Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Review: From Fatwa to Jihad


    by Sid (Faisal)
    14th April, 2009 at 5:18 pm    

    My review of From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy by Kenan Malik is now online on CiF Belief.

    The great appeal of From Fatwa to Jihad is its pitiless observation and it is this which raises it above the easy standards of one-sided polemic. No one gets away – certainly not Islamic radicalism and multiculturalism and its penchant for ethnic and religious particularism, the monomaniacal Melanie Phillips and the chauvinism of Daniel Pipes and Mark Steyn are all roundly criticised. If Malik’s book advocates anything, it is a social order based on universalist Enlightenment values, the importance of free speech and for the elevation of secular and progressive ideas within minority, particularly Muslim, communities.

    And a fine review by Lisa Appingnanesi:

    Recent history has a way of becoming too quickly forgotten, its shifts naturalised so that current assumptions take on the aura of “forever”. Impeccably researched, brimming with detail, yet razor-sharp in its argument, this book provokes a necessary re-examination. It demands, particularly, to be read by faint-hearted politicians and all those worried by the ongoing erosion of our liberties.

    Maliks is a superb book that reads like a precursive diagnostic tool for most of the issues we discuss here. Well recommended.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: 'Honour'-based violence,British Identity,Civil liberties,Islamists






    67 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      New blog post: Review: From Fatwa to Jihad http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4241




    1. saeed — on 14th April, 2009 at 8:24 pm  

      read maliks the meanining of race for my uni course a few years ago…it was v.v. good…so i have alot of time for him…

    2. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 9:13 am  

      Good article Sid, and congratulations for getting another piece published on CiF. You’ve received some great replies over there too.

      I also think the observations about how a certain strand of radicalisation actually has little to do with “foreign policy” (despite claims to the contrary) are spot-on. Those of us who are in our 30s or older will remember that all this was going on in some quarters long, long before more recent overseas political/military events, and had far more to do with identity politics, feelings of cultural alienation, and indeed often lust for power than anything else. There’s a difference between “reasons” and “excuses”.

    3. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 9:41 am  

      Im amazed the Guardian allow a ignorant nasty little bigot like you to write articles. It greatly diminishes them.

      Malik has a Hindu mother and considers Rushdie a referce point and identifes himself as Asian not Muslim . You seriously think he represnts other than a fringe of Muslim (assuming he is) identity?

      You also “forget” to mention that he is so extreme he doesnt believe Islamophobia exists. Would anyone take seriously a Jew who said there was no such thing as anti-semitism?

      To say the 7/7 bombers werent motivated by foreign policy when they explicitly stated they were is ludicrous and is Malik imposing his ideaologic beliefs on reality.

      The stuff about free speech was funny. Do CIF know that you delete posts criticial of you on PP (while supporting works abusing the Prophet (pbuh))?

      “Twenty years ago I was standing in a football field in a school in Bradford, watching a group of mullahs burn The Satanic Verses”

      They werent a “group of mullahs”- the week before a group of white protestors had burned poll tax books - can you tell us why, other than bigotry, there wasnt the outrage there was at burning the Satanic Verses

    4. cjcjc — on 15th April, 2009 at 9:52 am  

      If you can’t tell the difference between burning a poll tax book and burning a novel, there’s little hope for you I’m afraid.

    5. The Common Humanist — on 15th April, 2009 at 9:59 am  

      Munir

      There is a world of difference between a protest at an unfair government tax and trying to prevent the freedom of a writer to write critically (but also movingly but I suspect you haven’t read the book) about a belief system.

      It will be a sad sad day when religion is exempt from criticism.

      But then we kn ow where you stand, given your utter inability to criticise the Taleban and its rampant brutality. (plus you are scared of what your mates might say - saddo!)

    6. Sid — on 15th April, 2009 at 10:02 am  

      Given your tone and content of every single comment you have posted on PP, using words like “nasty little bigot” sounds like terms of endearment from you. :D

      But calling *me* a bigot and then holding Malik in palpable derision because he has a Hindu mother is absolutely indicative of the regressive little weasel you are.

      I’m overjoyed if the review and the book pisses you off. Nothing could be more indicative of its success. The anti-Muslim bigots on Harry’s Place, are like you, pissed off since the book has insulted their cheerleaders as well.

    7. Sid — on 15th April, 2009 at 10:06 am  

      Jai - thanks. You really should read Malik’s book, it’s remarkably good.

    8. The Common Humanist — on 15th April, 2009 at 10:09 am  

      Sid,

      You are not being fair at all to David T @ HP:
      ‘I disagree with Kenan Malik on virtually nothing in this book’, David T.

      Now, some of the commentators are frothing loons but I think that a differentiation needs to be made between the writers at the site, on a story by story basis, and the inhabitants of the comments box.

      Imagine if PP was described as ‘the far right islamist taleban site’ on the basis of munirs contributions?

      Cheers

      TCH

    9. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 10:11 am  

      To say the 7/7 bombers werent motivated by foreign policy when they explicitly stated they were is ludicrous

      It’s not like those psychopaths would actually be lying or motivated by multiple reasons other than (or along with) “foreign policy”, is it ?

      Right…..

    10. The Common Humanist — on 15th April, 2009 at 10:18 am  

      Jai,

      Well quite. Without the evil jihadi perversion of Islam they might have protested and lobbied in the manner of citizens rather sad mass murdering fucks.

      Munir,

      Say for example the monothists are correct and there is a god of some description, do you think the 7/7 bombers are in heaven or hell????

    11. Sid — on 15th April, 2009 at 10:27 am  

      TCH at #8 - yeah, I meant the loons in the comments. Not the estimable David T.

    12. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:03 am  

      Sid

      “Given your tone and content of every single comment you have posted on PP, using words like “nasty little bigot” sounds like terms of endearment from you.

      But calling *me* a bigot”

      No you are an intolerant nasty bigot independent of me and any of my views. Dont just take my word for it - numerous other commentators Muslim and non-Muslim have commented your obvious bias against Muslims.

      Im glad my criticism of muslim haters annoy you

      ” and then holding Malik in palpable derision because he has a Hindu mother is absolutely indicative of the regressive little weasel you are.”

