So in your moral universe, if slaughter B is worse than slaughter A, then slaughter A is inconsequential and justified. Why don’t you be honest and accept that you don’t give a flying **ck because the victims were Jewish, and hence fair game. Is that not what the Arab ‘freedom fighters’ openly proclaim?
They have their own civil code, have constitutionally guaranteed rights, and form a very important voting group. They even get haj travel subsidised. And you can see prominent muslims in every sphere of public activity (I am not going to name them, that is sooo 2008) What would you rather be, minority Muslim in India or the US, or minority Hindu in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia? Aggressively Hindu country? LOL..some of us wish…
I am sick of this constant ummah tripe. Time you realise that the world is not divided into Muslims and Non Muslims. You don’t see Hindus from Nepal and India exploding themselves in Malaysia, or Hindus from Bali killing people in Laos and Cuba because the communists have taken over the Hindu kingdom of Nepal,or Christians from Italy killing innocent Hindus to avenge Kandhamal. It is frightening to see how even educated people (such as yourself) can base their entire world view on the sole basis of religion. I see it every day where I live in the UK, and it irks me no end. Just yesterday, I was walking to my GP’s surgery from an unfamiliar place.I asked a desi looking man for directions.He started talking to me in Urdu, and assuming that I was a Pakistani (possibly because of my Urdu), started giving me unsolicited advice on changing to a different GP who was a nice Muslim, the head of the local Islamic body, and would provide me (presumed Muslim) with a much better service than my all white GP practice.
I should not have used the term “Paki” and I will not on this thread henceforth. (Stick’s and stones, etc)
On a lighter note — A movie shot in India is going to win a bunch of oscars tonight. Don’t you find it racist that it is being termed as a “Indie” movie ;-).
What would you rather be, minority Muslim in India or the US
India of course. What a silly question. Is this a trick question? The life, liberty and property of Muslims are way more secure in India than the US.
I think “Indie” refers to Independent films.
Pagal Aadmi Read the sentence again. I think you have missed the point completely. It is India and the US v/s Pakistan and Saudi
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Article: Right at the Edge
[excessive pasting removed my Admin]
besides what is already being discussd –
I have just found it so sad and ironic that the US has been so supportive of Pakistan through the years, (and other countries that deny many citizens it’s most basic civil rights, support terrorism, oppress other religions and cultures, etc) just b/c these countries allowed dictatorship govt’s be set up (many of them puppet govts that sucked up to the West, when needed) that took such an anticommunist agenda.
Meanwhile, India, for all it’s faults, is/was trying to keep up its democracy, bending over backwards to support religious minorities, keeping a relatively free press, all the while trying to become a developed nation. Just the irony of who became bedfellows in the cold war is so disgusting.
Sameer, if you want us to see a news article, please just post the link. No need to post the link and paste the entire article. I’ve edited your comment.
Nilufar, if you think this site is pro-Hindu, you’re confused. We bend over backwards to be anti-everything. Between your handle-switching (Muslim and Hindu names?) and your commentary, I think you just might be a troll. No more comment food for you.
What are “Muslim” lands? Define that please. Because according to Islamic terrorists any land that was once conquered by Muslims is considered Muslim land, which would include Spain. And what about modern day jihad for Islamic imperialism? One thing about these terrorists, they are far more honest about their intentions than Muslim apologists are about the terrorists intentions.
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/papers/LeT_US.htm
Just saw your request SM Intern. Will do.
Just to clarify, it wasn’t the entire article. The actual article was much longer, and pasted what I thought was relevant. But I get it – keep it short.
LS in comment 116:
Part A:
LS in comment 116:
Part B:
Sepia Mutiny comment policy:
On these grounds, I believe that comment 116 should be deleted.
Dr A Part A – What is racist/intolerant/abusive about this part? These were very specific questions directed at Nilufar in response to her previous comments. Please read again if unclear.
Part B – The only portion I can think of that might cause anyone (meaning you) khujli is the “LOL some of us wish”. Let me clarify. I do not wish for India to be an aggressively Hindu country. I meant that despite many people wishing it were one, it is NOT. Hope this eases the pruritis.
