State schools isolate non-Muslims

[tuomittuelämään]

I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write that. Unlike probably lots of people, I do not simply read, dismiss and move on. So my lack of response shouldn't be interpreted in this way. You've certainly given me more than enough to contemplate and reflect upon, as well as raising some questions that I currently feel inadequate in answering. Much of the subject matter you touch on, I'm aware of and on the same wavelength as you but many other issues you discuss, I feel that I need to research and acquire more in-depth knowledge before moving to a definite conclusion. While I sometimes feel that I know the West better than it knows itself, the Islamic world is a relatively new and strange area of exploration for me. One that to be honest, I'm beginning to feel as though I may never fully understand.

[tuomittuelämään]

Basically I think immigration problems would sort of solve themselves if the larger problems were solved and better policies were in place.

I look at these examples as a symptom of the disease and not the disease itself.

And on that note, I definitely understand what you're alluding to and I absolutely agree.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write that. Unlike probably lots of people, I do not simply read, dismiss and move on. So my lack of response shouldn't be interpreted in this way. You've certainly given me more than enough to contemplate and reflect upon, as well as raising some questions that I currently feel inadequate in answering. Much of the subject matter you touch on, I'm aware of and on the same wavelength as you but many other issues you discuss, I feel that I need to research and acquire more in-depth knowledge before moving to a definite conclusion. While I sometimes feel that I know the West better than it knows itself, the Islamic world is a relatively new and strange area of exploration for me. One that to be honest, I'm beginning to feel as though I may never fully understand.

Read upon the puritan history of the US - of the Salem Witch trials and the hanging of women in that, era of the banning of Christmas celebrations but the permission of the religious mass.

Read of the apologies rendered by Hawthorne on behalf of this great great grandfather who was the equivalent of a supreme leader of that founding theocracy.

Understand how the people, when left alone, evolved their own unique character in the world today. Perhaps, had a foreign entity forced the puritans to change their ways we would see an entirely different outcome.

Examine the urban and rural conflict (liberal hollywood and rural perhaps) in our environs here in the states and there will be some semblance of what is going on in certain parts of the globe.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

And on that note, I definitely understand what you're alluding to and I absolutely agree.

I have some familiarity with Vanderbilt by the way. A Professor Gerade (unsure if that is the right spelling) wrote to speak to me circa 2001 regarding our family's roles in the prior eras and I paid him a visit.

In subsequent years my work has involved me with collaborators from there.

I mention this because I read somewhere you came from there.

That old library has some amazing books in its basement btw.

[Admin Khan]

When I dissect what her video is alleging:

It is documenting instances of intra-ethnic/religious group regulation as opposed to the potentially inter-religious conflict of the British example.

So then we have to understand the confluence of factors that internally and externally that appear to affect Europe's Muslim population versus that of, say America or Canada.

Historically, Europe and the Turks and thus Islam came into conflict and there is centuries of history between the groups that affect their opinions of one another.

This is in contrast to the relatively young American nation that only recently has begun to engage the Muslim world in the imperial sense. Moreover, America has a history of absorbing bits and pieces of adversary populations, from the Vietnemese to the Koreans and so on and so forth.

Europe's approach to secularism and its enforcement also varies from what of the US which is considered the most religious of the Western powers. Many Europeans for this very reason view the Americans as backwards and ill informed.

The governing documents of the various states being compared also are important to consider. Germany as we know, post the Hitlerian Riech and now psot reunification may have a different view of the sort of sacred awe with which so many Americans view their Bill of Rights and Constitution (even if they do not realize that it is now being trampled upon).

Then, there is the behavior of these people themselves - some of it is easy to explain even biologically. Hindus, Jews, Christian Arabs, etc also have their own ethnic pride and there is a sharpening of focus and identity when that identity is challenged. This is often why religious and cultural identity may come to the fore in immigrant populations. It is a completely understandable biological response and reflex to protect one's meme's and in a way, one's genetic heritage with this sort of response.

Another important thing to realize is that for every one of these guys there are those that are integrated and partaking in the educational and cultural exchange of being an immigrant in a new community.

There may even be a socioeconomic contribution to it as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, regarding what to do with this sort of thing after such psychoanalysis.

I would turn the questions back toward you in refine them a bit.

1) Are you willing to discuss the facts and details?
2) If you recognize legitimate grievances and feel that they contribute to this behavior how far would you go to rectify them?
3) If you decide that it is either not in your national security interest or simply not in your personal interest to address 2) then are you ready for inherent reactionary behaviors and actions?

The American question has not yet reached the proportion of asking its immigrants (except the poor Mexicans and other Chicanos):
Why are you here in our country?
Why wont you integrate?

Its rather:
Do you pose a security risk or threat? If not, then be on your merry way.

Maybe this is because population wise Muslims are still a very small portion of the 300 million Americans.

Europeans on the other hand are at a crucial point in their history. They see burgeoning middle eastern and Muslim populations in a people that they thought would endorse secular liberalism once they had a chance to do so. This is the European quandry - like Bill Maher and some others they are astounded that instead of secularizing and liberalizing, there are converts being gained in addition to a sharpening of the aforementioned identities.

So then the questions to these people on the part of Europeans becomes:

1) Why wont you integrate and observe the native cultures and customs?
2) If not why wont you leave?
3) Do we want to continue immigration policies and relationships that afford the opportunities to such people to come from abroad?
4) We have better morals and a better societal structure and are far less barbaric - why can you not adopt our morals and way of life if not abroad, at least here?

I would say once they are asked, these questions have to be answered and the answers have to be weighed upon and thought over.