      No because he isnt responsible for who his parents are- the point is, based on this extremely unusual upbrininging, he is presenting himself as some kind of spokesman - he has promoted an Asian rather than Muslim identity because his was an Asian not religious upbringing.

      “TCH at #8 - yeah, I meant the loons in the comments. Not the estimable David T.”

      the estimable David T got a commentator banned from publishing articles on CIF because she had made what he thought were anti-Jewish comments - wonder if the Guardian are aware of your nasty anti-Arab comments ?

    13. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:08 am  

      The Common Humanist
      “But then we kn ow where you stand, given your utter inability to criticise the Taleban and its rampant brutality. ”

      No my utter lack of desire to be held to different standards than others, the standards that you hold Muslim to- no one demands Jews condemn Israeli terrorism or Hindus Hinduvata. Im not interested in critism simply to appease Islamophobes like yourself.

      When are you going to condemn Israel?

      ” (plus you are scared of what your mates might say - saddo!)”

      Like Sid you know nothing of me but desperately impute things to me

      CIF’s Sid accused me of supporting rape and genocide so youve got a long way to go!

    14. Sid — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:30 am  

      poor offended little puppy.

    15. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:30 am  

      Jai

      “It’s not like those psychopaths would actually be lying”

      No they are sincere. Every honest commentator, without an agenda, says the Iraq war was the main motivation for 7/7 . Al Qaida recruits and is primarily driven by atrocities against Muslims. These people see Muslim civilans being killed by non-Muslims in huge numbers so want to kill non-Muslims in revenge

      thats why they stage attacks on people who live in countries whose armies are killing Muslims.

      In other words they want to be as bad as non-Muslims are rather than following Islams prohibition on killing civilians.

      There teachers are media pictures not religious texts.
      The 7/7 bombers said around watching videos of Muslims being killed .Thats what motivated them.

      “or motivated by multiple reasons other than (or along with) “foreign policy”, is it ?

      Right…..”

      Ah but you stated foreign policy had little to do with it- kind of backtracking arent you

      Jai why did Sikh terrorists blow up the Air India flight in 1985 killing hundreds (the greatest terrorist atrocity in its time) -presumably they did it because they were motivated by hatred of non-Sikhs that extermist interpretations of their religion teaches and no other reason (not the attack on the Golden Temple of anti-Sikh pogroms).

    16. damon — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:33 am  

      munir said: ”no one demands Jews condemn Israeli terrorism or Hindus Hinduvata.”
      Yes they do. I do - (or hope I would) if I was speaking to someone who espoused repugnant views.

      saeed @ 1 - I too read his ‘Meaning of Race’ book years ago. I wish I had read it in a uni situation, as (on my own) I found it hard going.

      I presume people know that Malik is part of that Spiked-online thing.
      http://www.spiked-online.com/

      He has written sometimes in their ”Race” section, like here in the fourth one down .. the article titled: ”Twenty years on: internalising the fatwa”.
      http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C44/

    17. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:33 am  

      ” poor offended little puppy.”

      nah.. to be offended you need to give a sh*t about the opinion of the person speaking.

    18. Sid — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:40 am  

      Kenan will be speaking on the relationship between race, science and the Enlightenment in his Voltaire Lecture next week:

      http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/8

    19. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:43 am  

      Sid’s hero Kenan Malik was a part of the Revolutionary Communist Party - those noted supporters of liberty and freedom

    20. Sid — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:47 am  

      No my hero is William Shatner.

    21. The Common Humanist — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:48 am  

      MUnir, Dude,

      “”No my utter lack of desire to be held to different standards than others, the standards that you hold Muslim to- no one demands Jews condemn Israeli terrorism or Hindus Hinduvata. Im not interested in critism simply to appease Islamophobes like yourself”"

      Er…yes they do. When people come across, say, someone mouthing off in an Israeli settler style then they get called for. The same, as you are experiencing, is true for people who come across all jihadi.

      I admit am ‘Talebaniphobic’ (Hey, new word! If Andrew Sullivan can claim ‘Christianist, I wonder if I can claim that one?)

      The fact that you equate criticism of the Taleban and other jihadi types with criticism of muslims as a whole speaks volumes for your mindset and your view of Islam.

    22. david brough — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:51 am  

      Yes, but Malik is a member of the Frank Furedi cult, isn’t he?

    23. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:51 am  

      So Sid do you believe like Kenan Malik that anti-Muslim prejucide doesnt exist ?

      Some refutaion of Kenan Malik

      Kenan Malik: missing Islamophobia

      Found via new(ish) blog, The Importance of Disappointment, Kenan Malik, writing in the Guardian yesterday, claims that Islamophobia is exaggerated “to stifle criticism of Islam”:

      Everyone from anti-racist activists to government ministers wants us to believe that Britain is in the grip of Islamophobia - a morbid fear and hatred of Islam and of Muslims. Former Home Office minister John Denham has warned of the “cancer of Islamophobia” infecting the nation. The veteran anti-racist Richard Stone, a consultant to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, suggests that Islamophobia is “a challenge to us all”. The director of public prosecutions has worried that the war on terror is “alienating whole communities” in this country.

      Malik rattles out a few statistics to attempt a demonstration that, to the contrary, British Muslims may walk the streets with only a little “minor… shoving and spitting” to worry about. Malik further claims that racism now is nowhere near is bad as it was in the ’70s ’80s. Now, I don’t dispute that 30-odd years of anti-racist campaigns and a reasonably concerted political effort have made Britain less overtly racist than the society which British Asians found themselves growing up in. I disagree, however, with Malik’s implicit claim that this direct and often physical abuse is the only form of racism that matters. The critical point hinges on the blurred distinction modern Islamophobia makes between being a Muslim and merely “looking like” a Muslim. It functions in what is often a far more sinister fashion than the blunt, irrational hatred of simple difference.

      Malik inadvertently makes the point himself: quoting the author of the EU’s report on public racism following 9/11, he writes that Islamophobia “manifested itself in quite basic and low-level ways.” It is not the overt harrassment, nor the obvious use of anti-terror laws, that constitute the driving force of Islamophobia. It is not the ability of racist boneheads to single out (real or imagined) “Muslims” for abuse that push the process of marginalisation onwards. Alarmingly, modern Islamophobia is a political inclination, making definite claims about the structure of the world and Muslims’ place in it: it is Islam as such that is the focus.