Have a good day
🙂
128 · Lupus Solitarius said
I think I read it well the first time, thanks. The quotes provided show how you’re employing double standards and that your own reasoning implies that you’re pro-Hindu-supremacist and anti-Muslim. If you don’t see it whether by accident or intent, I turn to others to see that…
86 · Manju said
Okay sure. I will accept responsibility for a tactical error if Rob riots as the result of a comment I put on Sepia Mutiny. I assume, though your implication is that it’s equivalent to leading a mass movement to tear down a religious institution and building your political career on exploiting anti-minority chauvinism. I’ll let other people judge whether that claim stands up…
85 · rob said
You see how much more difficult it is to construct a universal norm than it appears at first glance if you don’t have a basic agreement on what’s a reliable “fact” or how to figure out which ones are? 😉
Dr. A, I think rob’s point is that people like you have made a career out of denigrating hindus and their culture and trivializing and mocking the issues that are facing them. I’m not here to comment on babri, but if you did a little research on the history, you would realize that it was a defunct masjid no longer in use and not a functioning institution. Following its destruction, where in no violence other than vandalism took place, hindu architecture styles and artwork were discovered–lending credence to the point about babar tearing down a hindu temple (irrespective of it being Rama’s birthplace) to begin with. Any basic reading of the baburnama, kitab ul hind, or any other primary work recounting the escapades of numerous islamic invaders would be indicative of the iconoclasm of that period and the degree of violence inflicted on the indigenous traditions of the subcontinent. If you still disagree, I refer you to our good buddy Aurangzeb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb
The answer here of course is not to incite communal hatreds; but like the holocaust and slavery in America, a proper accounting of history is required so that old hatreds can be diffused and understanding and reconciliation encouraged. However, when the romila thapars of the world seek to put up smokescreens to advance their own communal agendas, then the secularism, true secularism, comes under threat. That is the concern.
I think there is a tradition of syncretism in the sub-continent Muslims similar to the Sufi traditions. If Sufism is highlighted and propagated more it, can get rid of the scourge of the Taliban/Arab version of Islam that is kind of not suitable for South & South-East Asian countries.
secular please, apologia for babri demolition are not the path to secularism.
Dialectics, i don’t recall anywhere justifying the demolition, so please stop erecting strawmen. But apologia for bombings and massacres in Mumbai on account of Babri’s demolition is also not justified.
133 · SecularPlease said
and crackpot historians like pn oak are advanced as the alternative. it has become the pattern that any historian or public intellectual who disputes the self-serving accounts of the hindutva gang is subject to a shrill public flogging and made the target of frothing demagogues and reduced to a single title of “anti-hindu” much like crusader rob has learnt to throw out “anti-semitism”, and alternative histories are written – whether it be the indigenous civilization theory – which underpins the notion of sanatana dharma as a fundamental endogenous attribute of akhand bharat, or beef eating in the early period, or whatever else one might fancy.
136 · SecularPlease said
of course, and i have said so on this very thread. i only wish that your secularism extended towards the process of looking inward too.
Dude, if you really want to continue defending AIT in spite of the works of authors such as Shrikanth Talageri, Subhash Kak, and Rajeev Malhotra (not to mention David Frawley and Koenraad Elst ) go ahead. But if you’ve ever read Max Mueller you’d realize that even he himself never meant to refer to Aryans as a race of people–this was something misused by the british to divide indians and to invent imaginary ethnic hatreds (see hutu and tutsi conflict courtesy of the belgians for more info).
I’m not here to refer to people as anti whatever. What I am here to do is to point out serious errors in logic and convenient oversights that some people make to defend a very communal agenda that masquerades as secularism. It is possible to have a civil discussion with people from all perspectives without vilifying them; however, calling out the chicanery of people like romila thapar and arundhati roy does have a place in the public discourse because the seek to muzzle honest discussion by beating everyone to the right of them with the “saffron” stick.
