Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Infrastructure of anti-Muslim Hate in the US
Infrastructure of anti-Muslim Hate in the US
From the Washington Post
The dismissal of Juan Williams’ from NPR once again exposes the difficulty America is having discussing Islam in a cool or rational manner. Williams’ exchange with Bill O’Reilly featured much of the usual ignorance, with both agreeing that, although undefined “good Muslims” do exist, all Muslims must be considered potential soldiers in an Islamic war against America. This ludicrous belief is not only a distortion of reality, but also poses a serious threat to the well-being and security of the United States. In adopting this position, Williams and O’Reilly were reflecting the climate of hatred against Muslims that is fueled by prejudice and lack of knowledge.
The controversy comes in the context of the conflict around the Islamic center near Ground Zero, Pastor Terry Jones’ desire to burn the Quran, a growing belief that sharia law is being imposed on America by Muslims, and increasing attacks on mosques in the United States. The interminable wars in Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the upcoming midterm elections, in which campaigns have employed heavy doses of anti-Muslim bile, also contribute to the darkening storm.
Today’s high anti-Muslim antipathy is the latest wave of xenophobia in a nation that has seen many, especially when a threat was perceived to the country. While current anti-Islamic voices, like the hatemongers of previous eras, frequently attempt to co-opt the Founding Fathers’ ideals to support their agenda, there can be no reconciling the vision of a pluralistic nation with the spewing of hate against a particular ethnic or religious group, in this case Muslims. While the debate stirred by these hateful voices is on one level about Islam and how to depict and understand it, it is also about the very definition of American identity.
Much of this bigotry and misinformation can be traced directly to what I am calling the infrastructure of hate, an industry which connects venomous anti-Islamic blogs, wealthy donors, powerful think tanks, and influential media commentators, journalists, and politicians. The most visible component of the infrastructure is the hate blogs, which have recently grown exponentially in number, influence, and stature.
From my position as a research fellow working with American University’s Chair of Islamic Studies, Professor Akbar Ahmed, I have watched with horror as the hate blogs have begun to diffuse from their online cesspool to infect mainstream media, political rhetoric, and the larger discussion about Islam in America. There are hundreds, if not thousands of such blogs on the Internet.
To the hate bloggers, the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims represent an insidious, inherently violent force seeking to enslave the United States by overthrowing the government and jettisoning the Constitution in favor of sharia law. Frequently the bloggers include caveats such as claiming that they are only talking about “Islamists,” “Islamofascists,” or those supporting “sharia,” but by tying terrorism explicitly to the Prophet Muhammad and to the Quran, they equate it with Islam. Under this simplistic, warped logic, every Muslim is a potential, if not-fully formed, terrorist and every one of America’s seven million Muslims a potentially treasonous enemy. Such crass, demonizing generalizations constitute hate speech.
I will focus on one such blog post to illustrate how the infrastructure of hate works, and how easily lies and slander can spread rapidly to achieve influence.
Last month, Laura Rubenfeld, an analyst at the Investigative Project on Terrorism headed by Steven Emerson, published an article in Pajamas Media tiitled “No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam.” In it, Rubenfeld attacks Professor Akbar Ahmed, who has been speaking in the media about his new book Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam, for which he traveled to over 100 mosques in 75 U.S. cities. I participated in this study with Ahmed, traversing the country during fieldwork and spending weeks in the library researching the history of Islam in America. Since Ahmed’s media statements reflect the contents of the book, Rubenfeld not only impugns the scholarship of Ahmed, whom the BBC calls the “world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam,” but also myself and the other four researchers who spent several years working on this project, three of whom are continuing on to PhD programs.
Ahmed’s main argument in these media appearances was that Americans should welcome Muslims as full citizens as the Founding Fathers did, and quoted their views on Islam, which Rubenfeld found intolerable. As such, her article is a piece of pseudo-scholarship rife with distortion, slander, omission, and outright lies.
Rubenfeld endeavors to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers actually hated Islam, recognizing it for the threatening, destructive force she believes it to be. She begins by denying Ahmed’s assertion that John Adams called the Prophet Muhammad a great truth seeker, saying that he “said absolutely nothing of the kind.” This claim is false. To Adams, Prophet Muhammad was one of the world’s “sober inquirers after truth” alongside such figures as Confucius and Socrates. For Prophet Muhammad and other great sages of history, Adams wrote, the “happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue.” Adams believed that Americans should consider the example of these sages to create a society based on virtue and happiness rather than “fear,” which he called the “foundation of most governments.”
After calling Ahmed a liar for citing the above passage, Rubenfeld quotes a letter Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he calls the Prophet Muhammad “a military fanatic.” She again fails to put the statement in context. In the letter, Adams cited Prophet Muhammad in the context of a discussion on Napoleon, whom he called a “fanatic,” not in a religious sense but meaning that he relied on the military as a source of his might: “Napoleon is a military fanatic like Achilles, Alexander, Caesar, Mahomet, Zingis, Kouli, Charles XII. The maxim and principle of all of them was the same. ‘Jura negat sibi lata, nihil non arrogat armis (He denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms).’” Adams is not singling out the Prophet as some kind of religious militant, as Rubenfeld implies, but comparing the Prophet to Napoleon in including him in a list of the most famous and brilliant military geniuses in history. For Adams, Prophet Muhammad existed in two categories, that of great religious sage and also that of head of state and military commander, the only figure to feature in both. While Adams valued the example of the Prophet as religious sage in imagining the United States, he hoped that the era of the military general as head of state might give way to democracy and usher in a new age in world history. The letter is still loaded with nuance, such as when Adams wonders if Napoleon’s ascendency in France is not as “legitimate and authentic” in the context of that nation as “the election of Washington to the command of our army or to the chair of State?” We can agree or disagree with Adams’ analysis, but Rubenfeld insults him by so disingenuously distorting the meaning of what he has written.
Rubenfeld’s various other assertions are laughable, such as her attempt to prove Adams’ unfavorable view of Islam by quoting the Orientalist-style forward from his copy of the Quran. Yes, she cites a forward Adams did not author as exposing his true feelings about Islam. She also absurdly quotes at length his son John Quincy Adams’ critical views of Islam. John Quincy Adams is not a Founding Father and was a child when the nation was being created.
Ahmed’s correct contention that Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar at the White House is also too much for Rubenfeld, who writes that Jefferson was not holding an iftar but merely being “polite” to the Tunisian ambassador, in whose honor the dinner was given. I would only ask Rubenfeld if she is even aware what an iftar is, as the invitation Jefferson sent to the ambassador stated that the White House dinner was being moved from the customary “half after three” to “precisely at sunset” to accommodate the ambassador’s religious obligation. This means that Jefferson scheduled the dinner specially to ensure that the Ramadan fast would be broken at the proper time as mandated by the Quran, which apparently did not satisfy Rubenfeld’s iftar requirements.