In the past when I discuss such matters, most Americans and Europeans cede factual ground... but then they resort to emotion and finally settle on the fact that because they simply do not agree with (opinion wise) their potential adversary, and find certain aspects of that thought process as something other than what they view as right - they will simply live with a high level of cognitive dissonance.

I think whether it is Russia, rising China, rising India, America, etc. people immigrate more often than not, to gain resources. Resources are a hard biological commodity. Memes on the other hand are not at the forefront of the thought processes of first generation immigrants, but eventually they do surface.

The moral quandary for the Europeans becomes the fact that even to this day, they are intimately involved in the lands of these immigrants with respect to foreign policy maneuvers that affect the environs of these people's home nations.

As a series of examples:

Italy had a say in what would happen in Libya and fascinatingly enough Libyan colonizers are foolish enough to lament the blowback in colonizer cemeteries in the post Gaddafi era as if the natives who were in concentration camps during the Italian occupation are supposed to be grateful.

France intervenes actually in parts of Muslim Africa at the behest of others

Britain is a leading intervening party and contributed heavily to damaging Iraq and wants to get involved in Syria.

In each of these places, biological kinship and kinfolk of these immigrants cannot be simply dismissed or brushed under the rug.

If the Europeans want to moralize and civilize, then they need to put their money where their mouth is. They cannot lament Muslim ghettos in their backyard when their intentional actions have turned much of the Muslim world into a giant mine laced ghetto.

In their sanctimonious moralistic preaching, they have revealed a series of societal flaws that is obvious to immigrants. Regarding:

1) Barbarism only abroad - So what? a few thugs in the ghettos of hamburgs harass their sisters who are afforded police protection and at least get a news story out of it... what of the barbarism if "shock and awe" and "regime change" and societal destabilization done by the "civilized" Europeans for the expressed sake of instituting a system that the west views as "better" but is really part of the neocolonialist process? This is no selfless infliction of pain, but rather there is also secondary gain in this bait and switch of claiming to institute and force better governance yet acquiring resources, land bases, etc.

2) A civil and free society: Snowden has blown a gaping hole in this mythological thinking. What he showed, very importantly, is that while a poor Korean dictator may use heavy handed tactics to keep a poor population in check and monitored - the fabulously wealthy West is utilizing the very tactics they criticize on their own people who currently are well fed, content, and clothed and hence less full of discontent just yet.

3) The notion that the immigrants want to be in these places even if the option was a stable autonomous homeland with opportunities vs a place with a variant culture, religious identity, and social fabric.

The phenomena of reverse immigrant is not unique to Muslims, but the NY Times recently ran articles about young well to do first generation Indian immigrants who also went back as India has arisen.

I would boil it down to a practical example:
Country X has funded regime change and destabilized Country C. An immigrant from Country C immigrates to Country X as a refugee or in some other capacity. Country X might be a host of Euro countries and the country C's across the globe are countless. Now Country X is telling this immigrant that he is an ingrate and doesn't realize how superior Country X is in terms of its culture, way of life etc. It wants him and his kind to "get out." CountryX does this also at the same time it moralizes and preaches to all the country C's telling them that it knows better, despite the thousands of years of history and prior civilizations of prestige in these areas, regarding how denizens of country C ought to dress, act, worship, and govern.

This is sort of like living in a neighborhood and beating up the neighbor kid's dad. You break his dad's arms and legs etc. - you deprive him of the routes to independence and autonomy and put your friend in charge of his household. The friend likes to beat up the dad and kids now and then. Then, the neighbor kid is given the option of going to school on your terms and living in your garden shack or pretty much dealing with his messed up situation in his own home. He comes to your house books in hand, but with his own mannerisms and lacking a smile. Knowing full well that he would not even need to be in your shed in the first place had you (or your relatives) decided to keep to yourself and not interfere in his affairs.

Most Americans and Europeans concede the moral high ground at this point and in their discussions with me indicate that they agree their governments perpetuate foreign policies that contribute to most of the developing world being carved up between the big players.

Their end response is that they live in a sort of cognitive dissonance and are somehow convinced that a more honest and balanced relationship of trade, neighborliness, and nonintervention would jeapardize their dominance in the world stage.

If they agree that they will live in this state of cognitive dissonance, then they too must understand when others also dismiss that cognitive dissonance as glaring hypocrisy and choose to not abide by their blatantly repressive terms.

I would say that were more people to read and understood the statement and wisdom of George Washington:

"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."

They could then execute his most potent advice for diffusing the situation you speak of that has resulted in these repricussions:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

What a well thought, concise post. Thank you Dr.Abdali, for your time in writing that. I not only learned something from it, but it was a pleasure to read.

[Badlun]

This is utter nonsense. The exceptions that we Muslims take to your "critiques" are that these "critiques" are not "dissent" against Islam but rather what Michael Scheuer calls low level debasing insults of a religion.

No Muslims are out in the streets protesting in mass when Gerad Puin and A. Fedeli purported to have shown the Quran has a history similar to the Biblical text in their estimate.

When Toby Lester released his article based on some shoddy research of Puin's there were not mass burnings and effigy.

Even when missionaries and others debate on a public forum regarding contradictions in the Quran and the Bible, no one is out on the streets screaming for blood.

This is despite the Quran being the bedrock and cornerstone of Muslim life.

Instead, what is clearly the motive of these sorts of provocateurs is a to level a series of poorly thought out insults often along these lines:

1) The Prophet of Islam was a child- molester

Despite numerous rational attempts to discuss marriage ages throughout the times, the views of contemporaries, the views of Shakespeare on child marriage, etc. - the utilizers of such sick language are not seeking a rational discussion but rather a sort of discourse that seeks to further inflame a region of the world already awash in religious turmoil.

