Pakistani Islamist to visit Norway
Here we are discussing Islam and Europe, and along comes this: Qazi Hussain Ahmed, a Pakistani Islamist politician, has been invited to speak in Oslo. Ahmed is the leader of Jamaat-e Islami, a large Islamist organization, and Muttahida Majlis-e Amal, the main alliance of religious parties in the Pakistani parliament. He's been invited by the Islamic Cultural Center, and will also speak to a Muslim student organization at the University of Oslo. The topic for the speech is "terror, peace and the relationship between Islam and the West".
Qazi Hussain Ahmed wants to create an Islamic state in Pakistan, he uses fierce anti-American rhetorics, has called the Taliban "honorable and just men who brought peace to Afghanistan", and though he claims to oppose terrorism and have no contact with al-Qaeda, (which he doubts really exists), members of his organization keep showing up in al-Qaeda investigations. After 9/11, his party blamed the attacks on Mossad, and according to a Q&A on Jamaat's website, "any self-respecting Muslim would not tolerate even the existence of Israel."
The Islamic Cultural Centre in Oslo, who invited him here, calls Qazi Hussain Ahmed a "world known political and religious leader" who stands for "mutual respect, tolerance and welfare". Right. Another way of putting it is that he stands for everything that is wrong with Islam today - extremism, paranoia, apologism and support for terror. A true Islamist.
Carl I Hagen wants Ahmed to be refused entry into Norway. "There's no reason to have any dialogue with Islamic fundamentalists." I won't protest against that, and there's even a precedence for it. Ahmed was refused entry into Belgium and Holland earlier this year due to "national security and public order reasons". Nettavisen reports that the Norwegian government has contacted these countries to learn why. With even NUPI warning that Ahmed is a "danger to Norway", who "talks about jihad against the West", it's not impossible that he'll be denied entry.
Reactions among Norwegian Muslims have been few and weak. Aamir Sheikh from the Conservative Party is alone in protesting the visit. "We don't want to have anything to do with such people ... We want to build bridges. Then dialogue, not terror, is the way to move forward." Local politician for the Labor Party in Oslo Kamil A. Azhar, on the other hand, defends the Islamic Cultural Centre, which he calls "more conservative than other mosques" but without any trace of extremism. He doesn't understand why a visit by a man who is so "highly respected in his home country" can be so frightening. "He's coming here to hold a speech, and then he'll return home."
But this is more than a speech, there are two speeches, over five days, with visits to embassies and Norwegian politicians in between. Torbjørn Jagland is skeptical to Ahmed's visit, but has still agreed to see him. Ahmed will even celebrate Pakistan's independence day in Oslo, August 14th, (which strikes me as odd for a major Pakistani politician). And it's not the first time the Islamic Cultural Centre shows sympathy with Jamaat-e Islami. Until a recent redesign their website recommended Jamaat's website as a good place to learn more about Islam. Their imam Hafiz Mehboob ur-Rahman considers Ahmed a "good friend". Perhaps Jamaat is "conservative" by Pakistani standards, but it's extremist by any other. And with so much friendship between them, it's reasonable to suspect that the Islamic Cultural Centre is extremist as well. It is time somebody takes a closer look at what they're actually teaching.
Other mosques and Muslim leaders have so far been silent. These leaders often complain that they're constantly being asked to condemn all kinds of wrongs committed by Muslims all over the world. It's not fair, they say, to hold them accountable for anything done in the name of Islam. I agree. But this is a case where a condemnation is in order, and where silence signals acceptance of Ahmed's extremism. It is members of the Norwegian Muslim community who have invited this guy, and that places a responsibility on other Norwegian Muslims to speak up against it.
Sandy P | 2004-08-11 00:35 | Link
Again, the crickets chirp.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 03:15 | Link
This gives an excellent opportunity to all of those Norwegians who oppose Islamism to show that it is in fact Islamism they oppose, and not immigration, Islam in general or religious freedom.
In this fight it should be possible to join hands with Muslims. Perhaps it is not, because so many anti-Islamists have been making wildly exaggerated attacks on everything with a shade of green in it. However, the statements Aamir Sheikh is good news, though hardly unexpected for anyone that has cared about learning anything about contemporary Islam in Norway and other countries.
However, Kamil A. Azhar also has a point. Islamic Cultural Centre is an Islamist mosque, they are - however - far from extremist. True extremists movements, like al-Mujahiroun, have this far had very little success in establishing themselves in Norway.
When it comes to the National day it may be worth mentioning two things: 1. Not all people are quite as fanatic as Norwegians when it comes to National days. 2. Do you remember where Bondevik was at the 17th of May?