      For this reason, amongst others, David Aaronovitch was quite correct to compare Islamophobia in the West to the classic form of antisemitism: not simply the hatred of the Other for being “different”, but hatred of them for their supposed power, or their political machinations, or whatever other sinister importance they hold. Based on a deep ignorance of the faith itself, this tendency has become disturbingly well-settled under guise of the “war on terror”: the idea that, unless carefully controlled, Muslims constitute an insidious fifth column of wannabe suicide bombers and theocrats. The vile Will Cummins was allowed space in a national newspaper to state these unexamined assumptions a little too directly; Cummings described the outer limits of a widely-held worldview, generally laid out with rather less vehemence. It is the Clash of Civilisations made flesh. (For my own part, it has been particular unsettling to sections of the presumed Left indulge in the same rhetoric should British Muslims show inclinations not to, for example, vote Labour as they ought.) It means the struggle against Islamophobia is necessarily more politicised, forced immediately to deal with the political questions raised by the “war on terror”, in a way that long-standing liberal appeals solely to “tolerance” cannot deal with.
      http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/2005/01/kenan-malik-missing-islamophobia.html

      Kenan Malik (What Hate? G2, January 7) makes the not uncommon mistake of equating Islam with race. They are not the same. A recent Open Society Institute report found that “Muslims in the UK are more likely to face discrimination based on religion rather than race”. The BNP has in recent years switched its strategy for fear of being prosecuted under our incitement to race hate laws from targeting racial groupings to explicitly targeting British Muslims as a faith group. Malik omitted any mention of the riots of 2001 and the key role the BNP’s Muslim-baiting played in them, and his C4 documentary criticises the government’s proposals to close this loophole in our legislation and prohibit incitement to religious hatred.
      Islamophobia is not confined to the far right. Last summer, the BBC conducted a survey in which fictitious applications were made for jobs using applicants with the same qualifications and work experience, but different names. A quarter of the applications by the candidates with traditionally English sounding names were successful in securing an interview, but only 9% of applicants with Muslim names. The mainstream media have also played a key role in fomenting this prejudice against Muslims. Islamophobia is a myth only if you choose to look the other way.
      Inayat Bunglawala
      Muslim Council of Britain
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/11/race.religion

    24. The Common Humanist — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:54 am  

      Sid,

      Am a Captain Picard person myself.

      I also like William Marshall (12C Knight) and Saladin (I know thats the European spelling)

    25. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:55 am  

      Sid
      “No my hero is William Shatner.”

      Haha
      Well Sid’s blogging … its proper journalism …but not as we know it.

    26. Sid — on 15th April, 2009 at 11:58 am  

      I see Inayat Bunglawala, munir’s hero, is keen to talk up Islamophobia, but he is keen to downplay, in fact remain completely silent about, any historic incidents of Muslim on Muslim genocide. But then he would, wouldn’t he.

    27. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 12:06 pm  

      Common Humanist

      “Er…yes they do. When people come across, say, someone mouthing off in an Israeli settler style then they get called for. The same, as you are experiencing, is true for people who come across all jihadi. ”

      You are being disingenous- islamophobes expect all Muslims, uniquely, to condemn wrong doings by other Muslim

      Are you seriously suggesting that British Jews or Hindus are called on to condemn Zionist or Hinduvata terror? Or white British people to condemn the BNP? or Americans the atroticities of the US army?

      “I admit am ‘Talebaniphobic’ (Hey, new word! If Andrew Sullivan can claim ‘Christianist, I wonder if I can claim that one?) ”

      Cool and I am “zionistphobic”

      “The fact that you equate criticism of the Taleban and other jihadi types with criticism of muslims as a whole speaks volumes for your mindset and your view of Islam.”

      No i dont say that criticism of the policy of the Taliban is criticism of Muslims or is wrong. What is anti-Muslim is singling out Muslims for criticism or holding them to a different standard. And attacking people who try and defend Muslims from Islamophobia also fits in this pattern.

    28. Ravi Naik — on 15th April, 2009 at 12:16 pm  

      So Sid do you believe like Kenan Malik that anti-Muslim prejucide doesnt exist ?

      Munir, you clearly didn’t read Kenan Malik’s article with that stupid question. Here is what he said: “But I also think that Islamophobia is a myth - at least in the way that most people conceive of it. There is clearly ignorance and fear of Islam in this country. Muslims do get harassed and attacked because of their faith. Yet I believe that the hatred and abuse of Muslims is being exaggerated to suit politicians’ needs and silence the critics of Islam.”

      I have to say I agree with him. And not only politicians, but MCB as well. A similar thing happens with politicians and organisations who use the “anti-semititic” card to silence critics of Israel policies.

    29. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 12:18 pm  

      Sid once again fails to answer the question put to him.
      He’s a moral and intellectual coward.

      Ill repeat:
      So Sid do you believe like Kenan Malik that anti-Muslim prejucide doesnt exist ?

      “I see Inayat Bunglawala, munir’s hero, is keen to talk up Islamophobia, but he is keen to downplay, in fact remain completely silent about, any historic incidents of Muslim on Muslim genocide. But then he would, wouldn’t he”

      Given it happened before he was even born why would he mention it?

      Holding people responsible for wrongs their co religionist did which they werent involved in and took place before they were born is extreme bigotry.

      Sid your obsession with the 1971 war perverts all your writing. Its also deeply hypocritical - you support the Bengalis fighting for independence because you are Bengali.

      If the Pakistani army were a non-Muslim army fighting slaughetring (non Bengali) Muslims fighting for independence as is happing in Kashmir, Checyna etc you would be supporting the “Pakistanis” and calling the “Bengalis” terrorist

      Try getting your master David T to condemn Israels slaugheter in Gaza.

    30. The Common Humanist — on 15th April, 2009 at 12:21 pm  

      “”1. No i dont say that criticism of the policy of the Taliban is criticism of Muslims or is wrong. 2. What is anti-Muslim is singling out Muslims for criticism or holding them to a different standard. And attacking people who try and defend Muslims from Islamophobia also fits in this pattern”"

      1. When did you say that?
      2. Who is doing that? Certainly not me, I refer you to my earlier point. I criticise Taleban, AQ, Jihadi types, not muslims. You equate the extremists with normal muslims because, from what you post here, ypu see no difference. The problem is that there is an ocean of difference.
      3. Sensible people are attacking islamists and jihadists, Talebanistas and AQ lovers, not everyday muslims. The latter have precious little in common with the former group. Why is that so hard to grasp?