2) The Quran is a terrorist manual

Despite the numerous christian and jewish professors of esteem that discuss the comparisons between Old and New Testament and Early Churchfather leanings in comparison with Quranic edicts, the same commentary is utilized once again to cause provocation and not really to have a discussion of sorts. The final recourse of these mentally challenged, when it is definitively shown that various acts of violence were also sanctioned in Hebraic or early Christian action they like to cite the tumultuous times and claim that Christianity as "recalibrated" without considering the absurdity of such a rejoinder.

3) Muslim societies are backwards

Sure, most societies on the decline, or graveyards of empires are but a shell of their former glory. Some might say that colonialism, neocolonialism, state sponsorship by the very friends of the "enlightened" west (Saudi Arabia for instance) also play a significant role.

So many British journals described the vanquished Chinese as backwards, barbaric etc when they were also under the heel. This assessment was made in the wake of the fall of Chinese power and being beaten.

Basically, societies can be assessed temporally and should be. For instance, South American Indian empires at their height cannot seriously be compared to the post colonial decimation and destruction of that culture and once great people.

In fact, one forgets that American society itself has progressed from conservative and white protestant oriented with lynchings as recent as the 70s and burning of Beatle's albums en masse for a simple statement.... and yet in that very era was when the super power ascended.

So rather I would say that your assessments, and not the term Islamophobia are idiotic.

The fact that Steve Emerson can get airtime and conflate the two sects of Islam without understanding the danger of doing so to US national security interests is a clear example of this brand of thinking which asserts that there is certainly no way that Muslims can have legitimate foreign policy concerns.

We must avoid all extremes. We may not blame always others and may take some responsibility of the bad state of affairs. This will be one extreme if we call Prophet Muhamamd as a child molester , Quran a terrorism textbook or all Muslim societies backward. On the other hand it will be another extreme if we totally deny all this.

Muhamamd was not a child molester because he did not molest children but it is a fact that he engaged himself to a child of 7 years and married the same child at 9 years age. This was something exceptional not normal because even at that time neither he nor others used to marry to children of 9 years. No argument on the surface of earth can justify this marriage.

This was his but unique personal act but people took it his pious way(sunnah) and many in Muslim world still do similarly. The other day I saw a documentary of the marriage of a child of 12 years in Afghanistan. In my own extended Afghan family I know many cases of marriages in 13, 14 or 15 years. This is an evil practice and must be condemned and stopped. The other day there was a big controversy in Pakistan when Maulana Shirani , chairman of Islamic ideology council declared child marriage permissible or even an act of virtue.

Quran is a book of guidance and moral teachings but it does talk of wars, cutting infidels into pieces, not befriending non Muslims, making women half of men in evidence and inheritance, polygamy and many other things which are considered crimes or against human rights. There is a need of reinterpretation of Quran and declaring all such injunctions as contextual and not applicable today. I have seen with my won eyes Taliban using many verses of Quran justifying their acts of terror.

Muslim society except few like in Turkey(because of secularism) or Malaysia(about half of the population is non Muslim) is largely backward. This is a fact and we must accept it. Muslims might be having a great past but their present is ugly. Let us accept it and after introspection, recommend how can we defeat our socio-economic and political issues. My simple panacea is secularism with democracy.

[Badlun]

When I dissect what her video is alleging:

It is documenting instances of intra-ethnic/religious group regulation as opposed to the potentially inter-religious conflict of the British example.

So then we have to understand the confluence of factors that internally and externally that appear to affect Europe's Muslim population versus that of, say America or Canada.

Historically, Europe and the Turks and thus Islam came into conflict and there is centuries of history between the groups that affect their opinions of one another.

This is in contrast to the relatively young American nation that only recently has begun to engage the Muslim world in the imperial sense. Moreover, America has a history of absorbing bits and pieces of adversary populations, from the Vietnemese to the Koreans and so on and so forth.

Europe's approach to secularism and its enforcement also varies from what of the US which is considered the most religious of the Western powers. Many Europeans for this very reason view the Americans as backwards and ill informed.

The governing documents of the various states being compared also are important to consider. Germany as we know, post the Hitlerian Riech and now psot reunification may have a different view of the sort of sacred awe with which so many Americans view their Bill of Rights and Constitution (even if they do not realize that it is now being trampled upon).

Then, there is the behavior of these people themselves - some of it is easy to explain even biologically. Hindus, Jews, Christian Arabs, etc also have their own ethnic pride and there is a sharpening of focus and identity when that identity is challenged. This is often why religious and cultural identity may come to the fore in immigrant populations. It is a completely understandable biological response and reflex to protect one's meme's and in a way, one's genetic heritage with this sort of response.

Another important thing to realize is that for every one of these guys there are those that are integrated and partaking in the educational and cultural exchange of being an immigrant in a new community.

There may even be a socioeconomic contribution to it as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, regarding what to do with this sort of thing after such psychoanalysis.

I would turn the questions back toward you in refine them a bit.

1) Are you willing to discuss the facts and details?
2) If you recognize legitimate grievances and feel that they contribute to this behavior how far would you go to rectify them?
3) If you decide that it is either not in your national security interest or simply not in your personal interest to address 2) then are you ready for inherent reactionary behaviors and actions?

The American question has not yet reached the proportion of asking its immigrants (except the poor Mexicans and other Chicanos):
Why are you here in our country?
Why wont you integrate?

Its rather:
Do you pose a security risk or threat? If not, then be on your merry way.

Maybe this is because population wise Muslims are still a very small portion of the 300 million Americans.