The most loathsome claim in Rubenfeld’s article, however, comes in her discussion of Benjamin Franklin’s views of Islam. As with Adams, she completely dismisses Ahmed’s assertion that Franklin viewed the Prophet Muhammad as a model of compassion. Instead of quoting Franklin on the compassion of the Prophet, which I have written about here, or his desire to see the head cleric of Istanbul preach Islam to Americans from a Philadelphia pulpit Franklin had funded, she quotes Franklin saying that the Quran commands the “plundering of infidels.”
The problem is that this example is from a satirical newspaper article Franklin wrote in support of the abolition movement. Surely Rubenfeld would have known the difference. Or was she hoping that her audience would not? Franklin wrote the article, under an alias, in response to Congressman James Jackson of Georgia, who gave an angry speech in Congress denouncing Franklin for advocating abolition and arguing that the enslavement of blacks is a Christian commandment justified in the Bible. In Franklin’s satirical piece, he put Jackson’s arguments into the mouth of a fictional North African Muslim, who argues before his equivalent of Congress, the Divan of Algiers, that the Quran commands the enslavement of white Christians. Christians would be happier, safer, and better clothed and lodged as slaves, the fictional Muslim contends, and besides, the economy of Algiers would be devastated if the Christians were freed. Franklin was attempting to get pro-slavery Americans to see the hypocrisy of their position in using their fallacious logic to present an inverted situation in which they were the potential slaves. It is outrageous that Rubenfeld did not mention this context. If Rubenfeld had any intellectual capacity, she would also recognize how relevant this example is to the hate bloggers’ contention that Islam is inherently violent because nineteen Muslims attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Would Rubenfeld also argue that Congressman Jackson’s Biblical justification means that it is every authentic Christian’s duty to enslave blacks?
As abysmal as Rubenfeld’s reading of American history is, it would appear unwise for her to take on Islamic history. Yet at the end of the article she darkly and randomly notes that Ahmed is the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, mentions that Ahmed has “written” about Ibn Khaldun, and describes the fourteenth century scholar as a violent Islamic militant seeking to impose a worldwide caliphate. This is risible as Ibn Khaldun was a social scientist widely credited with establishing the discipline of anthropology and the theory of the rise and fall of civilizations, a process he believed had nothing to do with religion. The book Rubenfeld cites as a terrorist text, the Muqaddimah, was named by the famed British historian Arnold Toynbee as “the greatest work ever created by a man of intelligence at any time or anywhere.” Even if she is correct in the preposterous contention that Ibn Khaldun was a terrorist, would it make Ahmed one as well for holding an endowed university chair bearing the same name? An elementary school child would be unable to make sense of such an argument: If Tom likes to ride in a banana boat, does this mean that Tom is a banana?
Reflexively and ridiculously slandering any Muslim who conflicts with their worldview as a terrorist is typical of the anti-Islamic hate blogs. In this case, Rubenfeld implies that Ahmed, by identifying him with Ibn Khaldun, is a threat to the security of the U.S. in his presumed desire to wage “violence against non-Muslims as a religious duty, in order to achieve the larger goal of dismantling non-Muslim civilization and imposing an Islamic caliphate.” Rubenfeld also raises the possibility that General David Petreaus, whom Ahmed has advised, will be “influenced” by Ahmed’s “false teachings,” thereby warning Americans that a terrorist may have access to the highest levels of the U.S. military.
Rubenfeld ignores much in her sinister efforts at character assassination. It is doubtful that a terrorist would be honored with an evensong service at the Washington National Cathedral, likened by senior Christian clergymen to figures including Gandhi and Desmond Tutu, or praised by Elie Wiesel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi of the U.K.–who called Ahmed a “role model” and “one of the great contemporary exponents of Islam, a man I admire as a scholar and cherish as a friend”–or Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, who thanked Ahmed on behalf of a “deeply appreciative” State of Israel for doing “more than any single individual I know building bridges between Muslims, Jews, [and] Christians.” It is also unlikely that the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching would honor such a threat to America as Washington D.C. professor of the year for his work with American students, one of many educational accolades Ahmed has received. Yet none of this matters to Rubenfeld, as it conflicts with the agenda of the hate blogosphere. Ahmed is a Muslim in the media who is saying that Islam is not inherently violent and that Islam and America are compatible. The bigoted bloggers could not permit this. If this kind of defamatory attack could be leveled at such a distinguished, world-renowned scholar, imagine what can be done to Muslims who do not have this background.
Like so many posts, Rubenfeld’s article was circulated incestuously amongst the hate bloggers and caught fire online. In addition to its prominent placement on Pajamas Media, Rubenfeld’s article was featured on the Jawa Report, Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch, Blazing Cat Fur (the blog which hosted an “Everybody Draw Muhammad” contest), the influential political site Free Republic, Tea Party websites, and other blogs including The West, Islam, and Sharia, Project Shining City, Infidel Blogger’s Alliance, Socialism is Not the Answer, the website for America’s Independent Party, and too many others to name. It was also featured on the popular Fark.com, which called the article “interesting.” Fark is one of the top-100 visited English language websites in the world.
There are numerous comments on many of these websites that hail Rubenfeld as a brilliant scholar and thank her for exposing Ahmed’s “lies.” “If this lying professor really does teach at an American university,” read one comment, “I would hope they reconsider renewing his contract before he pollutes more of our students with his lies.” Another further argued that Ahmed “was just following the Koran that instructs Muslims to deceive their enemies (Al-Taqiyya.) [...] If you are not a Muslim (Kuffar) the Koran details how to kill, capture, oppress, etc. the unbeliever.” Perhaps the most depressing was from a teacher: “This has now made it into my PUBLIC high school curricula. Long live TRUTH!” The post was widely shared on social networking sites and even featured in a YouTube video.
Some of the blogs that breathlessly featured Rubenfeld’s article do not even attempt to conceal their racism. The Jawa Report, for example, proudly describes itself as a “weblog comparing Muslims to Jawas,” the “typically short rodent-like” sand-dwellers of Star Wars who are described in the film as “disgusting.” A section on the website is entitled “my pet Jawa” implying, (but only satirically, of course!) that Muslims are sub-human creatures suitable to be kept as pets. The Jawa Report also includes pictures of Qurans in toilets, likens Muslim opponents to real-life animals like monkeys and features numerous photos of what its editors call “hot babes” because they are seen as offending the sensibilities of Muslims.