Susan | 2004-08-11 03:25 | Link
Are the "moderate" Muslims of Norway renouncing dhimmitude and sharia?
Whether they want to make us dhimmies via the bullet or via the ballot box, the result is the same.
I myself do not consider anyone a "moderate" or "liberal" Muslim who does not openly denounce dhimmitude and sharia.
This leaves about 2 people I know of so far.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 13:18 | Link
Obviously most Muslims will not denounce sharia, as sharia is a part of the Islamic religion.
However, there are many disputes considering what sharia does say and does not say and what role it should have in society. Sharia is not synonymous with the laws of Iran, Saudi-Arabia og Afghanistan under Taliban. Sharia is merely an interpretation, or a code of law, derived from the Quran, hadiths and other sources - and this interpretation differs from individual to individual, from group to group and from country to country.
This means that while many Muslims will not denounce sharia, they will denounce things like death penalty for apostasy, death penalty in general, stoning for adultery, and so on.
Few muslim countries practice actual dhimmitude today, though religious freedoms are often limited for non-Muslim and unorthodox Muslim groups (including Islamists).
The actual supporters of societies based on dhimmitude are most often found in Islamist groups, like Hamas - who ironically often favors a system of "ethnic-religious democracy" comparable to the one in Israel (see A. Nüsse: The ideology of Hamas), Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al Mujahiroun.
Susan | 2004-08-11 15:44 | Link
"This means that while many Muslims will not denounce sharia, they will denounce things like death penalty for apostasy, death penalty in general, stoning for adultery, and so on."
Who are these Muslims making these statements, and where are they being quoted? I have debated about Islam with many Muslims on many, many talkboards, and have NEVER found a single Muslim willing to denounce those things except for Submitters. They only thing I will get is an apologia for the apostacy punishment, for example, which compares it to Western laws against treason. There are certainly NOT any reputable or well-known scholars arguing against these things, such as Tariq Ramadan or Yusuf Al-Qaradawi or Hamza Yousef. Please post evidence that Muslims are denouncing dhimmitude, etc. I see none of it except from Irshad Manji or Khalid Duran -- and they are not representative of their communities.
"Few muslim countries practice actual dhimmitude today, though religious freedoms are often limited for non-Muslim and unorthodox Muslim groups (including Islamists)."
Limiting religious freedoms for non-Muslims etc. IS dhimmitude.
Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-08-11 16:35 | Link
The fact that most Muslim countries have some sort of separation of secular and religious law shows that many (probably most) Muslims do not want their government to be run according to Islamic principles.
It will be a gross error to think that Imams and other religious leaders are average Muslims. Those who take a religious education, make religious work their full time occupation, will naturally be the most devout believers, and among them conservatives and extremists will be grossly overrepresented. The average Catholic is much less conservative than the average Roman Catholic priest, who again is probably less conservative than the average Arch-Bishop, etc, and that goes all the wau to the Cardinals. The same will apply to any religion.
Yes, it is a serious problem that among Islamic scholars and teachers, there are very few moderate voices. But it would still be a mistake to think they are representative for their "flock." But the more moderate a Muslim is, the less likely he or she will have anything to do with running the local Mosque.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 16:38 | Link
"Who are these Muslims making these statements, and where are they being quoted?"
Well, as I have already proven on another thread the reason is quite simple. You have not been looking. I refer to my post about apostasy and death penalty.
Exactly the same is valid for other controversial themes. To think that all Muslims agree on for instance the penalty of stoning for adultery is absurd beyond belief. When it comes to the theme of death penalty it should be enough to mention that death penalty is banned or de facto banned in Azerbaijan, Djibouti, Turkmenistan, Brunei Darussalam, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Turkey and Tunisia, all of them countries with a Muslim majority.
As a matter of fact few Muslim countries practice stoning whatsoever (source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm).
"Two people were stoned to death in Iran last year. A man was stoned for raping and killing his daughter in 2000 in Yemen. In Afghanistan, under the Taliban, adulterous couples were often killed together." - D'arcy Doran, "Stoning Sentences Surge in Nigeria," Associated Press
So, in ACTUAL law in most Islamic countries stoning is NEVER used. And as religioustolerance.org states: "Some versions of Sharia law require that married or divorce persons found guilty of Zina (adultery) be executed by stoning"
Obviously, that means that some versions of Sharia law does not require this at all. And in fact a leading Muslims scholar like Maulana Muhammad Ali notes that "stoning to death was never contemplated by Islam as a punishment for adultery".