Europeans on the other hand are at a crucial point in their history. They see burgeoning middle eastern and Muslim populations in a people that they thought would endorse secular liberalism once they had a chance to do so. This is the European quandry - like Bill Maher and some others they are astounded that instead of secularizing and liberalizing, there are converts being gained in addition to a sharpening of the aforementioned identities.

So then the questions to these people on the part of Europeans becomes:

1) Why wont you integrate and observe the native cultures and customs?
2) If not why wont you leave?
3) Do we want to continue immigration policies and relationships that afford the opportunities to such people to come from abroad?
4) We have better morals and a better societal structure and are far less barbaric - why can you not adopt our morals and way of life if not abroad, at least here?

I would say once they are asked, these questions have to be answered and the answers have to be weighed upon and thought over.

In the past when I discuss such matters, most Americans and Europeans cede factual ground... but then they resort to emotion and finally settle on the fact that because they simply do not agree with (opinion wise) their potential adversary, and find certain aspects of that thought process as something other than what they view as right - they will simply live with a high level of cognitive dissonance.

I think whether it is Russia, rising China, rising India, America, etc. people immigrate more often than not, to gain resources. Resources are a hard biological commodity. Memes on the other hand are not at the forefront of the thought processes of first generation immigrants, but eventually they do surface.

The moral quandary for the Europeans becomes the fact that even to this day, they are intimately involved in the lands of these immigrants with respect to foreign policy maneuvers that affect the environs of these people's home nations.

As a series of examples:

Italy had a say in what would happen in Libya and fascinatingly enough Libyan colonizers are foolish enough to lament the blowback in colonizer cemeteries in the post Gaddafi era as if the natives who were in concentration camps during the Italian occupation are supposed to be grateful.

France intervenes actually in parts of Muslim Africa at the behest of others

Britain is a leading intervening party and contributed heavily to damaging Iraq and wants to get involved in Syria.

In each of these places, biological kinship and kinfolk of these immigrants cannot be simply dismissed or brushed under the rug.

If the Europeans want to moralize and civilize, then they need to put their money where their mouth is. They cannot lament Muslim ghettos in their backyard when their intentional actions have turned much of the Muslim world into a giant mine laced ghetto.

In their sanctimonious moralistic preaching, they have revealed a series of societal flaws that is obvious to immigrants. Regarding:

1) Barbarism only abroad - So what? a few thugs in the ghettos of hamburgs harass their sisters who are afforded police protection and at least get a news story out of it... what of the barbarism if "shock and awe" and "regime change" and societal destabilization done by the "civilized" Europeans for the expressed sake of instituting a system that the west views as "better" but is really part of the neocolonialist process? This is no selfless infliction of pain, but rather there is also secondary gain in this bait and switch of claiming to institute and force better governance yet acquiring resources, land bases, etc.

2) A civil and free society: Snowden has blown a gaping hole in this mythological thinking. What he showed, very importantly, is that while a poor Korean dictator may use heavy handed tactics to keep a poor population in check and monitored - the fabulously wealthy West is utilizing the very tactics they criticize on their own people who currently are well fed, content, and clothed and hence less full of discontent just yet.

3) The notion that the immigrants want to be in these places even if the option was a stable autonomous homeland with opportunities vs a place with a variant culture, religious identity, and social fabric.

The phenomena of reverse immigrant is not unique to Muslims, but the NY Times recently ran articles about young well to do first generation Indian immigrants who also went back as India has arisen.

I would boil it down to a practical example:
Country X has funded regime change and destabilized Country C. An immigrant from Country C immigrates to Country X as a refugee or in some other capacity. Country X might be a host of Euro countries and the country C's across the globe are countless. Now Country X is telling this immigrant that he is an ingrate and doesn't realize how superior Country X is in terms of its culture, way of life etc. It wants him and his kind to "get out." CountryX does this also at the same time it moralizes and preaches to all the country C's telling them that it knows better, despite the thousands of years of history and prior civilizations of prestige in these areas, regarding how denizens of country C ought to dress, act, worship, and govern.

This is sort of like living in a neighborhood and beating up the neighbor kid's dad. You break his dad's arms and legs etc. - you deprive him of the routes to independence and autonomy and put your friend in charge of his household. The friend likes to beat up the dad and kids now and then. Then, the neighbor kid is given the option of going to school on your terms and living in your garden shack or pretty much dealing with his messed up situation in his own home. He comes to your house books in hand, but with his own mannerisms and lacking a smile. Knowing full well that he would not even need to be in your shed in the first place had you (or your relatives) decided to keep to yourself and not interfere in his affairs.

Most Americans and Europeans concede the moral high ground at this point and in their discussions with me indicate that they agree their governments perpetuate foreign policies that contribute to most of the developing world being carved up between the big players.

Their end response is that they live in a sort of cognitive dissonance and are somehow convinced that a more honest and balanced relationship of trade, neighborliness, and nonintervention would jeapardize their dominance in the world stage.

If they agree that they will live in this state of cognitive dissonance, then they too must understand when others also dismiss that cognitive dissonance as glaring hypocrisy and choose to not abide by their blatantly repressive terms.

I would say that were more people to read and understood the statement and wisdom of George Washington:

"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."

They could then execute his most potent advice for diffusing the situation you speak of that has resulted in these repricussions:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

I appreciate your in depth analysis of such issues as immigration and the clash of cultures, politics and religions of the host country with the immigrants. Most of us in this forum are having our own experiences and can share it in a more realistic way.

