A POLICY PAPER issued by the Air Force Research Laboratory, titled Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies, includes a chapter setting forth controversial and unsubstantiated theories of radicalization, including the idea that support for militant groups is driven by “sexual deprivation” and that headscarves worn by Muslim women represent a form of “passive terrorism.”
The paper, first published in 2011, was reissued by the Air Force lab this past summer following President Obama’s announcement of a national counter-extremism strategy. This January, the revised copy was published online by the open source research website Public Intelligence. A preface for the revised report cites a summit convened by Obama on extremism as a reason for revisiting the subject, adding that “the wisdom contained in this paper collection is more relevant than ever.”
Many of the articles contained in the document have scholarly merit and are written by academics and researchers in the field of counterterrorism. But a chapter titled “A Strategic Plan to Defeat Radical Islam,” written by Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a self-described former Islamic extremist and fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, contains a number of bizarre prescriptions for how to defeat terrorism, few of which appear to be supported by empirical evidence
Among Hamid’s claims are that support for militancy is primarily a product of sexual deprivation and that terrorism bears relation to religious dress. His ideas for combating terrorism thus include “addressing the factors underlying [sexual] deprivation” among young men, as well as “weakening the hijab phenomenon.” Hamid further claims that, along with fundamentalist ideology, the “hijab contribute[s] to the idea of passive terrorism” and represents an implicit refusal to “speak against or actively resist terrorism.”
Hamid does not make clear how he reaches these conclusions. On his personal website, he describes himself as “an Islamic thinker and reformer” and says he has a medical degree in internal medicine from Cairo University and a master’s degree in cognitive psychology and educational techniques from the University of Auckland. He also claims credit “for developing one of the most innovative Cognitive Psychology models, the Multi-Dimensional Learning Model.”
Two terrorism experts and a professor of Islamic Studies questioned the assertions in Hamid’s chapter of the Air Force white paper, calling them unsubstantiated.
“This characterization of the hijab demonizes millions of women whose reasons for covering have nothing to do with the advocacy of political violence,” says Arun Kundnani, a lecturer on terrorism studies at New York University. “The document as a whole includes some scholars who are serious researchers. However it appears the purpose of this chapter by Hamid is not a genuine investigation of the roots of violence, but rather an attempt to supply national security agencies with bogus surveillance rubrics.”
Hamid’s theory of radicalization states that terrorism stems from a lack of sexual activity among young men and that addressing this issue is key to reducing support for militant groups. “I believe young Muslims are motivated to join radical groups because of sexual deprivation,” he writes, claiming further that “addressing the factors causing deprivation in this life can interrupt the radicalization process and reduce the number of suicide attacks by jihadists.”
An expert on the subject of foreign fighters disagrees. “There is virtually no evidence that sexual deprivation is somehow a cause of radicalization, or suicide attacks,” says Amarnath Amarasingam, a fellow at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism. “From my interviews with jihadists in various organizations, it is clear that they are there for a complex variety of reasons. To simply attribute their motivations to sexual depravity is to miss the point entirely.”
An accompanying chart that describes Hamid’s purported theory of radicalization is similarly unfounded. “One thing that is absolutely clear from studies of radicalization is that this conveyor belt model from ‘conservative beliefs’ to ‘violence’ is incorrect,” Amarasingam says.
Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Western Ontario, said Hamid’s comments about the hijab are baffling. She pointed out that the garment is worn by an incredibly diverse array of women, including Nobel Peace Prize recipient Malala Yousafzai, who was the subject of a Taliban assassination attempt after she campaigned for women’s rights in northwest Pakistan.
“Is hijab any Muslim woman’s headcover? Any style, any country? Because covering the head is very widely observed among Muslim women,” Mattson says. “There is no logic here. Is Malala, who wears a hijab and was shot by the Taliban, a terrorist? There is nothing, sadly, more banal than for powerful people to tell women to take their clothes off.”
Hamid’s article also expresses a striking faith in the power of government public relations efforts to overcome deeply unpopular policies toward the Middle East.
It claims that improvements in the U.S.’ reputation in the Mideast “will not come from drastic changes in policy,” but instead from government PR campaigns. “For example,” Hamid writes, “during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. Agency for International Development sent food aid to Egypt. Images of chickens wrapped in bags adorned with the U.S. flag significantly improved Egypt’s perceptions of the U.S., even though it had not altered its pro-Israel policies.”
Hamid repeated his theory about the power of food aid in 2011 testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in which he claimed that such efforts had, among Egyptians, “created a link in the human brain between the word ‘U.S.A’ and the good taste [of chicken].”
Hamid’s theories seem to contradict a Rumsfeld-era study commissioned by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board Task Force. That study traced the poor reputation of the U.S. in the Middle East to government policies, not to insufficient PR. Arguing that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies,” the report cited the U.S.’ support for dictatorial regimes, its military occupations of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and its “one-sided support in favor of Israel” as the primary factors behind its poor reputation in Muslim countries.
Still, Hamid’s thoughts are apparently influential in government; he says on his website that his opinion has been solicited by a wide range of government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the Special Operations Command, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It is not clear if he has been paid for his appearances at such agencies.
Hamid is currently a writer at the right-wing website Newsmax, where he publishes a running column titled “Inside Islam.” In recent weeks, he has written several articles lavishly praising Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson for their vituperative public statements about Muslim Americans.
Hamid did not respond to requests for comment.
The updated version of Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies includes a preface that credits Hamid with providing a “soup to nuts strategic plan” for combating radicalism that “addresses the components of the Islamist terrorism cycle at ideological, psychological, social, and economic levels.” The original version of the report was cited by the FBI in the development of its own anti-extremism strategy in 2014. Both the original and revised versions contain Hamid’s chapter on radicalization.
Hamid’s section ends with an unsettling argument for using harsh military force to fight terrorism, comparing it to the use of chemotherapy to fight cancer. “Nobody supports the intentional killing of innocent civilians,” he says, “but in war, as in medicine, good cells die when we treat bad ones. … It is unfair to blame the doctor for killing good cells.”
Hamid’s chapter “is no more than Islamophobic propaganda and should not have been included in any kind of government training material or published research,” Kundnani said.
97% of the time, chemotherapy does not work. That says it all.
Sufi Muslim,
I asked you: giving a reference about Mohammad the pedophile–if you respected that.
You said the reference is wrong.
I asked about the violent nature of the Quran: you hid behind the contextual mumbo-jumbo. When I drew your attention to Ibn Warraq’s explantion, you said he’s not an authority.
I humbly asked you if Sufis like the Salafist believe in the Quran and Mohammed, how are they different. I gave you historical evidence about the role played by Sufis in various countries to subjugate local religions and promote Islam, both spiritually and politically. Hence, there’s no difference between Sufis and Salafists as far as their goal of converting Darul Herb into Darul Islam.
You never answered my queries about the Muslim groups and their activities, particularly in the US that have undermined this nation’s security.
I mentioned how Muslims continue to support the BDS movement against Israel, but are loathe to boycott Saudi Arabia. As Saudi Arabia makes billions of dollars through Hajj, Muslims enjoying a comfortable and secure life in the West can help hit Saudi Arabia economically by boycotting Hajj.
As per your own definition, an evolved mind doesn’t need outward manifestations of a religion like Hajj.
I said Muslims in the West demand rights, but they never stand up for the rights of non-Muslims living in Muslim nations. Shame on them!
A large majority of Muslims living in the West want imposition of Sharia, etc.
Their glossing over the terrible record of violence of Islam against humanity that has continued unabated since the 7th century is the evidence of an Islamist mindset.
Instead of listening to reformers like Hirsi Ayaan Ali, Tarek Fatah, Ibn Warraq–they cosy up to Ulemas who repeat like parrots about Islam being peaceful without adducing any evidence.
It’s time for the medievalist cult to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
You confirm Dr. Hamid’s theory about passive terrorism.
You can lie to me, you can lie to others, but you can’t lie to yourself.
Amen
@Rex,
Yesterday, I told you that I would be taking a break from you until you answered my 7 questions before I replied to any of your posts.
You chose not to respond. And, from the high frequency with which you were responding to me, it is clear that your silence is deliberate.
So it is obvious that you just wanted to throw some rocks at me, Muslims in general and all of Islam, and not engage in a meaningful discussion with me in a systematic fashion.
This is also supported by how you generally sidestepped my comments and continued to bring one charge against Islam/Muslims after another instead of thoughtfully responding to my points in a sober and rational manner.
So below are my 7 questions and my comments on each of them to conclude my side of the discussion — I won’t be monitoring this thread anymore as it’s time to move on:
1. I asked you: What is an Islamist?
You did not answer.
What this means is that you either don’t know what this entity called, Islamism/Islamist, is or you felt that if you defined it, you’d be proven wrong about your ridiculous charge that Sufi Islam and Islamism are the same thing, something scholars generally reject, for, to them, Sufism and Islamism sit on the two opposite extremes of the spectrum.
Considering Sufism as Islamism means you twist and broaden the definition of Islamism to the extent that ALL of Islam becomes Islamism, which also means that ALL Muslims, including your friend, Tarek Fatah, are Islamists.
You are so wrong on this matter that it’s not even funny. No one would take you seriously if you were to attend a scholarly forum on this issue.
2. I asked you: What have I written that makes me an Islamist? I have always truthfully claimed to be a Sufi, and your attempt to treat Sufism as Islamism (whatever that is) is laughable.
This is our path: http://www.askonline.co.za
What’s in it that you consider Islamism?
You did not reply.
What this means is that I have never written anything that an Islamist would usually write. I don’t fit the well-known definition of an Islamist. I am apolitical and believe that ALL human beings have access to the truth within their own selves, reject violence outright, consider warfare to have outlived itself and doesn’t do anything, and have said many, many things against those who are generally considered Islamists. I am totally against the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIL, Boko Haram, Taliban, etc. and adhere to Transcendent Unity of Religions (Google it).
You will never bother to visit the above website I referred you do and do a thorough research of it to see if it says anything that would be considered Islamism, because it doesn’t, unless you broaden the definition of Islamism to include ALL of Islam, something you’ve done.
3. I asked you: Would you support the banning of Islam, partially or totally?
You refuse to reply.
What this means is that you actually want to ban ALL of Islam. This much is clear from all your comments.
You are a genuine and honest and extremist anti-Islam.
4. I asked you: If partially, what tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
See above.
5. I asked you: Name three good things about Islam.
You did not reply.
You won’t, because you don’t see ANYTHING good emanating from Islam or Muslims. And, you want to ban ALL of Islam. See above.
I said: Enlightenment to us means grooming the self so that it reflects the higher qualities, such as selflessness, generosity, love, peace, humility, justice, serving others with no expectations, not doing to others what one doesn’t want done unto one, seeing no otherness, lack of desire for power and control, forgiveness, etc.
6. And then asked you: Are you against it?
You did not answer.
What this means is clear: you are against human beings grooming their inner selves so that they reflect the higher qualities I have listed above.
In other words, you are IN FAVOR of human beings reflecting their opposite qualities, such as selfishness, hatred, conflicts, warfare, arrogance, Self-pride, injustice, desire for power and control, etc.
7. I asked you: Please quote me where I have supported violence, and have expressed anti women, anti gay and anti non Muslim sentiments? I consider all religions to be radii of the same circle that meet at the center of truth.
You did not.
That is because you won’t bother because you know I have never supported any of it.
The fact of the matter is I am NOT anti-anything you’ve listed.
It’s time to move on. I spent a lot of time with you the past two days. You turned out to be the worst anti-Islam that I have ever encountered here, for, the ones I have encountered in the past at least had the decency to acknowledge a few good things about Muslims, something you can’t seem to bring yourself to doing.
THE END
Sufi Muslim,
Are you ready to remove the passages promoting violence from the Quran, because the continue to incite Muslims against non-Muslims?
Are you ready to admit that Mohammed was a pedophile who coveted women, even marrying wives of his friends?
How can you revere him and believe in the Quran that speaks of bringing all under Islam, (There’s no peace until Islam prevails) and call yourself a Sufi. The endgame of Sufis is similar to other Islamists; they may use a different approach to spread the tenets of the Quran.
You never addressed these issues, I raised. That confirms you support soft jihad, because you are not yet ready to objectively analyze your own roots.
Islam is the ideology that has remained rooted in the medieval ages. It’s time it undergoes a reformation like the Catholic Church.
Amen.
Passive Terrorism, absolutely not. I can see though how a case could be made for such behavior to be associated with Passive Extremism. Any act of devotion that does not find itself floating down the main stream could be viewed as extremist behavior. In order for something to be labeled extreme it must be compared to something else. And the extreme only exists in an environment where the act itself is the minority. Change the environment and you may change the nature of the act. Therefor to associate covering the hair under the guise of religious devotion as act of Passive Terrorism is nothing more a label assigned by prejudice eyes. In the end the drama that is the West vs Middle East is in fact a struggle for finite global resources first, economic supremacy second and cultural dominance third. Those whom believe that religion falls in any one of these positions is grossly mistaken and driven by emotional bias.
I don’t know, sexual deprivation turned a few of the soldiers I served with into sexual assault “terrorists,” so maybe they’re on to something.
Sufi Muslim,
You never answered the basic questions:
1. The Sufis and Salafists both accept the Quran, which is violent, full of hatred toward women, gays and non-Muslims.
2. The Sufis and Salafists both believe in the mission of bringing the world under the domain of Islam and Sharia. History of Islamic conquests since the 7th century bears a testimony to that.
3. The Sufis may not preach violence, but they don’t object to the violence being carried out in the name of Islam and the Quran.
4. Isn’t that funny, the Sufis want to preach to the West, instead of in the countries that persecute non-Muslims and deny them basic human rights?
I have answered them and will be glad to answer them again, though you do not really read my posts and address my points and make assumptions.
You are like someone who’d ask a person why he beats his wife, assuming that he beats his wife.
But I’m going to wait until you answer my 7 questions as they’ll establish some useful things.
Are you going to answer them?
Dear Sufi Muslim,
One more issue for you to ponder.
Have you ever wondered, why the infidel West with its perversions has left behind Islamic societies in development and providing human rights?
If the Quran as you claim is so fabulous, why are Muslims still living in the 7th century? Smart ones find ways to land in the West. Isn’t that something that even Syrians from war torn areas don’t want to go to Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim nation. All of them want to go the West.
Think and become free. You don’t have to be shackled to a medievalist ideology based on hatred.
I welcome you to explore the world of Lord.
I’ve responded to all your points diligently and thoroughly.
And I will do so again, but AFTER you are courteous enough to respond to my 7 questions in a responsible, meaningful and thorough manner.
Do you intend to do that?
Yes or No.
You suffer from delusions of exceptionalism and severe tribalism. If you look at counts of refugees per country, you’d find that most refugees are in Middle Eastern countries, mainly Lebanon and Turkey.
The stuff about the Koran is infantile. Ancient books are like that. Don’t you think the Bible’s advocacy of violence is backward and questionable as well?
@Rex,
I will be taking a break from you until you answer these questions:
1. What is an Islamist?
2. What have I written that makes me an Islamist? I have always truthfully claimed to be a Sufi, and your attempt to treat Sufism as Islamism (whatever that is) is laughable.
This is our path: http://www.askonline.co.za
What’s in it that you consider Islamism?