These hate sites are increasingly influencing mainstream media. Virulently anti-Muslim blogger Debbie Schlussel, who openly argues that “we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam,” this summer accused the newly crowned Miss USA, an American Muslim of Lebanese descent, of being a Hezbollah agent because her surname was said to be shared by people linked to the organization. The slanderous claim resulted in the CNN.com headline “Miss USA: Muslim Trailblazer or Hezbollah Spy?” The New York Islamic center controversy brought characters like lead opponents Robert Spencer and recent New York Times profile subject Pamela Geller–who has argued that President Barack Obama is the son of Malcolm X–into the living rooms of millions of Americans. Fox News often relies on such bloggers to comment on Islamic issues.
Part of this emerging reliance of mainstream media on the hate bloggers comes from a genuine desire to understand Islam and the threat of terrorism, as often these blogs and commentators discuss material that the mainstream media has not looked into with as much attention or detail. It is hard for me to think of another reason why the New York Times leaned on the Jawa Report, which it described as “anti-jihadi Internet activists,” for its investigative coverage of the “Jihad Jane” homegrown terrorism case, or why Esquire, while noting its “unsettling anti-Muslim invective,” nevertheless glamorized the website as “laptop James Bonds,” “thrill-seeking,” and “all-American.” Yet it is possible to analyze and understand the threat of terrorism without relying on the bigots. Just as a Ku Klux Klan member would not be asked to advise on issues facing the African American community, responsible people in media and government must keep the bile-spewing anti-Muslim racists away from anything to do with Islam-related subjects.
Government, however, is where such bloggers and commentators have focused a considerable amount of attention in their desire to shape U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Recently, an increasing number of prominent politicians, including members of Congress Michele Bachmann and Pete Hoekstra–the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee–have come out publicly and enthusiastically in support of Frank Gaffney, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and head of a prominent Washington D.C. think tank. Gaffney, who blogs at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace, recently told CNN viewers he is leading an effort to block the construction of American mosques because they are “seditious” and a “cancer” seeking to “destroy Western civilization from within.” With bone-chilling conviction, he asserted that the numbers of American Muslims today are “very small, blessedly. This is the time to stop them.” The influence of the anti-Islamic beltway fearmongers could be seen in Newt Gingrich’s comparison of American Muslims to Nazis, Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey’s assertion that he did not believe American Muslims were entitled to religious freedom, and incendiary, terror-inducing ads and rhetoric in political campaigns nationwide, such as Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle’s recent warning that Muslims have seized control of two American cities.
I have attempted here to connect some of the dots in the anti-Muslim infrastructure of hate and demonstrate how a blatantly fallacious post like Laura Rubenfeld’s can achieve such prominence and influence. Rubenfeld’s article has all the hallmarks of the anti-Islamic hate blogs: a breathtaking illiteracy of the discussed subject, ad hominem attacks on a prominent Muslim, a crude insinuation of guilt by association, and a substitution of ideology for scholarship. The exact same process of argument, challenge, and refutation utilized above can be applied to nearly every one of the tidal wave of anti-Islamic hate posts.
Much more investigation needs to be done on how various sections of the infrastructure of hate are funded, but one basic link is discernable in the case study presented here. It is no accident that the think tank which employs Rubenfeld, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, is funded by the Los Angeles-based Fairbrook Foundation, the same group–granted IRS 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit charity–that funds Pajamas Media, the website which ran Rubenfeld’s scurrilous hate post. This clearly indicates that there is another level of connection and coordination not apparent to the public.
In their depiction of Islam, the despicable infrastructure of bloggers, think tanks, murky financial backers, and media outlets use the ignorance of the American public about the religion to their advantage, as it can be difficult for well-meaning Americans to distinguish hate speech from critical views of Muslim governments or organizations. That no mainstream American media commentator picked up the larger, more dangerous implications of Juan Williams and Bill O’Reilly’s discussion, for example, is indicative of this reality. The more anti-Islamic hate seeps into the American consciousness, the more likely violence will result from Americans believing it to be their patriotic duty to lash out at Muslim invaders. History shows us that venomous campaigns to demonize a particular religious or ethnic group can have catastrophic consequences.
The vitriolic anti-Islamic voices also help ensure that the actual causes for the problems plaguing the Muslim world–including political, historical, economic, and cultural factors like the turmoil wrought by globalization on traditional societies–are largely ignored by a public still befuddled by Islam nearly a decade after 9/11. Furthermore, the infrastructure’s dissemination of hate does no favors for the U.S. troops, diplomats, and aid workers attempting to win “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan and elsewhere, as the toxic blogs are read and circulated widely in the Muslim world. This hate literature endangers American national security by validating and strengthening Al Qaeda’s contention that the United States is engaged in a war against Islam which Muslims must resist and avenge.
Even more seriously, bloggers like Rubenfeld represent a grave threat to the United States in their distortions of the ideals of the Founding Fathers, which form the bedrock of American identity. In pumping their poison into the public discourse, the bloggers are attacking the entire foundation of the United States as a pluralistic nation that unambiguously mandates religious freedom.
As someone who believes in the Founding Fathers’ vision, I feel a moral compulsion to challenge the forces of hate that are spreading so rapidly. The bloggers’ detrimental, bigoted views represent a dangerous rot that needs to be confronted by all of us. This is not an academic or personal exercise, but a debate about the future of the nation. If the bloggers and the infrastructure of hate they are a part of are not challenged, the pluralist America envisioned by the Founding Fathers will be in ever increasing peril.
Frankie Martin is an Ibn Khaldun Chair Research Fellow at American University’s School of International Service.
Filed under: Pakistan
93 Responses to "Infrastructure of anti-Muslim Hate in the US"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Rex Minor
said NDelhi,
Acquiring white skin has a simple recipe;... - Rex Minor said Sunny,
You still did not get the message about ...
- NDelhi
said Oh so you were just copy pasting with no contribut... - sunny
said to G. Ali………..
“Hindu̶... - Rex Minor said G Ali,
Let me try to explain somewhat differently,...
- tajender
said Are you sure you are not an RSS agent trying to sp... - tajender said Shyam Chand, a Dalit scholar and activist
dalit m...
- Maggu said Tajendar: How do you get access to these “se...
- ルイビトン 財布
said これら女の子べきではないするは良い取引の製品ものですか？ルイ ・ ヴィトン作成クリーン革はクラッチブ... - tajender said lurker everything is from your upanishads and veda...