Let us ask some basic questions in this regard. Why one has to leave his/her own country, family even children and immigrate legally or illegally to other countries? I have seen elites of Pashtun society but in other countries like USA , Germany , UK etc they do manual jobs of cleanliness(toilets), digging drains and running taxis or barber shops. Because our economy do not give them good opportunities. War torn countries are few like Afghanistan or Iraq. people immigrate from the whole Muslim world and non Muslim poor countries. The solution is not immigration but making Afghanistan like USA by copying their model.

How can you violate the laws of the host country? When you immigrate to another country then you must follow the law if not the culture of that country. If in UK segregation of sex is not legally allowed then you cannot ask for it. If in France covering face is not allowed , then doing so will be a punishable crime. Yes if you offer prayers, keep fast or go to Mecca, no body will stop you. This is why I repeat the same thing that culture and politics is not part of Islam. Dress, food, fashion. education etc are not religious acts.

When you are a guest , then how can you ask the host things which the host does not want to give you. Be a guest or leave the home and go to your own home where you do what you want.

Why the ex colonial powers or USA intervene? Do they conquer as in past or come at the invitation of the host country. Did not you see how France was welcomed in Mali. Is the presence of NATO accepted or even welcomed in Afghanistan except by Taliban. Did you see any mass movement or any resolution in the parliament of Afghanistan against foreign troops? Are they not leaving now after finishing their job of almost destroying the common enemy of Taliban?

Today Boka Haram in Nigeria does not allow female children to get education and force them to marry. If Nigeria cannot settle this issue , and ask UK to intervene, will it be an act of benevolence or intervention?

Immigrants must follow the law. They may observe their religious acts in their private lives. No body will disturb them. They cannot enforce Sharia in infidel lands when the Sharia was never imposed and is not implemented any where in the Muslim majority countries.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

We must avoid all extremes. We may not blame always others and may take some responsibility of the bad state of affairs. This will be one extreme if we call Prophet Muhamamd as a child molester , Quran a terrorism textbook or all Muslim societies backward. On the other hand it will be another extreme if we totally deny all this.

Muhamamd was not a child molester because he did not molest children but it is a fact that he engaged himself to a child of 7 years and married the same child at 9 years age. This was something exceptional not normal because even at that time neither he nor others used to marry to children of 9 years. No argument on the surface of earth can justify this marriage.

This was his but unique personal act but people took it his pious way(sunnah) and many in Muslim world still do similarly. The other day I saw a documentary of the marriage of a child of 12 years in Afghanistan. In my own extended Afghan family I know many cases of marriages in 13, 14 or 15 years. This is an evil practice and must be condemned and stopped. The other day there was a big controversy in Pakistan when Maulana Shirani , chairman of Islamic ideology council declared child marriage permissible or even an act of virtue.

Quran is a book of guidance and moral teachings but it does talk of wars, cutting infidels into pieces, not befriending non Muslims, making women half of men in evidence and inheritance, polygamy and many other things which are considered crimes or against human rights. There is a need of reinterpretation of Quran and declaring all such injunctions as contextual and not applicable today. I have seen with my won eyes Taliban using many verses of Quran justifying their acts of terror.

Muslim society except few like in Turkey(because of secularism) or Malaysia(about half of the population is non Muslim) is largely backward. This is a fact and we must accept it. Muslims might be having a great past but their present is ugly. Let us accept it and after introspection, recommend how can we defeat our socio-economic and political issues. My simple panacea is secularism with democracy.

Badlun,

In the past few months you've been told repeatedly that your comments are trolling like by a varying number of people ranging from Comrade, to Toramana, to RTR, to Randolph etc.

This is because you repeat the same set of red herrings even when they have been definitively previously addressed.

No one in history marrying someone that young?

Take for instance this comment on Richard II:

John McLaughlin, PhD, writes in his article MEDIEVAL CHILD MARRIAGE: ABUSE OF WARDSHIP...

in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage.

In the past we even cited the sahih hadith regarding how the Prophet came to be engaged to Aishah in the initial:

we have discussed this issue ad infinitum and here is a reproduction of the prior discussion:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=42498&page=5

Reproduced from that thread
------------------------------------------------
Here is the true historical narrative referring to the primary sources:
"Severel narrators including Imam Tabari in his book "History", Tirmidhi, Ibn Umar, and both Muslim and Bukhari repeat the following story:

KHAWLA BINT HAKIM inquired saying "Had the Prophet got married? (This is 3 years after the death of Khadijah when he was Mecca). The Prophet asked "Whom?" She answered "Do you like a virgin or a non virgin married before?" He asked, "Who is the virgin?" She answered "The most lovely people to you, Aisha Bint Abu Bakr!" He answered "Who is the non virgin?" She answered "Sauda Bint Zuma Bin Qais, she did believe you, and she did follow you." He then said "Go engage me to them." Ibn Hijir reported he said "Go negotiate with them."

Then a discussion occurs between Khawla and Abu Bakr where he asks to make sure that Islamic brotherhood would not preclude the marriage. Meaning he was able to send Khawla back with an important question; he did not simply lay down and accept a proposal. Ibn Hijir, the sub narrator as noted above wrote the word "negotiate" - hardly the words of a man that thinks he has executive privilege with the daughter of his friend.

The story goes on as such:

"He (Abu Bakr) went to Motim Bin Odai to be free from a promise of engagement of Aisha to his son that Motim has already made."

Refer to page 129 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6nUfcmY5wBoC&pg=PR21&lpg=PR21&dq=Virtuous+Women+in+Mythology+and+Holy+Books&source=bl&ots=nGMqK4h_mY&sig=ACwq66gRLJpPVW8uWR45kbqdiHc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_ElYU5bxIqPYyAHSy4C4DA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Virtuous%20Women%20in%20Mythology%20and%20Holy%20Books&f=false

Virtuous Women in Mythology and Holy Books is the secondary source we cite.