Please note, here I write discussion (i.e. honest exchange of ideas) and not debate (shrill attacks on the opposing side without attempts to digest valid arguments).
romila thapar != arundathi roy. in fact, the two are light years apart in their seriousness of debate. this kind of careless waving of broad brush strokes is the same kind of vilification that you accuse the “other” of doing.
i don’t defend AIT. I also think there is no evidence of a completely indigenous civilization with no cross traffic from the caucuses, as the saffronites like to protest. i am sad that you think debate is a problem.
134 · Priya said
This leads back to the problem of Gulf money, the pernicious Salafi shadow that influences and deracinates local Muslims from Turkey to Indonesia. The Sufi and syncretic side of this struggle does not seem to have the money or consequent illustriousness Salafis do to propagate their belief system.
and bosnia and the -stans and so on. while the us presidents hold the house of saud’s hands and go for walks in the park, as they merrily fund wahhabism all over the world.
139 · SecularPlease said
this is a good example of what i was talking about here reg. vilification. I described “indigenous civilization theory” as an alternative history, and you immediately wrote a fairly long tirade about how i was an AIT defender. your perspective does not admit any nuance – of course, the foundational myth of hindutva requires a completely endogenous civilizational genesis story, so it is in the interest of demagogues (i am not saying you are one) to paint anybody who questions this as a proponent of ait, when many reasonable people believe there was a long duration of commingling of civilizations due to immigration and emigration to the caucuses. this is a good example of shrillness, actually.
It isn’t so simple as Sufi versus Wahabbism.
“…Sufis are “movements”, within, and in a few extreme cases outside of mainstream Islam. Sufis in general, are complex, and cover many different “stripes” of Islam. Sufism started out as a Shia movement, but over the past several hundred years, has almost disappeared from Shia Islam, and is now, mainly a Sunni movement. Hanbalis, Shafis, Malikis and Hanafis can all belong to different Sufi “tariqas” or “brotherhoods, as they are called. In fact, the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt, and Al Qaeda, are both Sufi based movements…” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-sufi.htm
there was a pretty detailed article on sufism and the promise it holds in a recent boston globe.
133 · SecularPlease said
How dare you. I am a “Hindu” by upbringing and even if I wanted to be anything else, it would be impossible for me to shed all of the experiences I have had. I probably do more for Hindus in the first five minutes of my day than Hindutva activists than someone who supports the VHP does in their entire month, because I believe in a politics that focuses on people and understand social systems and their effects on people.
What I have denigrated and mocked is the idea that murder, violence, false claims, accusations of intolerance that are designed to further intolerance, and other crimes against humanity (in the moral not the legal sense) can be justified in the name of MY religion. You can read the Gita and take it to mean that you should murder people if your dharmic duty calls for it even if you have misgivings, or you can read it and think – wow – different people have different roles in the world. it’s what you draw from it and how you interpret it in your present day circumstances and where that leads you that counts. You can even say, as I do, that I think the Gita is given way too much importance in some contemporary interpretatios of Hinduism and it doesn’t gibe with my upbringing as a Hindu.
It is hard enough being a Hindu in the United States (and probably the world) without a$$holes saying that liberalism and supporting the VHP are compatible and publicly flaunting the idea that its okay to participate in an organisation that not just espouses but ENGAGES in violence, repeatedly, against minority groups in India? It is WRONG that people diminish the pluralism that has been built into Hinduism (which includes appreciating Islam, as many Hindus have done over time!) and instead presenting a narrow vision. It is WRONG to involve it in political disputes and connect it to intolerant ideologies and build a complex of victimhood that is wholly out of line with reality and history.
All the while this (most likely intentionnally) masks real social psychological emotional and mental suffering that Hindus and Muslims and dalits and Christians and other people face – but usually as women, poor people, LGBT people, victims of casteism, minority groups, agricutltural labourers, citizens of the Global South, or sufferers of other forms of discrimiantion. And of course I anticipate this will be met wtih “but you don’t care about hindus in Bangladesh” (I do) or “Muslims are doing x,y,z in Pakistan” (demonstrate the relevance) or Muslims get “x,y,z” fromm the Indian state (sounds like white people complainning about “reverse racism”), but none of that substantively addresses the fact that Hindutva is f@#ked up – it is majoritarian, it is insular, it is narrow, it is frequently violent and almost always aggressive and masculinnist, and it is part and parcel of the Indian political tradition.