PMA//Why Pakistanis are concerned about the murders of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat and Ayuda and not about the murders of thousands of Sikhs in Punjab and Delhi?//
In all fairness, I dont see it as any business of pakistanis. We are not for once concerned with what happens politically in SWAT or Baluchistan et al other than humanitarian requirements. Not sure why you should be bothered as Muslims in India are adequately equipped with dealing with their problems which are mostly internal in nature. For instance, Gujarat was MOB TO MOB reaction happened in the first place due to Godhra Train massacre followed by retaliatory irrational response overall…however the nation has moved miles beyond that….there are multiple measures built in the constitution to avoid this going forward. with every bitter experience, we have come to learn something new….
Having said that, I agree you should be concerned with Kashmir since Pakistan as a state is involved with the issue and has played a genuine role in increasing the trauma of Kashmiris. You should therefore be concerned…We welcome it
Gorki, that last post of yours was truly moving. Thanks!
@ amar
sniffing glue again?
To probyn
why don’t you let PMA respond?
BTW, yours is a typical muslim response. Ridicule with abusive words or own idiocies. My analysis baffles you (since you have grown up eulogizing your own religion) and hence you can only sniff your own miff.
Dear PMA Sahib.
Thanks for the response.
I want a serious exchange so that I can educate myself better. You are a well read scholar, and so a great resource; I consider what you say seriously even if I may not agree with it (especially if there is evidence to the contrary). Therefore kindly indulge me in that spirit if you can.
You wrote:
‘Why Pakistanis are concerned about the murders of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat and Ayuda and not about the murders of thousands of Sikhs in Punjab and Delhi? Why Pakistanis are concerned about the political rights of Kashmiris and not of the non-Muslim tribals of the Northeast?
Doesn’t the above validate this below (that I wrote earlier):
“An average Muslim though looks at the problem from a different viewpoint; that of a tribal with a siege mentality…….
“they instinctively cling on to their Islamic identity first and foremost (even above their respective national identities) and thus react defensively when ‘their side’ is ill treated by the ‘others….”
What part of this then do you disagree with?
Anyway, my question to you is in the context of the above article of why Americans have an anti Muslim bias today and conversely why a large majority of people in Muslim countries hate America.
My views above were based on a recently released 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll, which is produced each year in conjunction with Zogby International and carried out by Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. In my opinion it is not something that can be ignored by America.
Key findings are as follows:
1. 39% consider their primary identity as a Muslim, 25% as an Arab, only 32% as a citizen of their county and only 2% as a citizen of the World.
2. 41% want the Govt. Of their countries to make desicions based on Islam and only 30% based on what is good for the country
3. When they saw images of innocent Israelis dying, 59% said their feeling was a revenge for Palestinians and only 3% had empathy as the most important feeling
4. When asked what steps US could take to improve its image with them 54% said peace for Palestine, 45% stop aid to Israel, only 7% wanted more aid or education activities. Only 13% were in favor of a more push for Democracy.
5. The most popular leaders were not their own leadesr but Ergodan, Chavez, Ahmedinajad, Nasrallah, Assad and Osama Bin Laden in this poll.
For someone trying to understand whether and why Muslims hate America, and reviews the results the unmistakable impression is that yes, indeed a large number of Muslims are anti America, the reason for this is the Arab Israeli conflict and that the ‘street’ is not with the moderates but sympathetic to the extreme views.
Moreover, it seems the Muslims in the survey are more conscious of their Muslim identity first, and national identity second, and that democracy is not much of a desire among them yet.
How then can one draw the inference that the current struggle is an Islam versus Islam struggle as you mentioned in the US context.
Moreover why then are even non Arab Muslim American kids caught planning bombings in New York, or flying to obtain terror training in Pakistan or even trained Muslim army psychiatrists snap and start murdering brother officers?
Please note that I am very concerned and sympathetic to the Muslim Americans’ dilemma and this is an attempt understand the source of their anguish, not a rush to judgment.
Regards.
@ Probyn
Welcome to the rank of the faithful!
@Tilsim
Hallelujah brother! Ha-lay-lujah!
No wait….wrong religion! Crap!
It does n’t matter. Muslim = bad. Non-muslim = good. Since you are bad you must be Muslim!
to Gorki and PMA
Muslim solidarity with muslims is fake. Muslim “brothers” in areas that are still not under the control of islam are told to provoke the non-muslims so that real blood flows and the muslims can use this so-called martyrdom for increasing hatred and anger against non-muslims. That is an old trick.
When the area then comes under the rule of islam then these same “brother” muslims are just the dirt worth. That is why a pakistani muslim is treated lowly in comparison to a muslim from a non-muslim area and white women converts to islam are given royal treatment. The muslim does not and cannot have the intelligence to realize this. His indoctrination takes care of that.
Pakistani solidarity with Kashmiris is a complete fake. Hurting hindus and pleasing arabs/turks is the name of the game. May be the muslim kashmiri will get better treatment because of his lighter skin colour or rosy cheeks – but not because he is a muslim.
Gorki: transpose the situation below described by Dr Ambedkar as a larger struggle of Muslims versus the world {comments interposed}
What can that special reason be ? It seems to me that the reason for the absence of the spirit of change in the Indian Musalman is to be sought in the’ peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social environment which is predominantly Hindu. {Replace Hindu by Globalized Western} That Hindu environment is always silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is de-musalmanazing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away he is led to insist on preserving everything that is Islamic without caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his society.
Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed in a political environment which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed and that political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class. It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from being submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind is the primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform. Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost. {Same with Muslim versus the world}
The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India. Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. {against the values of the globalizing culture of the west}
The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why ? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.
How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative government can help the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of Kashmir the ruler is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in Kashmir, because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the Muslim masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such States representative government means the transfer of power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the Muslims support the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it in the other. The dominating consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them or will it weaken them ? If democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue in the Muslim States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects.
The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling community—that in this struggle the strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in their ranks. {likewise versus the globalizing West}.
If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do so, it is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities, while the latter are not.
Dear PMA Sahib
Sorry to have missed mentioning this crucial finding of the poll mentioned above:
6. 88% of those polled felt their biggest threat was Israel and 77% felt it was the US
@ Lal and Android Guy.
Thank you both for your kind comments.
Indian nationhood is a work in progress and will be for a long time. Our preceding generation gave us a good start. Each one of us has to help build a structure on the foundation they laid and pass it on to the next generation.
@Amar:
I don’t have anything to say to you other than I find your anti Muslim tirades tiring and an insult to my country and to 110 million of my own countrymen who are Muslims.
“If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do so, it is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities, while the latter are not.”
Here Ambedkar is now wrong. Even in muslim majority countries there is no movement towards social reform. Whether islamic fascists are 5% or 95% of the population – they will always determine the course of islam. There are analytic reasons for this and these reasons are now well-known.