There are a few points that arise form the transmission by Tabari, Tirmidhi, Bukhari, and Muslim that devastate your rather idiotic innuendo about such a great man

1) He never initiated the discussion with Abu Bakr the way you insinuate, as if Abu Bakr was some sheep in a Meccan cult and that Muhammad took him aside and strong armed him into submission. Rather, Muhammad took a hiatus for a time after the passing of his first wife.

2) Khawla was an older woman by the standard of the day and her actions, not that of Muhammad, and that of the second referenced gentleman who Abu Bakr negotiated a prior engagement to, Motim Bin Odai, reinforce whatever age Aisha was, 2,3,4, 19, 20, 36, etc she was seen as engagable and marriable by those in the society in which Muhammad lived.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your other insidious arguments were also as soundly dispatched in numerous past discussions that could fill up a book but you chose to ignore the evidences above or at least gloss over them.

Generally this is why most, even those with a theoretically similar outlook as you here tire of any discussion with you and assume you are trolling for CENTCOM.

In the future, please re-read any prior discussions of a similar nature before re-posting frivolous arguments without existing merit.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I appreciate your in depth analysis of such issues as immigration and the clash of cultures, politics and religions of the host country with the immigrants. Most of us in this forum are having our own experiences and can share it in a more realistic way.

Let us ask some basic questions in this regard. Why one has to leave his/her own country, family even children and immigrate legally or illegally to other countries? I have seen elites of Pashtun society but in other countries like USA , Germany , UK etc they do manual jobs of cleanliness(toilets), digging drains and running taxis or barber shops. Because our economy do not give them good opportunities. War torn countries are few like Afghanistan or Iraq. people immigrate from the whole Muslim world and non Muslim poor countries. The solution is not immigration but making Afghanistan like USA by copying their model.

As per prior discussions, you are unfamiliar with the history and progress of what made the United States what it is. There is no easy bake oven or microwaveable meal style production of the US. 400 years or experimentation and events crafted the US alongside of a series of confounders (e.g. two massive moat like oceans rendering her safe from invasion, etc). The above assessment is on par with the concept of faith and belief as opposed to a hard scientific assessment.

How can you violate the laws of the host country?

The concept of blowback exists. You severely missed the complexity of what was being discussed. It was in regard to the fact that the current constructs of nation states in those areas in general are merely an extension of prior hegemony - and that with interventionalism based on pseudo moralism- the blow back response will come in various forms. Moreover, parents in the West and the East, white, black, red, brown, blue etc tell their children what to wear and how to dress. If it is against the law that is one thing, but if it is social harassment that is not penalized then that is pretty much all that it is. The Southern Baptists in the US are not too different with their own dress codes and demands. Such is life and as far as I know so long as the words do not translate into abuse or action, there is no legal quandary.

When you immigrate to another country then you must follow the law if not the culture of that country. If in UK segregation of sex is not legally allowed then you cannot ask for it.

That is true... but it depends on the context. Just as there are all boys and all girls catholic schools that are private, if a group decides to start a private school in a similar manner - most of these states have no qualm with that. Otherwise, what often happens here is that people respect other peoples choices and ideas and try to accommodate them within reason.

If in France covering face is not allowed , then doing so will be a punishable crime. Yes if you offer prayers, keep fast or go to Mecca, no body will stop you. This is why I repeat the same thing that culture and politics is not part of Islam. Dress, food, fashion. education etc are not religious acts.

This is an invalidated opinion once again discussed ad infinitum. A massive swathe of the Muslim world views many of the codified sayings of the Prophet and verses of the Quran as addressing dress and food for instance.

When you are a guest , then how can you ask the host things which the host does not want to give you. Be a guest or leave the home and go to your own home where you do what you want.

Re-read what was written. The guest here appears to grasp what I am saying because he is an impartial party. You on the other hand have admitted your impartiality is generally challenged by your ideology.

Why the ex colonial powers or USA intervene? Do they conquer as in past or come at the invitation of the host country. Did not you see how France was welcomed in Mali.

Complete hogwash. Surveys and data prove again and again that US foreign policy and interventionalism often unites everyone from the rigid mullah to the whiskey drinker.

Even within Mali, the plurality (38%) of Malians that wanted to involve any military route did not want outside powers involved and preferred the Malian military to take the lead:

"But Malians are undecided about the best way forward. Asked about solutions to “the current crisis,” they express ambivalent views. In December 2012, a plurality (38 percent) wanted “war against the armed groups in the North” though, within this group,
twice as many preferred that any retaliatory strike be led by the Malian army rather than by ECOWAS (the survey did not ask about France). On the other hand, 29 percent preferred “dialogue” between combatants. And 12 percent called for a return to “a strong state."

http://www.afrobarometer.org/files/d...iefno113en.pdf

Regarding the rest of the world on the Mali situation:

In the Middle East, there is little support for France’s military efforts in Mali, with a median of only 12% agreeing with the action and 68% opposing it. Two-thirds or more disapprove in Egypt (76%), Jordan (73%), Turkey (70%), and Tunisia (66%). In Lebanon, half disapprove, but views vary along religious lines. While 72% of Lebanese Shia oppose the French military effort, less than half of Lebanese Sunnis (44%) and Christians (43%) say the same. In the Palestinian territories, 43% disapprove of the intervention and 45% decline to offer an opinion.

Is the presence of NATO accepted or even welcomed in Afghanistan except by Taliban. Did you see any mass movement or any resolution in the parliament of Afghanistan against foreign troops? Are they not leaving now after finishing their job of almost destroying the common enemy of Taliban?