Even dhimmitude.org states that: "Many Muslims do reject stoning, and there have been Muslim voices amongst the world-wide condemnation of Amina Lawal's sentence". http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/durie_amina_lawal_1dec02.html
This is not because they are opposed to sharia, but because they have a different interpretation of Islamic law. For further reading check for instance:
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 16:51 | Link
Classical dhimmitude (I choose to use Bat Ye'ors word here) is in fact not only limitation on religious freedom (something also seen in many non-Muslim countries). It also includes:
- the use of a special tax (jiziya) to "humiliate" those with other religions, classically Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Mandaeans (Sabeans), but also Hindus, Buddhists and so on.
- other kinds of humiliation (badges, specially coloured shoes, not being allowed to have a larger house than your Muslim neighbor, etc).
- the right to a certain judicial autonomy (i.e. for non-Muslims to be judged by their own religious laws instead of sharia-based laws) and freedom from taking part in the military
- exemption from zakah obligations (giving alms)
How actual dhimmitude was used differed from country to country and from time to time. Today, however, you will have to search for a long time for Muslim countries where non-Muslim residents are forced to bear special clothes, to pay an extra tax or exempted from a zakah tax often taken into normal taxation laws.
Susan | 2004-08-11 17:23 | Link
Oyvind: Yes, I did read this thread before seeing your reply on the other thread. My apologies. I am familiar with Al-Tantawi but could not find an original source for his opinons on apostacy and you did not provide them. I do know that he has approved of suicide bombings as being fully Islamic which shows that al-Tantawi is hardly a "moderate".
Regarding Sisters In Islam in Malaysia, I know of them also but do not regard them as being representative of Islam but influenced by Western (non-Islamic-derived) ideas about human rights.
Jan: Most 'secular" law in Islamic nations was put in place by Western colonialists which softened such horrors as dhimmitude. Most Islamist groups want to get rid of these vestiges of colonialism.
Oyvind: You have not addressed my central point: When the pressure of Western civil rights efforts is removed, by the decline of Western influence and political power (due most likely to demographic weaknesses), what happens to all your (non-Islamic origin) reforms then? Current events have shown that as Muslims become more politically powerful and numerous (as in Malaysia and Nigeria), Islamic interpretations of sharia become more Orthodox.
Yes, I am aware that there are different schools of sharia but surely YOU are aware that "all schools are correct" in Islam? That means that all Muslims must accept every school of law and cannot ban or overturn any of them. Hanbali fiqh has the same status within Islam as Hanafi figh. If a Hanbali community wanted to implement stonings and hand-choppings within an Islamic majority country, Muslims are obliged to accept that, under Orthodox Islam.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 18:01 | Link
"I do know that he has approved of suicide bombings as being fully Islamic which shows that al-Tantawi is hardly a 'moderate'"
Neither have I ever claimed that he is. Tantawi is a (strictly) conservative Muslim, being the sheikh of al-Azhar he also has quite close ties to the Egyptian government and claims of apostasy are sometimes used as a political tool.
My point here is not to prove that this or that scholar is moderate. My point is to prove that sharia is not merely one thing, and that comtempary Islamic law generally does not practice neither stoning for adultery nor death penalty for apostasy. There are plenty of atrocities to fight in the Muslim world without having to conjure a picture that does not fit to reality. Another point I am trying to make is that we do have allies in the Muslim world in our fight for human rights, and that we should not alienate these allies in an "all-out attack" on Islam based on myths, misconceptions and exaggerations.
In short, critique of Islam is necessary, but the critique should be kept on a rational level and be based not only on information found on anti-Islam websites, something I fear is the truth for many of the people reading this blog.
'Yes, I am aware that there are different schools of sharia but surely YOU are aware that "all schools are correct" in Islam? That means that all Muslims must accept every school of law and cannot ban or overturn any of them'
When it comes to the four major law schools in Sunni Islam (the ones that are generally accepted) it is true that they are all considered to be of the same value. However, this does not mean that a Muslim have to accept every school of law.
In classical interpretation each Muslim individual could choose which school of law to belong too, and also to change schools. However it was considered wrong to do "cherrypicking" from different schools. Modernist muslims, on the other hand, often do this. A good source for further information on Islamic law is "An introduction to Islamic law" by Joseph Schacht.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 18:05 | Link
"Current events have shown that as Muslims become more politically powerful and numerous (as in Malaysia and Nigeria), Islamic interpretations of sharia become more Orthodox"
I disagree with this. The current events in Malaysia and Nigeria is, in my opinion, not because of numbers, but because of a development in the Muslim world where Islamist (not Orthodox) movements have gained weight.