3. Would you support the banning of Islam, partially or totally?
4. If partially, what tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
5. Name three good things about Islam.
Enlightenment to us means grooming the self so that it reflects the higher qualities, such as selflessness, generosity, love, peace, humility, justice, serving others with no expectations, not doing to others what one doesn’t want done unto one, seeing no otherness, lack of desire for power and control, forgiveness, etc.
6. Are you against it?
7. Please quote me where I have supported violence, and have expressed anti women, anti gay and anti non Muslim sentiments? I consider all religions to be radii of the same circle that meet at the center of truth.
Sufi Muslim,
You defend a medievalist ideology that promotes violence, is anti women, anti-gay, and anyone who doesn’t believe in Islam by saying the sources/websites are not credible.
By the same token, what makes you credible? You have merely spouted good ideas without showing the intention to be serious about it.
You say non Muslims have committed more violence than Muslims. The weblink I sent you that suggests the opposite is not deemed worthy by you.
The ultimate goals of Sufis, as the historical evidence shows, are not much different from that of Salafists. You don’t denounce the violence prescribed in the Quran. You instead choose to confuse about the context. You are not ready to listen to Ibn Warraq. Why?
Just by calling someone anti-Islam, you can’t take away their credibility? In fact that line of reasoning raises questions about your own ability to hold a discussion.
As I said before you now live in a free, secular, democratic republic, you are entitled to hold your own views. But please don’t tell me you peddle truth.
Your desire to justify the violent Quran is no different from an ISIS supporter. It’s rather unfortunate to see educated folks such as you to do that. You need to be more open minded.
Where have I defended violence? Please quote me.
This is question number 7. for you.
Please answer all 7 questions before proceeding.
@Rex,
I will be taking a break from you until you answer these questions:
1. What is an Islamist?
2. What have I written that makes me an Islamist? I have always truthfully claimed to be a Sufi, and your attempt to treat Sufism as Islamism (whatever that is) is laughable.
This is our path: http://www.askonline.co.za
What’s in it that you consider Islamism?
3. Would you support the banning of Islam, partially or totally?
4. If partially, what tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
5. Name three good things about Islam.
Enlightenment to us means grooming the self so that it reflects the higher qualities, such as selflessness, generosity, love, peace, humility, justice, serving others with no expectations, not doing to others what one doesn’t want done unto one, seeing no otherness, lack of desire for power and control, forgiveness, etc.
6. Are you against it?
Reason is based on questioning. Not tacit acceptance of what’s given by your superiors.
Have you ever wondered, why the infidel West with its perversions has left behind Islamic societies in development and providing human rights?
If the Quran as you claim is so fabulous, why are Muslims still living in the 7th century? Smart ones find ways to land in the West. Isn’t that something that even Syrians from war torn areas don’t want to go to Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim nation. All of them want to go the West.
Think and become free. You don’t have to be shackled to a medievalist ideology based on hatred.
I welcome you to explore the world of Lord.
Our discussion will resume when you’ve answered those 7 questions I’ve asked you as certain important things need to be established before we go any further.
You’ll notice that I have diligently and thoroughly responded to all your points. But you don’t respond in kind.
Are you going to answer those questions in a meaningful way?
Yes, or No.
@Rex,
If you wish to continue our discussion, please answer these questions first:
1. What is an Islamist?
2. What have I written that makes me an Islamist? I have always truthfully claimed to be a Sufi, and your attempt to treat Sufism as Islamism (whatever that is) is laughable.
This is our path: http://www.askonline.co.za
What’s in it that you consider Islamism?
3. Would you support the banning of Islam, partially or totally?
4. If partially, what tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
5. Name three good things about Islam.
Sufi Muslim,
The mumbo-jumbo of context has been explained by Ibn Warraq. Islamists often use this argument to hide the violence sanctioned in the Quran.
http://ibnwarraq.com/how-to-argue-with-a-muslim-out-of-context-by-ibn-warraq/
Ibn Warraq is not considered credible. If your understanding of Islam comes from the likes of him, good luck to you. We don’t accept him as an authority.
No one can hide what the Quran says. It is not a hidden book. There’s only one text of it and one can easily understand what it says.
Textual context is important.
Ignoring it is like hearing someone saying: “An apple will kill you if it has been poisoned” and then quoting: “An apple will kill you.”
This is what you tried to do with Quran 9:5 something I have seen many anti Islam do.
Spoken like a true Islamist!
Your jihadi colors have truly been exposed.
Please answer my questions first.
Read, “The Spiritual Significance of Jihad”, at http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/vol-9-no-1/spiritual-significance-jihad-seyyed-hossein-nasr/spiritual-significance-jihad
What is Islamist about it?
Instead of engaging in a rational discussion in a meaningful way, you are just throwing things randomly to see if they’ll stick.
So far, nothing has.
Just answer my questions and we’ll take from there.
Sufi Muslim
You continue to put a spin on the violence prescribed in the Quran against non-Muslims.
You can at least acknowledge that the whatever may be written in the Quran–you can pick and choose the verses you want today. But you try to cloud the minds of innocents with your mumbo-jumbo about the context. The empirical truth is: whether you like it or not, Islam continues to inspire violence against those who don’t submit to the Quran and the prophet. Look at the US, Canada, Europe, Africa, Asia and even Australia.
You pick and choose the foods you eat, the dress you wear, the places you travel to and books you read, so why can’t you select the positive verses from the Quran and junk the rest.
Are you enlightened enough to do it? I fervently hope you are.
No, there’s no spinning. I just show what the Quran is actually saying, while you show what YOU want the Quran to say.
The Quran is an integrated whole. Parts of it explain other parts. And there’s also a historical context that the Quran itself shows to a sufficient extent.
Examining partial verses without their textual context and without examining what else the Quran says elsewhere on the subject under discussion is actually spinning and dishonest.
I do not put words into the mouth of the Quran. It speaks for itself.
No, I am not the one doing the picking and choosing. You are.
I examine the complete verse, you presented it partially, something I have seen many anti Islam people do.
I examined 9:5 in light of the two preceding verses, which you did not do.
I examined 9:5 in light of a few verses in Surah 2 since they shed light on the subject under discussion.
You did not do that.
It is clear it is you who picked and chose.
Islam is not monolithic.
There are versions of it that inspire violence, and it is not that difficult to refute them. Many, many, many Muslims have denounced them and do not consider their actions to be Islamic. But you seem to be oblivious of that.
Most strains within Islam are quite benign, while others are good to excelent.
There are studies that confirm that violence committed by the Muslims is very tiny, compared to the violence committed by non Muslims.
I ask you again:
1. Would you like a partial or a complete ban on Islam?
2. If partial, what tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
3. Can you name three good things about Islam?
The fact that the Quran has to be accepted as a total package makes it dangerous. That’s something you, like a good Islamist, don’t mention. Experts have called it “soft” jihad.
If you want to read about the latest violent exploits of the “Religion of Pieces”
please check out
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
That website is anti Islam and mixes truths and falsehoods and twists facts.
If your understanding of Islam is coming from that website then I understand why you are such an anti Islam.
I noticed that you are not answering my questions, nor do you seem to be capable of discussing 9:5.
You have also not commented on the websites I have referred you to.
Also, you have not defined an Islamist and shown me how I am one.
I feel sorry for you. You choose to remain a prisoner of a medievalist ideology based on violence. May reason and enlightenment touch you as become more rooted in the West. Amen!!
My ideology is about self purification.
http://www.askonline.co.za
Please answer the questions I have asked you before proceeding.
Thanks,
We do use reason. See Muhammad Asad’s commentary on the Quran.
Enlightenment to us means grooming the self so that it reflects the higher qualities, such as selflessness, generosity, love, peace, humility, justice, serving others with no expectations, not doing to others what one doesn’t want done unto one, lack of desire for power and control, forgiveness, etc.
Are you against it?
This is another question you won’t answer.
Reason is based on questioning. Not tacit acceptance of what’s given by your superiors.
Have you ever wondered, why the infidel West with its perversions has left behind Islamic societies in development and providing human rights?
If the Quran as you claim is so fabulous, why are Muslims still living in the 7th century? Smart ones find ways to land in the West. Isn’t that something that even Syrians from war torn areas don’t want to go to Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim nation. All of them want to go the West.
Think and become free. You don’t have to be shackled to a medievalist ideology based on hatred.
I welcome you to explore the world of Lord.
@Rex,
I will be taking a break from you until you answer these questions:
1. What is an Islamist?
2. What have I written that makes me an Islamist? I have always truthfully claimed to be a Sufi, and your attempt to treat Sufism as Islamism (whatever that is) is laughable.
This is our path: http://www.askonline.co.za
What’s in it that you consider Islamism?
3. Would you support the banning of Islam, partially or totally?
4. If partially, what tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
5. Name three good things about Islam.
Enlightenment to us means grooming the self so that it reflects the higher qualities, such as selflessness, generosity, love, peace, humility, justice, serving others with no expectations, not doing to others what one doesn’t want done unto one, seeing no otherness, lack of desire for power and control, forgiveness, etc.
6. Are you against it?
7. Please quote me where I have supported violence, and have expressed anti women, anti gay and anti non Muslim sentiments? I consider all religions to be radii of the same circle that meet at the center of truth.
@Rex:
This verse, always partially quoted, is often presented as if it is a universal command to every Muslim and in every situation to just go on a killing spree.
That is not the case, and it becomes obvious if the verse is not only read in its entirety but also within the context of the two preceding verses as well as 2:190-194, which makes clear that 9:5 relates to warfare already in progress with people who have become guilty of a breach of treaty obligations and of aggression.
Every verse of the Quran must be read and interpreted against the background of the Quran as a whole.
See Muhammad Asad’s commentary on this verse.
You have quoted other verses, but I have only commented on one to make these points:
1. Verses from the Quran must be examined in light of what else the Quran has stated on the subject.
2. The Quran must also be examined within the historical context to understanding the human situation and setting it is addressing certain things.
3. The Medinan portions of the Quran are very much the product of the Arab culture of the day. This needs to be taken into consideration.
If you follow these two simple rules, you will have a more accurate understanding of what the Quran says about warfare and other issues.
@Rex:
The Quran 8:12 states: ”Lo! Thy Sustainer inspired the angels [to convey this His message to the believers]: “I am with you!”
[And He commanded the angels:] “And give firmness unto those who have attained to faith [with these words from Me]: ‘I shall cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their finger-tips!’”
The context is that a small, very vulnerable community was persecuted and it had to flee the persecution. The persecutors gathered an army and went to attack and destroy that community. A battle was imminent. So God promised that small vulnerable community that He would defeat and destroy their persecutors and evildoers and attackers in the battle.
It was in self-defence, something human beings generally agree on.
@Rex:
No, we don’t.
This is what we follow:
http://www.askonline.co.za
What are your objections to this?
We speak with our actions too. So it’s not just our words.
It was a Sufi teacher who warned the authorities before 911 that the Salafi/Wahhabi Islam had infiltrated America.
They are fundamentals of Sufism.
As stated before, the idea of geographical Darul Islam and Darul Harab is relics of the past.
The world has changed quite a bit now.
Darul Islam is in reality your own heart — at peace through the grooming of the self so that it reflects the higher.
Please read the authors and websites I have referred you to before proceeding with this discussion.
You have not answer my question: Who/What is an Islamist and how am I one? Please elaborate so I know what you are talking about.
You are simply throwing rocks at me without thinking. You have exposed yourself to be an anti-Islam and unreasonable who can’t think rationally and respond to my posts in a systematic manner.
What I adhere to can be seen from the website I have referenced above.
Please browse through and tell me what makes us Islamists. But before you do that define an Islamist. What are the distinguishing characteristics of an Islamist?
I am not a student of Hadith so I can’t comment in this one. I don’t believe the last part you have written is a quote from a hadith though.
The Quran sets Islam’s parameters, and ALL ahadith must be examined in light of the Quran, in light of other ahadith, and textual and historical contexts to determine their authenticity levels and meaning.
I asked you what Taqiyya is, but you have a tendency to ignore my points and queries and just spew venom and throw rocks at the Muslims, and now me.
The dual ethics of Islam are ingrained in the faith, including the disparate treatment of unbelievers. It should be no surprise that Muhammad held others to standards by which he was personally unwilling to abide. In this case, he was the first to violate the treaty of Hudaibiya. Thus did he establish an example for his followers: a promise to non-Muslims is not obligatory for the believer. As Abu Bakr, himself a military leader, put it:
“If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath.” (Bukhari 78:618)
Muhammad no doubt would have agreed:
“The Prophet said: ‘War is deceit’.” (Bukhari 52:269)
You continue to twist and distort, mix truths and falsehoods and present falsehoods.
A typical trick.
Your teachers on Islam must include Pam Geller and Robert Spencer.
You present no thorough and complete analyses within the right historical context.
You are a bona fide anti Islam who does not see anything positive in it.
Instead of taking the time to respond to me in a thoughtful manner, you just keep throwing rocks at me and other Muslims.
I don’t have an emotional baggage. Hence, my judgment is not clouded.
As I said before religion is a form of social control, Islam included.
But as an Islamist you are oblivious to the fact. Sadly, you remain a prisoner to a medieval ideology. You continue to confuse and hide behind meaningless sentences.
Seek, challenge and learn. Now that you enjoying the benefits of a life in the West, you can safely look beyond the Quran and Hadith.
Why won’t you answer my questions?
1. What is an Islamist?
2. What have I written that makes me an Islamist? I have always truthfully claimed to be a Sufi, and your attempt to treat Sufism as Islamism (whatever that is) is laughable.
This is our path: http://www.askonline.co.za
What’s in it that you consider Islamism?
3. Would you support the banning of Islam, partially or totally?
4. If partially, what tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
5. Name three good things about Islam.
Sufi Muslim
For you for reflection and thought. God have mercy on this soul and show him the light!!
From Quran
“I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.”
– Quran 8:12
“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”
– Quran 9:5
“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”
– Quran 9:73
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.”
– Quran 9:123
“When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.”
– Quran 47:4
“Believers, do not make friends with those who are enemies of Mine and yours.”
– Quran 60:1
From Muslims in America:
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
– Omar M. Ahmad, founder of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
“I want to see the U.S become an Islamic nation.”
– Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR Spokesperson
“I am a traitor to America because my religion requires me to be. We pledge to wage jihad for the rest of our lives until either we implant Islam all over the world or meet our Lord as bearers of Islam.”
– Samir Khan
“Greater integration between Islam and the West depends on incorporation of Sharia law into the legal systems of Europe and the U.S.”
– Ground Zero Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf
It comes as news to me that Hassan al-Banna was a Sufi and the Muslim Brotherhood was/is a Sufi group.
The Muslim Brotherhood was very much influenced by Maududi, who was not a Sufi and the Sufis generally do not like him or Hassan al-Banna or the Muslim Brotherhood and have often criticized them all.
It is obvious that you are now turning to falsehoods.
You tried to demonize Islam and when that didn’t work and you constantly did not respond to my points, you then turned to demonization of Sufism and started to quote things out of context and now you are clearly resorting to falsehoods.
But regardless, the primary point I have constantly been making is the it is the Quran that determines what is Islamic.
But you are not willing to or capable of showing from the Quran if an action carried out by a Muslim is Quranic or not.
You have also not addressed my point that the Quran needs to be examined within the context of its own self and its historical context.