Wrong again. We have discussed this in the past as well. Here is an interesting result of Yale and Princeton's work:

The survey, conducted by a team from Yale and Princeton universities and based on interviews with nearly 3,000 Afghan men, found that while harm caused to civilians by ISAF soldiers increased support for the Taliban, the opposite did not hold true: Taliban violence did not result in more support for NATO.

http://www.dw.de/west-loses-out-in-b...nds/a-17348485

Regarding the Taliban being defeated, Michael Scheuer appears to disagree with you. I have to pick between an impartial person who has a hard time generating proof and references such as yourself and the former head of the CIA unit, I prefer to side with the latter.

Today Boka Haram in Nigeria does not allow female children to get education and force them to marry. If Nigeria cannot settle this issue , and ask UK to intervene, will it be an act of benevolence or intervention?

Immigrants must follow the law.

You missed the point completely. Our guest as not.

They may observe their religious acts in their private lives. No body will disturb them. They cannot enforce Sharia in infidel lands

This is true, however it is unfair to assume religious people are in the majority. if 1 in 1000 people decides to clamor for such changes then the news and other media sources should investigate how much of the people they are accusing actually support such a foolish idea of a very small minority imposing foreign law codes on a non Muslim majority. My bet is that the number is exceedingly small.

when the Sharia was never imposed and is not implemented any where in the Muslim majority countries.

x

[Badlun]

Badlun,

In the past few months you've been told repeatedly that your comments are trolling like by a varying number of people ranging from Comrade, to Toramana, to RTR, to Randolph etc.

This is because you repeat the same set of red herrings even when they have been definitively previously addressed.

No one in history marrying someone that young?

Take for instance this comment on Richard II:

In the past we even cited the sahih hadith regarding how the Prophet came to be engaged to Aishah in the initial:

we have discussed this issue ad infinitum and here is a reproduction of the prior discussion:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=42498&page=5

Reproduced from that thread
------------------------------------------------
Here is the true historical narrative referring to the primary sources:
"Severel narrators including Imam Tabari in his book "History", Tirmidhi, Ibn Umar, and both Muslim and Bukhari repeat the following story:




Then a discussion occurs between Khawla and Abu Bakr where he asks to make sure that Islamic brotherhood would not preclude the marriage. Meaning he was able to send Khawla back with an important question; he did not simply lay down and accept a proposal. Ibn Hijir, the sub narrator as noted above wrote the word "negotiate" - hardly the words of a man that thinks he has executive privilege with the daughter of his friend.

The story goes on as such:



Refer to page 129 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6nUfcmY5wBoC&pg=PR21&lpg=PR21&dq=Virtuous+Women+in+Mythology+and+Holy+Books&source=bl&ots=nGMqK4h_mY&sig=ACwq66gRLJpPVW8uWR45kbqdiHc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_ElYU5bxIqPYyAHSy4C4DA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Virtuous%20Women%20in%20Mythology%20and%20Holy%20Books&f=false

Virtuous Women in Mythology and Holy Books is the secondary source we cite.

There are a few points that arise form the transmission by Tabari, Tirmidhi, Bukhari, and Muslim that devastate your rather idiotic innuendo about such a great man

1) He never initiated the discussion with Abu Bakr the way you insinuate, as if Abu Bakr was some sheep in a Meccan cult and that Muhammad took him aside and strong armed him into submission. Rather, Muhammad took a hiatus for a time after the passing of his first wife.

2) Khawla was an older woman by the standard of the day and her actions, not that of Muhammad, and that of the second referenced gentleman who Abu Bakr negotiated a prior engagement to, Motim Bin Odai, reinforce whatever age Aisha was, 2,3,4, 19, 20, 36, etc she was seen as engagable and marriable by those in the society in which Muhammad lived.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your other insidious arguments were also as soundly dispatched in numerous past discussions that could fill up a book but you chose to ignore the evidences above or at least gloss over them.

Generally this is why most, even those with a theoretically similar outlook as you here tire of any discussion with you and assume you are trolling for CENTCOM.

In the future, please re-read any prior discussions of a similar nature before re-posting frivolous arguments without existing merit.

This time the discussion about the child molesting of Prophet Muhamamd was started by you and my response was that he was not a child molester but one who married a child. Do you think that one example of the political marriage of Richard II to end the 100 years war is a justification for the child marriage of Muhammad? If there are 100 such examples, still child marriage at that time and today is not justifiable. This is a truth and as we repeat in Salat the same words 100 times a day, repetition of truth cannot be called red herring.

How the marriage was conceived, negotiated and consummated is not important. Khaula was not responsible for it if Muhamamd would not accept it. She could not force the marriage on him.

Why Muhamamd did not marry other children if that society would allow it or it was normal. Why we do not have other examples of such marriages at that time. Yes after this marriage many Muslims are now marrying children to emulate their prophet. The solution is not to justify that child marriage but to call it as a personal act of Muhamamd not a Sunnah of the prophet Muahammad.

[Badlun]

x

We both agree that no one should cross the legal limits. All must abide by law. If law of the land does not prohibit drinking, pre marital sex, homosexuality, segregation of sexes, eating of pork, not covering full bodies of women etc, then one cannot struggle against these to impose law or sharia of their own country of origin.

US after civil wars and many other strides and strifes, reached today's stage. Why we Afghanistan having history of thousands of years and Muslims of 1400 years cannot reach the same stage or we should blame other for all our problems?

You quote some one and tries to justify your standpoint but this will not work because quoting some one who agrees with your approach does not mean the truth. If your post is full of 100 quotes that there is no God, will the believers take it a truth? I appreciate your research and analysis but please give some blame to our own people too, not always blaming others. To ignore all our faults is not true at least it is not true by one half.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This time the discussion about the child molesting of Prophet Muhamamd was started by you and my response was that he was not a child molester but one who married a child. Do you think that one example of the political marriage of Richard II to end the 100 years war is a justification for the child marriage of Muhammad?