      For example, when I criticise the BNP, I am not having a go at all Social Conservatives. When I criticise IDF and Israeli Govt policy in I/P am not having a go at all Israelis, let alone Jews worldwide.

      People who write what you do seem to have an immense difficulty in seeing that sort of seperation. Or, alternatively for you the Taleban and AQ is Islam and, in that case, you are sadly, badly wrong as 99% of Muslims worldwide I suspect would happily point out to you.

      So which is it?

    31. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 12:29 pm  

      Munir,

      No they are sincere.

      How do you know ?

      Every honest commentator, without an agenda, says the Iraq war was the main motivation for 7/7 .

      “Honest” according to whom ? You ?

      Al Qaida recruits and is primarily driven by atrocities against Muslims. These people see Muslim civilans being killed by non-Muslims in huge numbers so want to kill non-Muslims in revenge

      How do you know ? Do you know any of these people personally ? What makes you think they’re even telling the truth regardless of the “reasons” (more like “excuses”) they claim to be motivated by ?

      The 7/7 bombers said around watching videos of Muslims being killed .Thats what motivated them.

      That was the only reason ? How do you know ?

      Jai why did Sikh terrorists blow up the Air India flight in 1985 killing hundreds (the greatest terrorist atrocity in its time) - presumably they did it because they were motivated by hatred of non-Sikhs that extermist interpretations of their religion teaches and no other reason (not the attack on the Golden Temple of anti-Sikh pogroms).

      They did it because they were psychopaths, just like those 7/7 bombers whose actions you’re trying to contextualise and just like the Taliban whose activities you refuse to condemn.

      And there are no “extremist interpretations of Sikhism” which “teach” hatred of non-Sikhs, especially considering the fact that the Guru Granth Sahib is full of writings by saints from multiple religious backgrounds (including Muslims), the foundation stone of the Golden Temple in Amristar was laid by a Muslim saint, all the Sikh Gurus had non-Sikh friends and allies (including Muslims) and Guru Gobind Singh himself not only had Muslim soldiers in his army but also received help from numerous friendly Muslims at some of the worst periods of his life.

      Individual Sikhs may or may not be hostile to members of other faiths — just like people from any religious background — but as for any versions of Sikhism “teaching” that kind of behaviour ? Hell no.

      As for hatred of people belonging to different religions…..Given your derisive remarks about Jews, Hindus and Sikhs, along with your repeated offensive “jokes” about Guru Nanak and Guru Tegh Bahadur, hatred of people from a different religious background to yourself is something you’re clearly very well acquainted with. And your sneeringly dismissive “jokes” about the Sikh Gurus doesn’t exactly give you any moral authority or credibility to accuse Sid of supporting works abusing Mohammad as per #3, especially considering your complaints about “not wanting to be held to different standards compared to everyone else”.

      Or, alternatively for you the Taleban and AQ is Islam

      That’s a very good point by TCH.

      In fact, let’s lay your cards on the table. Do you think that Wahhabism (and the affiliated Salafi interpretation of Islam, including the radical/Salafi-Jihadi variety) is not only the “correct” interpretation of Islam, but — along with its adherents — is also divinely inspired and condoned more than any other interpretations of Islam and indeed more than any other religions and their respective followers ?

      And if so, do you believe that adherents of Wahhabism and the strictest forms of the Salafi interpretation are closer to God and have a greater level of spirituality than, for example, historical Muslim figures such as Bulleh Shah, Nizamuddin Auliya, Amir Khusro, Rahman Baba, or more recently Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan ?

    32. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 12:58 pm  

      The Common Humanist

      “For example, when I criticise the BNP, I am not having a go at all Social Conservatives. When I criticise IDF and Israeli Govt policy in I/P am not having a go at all Israelis, let alone Jews worldwide. ”

      Funny cos people are happy to lump Islamic political parties who condemn terrorism together with Al Qaida.

      “People who write what you do seem to have an immense difficulty in seeing that sort of seperation. Or, alternatively for you the Taleban and AQ is Islam ”

      Actually you have the problem since even grouping the Taleban and Al Qaida is simplistic

    33. Sid — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:01 pm  

      Given it happened before he was even born why would he mention it?

      Holding people responsible for wrongs their co religionist did which they werent involved in and took place before they were born is extreme bigotry.

      But I’m not holding Inayat respnsible. But he is in a Muslim orgainsation whose trustees and affiliates were very much involved with 1971 East Pakistan. Furthermore, he is regarded as “close to the seniors” of the MCB.

      But I wasn’t talking specifically about 1971. Does Darfur, Ahmadiyya, anti-Alevi, anti-migrant worker in the Middle East etc fall under Islamophobia? Inayat has certainly been around when these incidents were happening.

      Sid your obsession with the 1971 war perverts all your writing. Its also deeply hypocritical - you support the Bengalis fighting for independence because you are Bengali.

      No I’m British but I can speak Bengali.

    34. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:09 pm  

      Hehe Fogga Sid did it again

      He NEVER answers questions put to him

      So Sid do you believe like Kenan Malik that anti-Muslim prejucide doesnt exist ?

      Do you support independence for the Chechens and Kashmiris?

    35. saeed — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:14 pm  

      Kenan Malik and teh rest of the pro-lib left and are wrong…the fact is that we are becoming a much more inclusive homegenous society,,,

      A recent study by Dr Ludi Simpson from the University of Manchester found that British society is becoming more mixed, not more segregated, with the number of mixed neighbourhoods increasing from 864 to 1,070 in the decade to 2001. Far from ethnic groups becoming more separate, there is more mixing today than there ever been. According to Dr Simpson, inter-ethnic couples and children of mixed ethnic parentage have risen 20 per cent in 10 years, and there are four times more children than adults of mixed ethnicity.

      The 2001 census shows that it is non-white residents, such as Indians, Caribbeans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who are on balance leaving inner cities rather than moving into or staying in them. In other words, what is taking place is dispersal of ethnic groups - the opposite of segregation. And in London, racist attacks have declined by almost 40 per cent in six years.