Muslims “free from communal and political clashes with rival communities” – where on the earth is that?
to Gorki
Indian-ness and muslim-ness are incompatible. Pretending otherwise has cost the hindus a lot. So no more pretensions please. Temporarily a muslim in India may show love for India and even anger towards Pakistan – but in the long run he has to take dictates in the interest of islamic expansionism and absolutism. Gandhi failed to comprehend this. When there is a conflict between majority and minority then there is no garantee that the majority is the guilty party and the minority the innocent party.
@ Gorki
“For someone trying to understand whether and why Muslims hate America, and reviews the results the unmistakable impression is that yes, indeed a large number of Muslims are anti America, the reason for this is the Arab Israeli conflict and that the ‘street’ is not with the moderates but sympathetic to the extreme views.”
I apologise if I am saying something that would in all probability be obvious to you but perhaps it may help others understand. Surveys are useful but as we all know they have limitations. Also, whilst they can help highlight the relative sizes of various opinions amongst a group, depending on the bias of the reader one can draw conclusions which may be firmer than the actual underlying reality or diversity of opinion. This is not to negate the fact that many muslims have become anti-American – for whatever reason. There is no reason to assume that it is doctrinally driven or a permanent thing.
As for the question of identity, if you ask a ‘typical’ Muslim, how important his religion is, he will say very. If you see what he does, it may be quite a different thing. Most Muslims abide by the laws of the land that they live in – that is the reality. Muslims have allied with and even fought with non-Muslims against Muslims for a variety of motivations throughout history. Ethnic or tribal motivations are very strong and the current polemics post 9/11 do not give sufficient weight or importance to these – witness the succession of Bangladesh; witness Azad v Jinnah; there are countless other examples. Even here on PTH we witnessed that Muslims had different reactions to the Ground Zero or Koran Burning affairs. Trying to fathom Islam or Muslims as one monolithic thing is probably going to lead to superficial conclusions and help increase the misunderstandings which we so desparately need to narrow on all sides. I would ask are the Western nations one nation? Are the Africans one nation?
@Perspective
I sincerely admire the depth of your reading and carefully read your comments, (both said and unsaid ; -) ) .
Muslims had a genuine concern about their identity in the years leading upto the Indian Independence and reflexly turned inwards. It is quite natural for a minority to do so if its identity is threatened.
Independant India however has turned out to be a different country than what was once feared; we still have issues of identity based on language, region, caste and yes, also faith. However as I wrote before the constitution that was approved (Thanks in part to giants like BRA, JLN among others) is a very strong foundation for a nation where a genuine national identity is emerging even as other identities are respected.
Muslims still lag as a group but there are reasons for optimism. They are doing well in certain states like Bengal and Kerala. Also they do not vote as a group or only for Muslim candidates and just like several other groups, vote strategically when needed. The rise of BSP and other non-congress non-BJP parties in the Hindi heartland is in part dependant on this phenomena.
However, in this thread I don’t want to digress too much and want to stay focussed to issue of Muslim angst in the US context (and the anti Muslim bias) since this is an important issue for us here in the US today. homeland.
Regards.
Dear Tilsim;
Agree with your comments, and want to reiterate your line below:
‘There is no reason to assume that it is doctrinally driven or a permanent thing…’
I also want to add that the survey above is only one such, and limited to explore Arab Muslim attitude towards America. I find it useful to quote to those in the US who say that ‘they hate us for our freedoms…’
The degree of ‘tribalistic’ (I use this word reluctantly for the want of a better alternative) identification with Palestine is not much different than the identification of other groups eg. the Slavs around the world with Serbians etc.
The whole point to quote what I did was to have Americans understand the issue and not ignore it.
Also I am interested in finding out why PMA Sahib feels it is an Islam vs. Islam issue and not a reaction to a sense of ‘seige’ that many think Muslims feel in the face of aggressive US policies in the pre and post 9/11 era.
Regards.
Gorki (November 1, 2010 at 9:49 pm):
Gorki Sahab: I wish you stop calling me a ‘scholar’. You embarrass me when you do that. I am a layman and a professional man like yourself. You have chosen to characterize Muslims, collectively, as a “tribe with siege mentality”. Where do you get that? Muslims are not a monolithic group nor all Muslims of the world think and act alike. Please stop looking at this vast and complex group of people based on your limited observations as one “tribe”. You are being very simplistic in your effort to understand and analyse Muslims. Muslims only take a common stand when it comes to a Muslim vs. non-Muslim conflicts and even then not always. Very often national interests supersede Muslim interests. Not too long ago Turks were pro-Israel and Arabs were pro-Greece. Nasser was a friend of India even when Kashmiri Muslims were being crushed under Indian Boots. When it comes to Muslim vs. Muslim conflict, they are as nationalistic as any other people. Also not all Americans hate Muslims and not all Muslims hate America. Please don’t let anything cloud your clear thinking mind. If you want to understand ‘Islam vs. West’, both in present and in the historical context, there are numerous sources available. Hope you avail that.
@amar
“Indian-ness and muslim-ness are incompatible. Pretending otherwise has cost the hindus a lot. So no more pretensions please. Temporarily a muslim in India may show love for India and even anger towards Pakistan – but in the long run he has to take dictates in the interest of islamic expansionism and absolutism. Gandhi failed to comprehend this.”
How did you get these ideas? Personally I’ve had scores of Muslim friends. They were all simple, hardworking, aspirational people. The one who was more religiously inclined actually wanted to be a monk in the Ramakrishna Mission (we attended a residential missionary school).
Look at the article by YLH on another thread. Look at the comments by many many Muslims here. Surely they are compatible anywhere in the world?
To most, religion is a simple, personal, emotional sentiment. Even being an atheist, I wouldn’t take abuse of Hinduism for long. Why? Because I have the same simple, emotional, almost tribalistic attachment to it, which has nothing to do with its various dogma. Why is that hard to understand? And why should it preclude my compatibility with the US, a predominantly christian country?
We can only speak in anecdotes or in generalizations – there is no other way to understand the world. We have to understand that there are myriads of exceptions to the generalizations, and no amount of anecdotes can prove a point.
E.g., regarding attacks on Data Darbar, Baba Farid, etc., we could say “the overwhelming majority of interactions between the people at the shrines are peaceful, the few bombings are an aberration”. Or we could say, this is a new trend and exceedingly important to understand and combat.
Which of them is it? Do attacks on these shrines rise to the level of generalizable – e.g., “TTP is running a campaign of violence against Sufi shrines”? Or is this merely a bunch of anecdotes illustrating nothing general? (i.e., TTP attacked A, TTP attacked B, a few more in a list and period).