When it comes to orthodoxy I find that very often Muslims tend to be more orthodox when they are in a minority, a phenomenon not unknown in other religions. This can be explained by what is considered a necessity to guard ones own culture. Considering that many of the terrorists in for instance al Qa'ida are Western-educated I think that this is an important point to note.
Elf, Molde. Norway | 2004-08-11 21:48 | Link
I think Islam still has some way to go before it has adapted to the modern world, but the main problem is that it seems like muslims have a hard time taking a stand against extremist groups within their own ranks. This is too bad, because non-extremist muslims are just as much victims of muslim terrorists as the rest of the world is. The problem won’t disappear by military force, it will disappear when muslims are ready to take a hefty debate about the problems within their own religion. But such a debate will never happen if they plan to silence critics by imposing laws that belong in the medieval age.
Muslims in Norway are currently walking from door to door in the hopes of gathering 15 000 signatures that they can send to Parliament in an attempt to make it easier to convict people after the blasphemy paragraph. First of all I find it insane that we in this modern day and age still have that paragraph. The dark ages are over, people should be allowed to say whatever they want. If I want to say “God sucks goat cocks in Hell” I should be able to say so. If I want to say that Muhammad screwed sheep and raped women, I should be allowed to do so without worrying about being imprisoned or being killed by an angry religious person.
Would I understand it if a muslim was offended by the above statement? Of course I would. But instead of trying to get me convicted for saying it, she should meet me in an open and honest debate where she could point out why I was wrong. When Carl I. Hagen made several wrong statements about Islam a few weeks back, the muslims would be better off by fighting them with words and debate. In stead they choose to go the predictable, but oh so old fashioned, route of trying to silence him, and any other future critics of their religion, by imposing laws that should never have existed in the first place.
This is Islam’s main problem today. It seems that no muslims are willing to stand and speak up against other muslims, even how much they disagree with them. And if anyone does, they are accused of being heretics, not to mention being harassed. Every time we see muslim leaders on tv, they say they do not support terrorism and that terrorists are not true muslims. This makes me want to ask two questions: 1) If that is true, why isn’t there a massive protest against Qazi Hussain Ahmed’s visit to Oslo? 2) In every religion there are groups claiming that they are the true believers and that the other groups are wrong, why should we believe that you are the true believers?
Last night we saw an item on tv about a Christian school in Norway where the teachers had been harassed by a headmaster who insisted on speaking in tongues in class and who had driven bad spirits out of his staff. My so then said: “Please don’t say that he is a Christian. That’s not what Christianity is about.” I’m sure that a lot of other Christians would agree with her on that statement, but I’m also sure that a lot of Christians would disagree. My point is that you can’t judge an entire religion, calling it evil, because some groups in said religion decides to bend and use it for their own means. There are over a billion muslims in the world, and I don’t believe for a minute that they have war against the rest of the world as their agenda. And if it’s true that their goal is to cleanse the world of non-believers, how come the jews were able to live in peaceful co-existence with the muslims for centuries when southern Europe was under Arabic rule? The jews were chased off and killed when the Christian church came back to power.
True, most Islamic countries haven’t much to show for when it comes to human rights, freedom and equality between sexes, but this has more to do with old powerful men hiding behind the Koran, just as the Christian church used to hide behind the bible, than Islam being an evil religion. Democracy did not happen in Europe because of the church, but in spite of it.
The church had the whole of Europe in a gruesome grip for centuries, all in the name of God and for “our own good,” but thankfully we were able to get rid of their influence. The church murdered countless people, even if the first commandment clearly says: “Thou shall not kill.” (In the original language, Hebrew, the first commandment actually says “thou shall not murder,” but the church violated it anyhow). When you look back through history we see that the church acted totally the opposite of what it was preaching, and sometimes it even preached that their crimes against humanity being the right thing to do, and even today they will try and promote their agenda, no matter the cost. In Africa, the catholic church is telling people not to use condoms because the condoms are infected with the AIDS-virus. Sacrificing thousands of lives in the name of Christianity is ok, I guess. But if we should use the same rhetoric we use against Islam, why don’t people claim all catholics are evil? Other Christian organisations are speaking up against the catholic church’s actions, though, and herein lies the difference. When a muslim group commits crimes against humanity, other muslim groups are strangely quiet. And if they do speak up it’s after serious prodding from the rest of the world. I think Islam will have a serious problem with being accepted in the west until they clear up this problem.