      Also loo at the sutton trust report on British Muslims whch was very heartening…

      the biggest divide in Britian is between the working calss poor and the rest of society…its a class thing not a cultural/racial thing…

    36. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

      Actually you have the problem since even grouping the Taleban and Al Qaida is simplistic

      Politically and militarily, there are indeed some differences between them, although there’s obviously an overlap in some areas.

      Theologically and morally, however, the matter is very simplistic indeed: Both groups consist of a disproportionate number of power-hungry psychopaths who claim divine support for their actions and their beliefs but who, in reality, are remote from any genuine spirituality or morality. It would in fact be ludicrous for them or anyone else to claim that they are allied with God and represent “God’s Elect on Earth”, since their behaviour could actually be described as practically demonic rather than examples of pious saintliness as per genuinely spiritually enlightened individuals closer to God than anyone else and as per inspiration by a truly benevolent deity.

    37. platinum786 — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:26 pm  

      Munir has a point, the 7/7 atacks, these other Al Queda attacks did find reason and draw on hatred created by the Iraq war and other acts of aggression by western nations against Muslim countries.

      However at the same time, you can be equally outraged and not kill people on trams and buses. The only difference is whether you are a psycho or not.

      The same level of responsbility held by the role played by the “western agression” can be atributed to Islamist extremist mentality. Religion is also used to help perpare and justify the mindset for these kinds of attrocities.

      to deny the role of any of those parts is naive.

    38. damon — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:33 pm  

      I wish I was as able as Jai was in his last post.

      I see that Pickled Politics has wished every Sikh, Christian, Jew etc - a happy ‘whatever’ - and I’m wondering how much munir’s posts (pbah) sould be taken seriously??
      Actually, it surprised me that Pickled Politics gave so much space to religious people.

    39. The Common Humanist — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:34 pm  

      MUnir,

      What Jai said at 36.

      Indulge in as much whataboutery (look, the GoodYear Blimp!) as you like though, as is your right, this being a free country.

      But you still won’t side with humanity over barbarism.

      To reprise: People who write what you do seem to have an immense difficulty in seeing that sort of seperation. Or, alternatively for you the Talebans approach or that espoused by AQ and its derivatives, whether direct or inspired, is Islam and, in that case, you are sadly, badly wrong as 99% of Muslims worldwide I suspect would happily point out to you.

      So which is it?

      You won’t answer because I suspect you would choose the jihadists, in their various incarnations, but yet you know to admit that in an open forum is akin to saying ‘Yes I am a religious fascist’ and then people would truly shun you. And you would deserve it.

    40. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:38 pm  

      Munir has a point, the 7/7 atacks, these other Al Queda attacks did find reason and draw on hatred created by the Iraq war and other acts of aggression by western nations against Muslim countries.

      I understand your point Platinum786 but, as we both know, there’s a difference between reasons and excuses. AQ may have found excuses in recent activities by Western powers but, as your comment indicates (assuming I’ve understood it correctly), their real underlying reasons don’t necessarily have much to do with “western aggression”. The same applies to people who support that kind of ideology and mindset, either tacitly or explicitly.

      If someone already has a certain agenda and is predisposed towards hostility against other parties, they’ll find any excuse they can involving “transgressions” by their adversaries to justify their own actions under an appropriate fabricated moral pretext if this helps them to further their own agenda.

      Hell, the history of British colonial expansion in India is full of such examples. AQ and their supporters are no different in this aspect; it’s all about aspirations of dominance and wanting to pick a fight with people they want to attack and defeat, and finding any excuse which enables them to act on this.

    41. fug — on 15th April, 2009 at 1:44 pm  

      He has an interesting wiki entry. I do wonder who wrote it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenan_Malik

    42. platinum786 — on 15th April, 2009 at 2:01 pm  

      Jai, I don’t think everyone involved with these Al Queda type groups joins in to become a scuicide bomber. Sure most of them will get in the required circles with a chip on their shoulder, but there is a process of grooming which requires excuses and abuse of religion, as religion is not always reasonable. we beleive in god without seeing him, without being able to prove god exists, so it’s not reasonable, yet we beleive, so religion can be used to exploit reason, to help people look beyond the attrcoity they are being asked to commit and make it seem right.

      After the religious and political grooming, only then do you get the jihadi warrior. It is brainwashing material, but you do have a point, had the last 200 years not occured, they’d have only used the crusades as an excuse, if someone wants to pick a fight, they can.

    43. damon — on 15th April, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

      This is where Malik is coming from remember.

      http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6547/

      My own poinion from not having gone on these protests - but having gone on the ”Anti-War” ones about Lebanon and Gaza (and the big one about Iraq) - is to wonder: ”where’s all the non Tamil people?”
      All those muslims that were so upset a couple of months ago as Israel blew the hell out of Gaza?

      I was remided of some dodgey book I read some years ago called ”The Clash of Civilizations” which suggested that people were more interested in what might be seen as their ”kith and kin” than they might be with a wider civil society.
      I was warned off that point of view by a friend, who told me it was BS, but I still loook at its pages from time to time.

    44. fug — on 15th April, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

      Its difficult to conceive how to begin to interact with those protests as the tamil tigers attitude to the muslims of sri lanka is pretty off key. There was a bombing of a miladunnabi procession last month.

      But those protesters were certainly tenacious, two jumped off the bridge and they stayed in place for ages, all over europe.

      We mustnt forget that the conflict in Sri Lanka was enflamed by a particularly nasty kind of Indian Government meddling in the past.

    45. Amrit — on 15th April, 2009 at 2:24 pm  

      ‘pitiless observation’

      Um Sid, I am totally going to be plundering your articles for great expressions from now on.

    46. Ravi Naik — on 15th April, 2009 at 3:30 pm  

      Al Qaida recruits and is primarily driven by atrocities against Muslims. These people see Muslim civilans being killed by non-Muslims in huge numbers so want to kill non-Muslims in revenge

      And that is why AQ’s suicide bombers do not blow themselves in places where innocent Muslim civilians are, like Iraq or Pakistan. Right Munir?

    47. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 3:44 pm  

      Munir,

      No they are sincere.

      Jai
      “How do you know ?”