“Later, while attending the Teacher’s College in Cairo, Al-Banna attended lectures at the Al-Azhar, the foremost Islamic university, where he was exposed to current religious thought as well as to Sufism— Islamic mysticism—which opened a new inner dimension towards Islam and helped in forming his future beliefs. It was in the city of Isma’illiyya, where Al-Banna was given the job of grammar teacher, that he began to preach his ideas and won his first followers, who encouraged him to form the Society of the Muslim Brethren in 1928.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Hasan_al-Banna.aspx
He is not considered a Sufi. If he was exposed to Sufism his writings reflect what is considered today as “Political Islam”, and not Sufism.
In any case, the Muslim Brotherhood is not considered a Sufi group at all. As a matter of fact, I am sure many members of this group would poo poo Sufism and would be offended if one called them Sufis.
They have political objectives and are very much influenced by Maududi, who is not considered a Sufi either.
You are simply copying and pasting without diving deep.
Let’s face it, you are here to demonize Islam. When that didn’t work, you started to demonize Sufism, and now you are trying to show that the so-called Islamists (whatever they are) are like the Sufis and vice versa.
A laughable attempt.
I do not take you seriously.
If I am commenting on your posts, I am doing it for other readers who may be lurking.
But I ask you a few questions again:
1. Do you support the ban of Islam — partially or totally?
2. If partially, what tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
3. Can you name three good things that the Muslims have done, or are doing?
4. Can you list three good things about Islam?
@Rex:
That we do.
Who are Islamists and where have I defended them? Please quote me.
But you have a tendency to ignore what I write and just spew venom at us.
What are you praying for? That we renounce our Islam?
Sufi Muslim
Stop fooling yourself and innocent Americans with your words. Sufis follow the same medievalist ideology that has enslaved humanity. The cosmetic changes that Sufism espouses are don’t mean much in the larger picture of Darul Islam. I salute you for being a true Islamist for defending Deen, even though with a fake narrative.
Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
@Rex:
If you believed in presenting facts, you’d present the positive and good things the Muslims do as well. But you don’t.
Your focus is entirely on the demonization of Islam, and now of Sufism.
Present three good things the Muslims have done and still do.
This proves you are anti-Islam.
And we are doing a lot of good works, no matter where we live. There are those who do bad things, but most don’t.
You have yet to acknowledge the good things we do and consider Islam to be a fascist ideology even though Islam has many versions, and many are not fascist.
@Sufi Muslim
You need to clean your soul and seek forgiveness from the Lord!
Your defense of Islamists can’t stand the scrutiny of truth and rationality.
I’ll pray for you. Amen.
@Rex:
And I also acknowledged the good things the U.S. does, which, as is your mindset, you ignored and focused instead on something that is negative, but a fact.
It is a fact that the modern state of Saudi Arabia was a creation of the Western powers to counter the Ottoman Empire.
It is a fact that Saudi Arabis is supported and sustained by the Western powers.
It is also a fact that the Saudi regime is tyrannical and oppressive, and its brand of Islam has spread and caused a lot of griefs.
It is also a fact that the West provides freedom of religion.
I have said that the U.S. is not against Islam.
I have praised America and other Western countries for freedom of expression and religion.
I do not know what or who an Islamist is. It is a term that has a fluid definition and has been politicized.
A person who adheres to Islam is called a Muslim.
No, it would have been a very unreasonable response. And we are not going to do anything unreasonable and stupid.
Saudi Arabia does a lot of good things in accommodating the people who go for the Hajj, but it also does a lot of bad things.
The Muslims are not going to abandon the Hajj just because they disagree with the things the Saudis do.
Your demand is unreasonable and clearly shows you are just an anti-Islam, but one that doesn’t think with his brains or provides fair assessments.
It is our business, not yours.
What other Islamic practices would you like us to remove from our religion?
Quran 3:105 says this:
”And be not like those who have drawn apart from one another and have taken to conflicting views after all evidence of the truth has come unto them: for these it is for whom tremendous suffering is in store…”
I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
But it seems that in your haste to simply copy and paste without thinking, you have misquoted 3:105.
This shows you are not a sincere and honest seeker of knowledge. You are simply an anti-Islam who can’t see anything positive in it or in the Muslims.
Muslims in the West continue to boycott Israel economically. If you think Saudi Arabia is inherently evil, you could start the same type of boycott. Saudi Arabia earns billions of dollars through Hajj. You can through your actions like a true Sufi force a change, instead of hiding behind words that only support the dictates of Quran to undermine a secular state.
To me, all religion is social control.
Perhaps that time will come, I don’t know. We are dependent on the Saudis for the Hajj. Many Muslims from other countries have gone there for economical reasons. There is a lot of peace there and money to be earned and the medical system is good.
You continue to demand things, but let me ask you this:
Do you support the total or partial ban of Islam in the non-Muslim countries?
If partial, what tenets and practices of Islam will you allow?
@Rex:
I do not know how many are.
Yes, due to Saudi money and influence, there has been a Saudi-ization of many Muslims, and in some cases it’s been devastating.
But the fact remains: the world of Islam is a mosaic of cultures, traditions, practices and interpretations.
Read the authors and websites I have listed and you’ll see how different their Islams are.
I am not sure what you really are saying and can’t comment on it.
That is your view and I respect that. You have been honest about your anti-Islam stance.
Submission simply means the self yielding to the light of the soul.
Read some of the books of self knowledge at http://www.zahrapublications.com
It is very clear that you are just not paying attention to what I write.
I have acknowledged the bad to evil acts that the Muslims have done throughout history.
But, unlike you, I also see the fair to good to excellent actions carried out by the Muslims throughout history. There are many examples of good actions.
Sugar coating would mean justifying the bad to evil acts.
I have never done that.
I always acknowledge the bad to evil acts of the Muslims, but, unlike you, I also recognize and acknowledge the fair to good to excellent work the Muslims do and have done in the past.
I am also not trying to fool you or anyone else. What Islam is is in the Quran. It’s not hidden. But you are afraid to prove your points from Islam’s primary source.
The medieval ideology you refer to is about grooming to self so that it reflects the higher.
You seem to be against humans from grooming the self so that it reflects the qualities of selflessness, generosity, love, peace, justice, humility, detachment from the transient, etc.
Am I right?
Let’s face it, you have acknowledged not a single good act carried out by the Muslims, nor have you presented a single good thing about Islam.
All you are doing is nothing but negativism.
And it is simply a reflection of your own inner self, which refuses to see the complete picture and acknowledge anything positive.
I’m not anti-anything. I believe in presenting facts. I don’t put a spin on a fascist ideology. But that’s your choice. You are free to believe what you like. After all, you now live in the West.
Imagine living in Saudi Arabia!!!
Sufis also believe in Sharia and the prophet; pursue the goal of converting non-Islamic lands into Islamic land. Islamists are trying to re-invent themselves as Sufis to befool American public.
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques
Shariah is the outer form of Islam. It is also not monolithic.
Its purpose for us is to provide the self a protective and conducive environment so that it grows and reflects the higher.
I am not aware of any Sufis today who want to convert non-Islamic lands into Islamic.
My own Sufi teacher was advised by one of his teachers to move to a country where there was no possibility of Muslims coming to power.
We don’t even proselytize, let alone have the desire to convert non-islamic lands into Islamic.
What we believe and adhere to is Unity of Religions. We recognize the truth in all religions and consider them as the radii on the same circle that converge and merge at the center.
With this kind of thinking, it is inconceivable that we want to convert anyone.
There is absolutely no evidence that whoever you call Islamists are trying to re-invent themselves as Sufis.
You are simply throwing rocks at us and have now resorted to misrepresent and demonize the Sufi Muslims, trying to equate them to what you call Islamists.
The writings and actions of today’s Sufis are not hidden.
I have listed many authors and websites.
But you are more interested in throwing rocks at us than anything else.
Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949), the Sufi founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s oldest and most influential fundamentalist Sufi group. The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated a terror group.
A House bill introduced last year by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity cleared the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 24
@Rex:
You are going from subject to subject all in order to demonize Islam. You don’t seem to be interested in seeing anything good emanating from the world of Islam.
Polygamy was practiced for practical reasons in many cultures and traditions. The Quran added fairness and justice to it. It is banned in the Western countries, right? The Muslims should obey the law of the land.
Many people rewrite history. It’s a common practice in all peoples.
I am not qualified to discuss history. My Criterion to determine if an action is Islamic or not is the Quran. If the Muslims have done things that are against the Quran then they violated the Quran.
But it is also true that certain things are appropriate for certain times, and then they become inappropriate.
What we need to do is what is appropriate for our times.
It’s an observable FACT!
The Islam of the Taliban is not the same as the Islam of the Sufis, generally speaking.
There are many strains of Islam. Some are bad to evil, most are fair to good, some are excellent.
While I have no problem acknowledging the bad to evil currents within Islam, you have yet to acknowledge anything good the Muslims do.
Exposing Sufis
K.A. Nizami in his celebrated book, the Life and Times of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya (Idarah-I Adabiyat-i-Delhi, Delhi) has stated that the Auliya openly used to say that “what the ulama seek to achieve through speech, we achieve by our behavior.”
The Auliya was a firm believer in the need for unquestioned obedience of every Muslim, every Sufi, to the dictates of the ulema. According to K.A. Nizami, another Sufi saint Jamal Qiwamu’d-din wrote that though he had been associated with the Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya for years, “but never did he find him missing a single sunnat …… ” .
The well known authority on Sufism, S.A.A. Rizvi has recorded in his book, ‘A History of Sufism in India’ that Nizamuddin Auliya used to unhesitatingly accept enormous gifts given to him by Khusraw Barwar which implied that the Auliya was unconcerned with the source of the gift, provided it was paid in cash. Yet the Auliya was a firm believer in the need for a Muslim’s unquestioned loyalty and obedience to the ulema. As reiterated by K.A. Nizami, Auliya used to preach that the unbeliever is the doomed denizen of Hell. In his khutba he would leave no one in doubt that Allah has created Paradise for the Believers and Hell for the infidels “in order to repay the wicked for what they have done”.
It has been categorically stated on page 161 in the famous treatise, Fawaid al-Fuad, translated by Bruce B. Lawrence (Paulist Press, New York, 1992) that the Auliya confirmed on the authority of the great Islamic jurist, Imam Abu Hanifa, that the perdition of the unbelievers is certain and that Hell is the only abode for them, even if they agreed to confess total loyalty to Allah on the Day of Judgment.
A very childish and amateurish attempt to now attack Sufism. You continue to be in an attack mode and just can’t seem to bring yourself to acknowledging any positive things the Muslims have done and are still doing. You are also quoting things out of context and are twisting them.
I know Bruce Lawrence. I have met him and have had discussions with him when he was in South Africa on one of our conferences.
He is a great admirer of Sufism and our path.
You are very good at twisting and distortions and selective quotes, presenting them out of context, so you have no credibility when you copy and paste.
You have ignored what we adhere to. I have listed many scholars and websites. But you are not interested.
You are here to demonize Islam and now Sufism.
It is simply a reflection of your own inner state.
I have not read K.A. Nizami nor do I know who he is/was.
So I can’t comment on small excerpts from his book(s), which I am sure you’ve copied and pasted out of context.
What the Muslims have said and done in the past must be examined within the context of their historical situation.
I am not a student of history, so you are going beyond my capability.
The Quran is the ultimate judge of what Islam is. It sets the parameters and framework of Islam.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
@Rex:
Many forms of Sufi Islam have done a lot of excellent works. I adhere to a form of Sufi Islam, and I have listed some Sufi scholars.
It’s not just a Sufis vs. Salafi narrative. It’s also what the primary source of Islam, the Quran, says.
Anything that violates the Quranic framework is un-Islamic.
And the Quran has textual and historical context, and there are many ways the Muslims understand it and put it into practice.
But I challenge you to show how the Quran supports terrorism.
If a groups’s aim is to impose Islam, then it’s utterly un-Quranic!
Our Sufi group is extremely passive and we are forbidden to proselytize. Our focus is self knowledge and self purification.
Check us out: http://www.askonline.co.za
People come because they are interested in what we have to offer. They make their own choices and there’s no subjugation going on.
Generally speaking, your mixing Sufi Islam and Salafi Islam is childish, and it shows your lack of knowledge. They are like oil and water. They don’t mix very well. The Salafis have even persecuted the Sufis. They have desecrated and demolished Sufi sites.
@Rex:
How many times do I have to repeat that only the Quran determines what is Islamic and what is not?
The Quran is available all over the world. Its text is the same no matter where you go. It’s the primary and the most authentic source of Islam.
All I say is that the Quran must be examined in terms of itself and its historical context.
Do you have an issue with what I have stated above?
If so, what is it?
It’s not my narrative. it’s Quran’s.
You don’t seem to be reading my posts carefully.
I have stated a few times that I don’t consider them to be authentic scholars of Islam. If you find them to be authentic, then, as I have said a few times, good for you.
Hirsi Ayaan Ali is a well-known anti-Islam. It’s possible that she has even converted out of Islam.
Tarek Fatah mixes truths with a lot of falsehood and is not a scholar of Islam or its history.
He once admitted that he consulted Daniel Pipes on a book he was writing.
If he is relying on the likes of Daniel Pipes then he is not the person I’d like to understand Islam from.
You can accept his views and I respect that. But I, and many other Muslims, do not.
I have listed the authors and websites I usually rely on. But you seem to be not interested in examining their perspectives on Islam.
@Rex,
Do you support a complete or a partial ban on Islam in the non-Muslim majority countries?
If partial, which tenets and practices of Islam would you allow?
It is obvious that you are an anti-Islam, and do not seem to see anything positive emanating from the Muslims and Islam.
You seem to be very clear that you’d like to ban Islam, but I am not sure if it’d be a total or a partial ban.
So please clarify.
Thanks,
Dear Sufi Muslim,
I’m a no body who just seeks out knowledge. Questioning the dogma is always good for mind.
I’m not even capable of raising that issue of ban. You alone are and you did. Here’s a Hadith that may help you get the answer.
Amen
[T]he Messenger of Allah (Mohammed) observed: Verily Islam started as something strange and it would again revert (to its old position) of being strange just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0270.]
In this hadith, Mohammed foretold that the end of Islam would be strange just like its beginning and that it would shrink back to the limited area where it came from – – between the two mosques of Mecca and Medina.
Could that prediction by Mohammed himself be a signal of the inevitable demise of Islam?
Mohammed’s predictions of Islam crawling back like a snake to where it came from were repeated extensively in several other hadiths:
“Belief returns and goes back to Medina like a snake.” (Sahih Bukhari, 3.30.100.)
“Muslims will be the scum and the rubbish even though their numbers may increase; the enemy will not fear Muslims anymore. This will be because the Muslims will love the world and dislike death…
(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 37.4284.)
“Muhammad’s contemporaries were the best Muslims; after three generations, the Muslims will be mainly treacherous and untrustworthy.” (Sahih Bukhari, 5.57.2, 3.)
“There will be much killing during the last days of the Muslim.”
(Sahih Bukhari, 9.88.183.)
“Verily, Belief returns and goes back to Medina as a snake returns and goes back to its hole (when in danger).”
(Volume 3, Book 30, Number 100: Narrated Abu Huraira.
I don’t know the points you’re trying to make by quoting ahadith.
All ahadith must be examined in light of the most authentic and the oldest source of Islam — The Quran, as well as their historical context and other ahadith, for authenticity and meaning.
I am not a student of Hadith so you are going outside of my capability.
@Rex:
This comment of yours merely reflect your own inner state. I have given your fairly detailed comments and you tend to not address any of them and resort to the same old rhetoric.