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-11 22:38 | Link
Elf: "When Carl I. Hagen made several wrong statements about Islam a few weeks back, the muslims would be better off by fighting them with words and debate."
Btw, you should read the actual text of Hagen's speech. The media version of its was somewhat distorted.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-12 01:58 | Link
Just a link to a discussion on desi.no. Not the most serious discussion I have ever seen, but still there are some fodder for both sides in our discussion here, I think.
I must admit that I enjoyed this post by muslimpakistani quite a bit (though it could be considered a personal attack. Sorry, Bjørn, but I have to give a couple of excerpts):
[Hagen and Ahmad] both have many very crazy and "illiterate" supporters [They] are both quite far from reality quite often [and] most people have seen through them long ago [...] that is why it would be best that they met and exchanged some tricks about the walking through the desert they are conducting.
P.S: In reality Hagen should have invited the mullah. The very least Hagen should do NOW is to meet him on the airport, hand him flowers and give his colleague a big hug.
I do not know how good muslimpakistanis point is when it comes to Hagen. If he had picked on those local Progress Party members in Kristiansand, however, he would have a very good point.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-12 02:05 | Link
Another discussion. Another comparison with Carl I. http://www.islam.no/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=431&PN=1
Ali Dashti | 2004-08-12 13:44 | Link
A link to this story at DhimmiWatch:
Herbie NY | 2004-08-12 15:38 | Link
When it was discussed whether or not to cut the blasphemy paragraph, Carl I. Hagen and his party, the Progress Party, secured a majority for a continued ban on blasphemy in the penalty code in the nick of time. Hagen’s statements regarding Islam are now being used as a reason for why the blasphemy paragraph should become even stricter, reported the paper Vårt Land.
Due to Hagen’s statements in a speech at the independent congregation Levende Ord in Bergen earlier this summer, he was reported for blasphemy by Ashfaq Sadiq and Thyra Aisha Græsdal.
The two of them are now continuing their work. In collaboration with a number of their peers, they are planning to go from door to door to collect support for making the law stricter. Approximately 3,500 signatures have allegedly already been collected, but their goal is 15,000.
The activists have three demands; the politicians must ensure that the blasphemy law becomes effective, they have to ensure that the law is followed, and they have to protect against misuse of free speech.
«15,000 signatures are enough to start a debate at Stortinget,» said Ashfaq Sadiq to Vårt Land. «We will go there to get protection for our believes.»
Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-08-12 17:11 | Link
"Activists want stricter blasphemy law"
They can ask for whatever they want. It is an unconstitutional violation of free speech, and it will be killed in the courts even in the extremely unlikely event the parliament would approve such a law.
The current obsolete blasphemy law has not been used in Norway since 1933 (!), when author Arnulf Øverland was prosecuted for a harsh anti-Christian speech called "Christianity, the tenth plague". He was acquitted.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-12 17:34 | Link
Afshan Rafiq supports Erna Solbergs decision to look into the visit.
Sandy P | 2004-08-12 20:52 | Link
Check out Michael Totten's trip to Tunisia.
Susan | 2004-08-12 21:40 | Link
Sandy P: Thank you for posting that nice article about Tunisia. I have experienced the friendliness of Middle Eastern cultures as well. I sometimes have to remind myself not to let my extreme dislike of Islam translate into a dislike of Muslims themselves as people. Thank you for reminding me.
Herbie, New York | 2004-08-13 18:31 | Link
AN INTERESTING SEMINAR
Can Islam reform? If so, where are the seeds of reformation planted and how can they best grow? Who can and should lead the reformation? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel:
Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. He has sparked controversy within the Islamic community by arguing, as a Muslim himself, that the Koran says Israel belongs to the Jews;
Kamal Nawash, the Founder and President of The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, which denounces all forms of fundamentalist Islamic terror and advocates an American no-tolerance stance on terrorism; and
Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who has become an ardent Zionist and evangelical Christian.
Sandy P | 2004-08-13 19:20 | Link
Then there's this, Susan:
More crap coming out of England.
Brian O'Connell | 2004-08-15 23:06 | Link
I think a lot depends on defining Islamism separately from Islam. So to a large degree I agree with Bjorn. They are not the same.
The problem, which seemingly everyone shares, from LGF commenters to Western governments to Muslims themselves, is in knowing the difference and enforcing this separation.
It should not be too controversial for a Western government to ban Islamists from visiting or speaking in that country. We're at war with them. We shouldn't countenance a freedom of speech defense from a foreign enemy any more than our grandparents would have when asked to permit a Nazi envoy to visit and speak somewhere.