      How do you know they are not? You claimed to know that in your post #9

      Every honest commentator, without an agenda, says the Iraq war was the main motivation for 7/7 .

      Jai
      “Honest” accordng to whom ? You ?”

      According to anyone with a brain. Chatham House explicitly stated this . The only people who say it wasnt a motivation are the government who launched the Iraq war (“to make us safer”) and its zionist supporters who have an agenda.

      Munir

      Al Qaida recruits and is primarily driven by atrocities against Muslims. These people see Muslim civilans being killed by non-Muslims in huge numbers so want to kill non-Muslims in revenge

      Jai
      “How do you know ? Do you know any of these people personally ? What makes you think they’re even telling the truth regardless of the “reasons” (more like “excuses”) they claim to be motivated by ?”

      Because I am a Muslim and I understand the emotions and justifiable anger they play on

      Doesnt mean for a minute I agree with their methodology which is not from islam but from others.

      Seeking to understand what motivates extremism isnt the same as agreeing with it. It certainly beats your pathethic Sun-like “they are pscyopaths” rhetoric.

      If it was our school curriculums would be agreeing with Nazism since they explain how and why the Nazis were able to take power.

    48. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

      Common Humanist
      “But you still won’t side with humanity over barbarism. ”

      Hhahaha- Bush and Blair and Olmert and Leibrman are humanity

    49. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 3:47 pm  

      And that is why AQ’s suicide bombers do not blow themselves in places where innocent Muslim civilians are, like Iraq or Pakistan. Right Munir?

      Or Jordan. Or Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt. Or the recent ‘guerilla’ attack on Mumbai. Or indeed Edgware Road on 7/7.

      Munir’s conspicuous silence in response to my questions in the last two paragraphs of #31 is interesting too, although not necessarily surprising.

      ****************************************

      Damon, TCH,

      I wish I was as able as Jai was in his last post.

      What Jai said at 36.

      Thanks for your response, guys.

      By the way, you may wish to also check out two posts by me on the “Pakistan flogging” thread earlier today, in case you missed it. They both make some very relevant points in relation to some of the matters we’re discussing here.

      Links: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4093#comment-158755 and (particularly) http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4093#comment-158757 .

    50. Ravi Naik — on 15th April, 2009 at 3:57 pm  

      It’s not like those psychopaths would actually be lying or motivated by multiple reasons other than (or along with) “foreign policy”, is it ?

      They seemed quite sincere when they said they were motivated by what happened in Iraq. I do not think they were lying. As platinium said, these people were groomed and brainwashed. Quite frankly, they could have just said anything at that point, they were just parroting what their masters told them to do so, including pointing their fingers to the TV.

      I am curious whether Munir believes that these bombers went to heaven given their actions, and are enjoying their 72 virgins - or are rotting in Hell.

    51. munir — on 15th April, 2009 at 3:57 pm  

      Jai
      “And there are no “extremist interpretations of Sikhism” which “teach” hatred of non-Sikhs,”

      Many Sikhs hate Muslims
      Thats a fact

      ” especially considering the fact that the Guru Granth Sahib is full of writings by saints from multiple religious backgrounds (including Muslims), the foundation stone of the Golden Temple in Amristar was laid by a Muslim saint, all the Sikh Gurus had non-Sikh friends and allies (including Muslims) and Guru Gobind Singh himself not only had Muslim soldiers in his army but also received help from numerous friendly Muslims at some of the worst periods of his life.”

      This is a feeble answer -its like saying because most of the disciples were Jewish their in to anti-Judaism in Christianity

      “As for hatred of people belonging to different religions…..Given your derisive remarks about Jews, Hindus and Sikhs, ”

      Derisive? Ive merely respond in kind to attacks on Muslims- kind of tells us something about

      “along with your repeated offensive “jokes” about Guru Nanak and Guru Tegh Bahadur,”

      “And your sneeringly dismissive “jokes” about the Sikh Gurus doesn’t exactly give you any moral authority or credibility to accuse Sid of supporting works abusing Mohammad as per #3, especially considering your complaints about “not wanting to be held to different standards compared to everyone else”.

      Repeated? Im not sure how pointing out that Nanak and Tegh Bahadur dont have a right to say who is and isnt a Muslim could be classed as such.

      And are you seriously sugesting Nanak and Tegh Bahadur should be beyond unkind comments? Imagine if a Muslim stood up and said non-Muslims should not say anything bad about Prophet Muhammed!!! Daily express headline

      So why should Sikhs be immune? Where are the Jylands Postens cartoons of Guru Nanak?

      really you Sikhs should develop thicker skin and learn to accept jokes about yout gurus
      The issue with Sid is he seeks to claim he represnts Muslims thought on these issues while supporting books and media that attack the Quran, the Prophet and call his wives (our mothers) deeply offensive names?

    52. Ravi Naik — on 15th April, 2009 at 4:00 pm  

      Munir’s conspicuous silence in response to my questions in the last two paragraphs of #31 is interesting too, although not necessarily surprising.

      Munir needs to check with his Jihadist pals for answers, as obviously he has no brain for figuring things out by himself.

    53. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 4:00 pm  

      Munir,

      How do you know they are not? You claimed to know that in your post #9

      I didn’t claim to “know that”, I said that just because the bombers claimed to be motivated by reason A, it doesn’t mean that they were telling the truth or indeed that they weren’t motivated by other reasons (either simultaneously or alternatively).

      The only people who say it wasnt a motivation

      But Munir, you said it was THE motivation, not “a” motivation. Are you now backtracking and acknowledging that they may have been motivated by other reasons as well, which certainly may not have been “sincere” at all ?

      Doesnt mean for a minute I agree with their methodology which is not from islam but from others.

      So you agree that Wahhabism and Salafi-Jihadism are not actually “from Islam” ?

      Seeking to understand what motivates extremism isnt the same as agreeing with it. It certainly beats your pathethic Sun-like “they are pscyopaths” rhetoric.

      If it was our school curriculums would be agreeing with Nazism since they explain how and why the Nazis were able to take power.

      That’s a pretty binary way of thinking. What makes you think that someone wouldn’t be motivated by extremism (including “justifiable anger”) and simultaneously be a psychopath, either because they already suffer from that type of psychiatric disorder and the extremist ideology gives them an excuse to rationalise and act on it, or because their “anger” and the extremist ideology they draw inspiration from actually triggered such psychiatric disorders in them ?