So if you want an “exchange” of ideas then do it honestly – don’t pretend that Advani or VHP was doing anythign other than stirring up communalism for political ends throughout the 1980s and early 1990s or that they are exempt from responnsibility for the massive violence that they themselves perpetrated or that they set off. Otherwise, it ceases to be a conversation that people can engage in because the terms of the conversation are so at odds with one another. At that point, it becomes more about who has the loudest megaphone.
dr. a, i believe that don’t pretend that Advani or VHP was doing anythign other than stirring up communalism for political ends throughout the 1980s and early 1990s or that they are exempt from responnsibility for the massive violence that they themselves perpetrated or that they set off.
is “debate”, whereas:
people like you have made a career out of denigrating hindus and their culture and trivializing and mocking the issues that are facing them.
this is calling out chicanery as part of honest “discussion”.
Dialectics, have you ever read anything by Romila Thapar? Aside from her apologia of Mahmud at Somnath, she has come up with such pearls as the bhakti movement originated from christianity and other wonderful kernels without even offering a modicum of scholarly evidence. She’s an expert so it must be true…
So no, they are not light years apart. It just so happens that anyone who questions Ms. Thapar’s “scholarly” conclusions is browbeaten with her long list of “unquestionable” credentials. They both are a part of the same establishment that seeks to whitewash the history of one side in order to vilify another rather than honestly reviewing and scrutinizing all sides. The only difference here is that Romila invents the facts with which to arm polemicists like Arundhati.
I enjoy debate–but in the political sphere, it’s too often utilized to prevent a meaningful exchange of ideas, hence the untimely demise of CNN’s Crossfire and my preference for discussion.
Dr. A, I’m afraid your language above would qualify you for deletion under the abusive clause…
Where have I justified violence here? I think you are just projecting onto me the specific arguments that you wish to tear down. Violence is not justified—period.What we are calling you out here for are double standards. This isn’t even me talking, but mr. vir sanghvi, who until the LeT started targetting his hoity toity joints as opposed to middle class trains, was a frequent traveler on the arundhati roy express: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=630b8c69-4672-4e12-ac2a-a9073f5165d4&MatchID1=4932&TeamID1=7&TeamID2=8&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1247&PrimaryID=4932&Headline=Stand+up+to+the+mullahs
And don’t lecture me on pluralism and syncretism. My family guru is…gasp…a fakir. But understanding, appreciating, and respecting other religions and religious groups does not mean rationalizing the crimes committed by those who would manipulate those religions to advance a very real, political agenda of imperialism in South Asia and the world. So while you are busy crying hoarse about about morons like Pramod Muthalik, qazi courts (wait those are secular right?) practising sharia in India and evangelical groups giving supari for hit jobs on hindu swamis must be rationalised. If you are going to stand for liberalism, stand against all its opponents, not just against those whom it is fashionable to condemn.
Thank you, now please kindly forward that block of text to Nilufar, Hamas, and the Indian Mujahedin and I think you’d be doing us all a service. And about white people speaking out against reverse racism being tantamount to hindus calling attention to the rape, abduction and forced conversion of their women—wow, just wow. Krishna would be proud. Looks like your interpretation of the Gita has really served you well.
Finally, feigning sanctimony does not a convincing argument make, Dr. I suggest a long look in the mirror as appropriate medication for you.
144 · Sameer said
More Sufi reading 🙂
Sufism, sodomy and Satan http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JH12Ak03.html
Good point.
But note. Two Oscars for two Muslims, from ‘oppressive’ India. How come with all the money, healthcare system, and cozying up to the bullies long before us, the ‘liberated’ Arabs could never manage that?
We do need the toilets. But man doesn’t live by that alone.
Sufi benevolence in India may be overstated. Here is an article by an ex-Muslim about Sufi attitude toward non-Muslims in India with a English translation of one famous Sufi’s letter about Hindus: http://www.islam-watch.org/Ibrahim.Lone/Sufis-of-India-Villains-in-the-Guise-of-Saints.htm