I think the average LGF commenter is frustrated by the too-PC reaction of Europe, and even of the Bush administration. The media is painting Islam with too soft a brush, and LGFers are overcompensating. I won't defend them as a group any further than that.
But primarily I see this as an internal issue for Islam. It is up to moderate and liberal Muslims to fight the hijacking of their religion. It may not be fair, but that's the only way it can be. If they fail to win or gain ground, it will continue to be the US military that presents the primary response to Islamism, and the Marines won't be as discriminating in its targets or as sensitive in its actions.
I remain in doubt as to whether moderate Muslims can accomplish much, yet they are the best hope for avoiding a conflagration that will earn this war the title WWIV. The fact that they didn't ask for this role doesn't matter- they are where fate has put them.
The best complement to military action that the West can take is to support them in their uphill struggle.
Ali Dashti | 2004-08-17 18:14 | Link
An excellent comment from Hugh Fitzgerald, as always:
The refusal of the EU even to mention Christianity in its recent Constitution, shocked the Vatican. That refusal was pushed by France, headed by Jacques Chirac, who has said that "Europe owes just as much to Islam as to Christianity." This statement is ludicrous but telling. And what it tells the world is that the campaign to prepare the ideological ground for the conquest, largely through demography, of Europe by its ceaselessly growning Muslim population, that shows no signs of integrating, and every sign of becoming more dangerous every day for the indigenous non-Muslims, is well underway, and supported by the same criminally negligent, and criminal, elites who themselves profit from their Arab connections (as Chirac has done personally), and are willing to avert their eyes from what they have done to the future of Europe in their mad search for short-term financial gain.
Some, such as Cardinal Biffi (who lived for years in Turkey, "tolerant" and "secular" Turkey) know that the interfaith business is nonsense, and that Islam means what it says, and what its followers are taught to believe: It is to "dominate and not to be dominated." There is no modus vivendi with other religions; they must cease to prevent the spread of Islam, and if their own followers continue to attempt such prevention, they may be killed, or forcibly converted. Once subjugated they will be pushed into the permanent status of dhimmi. Thus has it always been in Islam for 1350 years. Whatever the other doctrinal differnces between Sunni and Shi'a, or between Sufi and non-Sufi, or between Wahhabi and non-Wahhabi, they are differences in such matters as who was the true successor of Muhammad, or whether mysticism can bring a Believer closer to God, or whether the criminal punishments should be the full, severe ones of the shari'a or something less severe, or whether women should be subject to all the constraints of Wahhabism, or allowed a few freedoms. But when it comes to the question that is most important -- whether or not Islam must spread across the globe, whether or not those adhering to other faiths can possibly be treated, in a Muslim society, as full equals of Muslims -- well, there is not the hint of any disagreement among the varieties of Believers.
Apologists like Esposito love to tell us that "Islam is not monolithic" in order to shut off articulate criticism. No, there are variations and differences -- but there are NO variations, and no differnce,s in the basic attitudes toward Infidels, and toward the need for Islam "to dominate and not to be dominated." And that is, from the Infidels' point of view, the most important, almost the only matter, that counts.
Morghodius | 2004-08-20 03:34 | Link
some info about him
Once the Jamaat comes to power, the minorities will be induced(forced) to become Muslims either by monetary or psychological factors. JI is already equating the India with Hindus so that the Hindus of Pakistan will be forced to become Muslims. This was very successful strategy during the Babri Masjid riots. We ordered the destruction of the Hindu family property too. But our main aim was to destroy the Hindu temples. We wrote the JI pamphlets that destroying each pagan temple make a Muslim move closer to heaven of Allah. We used the Hadiths in all the pamphlets. The same way every Muslim should take upon himself to destroy the Hindu temples in Pakistan.
We are impressed with the Taliban on the women issue, minorities issue and law and order issue. Mullah Omar is a great friend of Qazi. Omar had visited his house many times. In the tentative talks, we had decided to form union of Pakistan and Afghanistan once the right conditions are set in Pakistan.
Little bit of terror had to be applied to the heart of Hindus and Christians. I will give you a best example. The portions now constitute Pakistan had 25% Hindu population before Independence. After independence lot of Hindus migrated to India. Yet after the migration, Pakistani Hindu population was 15%. Do you know what is the percentage now? It is less than 1%. How was this made possible? That is purely because of the terror of the partition. That terror forced the Hindus who remained in Pakistan to become Muslims. Pure and simple.
He had the habit of drinking camel urine and camel milk early in the morning. He replied that it is Islamic practice that is supported by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). I was astounded. But Qazi explained to me that it is true. He told me three or four Hadiths in which the camel urine and camel milk drinking is suggested. So Qazi wanted to drink the camel urine and camel milk along with the Sheik.