There is no need for a justification since we have shown definitively that it was a historical phenomena. Another example of Anges of France.

Regarding political aspects, once again you are speaking from an uninformed and negligant viewpoint. The fact that the Prophets followers suggested remarrying to him and his affinity for Abu Bakr and Umar have in the past resulted in his own two marriages to Hafsa and Aisha being labeled as having a political aspect to it.

If there are 100 such examples, still child marriage at that time and today is not justifiable.

Not in the modern sense, but certainly with respect to judging a man by the norms of his time. We have definitively shown that

A. Other figures did it with societal impugnity in disparate geographic areas
B. Aisha was already engaged at the time to another, so it was not an odd thing not just internationally but within the Meccan culture.
C. A woman compatriot of the Prophet saw no issue when she suggested it.

This is a truth and as we repeat in Salat the same words 100 times a day, repetition of truth cannot be called red herring.

As usual more irrelevency to the original discussion. Do not inject opinion into a fact based discussion.

How the marriage was conceived, negotiated and consummated is not important. Khaula was not responsible for it if Muhamamd would not accept it. She could not force the marriage on him.

Sure it is important. Your comment is absurd. It demonstrates clearly that at least two contemporaries of Muhammad's era (Khoula and the first engaged party to Aisha) did not view this as an aberration. Muhammad's religious stature did not instigate any societal abberation here either in that Aisha was engaged previous to him.

How can you call yourself educated and completely miss this point?

Why Muhamamd did not marry other children if that society would allow it or it was normal.

He also married widows, the daughters of community leaders, his cousin, etc.

Your logic is foolish as usual here. That is like saying: If society is OK with Ahmad Shah Abdali marrying a Moghul princess why did he not marry more moghul princesses though they were available?

He didn't need to or wasn't offered to.

Why we do not have other examples of such marriages at that time.

Badlun, please take a reading for comprehension course because either you are purposefully wasting time with glossing over facts and asking questions before digesting information or you have some issues to sort out.

As we noted before, there were other marriages between disparate age groups throughout parts of history. The marriage of Joseph the carpenter according to Christian lore was also to a 12 year old Mary...

the other references of course were given above and finally Aisha was engaged to another indicating that contemporaries (the prior potential groom and Khowla) did not see an issue.

Yes after this marriage many Muslims are now marrying children to emulate their prophet. The solution is not to justify that child marriage but to call it as a personal act of Muhamamd not a Sunnah of the prophet Muahammad.

First of all, in societies where this is happening, they are often already very poor and rural. In the developed parts of the middle east, persia, pakistan, and urban afghanistan this is not happening per se. False notions about religion may play a minor role and we dont have statistics the way you try to make it seem as if its a raging epidemic.

He never ordered people to marry 6 year olds. He also never said that if a time comes and we begin to understand the risks and benefits of things such as marrying earlier and having babies at a premature age as well as late and having babies at an advanced age- that we cannot take what we learn and apply it to our daily lives knowing that there are health related risks to mother and child.

This is just as he used miswaq but never said if a time comes and you have mouthwash and toothpaste that you cannot use this.

x

If you plan on repeating yourself again, do not expect an answer if you use circular logic because that will waste my time.

If on the other hand you do what you should and take on the statements of evidence and discuss issues with those, or the specific historical examples then we can discuss more.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

We both agree that no one should cross the legal limits. All must abide by law. If law of the land does not prohibit drinking, pre marital sex, homosexuality, segregation of sexes, eating of pork, not covering full bodies of women etc, then one cannot struggle against these to impose law or sharia of their own country of origin.

No but one can struggle to teach their children and family as well as pressure them mentally to not do those things.

US after civil wars and many other strides and strifes, reached today's stage. Why we Afghanistan having history of thousands of years and Muslims of 1400 years cannot reach the same stage or we should blame other for all our problems?

No one is blaming others fully. There are many internal faults. In my opinion people like yourself are an example of some of the problem because in every age there are those like you that sell out your society for secondary gain for the sake of outsiders with justifications of imposing modernity by force.

Also, I keep repeating that you miss nuances and details of examples. Afghanistan and America are as different in their geography, settling, exposure to invasion and warfare across centuries as night and day. There are multitudes of factors. In its era of independence under the Sadozai Shahs Afghanistan was leading the area in military prowess and Ahmad Shah Baba had utilized particular types of cannons that decimated his enemies. At home, his court was refined and he had Munshi transcribing his Tarikh.

You quote some one and tries to justify your standpoint but this will not work because quoting some one who agrees with your approach does not mean the truth.

Sure it does, if that person is more qualifed and studied and uses evidence based resources than you. Therefore, that opinion is likely to be closer to the truth than your opinion.

If your post is full of 100 quotes that there is no God, will the believers take it a truth?

I wouldnt make that sort of statement. If I made a statement that there is no physical or scientific evidence that directly visualizes God or proves heavan exists then my 100 quotes might be correct.

Unlike yourself, I avoid absolutes meaning I would not offer up an opinion that "there absolutely is no god."

I appreciate your research and analysis but please give some blame to our own people too, not always blaming others. To ignore all our faults is not true at least it is not true by one half.

I agree, the Muslim world has many issues and internal problems. A huge part of this is not recognizing that imposed limits to progress from the outside are only able to be done when those on the inside choose to accept them. Other issues within the society are also troublesome and are representative of a post empire age society dealing with a sudden massive decline.

x