All I’m suggesting is that if Muslim populations feel under siege by the globalization (of primarily Western values – remember, al Qaeda and co. have figured out how to globalize their values, too), then the behavior noted by Gorki is explainable, just as Ambedkar explained the case of Indian Muslims.
@Perspective
Anecdotal accounts can be misleading. But so are generalizations. Specifically in the context of India, what Ambedkar said was more applicable in the pre-partition era. In today’s India, an average Muslim is aspirational, not fundamentalist. In the kabulcenter report on Deoband I posted a few days ago, even the Deobandi cleric admitted that he sent his sons to a state run school to get a secular education.
Statements such as “in the long run a Muslim has to take dictates in the interest of islamic expansionism and absolutism…” are not only morally wrong, they are factually incorrect, and can be dangerous.
@no-communal:
I certainly hope you are right. But in Kerala, the party that had the hand of a lecturer of English cut off for alleged insult to the Prophet (the professor’s question paper had a story about Muhammad the fisherman) won in the local body elections.
Dear PMA Sahib:
I am sorry that I embarrassed you by pointing to your scholarship; your modesty sets you apart. I am all the more impressed but I promise I will do as you wish and not bring it up in the future.
You have a point that generalizations can be deceptive, but then it works both ways; if you feel a person is a bigot feel free to say so but qualifying him as an ‘Indoo’ unnecessarily broadens the insult to a larger group of people some of whom may be equally allergic to bigots.
Another minor point I want to clarify is that no one has even remotely implied that ‘all Muslims hate America or that all Americans hate Muslims;’ my notes, arguments (and the statistics I quoted) are specific enough on that point.
In your post you wrote to me:
‘You have chosen to characterize Muslims, collectively, as a “tribe with siege mentality”. Where do you get that?’
You then advised me to consult reference material to brush up on these complex issues.
I actually happen to agree with you that complex issues can not be understood well unless one consults scholarly sources, preferably peer reviewed ones. That was one reason why I quoted the U of Maryland survey rather than a clipping from a newspaper or a magazine.
In fact I consulted several similar sources before I started writing. One of them was the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences [AJISS].
Interestingly enough, this is what one editorial writer in it had to say:
“The best diagnosis of causes of (Muslim) radicalism in this collection comes from Graham E. Fuller.
‘The Muslim world, feeling itself under siege, and with its sensitivities heightened by its witness of the struggle of Muslims right across the global ummah, is not currently operating in an environment conducive to intellectual openness, or to liberal and reformist thought. The Muslim world is simply hunkered down in defensive and survivalist mode. Indeed, the forces of terrorism in the Muslim world must be brought to heel. But it will not happen unless we see a change in hegemonistic U.S. policies, U.S. explicit embrace of Israeli right-wing policies in the occupied West Bank, and linkage with American fundamentalist Christian attitudes.’
I have never heard the problem better formulated…’
The writer further went on to write about himself that:
‘I am not a moderate Muslim in the U.S. sense of “moderate”. Yet, at least on three issues I regard
myself as a liberal Muslim. I am against the death penalty; I am in favor of gender equality; and I
believe that ijtihad will become increasingly crucial as a solution to Islam’s doctrinal problems….’
And further still that:
“But those of us who see ourselves as liberal Muslims are greatly hampered by the external forces of Zionism, the American imperium and the global humiliation of Muslims from Kashmir to Chechnya. Once again Graham E. Fuller captures the fundamentals when he says the following:
As long as conditions in the Muslim world remain radicalized – by terrorism, the sweeping U.S. military
response, dictatorship across the region, and a sense of Islam under siege – only radical groups will
flourish. Moderation and liberalization can only flourish in a quieter and freer environment where
radical voices find limited response….”
The article is written by a certain Ali A. Mazrui,
Professor of Humanities, Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University; State University of New York.
The title of his paper was:
LIBERAL ISLAM VERSUS MODERATE ISLAM: ELUSIVE MODERATION AND THE SIEGE MENTALITY
(It can all be easily found by all those interested in the complete article)
So you see, although I am flattered by the fact that you think that I came up with the term ‘Siege mentality’ of the Muslims all by myself, but the fact is that I am not so smart; as you can see I borrowed the term.
In fact I am not even the second person to use the term; it has been used by a few others before.
For example, a title of a well sought after book on a related topic is called:
‘Islam Under Siege’.
Incidentally it is written by the current occupant of the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, at the American University in Washington D.C., and the First Distinguished Chair of Middle East and Islamic Studies at the US Naval Academy, Annapolis. He also happens to be a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and is considered “the world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam” by the BBC.
His name is Akbar Ahmed.
Regards.
@Perspective
Yes, that is true. But in West Bengal Jamiat Ulema e Hind candidates routinely have their election deposit forfeited. All national level Muslim leaders are with Congress. Some are even with the BJP.
What Gorki Sb is alluding to is also a fact. There is a general feeling of Islam being under siege at the global level.
PMA,
“‘Ayria Samaj’ considers them as monkeys and hence the ‘monkey god’ of the ‘Ram Lila’. ”
After gems like that you shouldn’t worry about being addressed as a scholar. You have tried to answer the original queries by putting forth an analogy describing similar notions within Hindus, Christians, etc. That is not quite accurate. There is hardly any existence of pan-Hinduism; in fact, I doubt if there ever was, except in small pockets of limited influence. Hindus in the neighboring Bangladesh were routinely persecuted till very recently. It hardly made any news, except by some fringe groups.
Though Ambedkar’s theory seems plausible, I am not quite sure how accurate that was, even for pre-partition era. If that is true, I guess there is some truth to what Bernard Lewis and his ilk have been saying for quite sometime.
Since we are on this same topic, I would like to ask about this scenario, which I think Gorki also addressed, though not directly. I remember reading it somewhere.
In the ’79 seize of Mecca, why was the US consulate in Pakistan attacked? I am not sure we can ascribe it to Zia’s influence.
Perspective,
Kerala is a cause of concern, especially after the incident that you mentioned, though, hardly new. It’s the charm of notoriety, at least that’s what I hope it is, rather than a pointer to a long term trend. You may remember Varun Gandhi being elected after making despicable remarks and being booked for that offense.
I, however, appreciate your efforts in quoting relevant sources.