Hence the reintroduction of slavery in Pakistan is one of the future plans of Jamaat. All the captured Hindu Indians and Srilankans will be made slaves to work for Pakistani Muslims. Every God abiding Pakistani Muslim will get slaves once we conquer India. Slavery is Islamic.
One of Qazi's relatives wanted to become a Hindu. Qazi got to know of this and called him and threatened him dire consequences. That relative did not become a Hindu. Quran and Hadith clearly say the punishment for abandonment of Islam is death.
SALIENT POINTS OF THE POLICIES AND VIEWS OF THE JAMAAT (AS INDICATED IN THE INTERVIEW)
1 - A woman has no right to an independent life outside her family. She can be educated, but not to enable her to compete with men. She has no role to play in war or in politics. On coming to power, the JI would abolish the voting rights of women and the religious minorities. However, this would not now be announced as a policy lest women and the minorities, who have these rights presently, vote against the JI.
2 - The JI would levy a special tax ("jizya") on the religious minorities in order to force them to embrace Islam. Both monetary and psychological pressures would be used to make the religious minorities become Muslims.
3 - After the destruction of the Babri Masjid in India in December,1992, the JI was actively involved in destroying the Hindu temples in Punjab and Sindh. It ordered the destruction of Hindu family property also. For each Hindu temple destroyed, a Muslim moves one step closer to Allah. Babar was a true Muslim and,hence,destroyed the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Muslims in Pakistan and India should emulate his example.
4 - Under the JI, the present Pakistani Constitution would be abrogated and a Caliphate set up in Pakistan. It would be ruled by a presidium consisting of the senior leaders of the JI and the chiefs of the armed forces. The Qazi would be designated as the Caliph. The Sharia would be its Constitution and only those who had studied in religious madrassas would be recruited to the judiciary.
5 - The JI is highly impressed by the policies of the Taliban on women's role, rights of religious minorities and law and order and would emulate them. The JI has already reached an agreement in principle with the Taliban that once Islamic rule has been set up in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan would form an Islamic Union.
6 - The JI's motto is permanent jihad to set up an Islamic empire extending from Myanmar to Afghanistan and from Sri Lanka to Tajikistan. In this permanent jihad, the JI would use all tactics including terrorism in the kafir-controlled areas and negotiations in the Muslim-controlled areas.
7 - Once the JI captures power in Pakistan and conquers India, bringing Sri Lanka and Myanmar into the Islamic empire should not be difficult. The faith of the Buddhists in their religion is not as strong as that of the Hindus in theirs and, hence, with a little pressure, it should be easier to make the Buddhists of Sri Lanka and Myanmar embrace Islam.
8 - The Muslim rulers of India could not make the Hindus embrace Islam because they depended on Hindu advisers and bureaucrats for running the administration and did not use force for conversion. Once the JI conquers India, it would declare India an Islamic Republic, abolish the voting rights of non-Muslims and use terror, if necessary, to force the non-Muslims embrace Islam.
9 - It was through the skilful use of terror that the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan's population was brought down from 15 per cent in 1947 to less than one per cent at present. Similar terror would be used against the Hindus, Christians and other non-Muslims in India.
10 - The JI does not consider the over 120 million Muslims of India as true Muslims because they have voluntarily chosen to live under non-Muslim rule and eat the foodgrains produced by the Hindu farmers. For a true Muslim, it is better to live under a bad Muslim ruler than under a good non-Muslim ruler. The Hindu farmers offer their harvests to their Gods before selling or eating them. How can a true Muslim eat foodgrains that have already been offered to a God other than Allah?
11 - It is for these reasons that the JI is not bothered if the Indian Muslims die in communal riots. However, despite this, the JI considers those Indian Muslims who support Pakistan and work and die for the glory of the Islamic Ummah as true Muslims.
12 - Islam does not prohibit slavery so long as one treats slaves with kindness. Slavery is still in vogue in Saudi Arabia. On coming to power, the JI would, therefore, re-introduce slavery and lay down that only non-Muslims could be used as slaves. All the non-Muslims of India, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, who refused to embrace Islam, would be declared as slaves and sold by the State to the Muslims, who can afford them. They would be emancipated whenever they agree to embrace Islam.