It has become obvious that you are simply an anti-Islam whose knowledge of Islam is incomplete, twisted and distorted.
Islam is what can be reasonable derived from the Quran. Muslim actions are judged by the Quran. You have not addressed that at all.
As for human actions, they vary.
You have not acknowledged that Islam as a reality is actually a very diverse set of ideas, while there are things that are common.
You even object to Islam’s most basic premise: Divine Unity and Muhammad’s Messengerhood.
Do you not see anything, I mean ANYTHING, positive emanating from the Muslims?
To us, Islam is about reflecting the higher.
Do you disagree that our striving should be to reflect the higher, like selflessness, generosity, love, peace, etc.?
I ask you again, do you reject that human beings need to strive for the higher?
If you do, then it clearly means that you are in favour of selfishness, anger, hatred, arrogance, vengeance, etc., that is, the qualities of the lower self.
And I have referred you to sources that detail why terrorism is un-Islamic, even a non-Muslim source, Juan Cole.
How is terrorism sanctioned by Islam’s primary and the most authentic source of Islam — the Quran? Please show me how the Quran supports and sanctions killing the innocent?
If a person has been convicted of terrorism (harming the non-combatants), we denounce that person’s actions and consider them utterly un-Quranic.
Muslims, Sufis and non-Sufis, have said a lot against the Saudis and their brand of Islam. You seem to be oblivious of that.
Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Reasoning-God-Reclaiming-Shariah-Modern/dp/0742552322/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456417110&sr=8-1&keywords=reasoning+with+god
In it, there are chapters describing the danger of the Salafi/Wahhabi Islam.
Your demand to boycott the Hajj is extremely unreasonable. The Hajj is a fundamental tenet of Islam, and your asking Muslims to boycott shows even more so that your agenda is to ban Islam.
Most Muslims simply tolerate the Saudis when they go for the Hajj as they have no choice in who governs that area.
It is also clear that without the support of certain entities, the House of Saud will collapse like a house of cards.
Sure,
and the actions of the Muslims have always varied.
Some have acted bad to evil.
Most have acted from fair to good.
Some have acted excellent.
You focus on the bad to evil acts and say, THIS is Islam!
Why don’t you look at the fair to good to excellent actions of the Muslims and consider THEM Islam?
If you are going to determine what Islam is from the actions of the Muslims, then why not suggest that the fair to good to excellent actions are Islam?
Could it be that you are a genuine anti-Islam who picks and chooses? Could it be that you ignore the flowers and only focus on the thorns and consider them to be the true reflection of Islam?
I acknowledge the bad to evil acts carried out by the Muslims.
But you seem to not want to acknowledge the fair to good to excellent actions of the Muslims.
Why is that?
I also offer a very simple Criterion to judge if an action is Islamic or not: The Quran.
Yet, you can’t seem to understand that.
Why is that?
And I am sure the American Muslims are very grateful that the U.S. Constitution and its Laws provide freedom of religion that is so lacking in some of the Muslim majority countries, including those the U.S. supports and sustains.
From Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, “fitna”, can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
As the last graph of your comment above shows, you couldn’t resist taking a swipe at the US, the country which has been super gracious to Islamists.
“Boycott Hajj Boycott Saudi Arabia” would have been a great response for a self-proclaimed Sufi like you. If you have peace within your heart you don’t have to go and look for it in Mecca.
The Quran tells to look for Ummah and denounces nationalism “And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allâh (i.e. this Qur’ân), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allâh’s Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islâmic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allâh makes His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided.” Q.3:105
@Rex,
I have now given you thoughtful answers to all of your points in a diligent and respectful manner.
Let’s see if you’ll also respond in kind and acknowledge the positive things the Muslims have done or will continue to just copy and paste to distort and demonize all of Islam.
Anything that doesn’t fit your narrative of Islam, you cast doubts about its veracity. You don’t answer questions about people like Tarek Fatah, Hirsi Ayaan Ali et al.
You want to present Sufis as a Salafi alternative. But you don’t want to look at the basic aims of both groups: subjugation of the humanity to Islam. The idea to produce multiple kids with multiple wives wherever possible to outnumber local population has the tacit approval of even educated Muslims who reap the benefits of a stable democracy in the West.
Rewriting of Islamic history is also part of the same agenda. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/may/report-public-school-textbooks-whitewashing-islam/?mobile=false
You talk about Islam not being monolithic. But a lot of Muslim intellectuals says how the ulema are encouraging the Arabization of Islam. Nothing new in that. Barring Iran no other Muslim countries talk about their pre-Islamic past. Islam is a totalitarian system of mind control that requires total submission.
You can’t sugar coat it, Sufi Muslim. Have the honesty to admit the ills that this medieval ideology has given birth to. You may fool me or others, but you can’t fool yourself with semantics.
@Rex:
Yeah, so?!
What’s your point?
The mystical spiritual Muhammad (S) is an integral part of Sufi Islam.
Our understanding of him (S) is very deep and in many cases different from other Muslims.
You seem to have gone to an anti-Islam website just to copy and paste things that you think are negatives. In your careless attempt, you are now twisting the most positive things without much thought and thoroughness.
That’s correct.
But what is “religious law” is understood in a variety of ways.
People of the past did what they thought was appropriate for their times.
We need to do what is appropriate for our times.
See “Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shari’ah in the Modern Age” by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, at http://www.amazon.com/Reasoning-God-Reclaiming-Shariah-Modern/dp/0742552322/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456413535&sr=1-1&keywords=reasoning+with+god
There has always been a debate amongst the Muslims what “Religious Law” is and how to interpret and apply it in their own times.
These debates are still taking place and Dr. Abou El Fadl adds his voice to it.
Another example of how even the most essential tenet of Islam are being distorted and twisted to give them negative meanings.
You are indeed a genuine anti-Islam since you object to Islam’s most foundational premise: Unity of Reality and Muhammad’s Messengerhood, and instead of simply disagreeing with it, you are demonizing it as if the world is threatened by it.
Do you want to ban Islam?
@Rex:
Sufism is the heart and soul of Islam, while the Muslim scholars have generally focused on the outer forms of Islam.
Some were Sufi scholars, other Sufis were not scholars and there were scholars who were not Sufis.
This statement you’ve quoted clearly shows ignorance. And if you are developing an understanding of Islam from these sources then that explains why your understanding is so distorted and negative.
And that’s how, ladies and gentlemen, these websites spin things to present a distorted and negative picture of Islam!
…Al Hujwiri laid down the golden rule that the words “there is no god save Allah” are the ultimate Truth…
“There is no god but Allah” means there is no reality other than the Reality that encompasses and permeates all other realities. It’s a highly sophisticated and complex metaphysical issue that you’ve completely twisted and distorted.
Reading the books of the authors I have listed often will help you develop a better understanding of what “There is no god but Allah” really means.
Start with these books by William Chittick:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=william+chittick&sprefix=william+chit%2Caps%2C184
…and the words “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Laws for all Sufis. In other words, Sufism and the ulema represent the same two aspects of the Islamic faith which are universally accepted and obeyed by all Muslims.
Wow!
Way to distort things!
Of course, the Sufis accept the most basic Islamic creed and doctrine!
This does not mean that beyond that, the Sufis and the scholars have always interpreted and practiced Islam the same way.
They have not, and it is an observable fact.
Frankly, you are being misled.
@Rex:
Shariah is the outer form of Islam — Shariah is not monolithic.
In itself, your statement says nothing other than that you think that adhering to the Shariah is by default, and in itself, a negative and objectionable thing to do.
It’s not.
It’s how Shariah is interpreted and applied that makes it either a positive or a negative thing. And many of its accounts have historical context.
This book will shed some light on how we perceive Shariah and Haqiqah to be: “Transformative Worship in Islam: Experiencing Perfection”, at http://www.zahrapublications.com/book-TransformativeWorshipInIslam.php#bookTitle
You are presenting this out of historical context and at a superficial level. Many religious people, including non-Muslims, tend to consider their paths to be superior to others.
But do you see this superiority in the writings of ibn Arabi, Rumi, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri, William Chittick, Martine Lings, Fritjof Schuoun and Rene Genon?
Also, the word “Islam” also means “A person’s self-surrender unto God”, and Islam is considered by many Muslims to refer to the primordial Adamic Consciousness of seeing unity and integration and diving into it (Tawheed).
There were many non-Muslims who were in the company of ibn Arabi and other Sufis, and many Sufis benefitted from Hinduism especially in the area of self knowledge, diving into nothingness, using music for spiritual uplifting, developing a metaphysics for the self, etc.
You should read the authors and websites I have listed to broaden your knowledge. And do it with a receptive heart and a positive attitude.
@Rex:
I can’t comment on that. My reading is different. You’re overly generalizing and seem to have just copied and pasted without conducting a thorough research.
I am not interested in discussing history, nor am I capable or qualified to do so. History is very complex and historical accounts tend to reflect more the inner situation of the ones who write history than anything else.
As stated often, the Criterion to judge an action to see if it’s Islamic or not is the Quran.
If you want to accept these things at their face value without any analysis to see if these accounts are authentic and understand them without their historical context, I’m fine with it, good for you.
I am not well-versed in these accounts and cannot comment.
My Criterion to judge an action to see if it is Islamic or not is the Quran. If someone violated the Quran, their actions were not Islamic. it’s as simple as that.
My understanding of Sufi Islam is different and is based on many, many books I have read and several encounters with Sufi teachers and their teachings I have mentioned a few.
@Rex:
These kinds of statements tend to be overly generalized and show a very small portion of the overall situation.
I can’t comment on it as my reading has been different. Analyzing history is tricky and complex. People write about history based on their biases. Even today, if someone wrote about the Iraq war, it’d be highly biased: those who supported the war will say one thing and those who were opposed to it will say something else.
So it is with the accounts you’ve produced. I am not interested, or qualified, to engage in a detailed discussion on historical events beyond what I have already stated.
If you accept that at its face value, I’m fine with it.
The way I understand Sufism comes from the likes of ibn Arabi, Rumi, Chishti, Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri, Kabir Helminski and many others.
What we believe and adhere to is at http://www.askonline.co.za
Yes, they were, have always been, and will always be, practicing Muslims. But they tend to be secular in the sense that they recognize the truth within all religious and mystical paths and are universalists, well, many are.
In itself, being a Muslim tells us nothing, unless you have made certain assumptions about a Muslim. It’s how one interprets and applies Islam that matters.
There are many books on Sufi Islam I can recommend. You’ll see a perspective you seem to be oblivious of. It will help you to develop a broader and deeper picture of it.
As an example, many Sufis, such as ibn Arabi, believe in unity of religions, as described by him in this short poem:
My heart has become capable of every form:?
It is a pasture for gazelles,?
And a monastery for Christian monks,?
And a temple for idols,?
And the pilgrim to Ka`bah,?
And the tablets of the Torah,?
And the Book of the Qur’an.
?I follow the religion of Love:?
Whatever way Love’s camel takes,?
That is my religion and my faith.
The same is adhered to by the Sufi Muslims, such as Martin Lings, William Chittick and Rumi and many others.
You continue to not pay any attention to other trends within Islam that are quite positive and are more focused on the negatives.
Why is that?
@Rex:
Your overly generalized statement doesn’t prove anything.
The Criterion to judge an action to see if it’s Islam is the Quran.
If the invaders and the Sufis did anything that violates the Quran then their actions were un-Islamic.
My reading of the Sufis is that they have generally carried out positive and noble acts, and have even denounced the rulers when they did bad acts.
If your reading is different then that’s fine. My criterion is the Quran.
But I have noticed that you just can’t bring yourself up to acknowledging any positive things that the Muslims have done and do and anything positive in the Quran.
Why the focus on just the negatives?
I am not aware of that. Nor do I know the historical contexts of these incidents. Your statement seems overly generalized.
If they violated the Quran then their actions were un-Islamic.
It’s as simple as that.
You seem to have copied and pasted it from an anti-Islam website and may not have studied these matters thoroughly and carefully.
But, as stated above, I am not aware of what you have produced, and my litmus test to see if an action is Islamic or not is fairly simple and straightforward.
@Rex:
There’s no spin.
Produce your evidence from the Quran and we can discuss in a rational and reasonable way.
Islamic ideals are very simple: Groom the self so that it reflects the higher and is in unity and integration with the One Source from which everything has emanated, the Reality that encompasses and permeates all other realities.
How is it not compatible with the West?
Many Muslims are now living in the West and they are happy the way they interpret and apply their understandings of Islam. And they do that within the framework of the constitution and laws of the land.
I find it amazing that while I have continued to admit and acknowledge the bad actions of the Muslims, you can’t seem to bring yourself to acknowledging the good actions of the Muslims.
Why is that?
The law-enforcement agencies are strong enough to bring those to justice who break the law. There have been incidents and other Muslims have denounced them. I find it interesting that you don’t bring up the good actions carried out by the Muslims and focus only on the bad ones.
The issue is not whether or not they care. The issue is whether or not their actions are Islamic. And there’s a very easy way to make that determination: The Quran — the primary and the most authentic source of Islam.
If an action goes against it, it’s not Islamic.
@Rex:
The Muslims have misused Islam as a political weapon.
We reject that.
My Sufi teacher was once advised by his Sufi teacher to move to a country where there was no chance of Muslims ever taking power. He did just that.
Yes, there have been a lot of misuse by the Muslims.
But I have also stated that even politics must be encompassed within the higher self (consciousness), which reflects qualities, such as love, peace, selflessness, serving others without expectations, generosity, forgiveness, humility, lack of desire for power and control, not doing unto others what one doesn’t want done unto one, etc.
Do you have a problem with politics encompassed within these high ethical, moral and spiritual values?
Please produce your evidence from the Quran and we can have a very nice discussion unpacking the verses you’ll quote.
But I have stated before that the concept of Darul Harab and Darul Islam in terms of territories are the relics of the past and that today I see them as inner states of the heart.
How come you did not acknowledge my explanation?
You seem to be more interested in just throwing stones at me instead of having a rational conversation in a systematic fashion.
@Rex:
Are they going against the U.S. constitution and its laws?
If they are they should not make any demands, but why shouldn’t they be allowed to practice their religion within the framework of the U.S. constitution and its laws and rules and regulations of the premises they are in, in a peaceful and courteous manner?
They are American citizens or legal residents. Shouldn’t they be allowed to practice their religion?
Are you suggesting that Islam should be banned?
How do you reconcile the constitutionality of freedom of religion and Muslims trying to adhere to their religion without breaking any laws?
Asking for a room to pray is simply a request. The premise holders can accept it or reject it.
Time off for pray is usually with the understanding that the time will be made up. Other than the Friday afternoon prayer, the prayers take little time and it’s very easy to make up the time. It’s like taking a coffee break.
Yes, they did want to deface Muhammad’s statue in the Supreme Court, but weren’t they flatly rejected?
What this shows is how powerless the Muslims were in this instance.
Yet, there are people who are spreading irrational fear that the 1%-2% of the population is somehow going to take over the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress and the White House to impose Shari’ah.
How silly that is?
Let’s face it, you are a bonafide anti-Islam and are now being honest about it. I appreciate your honesty.
@Rex:
And I’m surprised that you don’t find anything positive coming out of the Muslims.
Your objection to the hijab was a cover for your anti-Islam sentiments.
I’m glad that the cat is out of the bag, and you have now honestly admitted that you are in fact an anti-Islam and do not see anything positive coming out of it.