NC,
“In today’s India, an average Muslim is aspirational, not fundamentalist. ”
I agree with you. In fact, after the HC judgment on the RJ dispute, when some senior religious leaders went to gather support for this long running grievance, a lot of younger members agreed that though the judgment was a tad unfair, but how about jobs, education, colleges, etc. Needless to say, the ultra secular lobby and the religious leaders have been sulking ever since. I hate to say this and I don’t mean any affront, but the experience of Pakistan with the religious ideologues has really scared some people back home. As usual, this is just an observation from my acquaintances, which though limited, come from a diverse sample size. In fact, they just shy away from any such discussion.
Tilsim,
“I would ask are the Western nations one nation? Are the Africans one nation?”
I wholeheartedly agree with the caveat that you have raised. That is why I have asked those questions. Though we don’t think of Western nations as one nations, we do allude to something called a Western Civilization. I just wonder whether there is corollary to that notion, or if the present age with rapid globalization and homogeneity would lead to something like that: not a monolithic block but multiple large blocks of ideas, or whatever you want to call it. Already, we have started speaking of politics back home in strictly western terms, and this has happened before my own eyes. I am not sure if you know this but a lot of Keralites say that the radicalization of Muslim youth there has been the result of people coming back from the Gulf. The oil has been the biggest culprit.
Chote Miyan, the 1979 attack on the US consulate:
“The cause of the crowd’s anger was a radio report by the Ayatollah Khomeini that Americans were behind the seizure of the Great Mosque in Mecca by a group of Muslim fundamentalist dissidents”
Muslim anger towards USA is not because of palestine-israel conflict but because of the spin given to this conflict by the agents of arab and islamic imperialisms (the two go quite hand in hand). Palestinians’ ancestors were neither arabs nor muslims (unless of course you subscribe to the inane propaganda that Adam and Abraham were muslims).
No-communal writes:
“Personally I’ve had scores of Muslim friends. They were all simple, hardworking, aspirational people. The one who was more religiously inclined actually wanted to be a monk in the Ramakrishna Mission (we attended a residential missionary school).”
Such words don’t refute my analysis that the long term goal of islam is to decimate non-muslims and reduce them to fall on their knees in front of “kuvvat ul islam” (=the might of islam, so the name of the mosque built near the kutub minar in Delhi. This mosque was built by destroying 28 hindu and jain temples, as proudly recorded by the muslims themselves).
So long muslism don’t develop the intelligence and honesty to understand and admit that islam is a 7th century absolutist-finalist-totalitarian intrusion/dictate into/upon the 21st century, that islam contains severe contradictions and that they will be in the long run always resolved in favour of islamic imperialism and totalitarianism – all such personal friendships woith muslims are just self-deceit.
Any fake friendship with deceivers and self-deceivers is bound to end up in disaster for both. First for the honest ones and then also for the dishonest ones.
The genuine friend is the one who criticises – not the one who flatters.
ylh is the greatest friend of India because he never flatters India.
amar, this is from Ambedkar.
“Swami Shradhanand relates a very curious incident which well illustrates this attitude. Writing in the Liberator 13[f.13] his recollections, he refers to this incident. He says :—
” Mr. Ranade was there. . . . to guide the Social Conference to which the title of ‘ National ‘ was for the first and last time given. It was from the beginning a Hindu Conference in all walks of life.
The only Mahomedan delegate who joined the National Social Conference was a Mufti Saheb of Barreily.
Well! The conference began when the resolution in favour of remarriage of child-widows was moved by a Hindu delegate and by me. Sanatanist Pandits opposed it. Then the Mufti asked permission to speak. The late Baijnath told Mufti Saheb that as the resolution concerned the Hindus only, he need not speak. At this the Mufti flared up.
” There was no loophole left for the President and Mufti Saheb was allowed to have his say. Mufti Saheb’s argument was that as Hindu Shastras did not allow remarriage, it was a sin to press for it.
Again, when the resolution about the reconversion of those who had become Christians and Musalmans came up. Mufti Saheb urged that when a man abandoned the Hindu religion he ought not to be allowed to come back.”"
—–
The point being that just as the Mufti Saheb thought he could tell Hindus what Hinduism entailed, you think that you can tell Muslims that Islam entails.
If you say that some Muslims believe in the Islam you describe, I would not disagree. If you say that these are the loudest voices today, I would not entirely disagree (but note our own role in amplifying these voices by assuming that they are typical). Yet, there is a whole another world which you ignore. It is one of the most interesting questions of our time, what that world will choose.
to perspective
We are sick on this islamic victim-hood complex and falsification of the history narrative in favour of islam and muslims,
we are sick of having to ask muslims for permission about what we may or may not do or feel or speak out.
We are sick of muslims’ understanding that islam has the natural right to rule over everyone and that the islamic god is the one and only one.
That whole another world that you talk about must first clarify how it intends to fight down islam’s monopoly attempts and totalitarian claims.
“you think that you can tell Muslims that Islam entails.”
NO. I merely describe (react) to what they actually do or impose. There is a huge industry of those trying to present islam in good colours.
That whole another world that you talk about must first clarify how it intends to fight down islam’s monopoly attempts and totalitarian claims.
That is what this blog is about, in some small part, I thought.
That is what this blog is about, in some small part, I thought.
this blog is mainly about takkya, don’t you know?
Dear Gorki
Thank you for your valued comments. The sense of siege that you refer to is of course described by Muslims and non-Muslims. The US muslims have their own post 9/11 challenges which may be quite different to your average Pakistani farmer in Gujrat. The specific political disputes such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine are factors that are commonly cited by many learned people but there may be greater day to day local contributory factors at the personal level that may be playing a greater role.
In my view, we need to look at a couple of areas in particular. Firstly, the activity of political activists who use religion to gather power – in Pakistan, the Mullahs, are intimately tied to power acquisition. They are into the business of religion, not in the improvement of society nor the salvation of mankind (although they may use that slogan). In the 21st century, like in Egypt and Iran they are part of a very human struggle by middle and lower middle class people to garner a greater share of the resources and political rights as globalisation gathers pace. They thrive when there is weak societal and political leadership with a lack of grassroot appeal. They need an audience and canon fodder; latching onto international political grievances to creat a sense of siege helps them immensely and plays well to their constituency. This constituencydoes feel disenfranchised for valid reasons. In the past, the clerics played a rather limited role in an average Pakistani muslim person’s affairs. However a phenomenon of modernity and globalisation is that they have also become more sophisticated, well funded and organised. Their power has increased. Pakistani muslims despite this increase in power, vote for non-religious parties. Although it is also a fact that the non-religious parties have steadily shifted rightwards or are still figuring out how to effectively challenge these forces. Like political parties do, they will make a compromise here but then insist on a firm stance there.