13 - The Hindus are a corrupting influence in Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Gulf. They should not be allowed to work in those countries. It is outrageous on the part of the Governments of Yemen and Qatar to have allowed the construction of Hindu temples in their territory. It is even more outrageous that some Muslims of Qatar visit the Hindu temple, that a member of the royal family attended the inauguration of the temple and that one of the powerful members of the Qatar royal family is a devotee of the Hindu God Ayyappan. If Islam is to be purified, all such Hindu influences should be eradicated.
14 - The JI would make the conversion of a Muslim to another religion a criminal offence punishable with death for the Muslim who embraces the other religion as well as for the person who converted him.
15 - Religion is far superior to science. Whatever man needs to know is already contained in the holy Quran and the Hadiths. It is not, therefore, necessary for man to know more.
16 - Science sows the seeds of doubt in the minds of Muslims regarding the validity of the holy Quran as the word of God and, hence, should not be encouraged.
17 - Photography is the greatest evil produced by science. The Taliban has already banned it in Afghanistan and the JI would do so in Pakistan except for use in passports and identity cards. (Comments: The Taliban and the JI consider photography as evil because, according to them, it has made men and women aware of the physical attraction of each other)
18 - All the existing languages of Pakistan would be banned and only Arabic, the divine language, would be allowed to be used. The JI is already heavily funding the spread of the knowledge of Arabic in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
Ali Dashti | 2004-08-21 17:42 | Link
Protest against Qazi Husssain Ahmed's visit to Norway:
If you want to protest this decision, send an email to one or more of the adresses listed here:
Minister of Local Government Erna Solberg, who is resonsible for this decision, can be reached at one of the following emails:
email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org
The Prime Minister: email@example.com
Some members or the Coalition Parties:
firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com
Some media addresses:
firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org
Narayan India | 2004-10-03 22:24 | Link
I think Norway better stop all immigration and reduce your freedoms so that you can survive as a wonderful western republic as you are now.All human rights are for people who believe in the wonders of our multi cultural world in its myriad hues.Any group who denies the inherent equality of man and the wonderful variety of cultures do not deserve ANY human right.They are Neanderthals.
Narayan a Himdu in India
| 2004-10-03 23:42 | Link
"can survive as a wonderful western republic as you are now"
Didnt see that one coming, but that again I guess thats what u get for letting Mette-Minus and Ari Behn into the royal family...
Mariam, U.S. | 2005-01-19 22:29 | Link
"The problem will not disappear by military force, it will disappear when Muslims are ready to take a hefty debate about the problems within their own religion. But such a debate will never happen if they plan to silence critics by imposing laws that belong in the medieval age."
I completely agree with this and have agreed with it for many years now but have had no success in finding anyone in the Muslim community who is willing to engage in such a debate or even dialogue about the problems within the religion. When I visited Pakistan I encountered two main groups of people. One group was totally pro-West/America and wanted to go there, the other was completely the opposite. Both groups seemed to discuss/debate and have a great deal more interest in the West/America than their own religion. Anytime I brought up some problem with the religious teachings it was ignored or immediately compared to something in the West/America that was, in their eyes, much worse. After talking to poeple from other predominantly Muslim countries I get the feeling it is the same in other places as well.
I felt that here in America the best ones to question and debate would be the Americans who have converted or reverted or somehow joined the Muslim community but such has not been the case. Unitarians have joined because they come from an anit-trinitarian background and can relate to the strong anti-trinitarian feeling in the Muslim community and feel that is the main cause of all our problems. Anti-trinitarianism becomes a priority and the other issues fade in comparison. Then there are those who have had bad experiences with other religions and feel that, comparatively speaking, Islam is better no matter what, so why criticize it. Then there are those who run into the problems, become alienated, and leave. They usually don't want to talk about it at all except to curse it which is hardly helpful. So I have ended up casting about on the internet for others who feel dialogue/debate is the solution but so far have found no one in the Muslim community. They either seem to feel there needs to be a military solution or that we must focus on being a nice person while ignoring the problems and those problems will somehow disappear of their own accord. Thank you for reading.
commanded | 2005-08-11 03:25 | Link
Mr wajid | 2006-01-12 18:19 | Link
We have good reputation amongst our customers due to our high quality and intime delivery.We shall offer you our best prices and provide you quality products with in your required time period.
Now we requested you to please let's have a chance and check our quality.
Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/767
The Acorn: Qazi goes to Oslo, August 11, 2004 05:09 AM
Pakistani Islamist creates a storm in Norway Bjørn Stærk reports that Qazi Hussain Ahmed's trip to Norway is creating a controversy, where some parties are opposed to allowing an avowed Islamic fundamentalist to make public appearances. Be...
Post a comment
Comments on posts from the old Movable Type blog has been disabled.