It’s better to be honest about it and I appreciate that.
What we see is our business and what you see is yours. And what we see and adhere to is more important than what you see as our actions affect other people.
So if we find positive and spiritually illuminating things in Islam, you should actually be happy about it since this means that we need not be feared as we are simply law abiding peaceful Muslims who want to adhere to our path peacefully.
Your long comments that didn’t answer my basic questions about the historical and contemporary role of Islam show you are an apologist, trying to carry out what the experts have called soft jihad. Muslim groups in the US like CAIR and ISNA have had members who have been convicted of supporting terrorism. In fact, the FBI found a working paper that outlined the long term goals of Islamists in the US.
Are keep on harping on Sufism. But are you and your ilk willing to boycott Saudi Arabia , the Salafis. As a starters, people like you should not go to Hajj unless Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations provide basic human rights to non-Muslims. Let folks like you build a movement for that. “Boycott Hajj Boycott Saudi Arabia.”
Remember actions speak louder than words. America has been more than gracious to this religion.
what I don’t like about the hijab is a male suicide bomber could dress as a woman and very likely go undetected if the hijab dress is allowed to be normal.
You obviously don’t know what hijab is. It doesn’t hide the face. So it’s illogical and not possible for a man to pretend like a woman wearing it.
The level of discourse here has gone down. It’s become very irrational.
Leave a comment
I consider this as hate research and Islamophobia and unfortunately it will do more harm than good. How can any sane person assume that Muslims beliefs can be changed by the use of force. Did Hitler’s holocaust against the Jews changed their beliefs?
US military is guilty of linguistic terrorism.
“including the idea that support for militant groups is driven by “sexual deprivation”… ”
Thus, Air Force Research is recommending that its cadets and officers engage in a policy of mass rape of hijab-wearing women as the preferred counter-terrorism tactic, and have included the recommendation as suggested policy for other branches of the US military, as well.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/p/jih…
Jihad proceeds in stages.
Stage One: Stealth Jihad(like what is happening in the U.S.).
Stage Two: Defensive Jihad(like in Europe and France, there is a significant Islamic population).
Stage Three: Offensive Jihad(like the Middle East , ruled by Sharia Law and terrorism).
You forgot to mention that many Muslims use the term, Jihad, to refer to the striving one does to groom the self so that it reflects the higher qualities I have often listed, such as selflessness, generosity, love, etc.
If there are Muslims who are using that term for what you have listed, they are on the wrong path.
As for Shariah, it’s the outer form of Islam and its role is to provide the self a conducive and protective environment for the self to grow and develop to reflect the higher.
But you won’t see that definition on anti Islam websites and in the media.
See “The Spiritual Significance of Jihad”, at http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/vol-9-no-1/spiritual-significance-jihad-seyyed-hossein-nasr/spiritual-significance-jihad
Also see “Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shari’ah in the Modern Age”, at http://www.amazon.com/Reasoning-God-Reclaiming-Shariah-Modern/dp/0742552322/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456366049&sr=8-1&keywords=Reasoning+with+god
The so-called scientific study that claims wearing the hijab constitutes a form of passive terrorism is sheer madness. Insanity. The Air Force officials who allowed that paper to be published in an Air Force study should be demoted and forced out of the service. Such religious zealotry and fanaticism are obscene, and equivalent American fundamentalism such as snake handling or other forms of cult idiocy are universally condemned and scorned, and rightly so. I would like to see a study about wearing the yarmulke as a form of passive terrorism. In fact, I am going to begin researching this bastardized propaganda from a U.S. Air Force research center. I hope to publish the name of the person who heads the Air Force Research Laboratory. and any academic qualifications. Also should publish the names of the editor(s) who actually accepted this ludicrous nonsense. Further more, although I am not Moslem [sic] and not Arab, I intend to start wearing traditional Arab clothing. And I personally dare anyone to tell me to remove my keffir and robe. I am American, not Israeli and not influenced by Israeli propaganda. I will defend my right to wear such clothing by any means, including legal action or simply punching such nazis in their face. Bring it on! Bloody idiots.
religion is stupid
That’s your opinion. Others disagree. Religion, and non religion, can be interpreted in negative ways and it can also be interpreted and applied as a path to self knowledge and purification.
It’s the human self that is at the center of human activity.
@Rex,
It is clear from your posts that your issue is much deeper and wider than the hijab.
You’ve developed an understanding of Islam, which is very negative, and you seem baffled that anyone will have a different understanding of Islam.
Sufis had the same Islamic agenda as the Islamic invaders wherever they went. So, please stop kidding yourself and the world.
Not a single Sufi, the so-called mystic saints, ever objected to the ongoing senseless manslaughter and reckless plunder, or to the destruction neither of temples, nor for that matter to the ghoulish enslavement of the so-called infidel men and women for sale in the bazaars of Ghazni and Baghdad. Operating from the sidelines of spiritualism, they even participated in the nitty-gritty of governance to help the Muslim rulers consolidate their authority in the strife torn country. And significantly, their participation in the affairs of the State was not conditional upon the Muslim rulers acting in a just and even handed manner. On the contrary, the Sufis invariably tried to help the Sultans in following the path shown by the Prophet and the Shariah.
Sufis were Practicing Muslims and were Not Secular
Another important objective of the spiritual and mystic preaching of the Sufi masters was to blunt the edge of Hindu resistance and prevent them from taking up arms to defend their hearth and home, their motherland and their faith. The Sufis did this by using the façade of peace and religious harmony. The Naqashbandi Sufis had very close relations with Jahangir and Aurangzeb. The well known Sufi Saint of Punjab, Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634) held that the execution of the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory. He believed and openly proclaimed that Islam and Hinduism were antithesis of each other and therefore could not co-exist. Even the Chishti Sufi, Miyan Mir, who had been a friend of Guru Arjun Dev, later on turned his back on the Sikh Guru when the latter was arrested by Jahangir and sent for execution.
Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634) held that the execution of the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory.
It may be recalled that the great Sufi master of the eleventh century, Al Qushairi (A.D.1072) had unambiguously declared that there was no discord between the aims of the Sufi ‘haqiqa’ and the aims of the Sharia. The definition given by Al Hujwiri should be able to quell any doubt about the commitment of Sufis in upholding the supremacy of the Islamic faith over all other religions.
Sufism and the ulema represent the same two aspects of the Islamic faith
That dogma has been the key component of the philosophy of Sufism not only in India, but across the world – from India to Hispania (i.e., the Spain). Al Hujwiri laid down the golden rule that the words “there is no god save Allah” are the ultimate Truth and the words “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Laws for all Sufis. In other words, Sufism and the ulema represent the same two aspects of the Islamic faith which are universally accepted and obeyed by all Muslims.
The renowned ninth century Sufi master, Al Junaid, also known as “the Sheikh of the Way”, and widely revered as the spiritual ancestor of Sufi faith, had categorically proclaimed that for Sufis “All the mystic paths are barred, except to him who followeth in the footsteps of the Messenger (i.e., Prophet Muhammad) [Source: Martin Lings, What is Sufism, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1975, p.101].
Sufis and Muslim Laws
As pointed out by Reynold A. Nicholson in the Preface to the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ (Taj & Co., Delhi, 1982). “No Sufis, not even those who have attained the highest degree of holiness, are exempt from the obligation of obeying the religious law”.
In fact, the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ written by Ali bin Al-Hujwiri, who was also known as Data Ganj Baksh, was widely regarded as the grammar of Sufi thought and practice. Most Sufis have invariably drawn on the contents of this treatise for preaching the Sufi thought (also known as Sufi sisals). As already stated, on page 140 of Kashaf al Mahjub Al Hujwiri loudly proclaims “the words there is no God save Allah are Truth, and the words Muhammed is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Law.
I’ll reply in detail tomorrow. I need a laptop to do that. I can only type short comments on my iPad, which is what I am using now.
Suffice it to restate that Islam is not monolithic, nor is Shariah, or the understanding of what the Prophet said and meant.
So just because a Sufi says he is a follower of Muhammad, which all Muslims claim, that doesn’t mean they are following the same Islam as other Muslims, and have the same understanding of Prophetic traditions and how they should be applied.
Moreover, what the Sufis have written must also be contextualized.
I don’t understand it: do you not realize that Islam is not monolithic, and that understanding of what Islam is changes as time passes?
Yes, there are those Muslims who are originalists and puritanical and think that Islam is static.
We disagree with them.
Also, how many times do I have to repeat that Islam is based on the Quran, which is alive and well, and for an action to be Islamic, it must not be in violation of the Quran.
I don’t care how many examples of Muslim actions you present. They will all be judged by the Quran to determine if they are Islamic or not, though the anti Islam websites don’t tend to use the Quran as the Criterion or present Muslim actions of the past within proper context.
That’s a huge reason to not try to learn about Islam and its history from these websites.
What I adhere to is based on the scholars and websites I have listed.
Even then, I use my own head to decide what is appropriate in a given situation and what is not.
I’m surprised that you are trying to find something which doesn’t exist. It’s like finding penguins in the deserts of Sahara.
You may call a dog a cat, but that doesn’t change the reality. In American, Muslims want a separate place to pray; time off to pray; Islamic banking, Islamic schools, even Islamic laws. A lot of your co-religionists wanted to deface the statue of Mohammed in the Supreme Court.
The basic issue remains; Islam and politics are connected and the Quran says Muslims must work to convert Darul Herb into Darul Islam. You may give it any spin you want. But Islamic ideals are not compatible with the West.
Don’t you read what’s happening in Europe. The medievalist jihadis are terrorizing society in the name of Islam. You may say it’s not Islam, but they don’t care!!
DO YOU KNOW what other religions we have here in AMERICA that requires their people and women, for that matter, to wear certain things; not do things; live a certain way?
AMISH: I don’t really need to go into this do I??? Cuz I won’t… GOOGLE IT.
PENTECOSTAL: I hear your not a true pentecostal until you can speak tongues and damn, that shit looks freaky and scary but who am I to judge?
They also require their women to NEVER cut their hair and to only wear skirts and never pants.
MANY cultures: Wear headscarves, beyond the Muslim niqab, including Native Americans, Japanese, Turks, Eastern Europeans, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs. African-Americans have long wrapped their hair, for example — think Nina Simone or Aretha Franklin.
Also, wearing a scarf is “not just religion. It’s beautiful.” She said in Ivory Coast, women do it as much as a fashion statement or as a part of their culture, not just for religious purposes.
In fact, El-Amin Naeem argues that the practice of headwrapping came before some religions, for practical reasons, such as keeping hair clean and blocking sand from the nose and mouth.
Social Media response to “passive terrorism” because of Hijab….
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/satire-wearing-hijab-labelled-passive-terrorism-160224145610993.html
The one with the Queen wearing the hijab is genius.
This proves America isn’t against Muslims fighting back against American aggression, but America is against Islam itself.
It is the practice of Islam that America is trying to eliminate with its constant attacks on Muslim countries. And this includes Hijab. That is why American soldiers forced Muslim women to strip in abu ghraib.
No, America is not against Islam. There are many American Muslims who are quite happy and are contributing to the progress of America in many areas. There are even Muslims in the congress.
If America today offers process-free immigration to the Muslims who live in the Muslim majority countries, there’ll be huge lineups at the American embassies and consulates.
It’s not just a Muslim belief. Many sects, including some Christian ones, still teach the practice of female head covering. That’s what I find so strange about this; it isn’t even a uniquely Islamic practice.
Covering the head was already practiced when the Quran made its appearance. The Arab women acquired the practice from other cultures and it was an outer form of modesty as well as represented social status.
The Quran merely acknowledged it and asked the women to extend it to cover their bosoms.
Some did it by extending it over their faces (hence the practice of the full veil), while others kept the face exposed but covered their cleavage.
Just goes to show that the trend towards passive terrorism is ubiquitous.
Accordingly, the newest face of terrorism:
http://www.wallpaperswala.com/mother-teresa/
compounding this, her chastity as a member of the order, directly confirming the hypothesis
advanced above.
You DO morons are part of the problem. Demonizing innocent women as terrorists for following the dictates of their religion (but only Muslimas not orthodox Jews, Anabaptists, Catholics, Buddhists…) Shame on you.
“There is virtually no evidence that sexual deprivation is somehow a cause of radicalization…. To simply attribute their motivations to sexual depravity is to miss the point entirely.”
Interesting. Apparently, Amarnath Amarasingam, as well as this author here, missed the hundreds of vicious sexual assaults that occurred across Germany and other parts of Europe New Years Eve – mostly perpetrated by Muslim immigrants.
It is empirically obvious sexual deprivation plays at least SOME role in the motivations and actions of a great many young Muslim men. This was attempted rape at mob level. This sort of depravity is no longer a questionable theory but a matter of repeated observable actions. This is a problem.
These facts speak so loudly now in the court of pubic opinion that those of us standing outside this ideology can no longer hear what you say.
There are a lot of women who feel very pressured to wear the hijab, particularly in predominantly muslim neighborhoods. Why is that not talked about more?
I don’t think Hamid’s point was that women who do wear them are terrorists but that the more prevalent they are, the easier it will be for more conservative/regressive ideas to spread. It’s pretty easy to see the link between conservatives and violence. The only evidence you need is what you see with your eyes when you read the news every day. It’s usually mostly conservatives who want to go to war, who love guns, and the death penalty, etc.
No one should be pressured to wear the hijab. There’s no compulsion in the way a person chooses to live and dress.
That said, there are courtesies that we humans recognize and adhere to.
For example, it is not appropriate for Obama to deliver his State of the Union address in the nude.
Is the President pressured to dress up for his or her State of the Union address, or is it just ettiquette?
Pressured. He should set a standard for freedom of expression that defends this right for anyone; if he does not make full use of it, that should be a voluntary choice to relate to voters and nothing else.
Are you suggesting that he is pressured to wear a suit at the State of the Union address, that he should have set a standard for freedom of expression by delivering it in the nude?
In some parts of the world, the women cover themselves as a protection, because the men there haven’t grown up and risen in their consciousness to not harass them otherwise.
Shame on these men!
The fact that this is included in department of defense white papers show America slaughters Muslims to whip out Islam including the practice of Islam such as Hijab.
Another perspective on hijab:
This Thursday, February 25, 2016, the city of Ottawa will be holding a public event celebrating the hijab, Islam’s physical repression of women.
The City for All Women Initiative (CAWI) organization, backed by the City Council of Ottawa, is hosting the Ottawa Hijab Solidarity Day celebration, also called “Walking with Our Muslims Sisters,” at City Hall. According to CAWI, the main purpose of this event is to encourage non-Muslim women to wear a hijab to understand life as a Muslim woman.
The outrage is that such an event will be taking place under the auspices of the City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada. Under Islamic Shari’a law, the hijab is an expression of the suppression of women and is used as a tool to persecute women by their male counterparts.
For many secular and former Muslim women, the hijab is anything but a symbol of freedom. The hijab serves as a physical daily reminder that they, women, are second-class citizens in the eyes of Islam.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7464/ottawa-hijab-day?utm_content=buffer691ee&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Proponents of the hijab threw me into an Iranian prison for 18 months when I was 16, for protesting Islamic extremism. My family and I were forced to flee; we finally found refuge in Canada.
CAWI is just expressing a viewpoint. Don’t get your undies in a bunch.
Hijab is un-Islamic, so anti-women and primitive.