Secondly, the activity of non-Muslim political activists and opinion is also creating a sense of seige. Due to 9/11 and the response to it as well as the continued activities of Al Qaeda inc, all Muslims are suspects. Your name or appearence is sufficient excuse for racial profiling or more sinisterly not getting that prize job or denial into a choice school, into the armed forces, the civil service etc. Islam is being positioned as a cult or a political movement that is fundamentally corrupt and inimical to modernity and civilisation. I just read the comments on PTH and it’s ironic to note that very few comments are made by Muslims against non-Muslims but there is a constant barrage of commentary that puts Islam rather than Al Qaeda in the dock. It shows the strength of emotion and it shows the political challenge that Muslims face not only from the likes of Al Qaeda but the world at large. In that sense, it’s not surprising for Muslims to feel a sense of siege.
Dear Tilsim:
Thanks for your post. As usual, there are parts of your post that need to be reiterated.I would especially like to draw people’s attention to the following:
‘it’s ironic to note that very few comments are made by Muslims against non-Muslims but there is a constant barrage of commentary that puts Islam rather than Al Qaeda in the dock….’
It is the same phenomena that is going on in the US, only magnified exponentially.
Ironically it is this phenomena that some of us non Muslims here want to counter but so far have not developed good talking points, in part due to our own ignorance and also in part due to the fact that it is unpopular in today’s climate; any one of us who talks of understanding is shouted down by the red America (the one that Sarah Palin disingenuously called the ‘pro America part of America’).
In such a climate, it hoped that at least our (Non Muslim American’s) intentions are not misunderstood.
In the long run, we are all wayfarers together in this American journey of ours and it is in everybody’s interest in making our adopted home a better and more tolerant nation before we pass it off to our children.
Regards.
@amar/due
“NO….There is a huge industry of those trying to present islam in good colours.”
It’s the Muslims, Pakistani Muslims, who are washing their dirty laundry here wide open (cf. article on TH, and many others). Knowing fully well it may be abused by others, including us Indians.
BTW, what do you think of Indresh Kumar?
@ Gorki
I was talking on the weekend to a friend of mine, an ex Goldman banker who is an urbane Muslim and has lived the vast majority of his life in the UK, but was born in Pakistan and has not been back. He is now raising a private equity fund with some very blue chip names as limited partners. He related an incidenct that occurred on a business call with a significant New York based law firm acting on behalf of a potential funder. The law firm Partner whilst making introductions asked him where he was born. He was taken aback by the irrelevance and personal nature of the question. Being a polite individual, he answered it. He said that the law firm Partner, a lady, freaked out. She said: ” I gotta tell ya upfront, I have a problem with dealing with Pakistanis and their involvement in terrorism”.
There are over a billion muslims around the world – this sort of attitude is not sustainable as part of globalisation. Nevertheless the walls are going up very fast. We will all be the worse for it unless the good people on all sides stand up and make themselves heard amongst all the cacophany and put the enemy clearly in it’s sight (and not more). I have a huge place in my heart for people such as yourselves who are trying to understand the situation, not rushing to judgement and actively standing down bigotry wherever it may arise, specially in the more educated and influential strata of society.
to no-communal
I do not justify hindu terror or fascism but for the sake of truth one must admit that it is a belated and rather weak and il-organized (typical hindu!) reaction to the successes of islamic fascism and imperialism of the past 1200 years (in the indian subcontinent). This explains Indresh Kumar etc. Hindu fascism and terrorism is confined to India and has no international ambitions. It can never achieve the clout (finance, weapons, sleeper cells, suicide killers etc) of islamic international terrorism and imperialimsm. In the hindu-muslim conflict in the subcontinent the hindu is the defender, the muslim the aggressor or the quisling of aggressors. This difference is crucial.
As regards the washing of dirty linen by Pakistanis – not really. The real danger is in their religion from Arabia and its self-glorifying lies and arrogances. That dirty linen is never mentioned by them. What use is washing superficial dirt and ignoring the deeper real one?
@amar
You forget time and again that India is also home to 200 million Muslims. Yes, it’s a Hindu majority country, but we are not, and neither do we want to be, a Hindu religious nation. What we are today owes a very large part to our steadfastness to secularism in our governing principles. Otherwise nothing prevents us from degenerating into a chaotic and fundamentalist state that we are not today. In our case, it will not be Hindus killing Hindus; it will be Hindus killing Muslims and vice versa. Even setting aside all moral principles, do you seriously think absolutely any development is possible in such a climate of hatred and infighting? As bciv said earlier, in India secularism is pragmatism. I am glad we have been pragmatic for the past 63 years.
You repeatedly speak of defending India from the Muslims. You regard Indian Muslims as “quislings of aggressors”. And yet, by all accounts Indian Muslims today are not very different from Indian Hindus. Yes, we worship different gods, but it ends there. By and large Indian Muslims have become subcontinental, or, for the lack of a better term, “Indianised”. This is detested by some in Pakistan, and was in fact used as an argument for its creation (cf. Ambedkar quoted by Perspective above). Indian Muslims have subconsciously imbibed the most basic tenet of all subcontinental faiths, that of living and letting live personal spiritual lives (“as many ways as there are opinions”, according to Ramakrishna). In fact they have also become more aspirational than spiritual. There are hardly any Indian Muslim going for scholarship in Islamic studies. There are now English medium madrassas opening up in West Bengal.
There is a nondescript Peer Dargah near our old house in a mofussil town in West Bengal. While growing up not too long ago, we never knew the Dargah was only a Muslim holy place. The elders in the family offered a silent prayer with closed eyes each time they passed it by. During Durga Puja, the Muslim families who took care of the Dargah milled around with us near the Puja pandals. Who will benefit from destroying such friendships? India as a country surely will not.
About defense of Koran by our friends here, isn’t it a normal spontaneous impulse of all to defend their near and dear? In another post you mentioned Gita. There’s a body of critical literature on Gita too. Some obscure western scholars have hinted that Gita motivates men to war, even against their own kin. What is our reaction? I have never seen anybody outrightly rejecting Gita. Instead, we talk of the setting, the context, the interpretations of Dharmyudh etc. How is it different from others defending Koran on much the same principles?
It’s true Islam has been abused by too many extremists. For that, the world does need reinterpretations of a religion which was perhaps the most state of the art 1400 years ago. Many in the Islamic world are trying to do just that. Let’s hope they succeed.
@ No communal
Thank you for a tremendous post. May you and your kind continue to prevail.
@ No communal
Tilsim wrote:
“Thank you for a tremendous post. May you and your kind continue to prevail.”
I second that!
Thank You
The given information is very effective
i will keep updated with the same
industrial automation
Thank You
The given information is very effective
i will keep updated with the same
industrial automation