      Bearing in mind that I’m using the term “psychopath” literally in the medical sense, rather than purely as a rhetorical tool.

    54. Faisal — on 15th April, 2009 at 4:10 pm  

      The issue with Sid is he seeks to claim he represnts Muslims thought on these issues while supporting books and media that attack the Quran, the Prophet and call his wives (our mothers) deeply offensive names?

      Noooooo, I have no interest whatsoever in wanting to represent you munir.

      I want British Muslims to shed the divisive politics of identity, to reject Islamism and become true citizens and stakeholders of this country. And to accept its shared values such as freedom of expression and other universalist principles.

      Kenan Malik has authoritatively shown how we got into this mess. It is less obvious how to get out.

    55. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 4:57 pm  

      Munir,

      Many Sikhs hate Muslims
      Thats a fact

      That’s because of the persecution that Sikhs suffered under a couple of the Mughal emperors and later the various atrocities they suffered during the 18th century at the hands of local rulers and invaders from the northwest who all claimed to be acting in the name of Islam. More recently it’s because of the two-way mass atrocities which occurred during Partition.

      They’re not drawing on any kind of religious justification for their animosity. There are no Sikh “sects” or “theological interpretations” — either formal or informal — which teach hatred of non-Sikhs, including Muslims. Visit any gurdwara on the planet and you can find out for yourself. Sikhism in fact preaches against hatred of any kind; in fact, even anger — to the point of actual rage, not just indignation — is literally classed as one of the major self-destructive corrosive “sins”, whether it’s “justifiable” or not.

      This is a feeble answer -its like saying because most of the disciples were Jewish their in to anti-Judaism in Christianity

      Not at all, it makes it clear that there is no “inbuilt” hostility to Muslims in Sikhism, particularly where the scriptures are concerned. If you were aware of the actual contents of the Guru Granth Sahib then you’d know that it actually preaches tolerance, friendship and compassion towards people irrespective of their religious affiliation, without distinction (including Muslims). It’s the reason that every gurdwara on the planet, including the Golden Temple in Amritsar, is open to visitors from any religious background — including Muslims — as a place of refuge, peace and universal brotherhood, without prejudice, without animosity and without any pressure to convert either.

      However, the religion is certainly inherently hostile towards the type of malevolence, bigotry and hypocrisy practised in the name of God by the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Al-Muhajiroun, the Wahhabis, along with their contemporary and historical counterparts in multiple other religions. Which shouldn’t be a problem for you, unless you believe that the interpretation of Islam practised by those groups really is “the real Islam” and divinely condoned.

      Derisive? Ive merely respond in kind to attacks on Muslims-

      So you believe in “responding in kind” in these situations, rather than following the teachings of Islam ? What about your remark in post #15 above, namely:

      In other words they want to be as bad as non-Muslims are rather than following Islams prohibition on killing civilians.

      Aren’t you behaving in the same way as AQ, by mimicking the behaviour of your “bad non-Muslim” opponents rather than using the teachings of Islam itself as your source of guidance ?

      And the “attacks”, as TCH clearly stated above, have been against certain interpretations and groups claiming to act in the name of Islam, not against Muslims per se.

      Which, again, shouldn’t have been a problem for you, unless you believe that the interpretation of Islam by the extremists concerned is authentic.

    56. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 5:03 pm  

      Munir,

      Repeated? Im not sure how pointing out that Nanak and Tegh Bahadur dont have a right to say who is and isnt a Muslim could be classed as such.

      Let’s take a look at your remarks again:

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3469#comment-152743 :

      Aurangzeb offed one of the Sikh Gurus so he is essential using his own religious fundamentalism to criticise others’. LOL.

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3775#comment-155196 :

      Aurangzeb (may God be pleased with him) because he offered one of his Gurus. Thus because HIS religion says Aurangzeb is a baddy it must be a fact thiugh its realy a matter of faith

      Nice to know that you find the torture, attempted forced conversion to Islam and subsequent public execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur to be so amusing and indeed something you personally support.

      Perhaps I should start reading Guru Nanaks works about “the true Muslim is the one whose namaz is blah blah blha” to learn my religion. Lol

      Perhaps I should remind you that Guru Nanak was revered as a saintly individual by Muslims as well as Hindus during his lifetime — there have even been 500-year-old shrines along with inscriptions in his honour which have been discovered in Baghdad – including (since you like to misappropriate the Mughal emperors whenever it’s convenient for you to do so) Babur himself, who eventually recognised him as a genuine saint and treated him with enormous respect.

      Your tone about Guru Nanak’s teaching that a person’s conduct and integrity (irrespective of their religious affiliation, although he was obviously using Muslims as an example in this instance) should be more important than simply “going through the motions” and outward adherence to the ritualistic aspects of the religion concerned is clearly mocking and derisive.

      Don’t you think that Guru Nanak made a very good point, or do you actually agree with the highly superficial approach to religion & spirituality practiced by people like OBL, Anjem Choudary, the Taliban, the more fanatical Wahhabis/Salafis etc, with their shallow emphasis on adherence to ostentatious, conspicuous displays of outward alleged “piety” with comparatively little concern for inner integrity, morality and genuine spirituality ?

      And are you seriously sugesting Nanak and Tegh Bahadur should be beyond unkind comments? Imagine if a Muslim stood up and said non-Muslims should not say anything bad about Prophet Muhammed!!! Daily express headline

      So why should Sikhs be immune? Where are the Jylands Postens cartoons of Guru Nanak?

      really you Sikhs should develop thicker skin and learn to accept jokes about yout gurus

      I don’t think people should gratuitously make offensive remarks about the founders of any religion, regardless of the specific religion involved. Honest, objective analysis and critique is one thing, but deliberately being a jerk with the intention to ridicule the individuals concerned and sadistically hurt people who venerate them is a different matter entirely. Do you understand the distinction between the two situations ?

      Again, you’re the one who’s complaining about “unkind comments” about Mohammad. Here’s your latest remark:

      books and media that attack the Quran, the Prophet and call his wives (our mothers) deeply offensive names?