But hasn’t there been a divide for men and women since the days of Muhammed? I’ve been reading some old stories and some of it has been about women covering, etc.
Has the world abolished slavery? It’s time Muslims joined the 21st century.
Yes, slavery is un-Islamic, as I and many Muslims understand it.
We are 100% against it!
Slavery was already in practice when Islam came. It then set in motion measures to integrate them as equals.
If some Muslims continued that practice it was in violation of the spirit of Islam and the clear mechanism put in place to free them, but also integrate them into society as equals.
It’s un-Islamic to impose the hijab on a woman as it is un-Islamic to force a woman to not wear it if she wants to.
If it’s primitive and anti-women then why Mary is depicted wearing one? Why did no one suggest that Mother Theresa was being oppressed and it was anti-woman and primitive for her to wear it?
The same goes for the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and Christian women who wear the hijab.
I think you’re just throwing rocks at the Muslims. You make no sense.
The Quran orders Muslim women to cover their hair. But racist idiots like to pretend it isn’t part of Islam because they think people will not accuse them of being the fascist that they are when they try to ban it.
Please show me where the Quran “orders” a woman to cover their hair.
Sura 24:31, although indirectly my mentioning extension of the head covering to other parts of the body as well. Some Muslims think that simply means modest apparel, while others take it literally.
The hijab by itself is not a symbol of anything. It’s the meaning that one associates with it that makes it an outer form of either piety, modesty or a commitment to God, or a fashion statement or a symbol of oppression and persecution.
If a woman is forced to wear the hijab, it is a symbol of forcing her to do something against her wishes.
Equally, if a woman who wants to wear the hijab at her own volition is forced to not wear it, then it is also a sign of forcing her to do something that she doesn’t want to do.
In my experience, most women living in the West who wear the hijab do so because they want to, at times against the wishes of their family members.
It is wrong for a government to force a woman to wear, or not wear, the hijab. It should be a personal choice.
To associate it with oppression only because of what the governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia do is only partially true.
The reality is much more complex.
A secular government has no business to celebrate Hijab Day!!
Sure,
Does a secular government have a business forcing women to not wear the hijab if they want to wear it?
Certainly, the private businesses should be able to fire anyone not complying with the company dress code.
Religion doesn’t belong in public sphere.
We don’t want to turn the West into a Saudi Arabia.
No such thing as a “private business” when its integrated into a society with government-run highways, police force, etc.
The gov’t must protect citizens from the prejudices of anti-Muslims, in the same way it protects against racists.
But wouldn’t you in reality be turning the West into a mirror image of Saudi Arabia by forcing women to not wear the hijab?
The underlying reality is the same, though the outer forms are opposite: dictating women what to wear or not wear.
If you are for women’s liberation, you should support women for what they choose to wear, whether it’s to wear the hijab or not wear the hijab.
The Sikhs have proven that they can do all kinds of jobs while wearing a turban. I hear Canada has a defence minister who wears a turban.
If there are jobs that can never be done with the hijab, then fine, but if the underlying reason for opposing the hijab is anti Islam sentiments, then that’s another story.
ADDENDUM:
Muslim women have proven that they can do all kinds of jobs, even lifeguard, with the hijab. I have seen that in many Western and non Western countries.
So the idea that the hijab is limiting is not true.
I think some of those who object to the hijab are actually anti Islam who should be honest enough to just admit that.
It’s better to be honest about it.
Dear Sufi Muslim,
Your comments confirm Dr. Tawfik Hamid theory!!
No they don’t.
You are just proving that you are not capable of having a thoughtful and meaningful discussion with reason.
Someone is a Muslim or someone isn’t. Someone can not be a Muslim while not believing in Islamic practices such as Hijab. Because there is no such thing as an Atheist Muslim. Islam is not a race. It is a religion. Someone is a Muslim if they believe in Islam. But some people who are not Muslim like to call themselves secularist so when they attack Islam or the rights of Muslims to follow Islam, people do not accuse them of being the narrow minded bigots that they are.
No, a person can be a Muslim while not believing that hijab is Islamic.
The popular reception of this article reminds me, unfortunately, of the reception to “The Clash of Civilizations,” another article that, while containing small traces of truth, dangerously oversimplified foreign affairs. A professor of mine once stated that the theories subscribed to by the US gain traction because they oversimplify complex issues in a way that essentially promotes intervention while absolving the US of any moral culpability.
It’s a viewpoint, Mr. Hussain. No need to get your undies in a bunch!
The headscarves are very attractive btw,they make women look better.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many Muslim and non-Muslim men find the hijab makes a woman look very attractive.
The hijab now increasingly makes a fashion statement. Just Google for images of women wearing the hijab.
Many women have reported that the hijab is very liberating.
Many Jewish women wear the hijab, though in a different way than the usual manner in which Muslim women wear it, though there’re Muslim women who wear it like their Jewish cousins.
At the end it’s a personal choice and many Muslim women choose not to wear it, and some for fear of being recognized as Muslims and be harassed and discriminated against.
Making the hijab a symbol of terrorism will certainly discourage even more women.
You people have got to be kidding me. It is a testament to the artistry of God and the efficiency of evolution that women look their loveliest in their natural form. Well, alright, maybe you’re serious – I never did understand so many people in the west who think that women look better smothered in cosmetics and some of their fine little hairs shaved off, either. But it’s a shame. I don’t think a religion can be right if it tells us there’s something wrong with how women were made. Is it wrong to behold the loveliness of a mountain or a fogbank or a volcano? Then how can it be wrong to look at women? The only evil is if one mistreats them; the only clothing we should require of women is our safe-conduct.
I’m not aware that the Quran or the teachings of the Sufis I’ve read and am aware of “tells us there’s something wrong with how women were made.”
And I thought it was just an expression of femininity,something threatening to a wacky world.
If a head covering and terrorist leanings is a one-to-one correlation, what does this say about the iconic peace activist Mother Theresa and her entire order? No disrespect, but I think “sexually deprived” might apply to her order (men and women), too.
I think the military is equally threatened by all religious ideologies, because they suggest there is a higher law than military force.
Hey hey hey bro
Wearing hijab is NOT a passive bullcrap
In fact u know what…. It might be you who’s supporting the IS IS
I can’t effing believe the hypocrisy that I just read
Be practical and think like somebody practical
Don’t form fantasies
I am confused on one point; while it is obvious that sexual frustration is not the most powerful cause of terriorism, it is indirectly used as a recruiting tool. Is that correct? I have been told that the economy and job markets are nonexistent in many countries, such as Yemin. Therefore young men have no jobs, no money and no hope of marrying because they have nothing to offer. They are easy targets for extremist recruiters who promise money, housing and wives. They also stress the rewards to those who die in battle for Islam.
If you are young, poor and without other options, this probably sounds like a great opportunity. And while most of this never works out as presented, there are women who are available – unwillingly of course – to provide sexual gratification.
So no, lack of sex does not equal terriorism, it does however factor in along with cultural beliefs and loss of hope for a future.
I agree with you. The author of this article completely dismisses all of this as if it means nothing, without really offering reasons why terrorism exists except to say that it’s because of “government policies”. There are clearly cultural and “religious” reasons for islamic terrorists. When people are taught to repress their sexuality it has often been shown to express itself in unhealthy ways. Not saying it’s a direct link, but to deny that it would have an effect on a person’s mental health is ignorant.
The term “Islamic terrorist” is an oxymoron. There’s nothing Islamic about harming the non-combatants.
… extremism and radicalism can’t be “Islamic.” The adjective “Islamic” in Arabic is used to refer to the ideals of the Muslim religion, which forbids murder and forbids terrorism. The adjective that Mr. Cruz is looking for is “Muslim.” He wants to fight Muslim radicalism or Muslim extremism. Not Islamic. The same distinction is made between Judaic and Jewish. Judaic has to do with Jewish ideals and civilization. You could have a Jewish terrorist. You couldn’t have a Judaic terrorist.
From Juan Cole, at http://www.juancole.com/2015/12/cant-carpet-bombing.html
The same jihadi defense: about not harming the non-combatants.
Islam, unlike Buddhism, doesn’t preach non-violence.
Time to say goodbye to a medieval ideology!!
“Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism” by Juan Cole, at http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html
A 600+ page fatwa against terrorism, using Islamic sources, at http://www.minhajbooks.com/images-books/Edict-Terrorism-Fitna-Khawarij/Edict-Terrorism-Fitna-Khawarij_1.pdf
Let’s see your rebuttal of these two using Islam’s primary source, the Quran, which sets Islam’s framework.
I think you’re firing empty bullets.
First from the Atlantic;
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
About your reference from Minhaj ul Qadri: What do you make of a guy who lied on his Canadian asylum application?
How seriously would anybody take him?
http://tribune.com.pk/story/495741/qadri-summoned-by-royal-canadian-monitoring-police-for-violating-oath/
If he lied he violated the Quran.
He makes references to the sources of Islam.
If you don’t trust him, there are other Muslims who have provided detailed refutation of terrorism.
But we have the Quran as the Criterion to judge if an action is Islamic or not.
But it needs to be understood within the context of itself and historical context.
If you think that the Quran sanctions terrorism, produce your evidence and we can have a nice discussion.
Sexual frustration has been used in military recruiting since the dawn of time. This is an aspect of militarism generally, and not specific to any particular group or system of belief.
Tawfik Hamid was born with Muslim name he
Does not have iota of faith in him. If he think
Head scarf is sabjugation then that show how much knowledge he has about Islam. He
Is stooge and he will stay stooge and play who ever giving him direction to write hateful
Article against Islam. Islam is peaceful religion it does not need to prove. Open up
Eyes oh people and come to our mosque and
And find for yourself I nothing more to say.
You call Islam a peaceful religion. Imagine if Islam were violent!
Is secularism peaceful? How many countries has the US invaded in the last 50 years? I challenge you to answer that question before saying anything else.
Two wrongs don’t make a right!
Look at the historical record of Islam: subjugation of women, gays, non-Muslims, and the identity-politics in the West. The shameful part, even educated Muslims fall for that.
There have also been a lot of good actions by the Muslims. Their history is mixed.
I challenged you and you failed.
Terrorism is a REACTION TO American militarism. Even Rumsfeld knew that.
Violence is a result of human beings succumbing to the qualities of the lower self, such as selfishness, vengeance, doing to others what one doesn’t want done unto one, anger, hatred, self pride, arrogance, lust for power and control, injustice, etc.
These negative qualities transcend religious, non religious and cultural boundaries.
Interpret and apply a religious or a non religious path through the lower self, and it’ll produce negative and destructive results.
Interpret and apply them through the higher self, and the results will be the opposite.
The true spirit of secularism, as told to me by some, is not to favor one religion over another and also allow freedom of religion.
India is an example of a secular country where one sees women wearing the hijab, and even the niqab, and women wearing Western clothes.
Is India destroying itself because of its religious diversity?
Islam killed millions of Hindus in India, destroyed their places of worship, and forcibly converted the hapless, following the tradition of Mohammed and his treatment of Jewish tribes.
Islam led to the division of country and now Muslims with their multiple wives breed like rabbits to outnumber non-Muslims.
Dear Sufi Muslim, your comments confirm Dr. Tawfik Hamid’s theory!!
Muslims did the killing, not Islam — and they did it in violation of Islam as I and many Muslims interpret and adhere to.
Your personal attack is meaningless and false and shows your inability to respond to me in a thoughtful and courteous manner.
Muslims killed in the name of Islam.
As Tarek Fatah said recently, the Muslims in India still revere those who killed Hindus and destroyed their temples.
Just by saying ISIS is not Islamic, you can’t get away with it. You need to open your mind and ask yourself, why does this medieval ideology cause people to behave in an irrational manner.
The only thing I can do on these forums is ‘say’ that I and many, many Muslims reject ISIL and the ideology behind it. We consider them, and similar groups, as cancerous tumors.
The Muslims who did the killing in the name of Islam, did that in the name of THEIR Islam. Their actions were, and are, against the Quran, which sets Islam’s parameters.
It’s not that difficult to show that their actions were un-Quranic.
Moreover, they were opposed by many other Muslims, especially the Sufis.
Those who revere their violent actions today are also in violation of the Quran and the teachings of the Sufis, as well as many non-Sufi scholars and teachers.
Islam is not monolithic.
There are some currents within it that are bad to evil.
Most currents within it are fair to good and very peaceful, while some, such as the various forms of Sufi Islam, are excellent as they focus on self development and purification so that the self reflects the higher qualities, such as selflessness, sharing, peace, love, justice, forgiveness, generosity, not doing to others what one doesn’t want done unto one, humility, lack of desire for power and control and detachment from the transient, etc.
Did Sufis give up the ideal of turning Darul Herb into Darul Islam??
These are relics of the past.
The Darul Harab (an abode of hared and agitation and discontent) and Darul Islam (an abode of love, peace and contentment) are within your heart.
We need to groom the self so that it reflects the higher and becomes an abode of love and peace and togetherness.
What about the Friday prayers led by Imams?
“O Allah, pour patience upon Muslims, strengthen their feet and give them victory over ‘Qawm el-Kafiroon’ (Non-Muslims). “O Allah, give victory to our brothers the Muslims, the oppressed, the tyrannized and the ‘Mujahedeen’ (those who fight jihad against non-Muslims)”.
One of the reasons I avoid attending Friday congregations at mosques is a specific ritual supplication uttered by Imams at many mosques in Canada and around the world, just prior to our formal Friday community prayer, the Juma’a.
In the supplication, the cleric prays to Allah for, among other things, to grant “Muslims victory over the ‘Qawm al-Kafiroon,’” the Arabic phrase that lumps all non-Muslims — Jews, Hindus, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists and Sikhs — into one derogatory category, the “Kuffar”, or non-Muslims.
This supplication is not obligatory. Not uttering this prayer would in no way adversely affect the holiness or solemnness of the collective community prayer.
http://tarekfatah.com/muslims-shouldnt-pray-to-for-victory-over-non-muslims-my-appeal-to-islamic-clerics-in-the-toronto-sun/
I’m fully aware of Tarek Fatah’s tactics to demonize innocent and peace loving traditional conservative Muslims by twisting the meaning of these prayers that are in the Quran.
But I also realize that some conservative Muslims do not understand the true meaning of the word, Kafir, and misapply it to all non Muslims, something I and many other Muslims try to correct.
So your point is not that invalid.
A kafir is someone who knowingly and consciously covers his or her self from the light that emanates from the soul, which prevents the self from reflecting the higher consciousness.
The key words are ‘knowingly’ and ‘consciously’, something no one knows about another person, but was known to the Prophet (S) through revelation, which is an inspiration and knowledge from the highest consciousness, something we Muslims do not have, so we are in no position to pass a judgement on others.
So these Quranic prayers must be interpreted in general terms, that is protection from kufr means not preventing the self from receiving the light that emanates from the soul, which reflects the higher consciousness, that is protection from lower self and its negative qualities I have mentioned elsewhere.
Islamist don’t give the same rights to non-Muslims in Muslim societies that they demand for themselves in the Western world. The apologists of Islam never stand up to speak for the oppressed non-Muslims.
This doublespeak exposes them thoroughly.
The truth is it’s time, like Communism, Islam is consigned to the dustbin of history.
I don’t know who Islamists are, but no Muslim should do that.
The Muslims in Muslim majority countries must give the non Muslims freedom to practice their religions and equal rights.
The Muslims living in non Muslim countries must live within the framework of their constitutions and laws and must not burden the non Muslims.
If a Muslim feels that they can’t practice their understanding of Islam, they should leave and go where they feel comfortable, as enjoined by the Quran.
I believe that most forms of Islam can be easily practiced in non Muslim countries. We need not be ‘in your face’ Muslims — Islam is about self purification, development, doing good and uniting and integrating with the Absolute Consciousness.
http://www.shaykhfadhlallahaeri.com
Religion is a form of social control, and Islam is the worst kind of mental slavery.
Christianity and Judaism have undergone the process of reformation, but the closet jihadis are not prepared to have a discussion about Islam. That’s why they shun Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji and Hirsi Ayaan Ali among others.
Yes, every religion can be used as a social control, and it can be also used to groom the self so that it reflects the higher.
http://www.askonline.co.za
So you mean Sufis don’t respect the pedophile Mohammad? As you say they are different from ISIS, right?
ISIL is a cancerous tumor within the world of Islam. That tumor must be removed.
For the Islam I and many Muslims adhere to, I recommend these authors:
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Rene Genon, Fritjof Schuon, Martin Lings, William Chittick, Kabir Helminski, Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri, Rumi, ibn Arabi, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Muhammad Asad, etc.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
Don’t hide behind big names. Do you respect the pedophile or not?
He wasn’t. It’s a charge against him that is quite recent in history.
The character of that man is described in the most authentic source of Islam — the Quran, and his spiritual station is known to the Sufis.
There has been a lot of garbage thrown at him, by Muslims and non Muslims.
I list names of authors not necessarily for the commenter I respond to.
For your information:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/pedophilia.aspx
If you are happy with accepting that, I respect your right to do that.
We Muslims, especially the Sufis, think differently and we think that we know him better.
I notice that instead of addressing my points and responding to me in a rational and reasonable manner you’re simply throwing stones in my direction — I’m fine with that.
I humbly asked a few questions about why Islam has been a bad influence on humanity since its origin?
You kept on saying, like a true apologist, that Sufi Islam is not like that. I presented the arguments of people who want to reform Islam. You closed your eyes to that and kept on repeating that Sufi Islam is different.
A good Christian accepts that forcible conversions harmed Christianity.
I expected you as a good Muslim to admit and at least start atoning for the sins of Muslims.
You’re asking that question as one would ask someone why he beats his wife.
You’re assuming that Islam (that is ALL of Islam) has been a “bad influence on humanity since it’s origin” and you want me to answer that!
I have not closed my eyes from any atrocity that has been committed in the name of Islam.
I simply point out that Islam is not monolithic, which is an observable fact.
While there have been those Muslims who have committed atrocities, there have also been Muslims who have opposed those Muslims and denounced them, as many are doing even today, and have contributed to humanity in very positive ways.
I have also stated that there have been Muslims who have introduced things that go against the Quranic framework.
It looks like you are not reading my comments carefully.
There are things that some, even many, Muslims adhere to that need to be reformed, and are being reformed by knowledgeable and sincere and authentic scholars and teachers.
I simply reject that some of the people you’ve listed and the website you referred to are the ones.
If you consider them to be the true reformers then good for you. I and many, many Muslims do not consider them to be authentic and knowledgeable.
http://www.shaykhfadhlallahaeri.com
How am I being an apologist?
I categorically denounce all atrocities that have been committed by those who profess to be Muslims.
I reject violence and forced conversion.
There are many books of Sufism that explain what it is and practical examples of Sufi Muslims that show they’ve carried out noble actions throughout history.
I’ve listed authors and websites.
It’s up to you to educate yourself.
Anybody relying on a medieval book, taking it to be the word of god, needs to rethink, especially when they start living in the West.
A healthy skepticism, my friend, is needed for a rational mind.
Don’t be a prisoner to a medieval ideology that believes in proselytizing and brainwashing the innocents.
So, it becomes clearer that you are not just against the hijab. You are a bona fide anti-Islam.
Do you have a problem with those Muslims who want to practice their religion peacefully and within the framework of the constitution and the law of the land in which they live?
Do you believe in religious freedom so long as people obey the law of the land?
It doesn’t matter what you think of the Quran.
What I have been saying is that for an action to be considered Islamic, it must fit the framework set by it, for Islam is based on the Quran.
The Quran judges what is Islamic and what is not. Your personal views on the Quran are irrelevant.
If a Muslim violates the Quran his or her action is not Islamic.
Learning about Islam from that website is akin to learning about America from Khomeni.
If you’re happy that you’re getting authentic and correct information about Islam from that website, good for you.
That said, it’s also true that many Muslims have also introduced accounts that do not fit the Quranic framework, and it’s the Quran that is not only the primary source of Islam, it is also the most authentic.
But even the Quran needs to be examined in light of itself and the historical context.
Is that part of Taqqiya??
The reality is wherever Muslims are in a minority they want a secular state and wherever they are in a majority they want a Sharia state.
No amount of word play can hide that.
Mr. Peter Hammond, a missionary, explains it nicely. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: United States — Muslim 0.6% Australia — Muslim 1.5% Canada — Muslim 1.9% China — Muslim 1.8% Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8% At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark — Muslim 2% Germany — Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% Spain — Muslim 4% Thailand — Muslim 4.6% From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France — Muslim 8% Philippines — 5% Sweden — Muslim 5% Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in: Guyana — Muslim 10% India — Muslim 13.4% Israel — Muslim 16% Kenya — Muslim 10% Russia — Muslim 15% After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8% At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7% From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non- believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania — Muslim 70% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5% Sudan — Muslim 70% After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh — Muslim 83% Egypt — Muslim 90% Gaza — Muslim 98.7% Indonesia — Muslim 86.1% Iran — Muslim 98% Iraq — Muslim 97% Jordan — Muslim 92% Morocco — Muslim 98.7% Pakistan — Muslim 97% Palestine — Muslim 99% Syria — Muslim 90% Tajikistan — Muslim 90% Turkey — Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96% 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-al-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only “Word”, such as in: Afghanistan — Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100% Somalia — Muslim 100% Yemen — Muslim 100% Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
What’s a taqiyya? Please elaborate.
Yes, there are such Muslims who are power hungry and misuse Islam when they come to power, but are their actions supported by Islam’s primary source and the traditions and teachings of a whole lot of traditional scholars, Sufis and non Sufis?
Also, there’s absolutely no chance of Muslims ever taking over a Western country.
Many Muslims were massacred in the former Yugoslavia by those who said they feared the Muslims would come to power and impose Shariah, by the way.
I saw a non Muslim leader say that once on TV.
Weren’t you the one educating me about Islam?
Living in the West and trying to hide violent Islam behind the façade of Sufism. The truth is that Islam has never been able to separate religion and politics. Please google Ibn Warraq, a former Muslim from India. You might find some enlightenment. Thanks.
People who forget history are condemned to repeat it!
I’m aware of Ibn Warraq.
If you are learning about Islam from him, the other people and website you’ve listed then that explains your understanding of Islam — the religion and its history.
I’ve listed many scholars and websites that present a different Islam.
If you think that your understanding is more authentic, then good for you.
I, and many, many, Muslims disagree with you.
I’ve also stated in the past that even politics must be encompassed within high moral and spiritual values to yield positive results.
You can disagree as much as you like, but you can’t subvert the truth.
Please check out the myths of lslam.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/index.aspx
As stated, that anti-Islam website is not authentic, and is not a good site to learn about Islam, as far as I and many other Muslims are concerned.
But if you consider it authentic, as I’ve stated before, good for you.
It’s not that difficult to mix a lot of falsehood with some truth, use an incorrect methodology of interpreting and examining sources and draw a negative picture of Islam.
But if you are happy with it, fine.
How many times do I have to state that I recognize and acknowledge the bad to evil currents within Islam?
But why do you ignore the fair to good to excellent currents within Islam?
“…trying to hide violent Islam”.
————-
Islam cannot be violent or peaceful, unless you are referring to Cat Stevens — human beings can be. And their actions have always varied — some resort to violence, most don’t.
Islam is a path that is firmly based on a book called, The Quran.
The Quran is the Criterion to determine if an action, especially by a person who professes to be a Muslim, is Islamic or not. And many Muslims examine and understand what it’s saying through proper textual and historical context.
Nobody can hide the Quran; it’s available throughout the world. It’s words and statements are well known, have never changed (we only have one Quran) and it has been translated and commented on in a lot of languages.
If you think that the Quran sanctions violence, produce your evidence.
As for hiding the violent actions of Muslims throughout history, I have acknowledged that some have committed violence, and commit even today, but most have not, and don’t.
Are the violent actions carried out by Muslims Islamic?
The Quran judges.
Muslims in the West protest against Israel. Muslim Canadian MPs Omar Alghabra, Majid Jowhari, Iqra Khalid, Yasmin Ratansi, Marwan Tabbara, Arif Virani and Salma Zahid did not vote for Resolution against the anti-Semitic BDS movement.
But have you ever seen Muslims enjoying a comfortable life in the West speak up against the injustices people face in the Muslim nations?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/13/saudi-arabia-treatment-foreign-workers
If there are Muslims who are not speaking out against injustices, they should.
Justice is a quality of the higher self (aka consciousness), and our striving is to groom the self so that it reflects the higher.
As a proclaimed Sufi,
Do you respect the pedophile? Please answer the question directly.
I think US soldiers parading around in their uniforms is a form of passive terror.. I am tired of seeing these primadonnas waltzing around thinking that they are some kind of hero and we should all worship them for their “sacrifice”. Guess what guys….you are NOT heroes, you are NOT protecting anyone except multi-national corporations, and you do not deserve praise …you are nothing more than MERCENARIES…
Dr. Hamid reminds me of too many of my MD colleagues who genuinely believe they understand science. His arguments are statistically meaningless. Are Muslim youth denied sexuality? Yes. So why are ALL of them not terrorists? As the author points out, the hijab is worn by women who loudly and publicly reject terrorism.
Do you know that drinking milk as a child leads to heroin addiction? I can “prove” it with the same reasoning Hamid uses. Where do I sign up for the anit-terror gravy train?
Oh, and Craig Summers is still a moron. Must have drank milk as a child…
Hamid is full of nonsense. When some one gets paid for what he writes ,this is what happens bunch of nonsence. And he supports Crazy Doneld Trump?!!! When we paid Iraqi Chalapi during the Iraq invasion. He just told us bunch of lies he lied for money .I am glad he died early in life. And now please use your brains just because someone has a doctoral degree doesn’t mean that they are sane. May be when he was an active member he was sexcualy deprived ????????he is speaking of his own exprience.
hamids case is an example of corrupt intellectual mind.so sad t read his malnourished paper
I don’t want to belabor this point, but I can assure you that is these young people were engaging in sex more often, they would be less interested in radicalization. Also, the relationship between testosterone and violence cannot be underestimated. Why the author would offer evidence from other studies that allegedly disputes this is beyond me. It seems to be an obvious conclusion that really should have been unnecessary to note in the any study.
The reason why terrorists provide a multitude of reasons, other than sexual deprivation, for their terror should also be clear. What young guy wants to acknowledge his feeling of sexual deprivation or inadequacy?
Other than that, this guy Hamid sounds like another nut that gets paid big bucks to do useless government studies.
We’re all good, guys. Brad has assured us.
Nevermind that bin Laden had like six wives.
Now what about all the rapes in our military?
In this case Jesus mother would be mother of terrorist. She is the first lady who introduce Hijab.
Wearing the hijab is a human tradition that goes way back in history.
Certainly, Mary is always depicted wearing the hijab, but the women of Israel are also shown to be wearing it in movies, such as The Ten Commandments.
The women in Arabia at the time of Muhammad (S) may have acquired the practice of wearing the hijab from other cultures and traditions.
The Quran does not command women to cover their heads. Rather, it tells them to cover their cleavage with the garment they are already using to cover their heads.
Interestingly, Hindu, Christian and Sikh women wear the hijab to cover their heads too, and the Muslim women in the Indian subcontinent have covered their heads the same way, which makes it difficult to tell if a woman with the hijab is a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or a Sikh.
Once again, women and their bodies are at the center of the socio-political discussion on men’s sexuality and violence. Oh, there is great irony here that the both the extremists and the author of this DOD text blame women’s bodies in the public sphere for the violent sexuality of men. The extremist narrative claims that men cannot be held accountable for their “natural impulses” when in the presence of women…and therefore women must be hidden from the public sphere. The counter narrative posed in this deeply flawed government document is that men’s restricted access to females is the cause of their violence. One narrative demands that women cover so as to discourage men’s “natural impulses” while the other demands women uncover, so that men will not become violent from sexual frustration. Neither narrative ascribes any responsibility, or indeed, agency, on the part of men. “T here is nothing, sadly, more banal than for powerful people to tell women to take their clothes off.”
R. Saleem, I am in empathy with your post. How long have males and females now been on Earth, and to have this ignorance about what we mutually do not know about each other’s bodies?
R. Saleem, are you interested in all of the different cultures of our world and how each one of them answers the very same questions we have? Which does sound like “western learning”.
Personally I accept women wearing the head covering if that is what they want to do, wither they do it in the West or back in their old country. (And I’m even keen to ask Western women dress more conservatively. That turns me on!)
Also, R.Saleem, have you noticed that there are so many posts written by law enforcement agencies of some kind, both American and Foreign, in this thread? I guess this past time of trolling in threads like this one is where my American tax money is going, but darn it, it’s like a sport. –Martin Patrick Serna
Once again, women and their bodies are at the center of the socio-political discussion on men’s sexuality and violence. Oh, there is great irony here that the both the extremists and the author of this text blame women’s bodies in the public sphere for the violent sexuality of men. The extremist narrative claims that men cannot be held accountable for thier “natural impulses” when in the presence of women…and therefore women must be hidden from the public sphere. The counter narrative posed in this deeply flawed government document is that men’s restricted access to females is the cause of their violence. One narrative demands that women cover so as to discourage men’s “natural impulses” while the other demands women uncover, so that men will not become violent from sexual frustration. Neither narrative ascribes any responsibility, or indeed, agency, on the part of men. “T here is nothing, sadly, more banal than for powerful people to tell women to take their clothes off.”
Lisa from the movie Team America figured out this sex problem years ago. Nothing new here.
I don’t see it as any different than a Nun’s habit or women who don’t cut their hair and are only allowed to wear long skirts. Many Muslim women do not wear a hijab. It is the same as with other religions.
If sexual repression fuels militancy… What’s our excuse?
Our kids don’t get laid enough?
The abstinence policy is working! There’s nothing left for them to do but join the military and go overseas to kill repressed brown kids.
Sex is the new American religion,along with sports.Doesn’t matter who what when and where.
And sexual repression as a source of terror?
No,Israel is the wellspring of terror,everything else is just a symptom of that disease,such as condemning normal sexual norms as fidelity and marriage and hetero sex ,as remnants of fascism.
Mr. Hussain
The idea that sexual deprivation leads to Islamic radicalization is ludicrous – as is the idea that head scarves are a form of “passive radicalization”. The banning of face covering dress was banned in France which is just as ridiculous although done for a different reason. On the other hand…….