      By your own logic (not mine), do you therefore believe that these individuals should not be immune from unkind comments, and that Muslims should “develop a thicker skin and learn to accept jokes” about Mohammad and his wives ?

    57. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 5:07 pm  

      Platinum786,

      Good points in #42, mate.

      By the way, regarding your comments about not being able to see God or prove he exists purely via “reason”, you know that certain Sufi teachings along with Sikhism and the more mystical aspects of numerous other religions have a few things to say about perceiving God through the heart……But that’s a different matter ;)

    58. Jai — on 15th April, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

      Minor modification to my post #56 — the URL link for Munir’s sneeringly contemptuous remark about Guru Nanak which I quoted is as follows (it’s at the bottom of his comment):

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3775#comment-155196

    59. soru — on 15th April, 2009 at 5:16 pm  

      ‘They seemed quite sincere when they said they were motivated by what happened in Iraq.’

      Purely as a matter of timing, based on when they went to training camps, bought bomb-making equipment and so on, then it really can’t have been Iraq, unless they were psychic. If you are going to blame it on a foreign policy issue, the timing points to Afghanistan.

      Which makes sense, as the invasion of Afghanistan _was_ primarily a retaliatory attack on the Taliban and al qaeda, not a humanitarian intervention/resource grab/daddy issue (delete according to taste). It’s not like al qaeda wouldn’t have been delighted to claim credit for overthrowing Saddam under other circumstances…

      I suspect all those ‘honest commentators, without an agenda’ only say Iraq because they personally opposed the one but backed the other.

      It’s certainly a straw man to say that al qaeda and their groupies are strictly mindless monsters with no political motivation. Thing is, the alternatives to that aren’t limited to the idea that they are just exceptionally angry Guardian readers. The list of things they hate has very little overlap with the list of things a Radio 4 presenter will get sarcastic about.

      Does anyone seriously expect the attempts to repeat 7/7 to stop once British troops have left Iraq?

    60. blah — on 15th April, 2009 at 6:21 pm  

      soru

      “Does anyone seriously expect the attempts to repeat 7/7 to stop once British troops have left Iraq?”

      But can you explain why there were no 7/7s until British troops went into Iraq despite their being a substantial Muslim population in the UK for nigh on 40 years

      The only people blowing up others in the past were members of the Irish community. It must have been because of their deep hatred of shandy.

    61. blah — on 15th April, 2009 at 6:23 pm  

      Jai
      ” It would in fact be ludicrous for them or anyone else to claim that they are allied with God and represent “God’s Elect on Earth”, since their behaviour could actually be described as practically demonic rather than examples of pious saintliness as per genuinely spiritually enlightened individuals closer to God than anyone else and as per inspiration by a truly benevolent deity.”

      Because true spirituality is wrapping a rag round your head, being forced to have a particular name and carrying a knife with you at all times.

    62. Don — on 15th April, 2009 at 6:47 pm  

      Munir/blah,

      Please don’t stop. C’mon, there must be a little more anger and bitterness in there. Take it to 11.

    63. Jai — on 16th April, 2009 at 10:22 am  

      Because true spirituality is wrapping a rag round your head, being forced to have a particular name and carrying a knife with you at all times.

      I agree completely with Don in #62.

      By all means, don’t stop, Munir/Blah. Let it all out. Show the whole world exactly how ignorant you are and how much you really do hate Sikhs along with everyone else who isn’t a Muslim in your eyes (especially Hindus and Jews).

      Keep going. Don’t let the rest of us stop you from demonstrating how close to God you really are and how your ideas about religion and spirituality are clearly having such a “positive” effect on your character and behaviour. After all, you’re someone who’s not only a sincere follower of “the only true religion” but indeed “the only true version of Islam”, right ?

      Show the world exactly how pious and moral a devout believer really is. Surely, as one of the exalted minority with a special place in God’s affections and who have an accurate interpretation of his wishes and expectations of mankind, your own conduct and personality are a reflection of this. Truly you are on the path to saintliness.

      Make sure you don’t hold back at all.

      Oh, and we’re still waiting for an answer on whether you believe Wahhabism/Salafism to be the most accurate version of Islam and its adherents to be the most superior examples of those who are closest to God, and also whether you believe that members of these groups are closer to God and with a greater level of spiritual awareness than Bulleh Shah, Nizamuddin Auliya, Amir Khusro, Baba Farid, Rahman Baba and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.

    64. Sid — on 16th April, 2009 at 10:28 am  

      Because true spirituality is wrapping a rag round your head, being forced to have a particular name and carrying a knife with you at all times.

      There is no name for fear and hatred of Sikhs, so there is no word to describe the racist and communalist undertones in munir’s words.

      But if the words “rag” and “head” were used in connection with “Muslim” then it would be a clear case of “Islamophobia”.

      Islamists like blah/munir can be racist and communalist because only he can ever be the victim of Islamophobia.

    65. The Common Humanist — on 16th April, 2009 at 10:50 am  

      MUnir/Blah?

      “”Common Humanist
      “But you still won’t side with humanity over barbarism. ”

      Hhahaha- Bush and Blair and Olmert and Leibrman are humanity”"

      I was thinking about the 99% of humanity who reject medieval religious barbarsim. Interestly you choose to respond with four morons. Why?

      And meanwhile in the Taleban areas of Pakistan:

      Pakistan’s Daily Times reports:

      The Sikh community living in Orakzai Agency on Wednesday conceded to Taliban demand to pay them jizia – tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic rule – and paid Rs 20 million to Taliban in return for ‘protection’.

      Officials told Daily Times that the Taliban also released Sikh leader Sardar Saiwang Singh and vacated the community’s houses after the Sikhs accepted the Taliban demand.

      The officials said the Taliban announced that the Sikhs were now free to live anywhere in the agency.

      They also announced protection for the Sikh community, saying that no one would harm them after they paid jizia. Sikhs who had left the agency would now return to their houses and resume their business in the agency, the officials said.

      Nice, eh?

      So Munir do you support this act by the Taleban?

    66. Bo — on 16th April, 2009 at 12:44 pm  

      Wow, what a long spat.

      Munir/blah makes me “munir/blahphobic”, that’s for sure. He’s on a one man campaign to promote racism and islamophobia from what i can see - painting all Muslims as intolerant, blinkered bigots. Is he actually a BNP plant?

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.