“……Hamid’s theories seem to contradict a Rumsfeld-era study commissioned by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board Task Force. That study traced the poor reputation of the U.S. in the Middle East to government policies, not to insufficient PR. Arguing that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies,” the report cited the U.S.’ support for dictatorial regimes, its military occupations of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and its “one-sided support in favor of Israel” as the primary factors behind its poor reputation in Muslim countries……”
This often-cited mega-bullshit is also just as ridiculous. It seems that the Rumsfeld commission published their data before the Arab Spring. That alone indicates that many Muslims appreciate our freedoms – and are willing to die for political rights. Indeed, having a “poor reputation” among Muslim-majority countries is a lot different than strapping a suicide vest on and murdering innocent people. Most victims of terrorism (by far) are Muslims by the way. Terrorist organizations seek power to govern people in an anti-democratic, racist, misogynist state. That is their primary motive. Of course, they support propaganda peddled by the Intercept on their behalf (even as they murder more innocent civilians).
The radical left perpetually force feeds this lie to westerners. It’s our support for Israel fueling terrorism:
“…….A surge in activity from Nigeria’s Islamist insurgency Boko Haram – now the world’s deadliest terrorist group – and Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has driven an 80% increase in the number of people killed by terrorists in 2014, this year’s Global Terrorism Index showed. In total, 32,658 people were killed in terrorist attacks in 67 countries last year, according to the index, released on Tuesday by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)……Bombings and gun attacks carried out by Isis in Syria and Iraq and Boko Haram in Nigeria caused 12,717 deaths. Taliban insurgents in Pakistan, Fulani militants in Nigeria – who attack mainly Christian farming communities in northern and central Nigeria – and al-Shabaab fighters in Somalia all killed more than 1,000 civilians last year”……..”
All because we support Israel and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? There is a big difference between blow-back and terrorizing (Muslim) civilians for pacification. It’s clear that Islamic terrorists murder civilians far and away for the purpose of gaining power. It’s pure propaganda when the Intercept perpetually cites a 2004 report which was clearly wrong. Time for the Intercept to rethink their worn out disinformation campaign.
As per this flow chart. he first terrorist was Jesus mother
Expose mercenaries like Dr. Tawfik Hamid. They do all this to earn bucks and nothing else.
When a country like Egypt is ruled for decades by Western puppets like Anwar Al-Saddat, Hosni Mubarak and now vicious General Al-Sisi (all of whom have been servants of Israel) then all you get is so-called people like Dr. Tawfik Hamid… misusing his Muslim identity to earn as much dollars as he can.
Shame on Dr. Tawfik Hamid for using word ‘Radical Islam’ (which is Netanyahu’s catchphrase); there is no difference between fascist like Netanyahu and Dr. Tawfik Hamid.
to give attention to this guy is literally impossible for me, but, if this is who hands our government agencies allows to shape policy Americans are in deep sh*t and should be very very afraid.
I couldn’t get past…
Why are we reissuing the paper collection, “Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods and
Strategies”? The answer is simple. Five years later, violent extremism is still an issue. In September
2014, President Obama spoke at the United Nations, calling on member nations to do more to
address violent extremism. This was followed by a three-day summit in February 2015 to bring
together local, federal, and international leaders to discuss approaches to counter violent extremism.
The wisdom contained in this paper collection is more relevant than ever. I encourage everyone to
read it, again or for the first time, in whole or in part.
The answer is very simple…violence begets violence like looking into a mirror.
quote”Hamid’s section ends with an unsettling argument for using harsh military force to fight terrorism, comparing it to the use of chemotherapy to fight cancer. “Nobody supports the intentional killing of innocent civilians,” he says, “but in war, as in medicine, good cells die when we treat bad ones. … It is unfair to blame the doctor for killing good cells.”unquote
Well then, when the day comes when rational human beings finally come across your being to rid the planet of chromosomal aberrant pond scum, I’m sure you will fall to your knees in stark recognition of the failure of your mother’s attempt to prevent your emergence on this planet by pinching your umbilical cord, in order to reconcile her absolute abhorrence of her drunken mating with the neighbors dog, you will blow your brains out. Now..kill yourself. Seriously. For your mothers sake. If not humanities.
Seriously. Kill yourself.
Your comments reminded me of an episode of South Park. Do you know the one I’m talking about?
Never watched it. Cartoons aren’t my bag. However, Bill Hicks is…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UlapnsFLhc
There may be a literary antecedent to explain the notions of Tawfik Hamid on terrorism. Maybe it’s an inside out reinterpretation of “Lysistrata.” Or a derivative scroll somewhere between the ancient Greeks and Islamic literature or theology of today.
Salman Rushdie, in his latest novel “Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights,” now cashing in on the hot topic of terrorism, appears to have drawn from the same well(s) as Hamid. From a review in the “London Review of Books” of Rushdie’s update of old curiosities, this:
“…she [a good female Islamic genie] tries to persuade Zummurrud [a dark genie] to abandon his dastardly scheme by inviting her fellow jinnias to subject him to a ‘sex boycott’ …. But the dark jinn continue massacring with even greater ferocity, which prompts Rushdie to claim that ‘terrorism’ is the vocation of men who are ‘either virgins or unable to find sexual partners’ and whose ‘frustration’ finds ‘its release in rage and assaults.’ Giving them ‘willing sexual partners,’ Rushdie argues, will make them lose ‘interest in suicide belts, bombs and the virgins of heaven’––a textbook example of what Pankaj Mishra has called the ‘genitals-centric explanation’ of radical Islam.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n04/carlos-fraenkel/imagine-his-dismay
Among Hamid’s claims are that support for militancy is primarily a product of sexual deprivation and that terrorism bears relation to religious dress. quote”His ideas for combating terrorism thus include “addressing the factors underlying [sexual] deprivation” among young men, as well as “weakening the hijab phenomenon.” Hamid further claims that, along with fundamentalist ideology, the “hijab contribute[s] to the idea of passive terrorism” and represents an implicit refusal to “speak against or actively resist terrorism.”unquote
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha……hohohohohohohohoho… stop please stop…yer killing me…..
:Let me get this straight. A millennium of males born into a stone age society that tells them their dick isn’t supposed to get hard, but if it does, it’s because some female, born into the same stone age society who is forced to wear this stupid thing over their head because some “religeous” deity tells them they have to wear it or die, now becomes a “terrorist” because they wear it…..
Dear Hamid. You’re lucky some woman who finally understands there is only one way to stop animals like you, hasn’t trapped you into a dark corner of this planet, and disemboweled you, and lit your sadistic insidious body on fire.
Moreover,
“Still, Hamid’s thoughts are apparently influential in government; he says on his website that his opinion has been solicited by a wide range of government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the Special Operations Command, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It is not clear if he has been paid for his appearances at such agencies.”
Influential in our government. right.. There you have it folks. The very government that has your best interests at heart.
Barnum must be rolling on the floor in raucous, gut splitting laughter. After all… Trump.
Hamid is the same idiot who suggested:
“Hamid said that most Muslims correlate the word Israel to the word Azrael that sounds like Israel but means “angel of death”. This created a link in the minds of most Muslim children the need to hate the word Israel.”
Such superficial analysis bodes well with governments but makes these individuals loathed by Muslims.
In the Quran the children of Israel (bani Israel) are mentioned dozens of times. Of course we know the difference. Sounds like Hamid’s making a fool of the people in the Pentagon who are paying him for this crap.
Ah yes, the Alan Hilter defense.
The US Air Force officials and other groups adopting and disseminating this bullshit need to lose their jobs.
Anybody that would hire this quack is a quack.
Let’s find out who hired Mr. Hamid and get him/her fired! Let’s get some names.
He is clearly a charlatan selling self-affirming bigotry to his bosses and getting rich while laughing at the incompetence that hired him.
Just to show you how spidery this line of reasoning gets, if you haven’t seen last night’s PBS/Independent Lens documentary on informants, here it is —
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/terror/
The oxymoron “passive terrorism” is an immediate clue that Hamid is talking out his arse. Terrorism is violent attack for the purpose of causing terror. How can someone do that passively?
Lets try this.
Everyone here knows that some of our number are referred to as “Active FOIA Terrorists” (Those who file so many public information requests that the responding agencies slip up and inadvertently reveal the unrevealable)
Define “Passive FOIA Terrorist” …Someone wearing an ACLU T-shirt…
Everyone here knows that some of our number are referred to as “Active ECO Terrorists” (Those who film conditions on factory farms without consent)
Define “Passive ECO Terrorist” …Someone out walking a dog…
Define “Passive Aggressive Terrorists” …FBI Agent Provocateurs…
Frankly I’m more afraid of Valerie Jarrett and huma…but the sweet girl in a her headscarf spinning next to be in soulycle …not so much…
These so-called analysts need to get a grip. There are close to 2 billion Muslims. If one-tenth of 1 percent of them were terrorists, we would be under attack by 2 million terrorists!
I’d say that 2 million figure is actually pretty close, but most of them dont attack the West. Most of them are too busy attacking other Muslims for not being Muslim enough (i.e. The Taliban, ISIL, al-Shebab) or trying to carve out Islamic states in mixed-religious countries (i.e. Boko Haram).
The more alarming figure is that nearly a third of Muslims globally, and up to half in Saudi Arabia are supportive of terrorism in the name of Jihad. The U.S, Canada, and Australia are the only countries with a Muslim population over 1% that has a support rate below 10%.
You got any sources for those numbers? And 2 million is definitely an overestimation.
About 2 billion dislike US for our history of terror,but only a small % will put themselves on the front line killing US.Simple human logic.
I can’t blame any Muslim for hating our terrible policies.The only way out is to change those policies,and the only candidate expressing such is Trump.
State terrorism is blocking me from posting.
It seems the GOP must be trying to create terrorists since they promote abstinence so much.
and I thought that I was the only one who would think of this :D
By “passive terrorism” they obviously mean dissent, and that’s probably how they see political dissidents. But no, dress style is not a form of dissent.
Maybe Hamid is still an Islamic extremist and has decided to troll the Pentagon?
everyone does realize that Catholic nuns wear headdresses too right… so they must be terrorists.
How silly to blame woen for what men may not do right!
So again, it comes down to pussy.
Thank you for writing this eye-opening article, Murtaza!
It’s disturbing on so many levels…mainly the point that “Dr. Hamid’s” recommendations are used by many agencies as factual when in fact we know that it’s just a bunch of bogus. I am wondering who “installed” him in this study….the end result seems to be get women to take off hijab (aka…leave modesty)…and Muslim men to sleep around! Wait…couldn’t be about driving Muslims to leave their faith and assimilate into western culture now, could it??…Unbelievable!
I think the anti-extremism people may be prone to a bit of extremism themselves. But then again, so am I, and I’ll admit the notion of “passive terrorism” has crossed my mind before.
The example I would have chosen though is the Arlens company, which has come under fire for not allowing Muslims to gather in a room designated for prayer at five different preset breaktimes. This is portrayed as a push for religious freedom on their part, but I am skeptical.
After all, is school prayer not forbidden in the U.S. (for Christians!) based on claims of peer pressure? In the case of the Arlens employees, the pressure could actually be greater, because they might fear that family members or even the authorities back home will be waiting in judgment should they not be seen to visit that room at those times. I suspect the “freedom” involved has more to do with the freedom to watch who is not observing than any special pleasure of doing their prayers in a larger crowd rather than a smaller one.
With the veil this kind of argument is more diffuse; nonetheless, how many Muslim women are more concerned about what is going to happen if they get sent back to Saudi Arabia and someone finds a group picture on the web where they’re not wearing one, than with whether they personally believe a certain form of veil is or isn’t an appropriate expression of belief?
None of what you wrote justifies the idiotic term “passive terrorism.”
So, idiotic term has crossed your mind. And apparently left tracks.
“After all, is school prayer not forbidden in the U.S. (for Christians!) based on claims of peer pressure?”
No. Students in US schools can pray to their little hearts’ content.
Alright, on looking further I see that there actually *are* some cases of schools setting up Muslim prayer rooms. It still seems rather contradictory to some of the decisions described at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/schoolprayer.html – in which, for example, simply setting aside a “moment of silent prayer” was struck down in Wallace v. Jaffree in 1985. So it’s unacceptable to set aside a minute for prayer, but it’s OK to set aside a room for prayer?
Gosh, is this for real!! AND, he is a psychologist?? I do not like calling people names but he is NUTS. But then, this is for the U S military…. how to find a “THREAT”….
Another crazy idea by the Pentagon….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/insider-threat-training_n_3714333.html
ps millions of women (Hindu, Christian, Muslim and others ) cover their heads regularly…are they all “passive terrorists?? wonder what Mr Hamid has to say about them!!
When America used to respect God,almost all women wore headcoverings.
It’s is only in this modern day of atheist and religious corruptions embrace,that they eschew it.
We murder their friends and family; they get mad. No PhD required.
What the hell kind of MD or PhD did Mr. Hamid obtain and from where? Was it a doctorate in stupidity studies and improper research methodologies from Georgetown University or did he get his degree from inside a box of Cracker Jacks? Maybe he got a PhD in Propaganda Studies from ISIS, who knows but he’s seriously embarrassing himself. I mean this level of stupid isn’t usually so self-evident in anyone with “Dr.” in front of their name.
The only thing disconcerting about his unsubstantiated opinions is that my tax dollars are paying for it, and various US government agencies actually listen to someone like this loon.
He evidently got a Masters in psychology. MD programs include essentially no training in research. His “reasoning” shows a depressing lack of both knowledge of research methodology and of critical thinking.
I’m reminded of a number of terrorism “experts” on the payroll of conservative think tanks and government agencies who are flat out frauds, as opposed to being one-sided and lousy researchers.
It is Monetary and Comfort Deprivations when someone firebombs the hell out of your family and homes just so they attempt justification of outright theft and steal your sovereign wealth!
Forgot to add that orthodox jews and many xians, including nuns, mennonites, etc women cover substantial parts of their bodies and hair for modesty or respect– that does not a terrorist make htei cultures!
Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence. Hijab is worn for Modesty amd modesty is ONLY to protect from sexual attempt and invasions upon thathe wearer. Yes, you can dissimulate weapons under a loosefitting garment– baggy jeans too! Although dragass jeans are not modesty-inclined. Of couse Osama always wore the standard terrorist uniform of US uniform issued Field Jacket. I would evn bet some good$ that his was US made and not foreignmade?
So, Dr. Hamid seems to be saying that
if muslim men with terrorist inclinations
started wearing hijabs and had more sex
they would less dangerous.
I think the world would indeed be a safer place if lots of men
started dressing like women and had more sex!
Forget the camouflaged outfits, dress soldiers in Pink!
Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention were right again!
Oh, the good taste of chicken. What can’t it do?
Well, it certainly beats delivering tons of pork MRE’s to Muslim countries, as we’ve been known to do in the past.
What editor in the world would let that absurd stuff into a collection of serious studies?
I found the subtitle: “Scientific Methods & Strategies” particularly ironic. Only when someone is peddling crap and not science is it necessary to actually label it “Scientific.”
Hamid: “I believe young Muslims are motivated to join radical groups because of sexual deprivation.”
So THAT’s why young men join the US military, they aren’t getting laid enough! Let’s all screw a soldier for peace!
We could start a GoFundMe to provide blow-up dolls for the troops.
Hell, wtf stop at dolls? US national security is serious enought to provide real people volunteering for the real things! If we donot get enough volunteers, then we pay for the service. Money wellspent! WTF?
Methinks he would have to apply that principle to Christian fundamentalists too…
Oh FFS. So the Air Force Research Laboratory publishes material written by a Newsmax columnist? Maybe next they can turn to Glenn Beck for advice on what’s going on in Russia.